What exactly is science?

[tonyrey]

Scientific explanation is widely assumed to be physical explanation, i.e. in terms of that which is in principle observable by the senses. Yet the truth of scientific laws and mathematical equations cannot be perceived by the senses. For this and other reasons most scientists are not materialists or physicalists although they tend to restrict science to physical reality.The problem is that physical and non-physical reality have never been clearly demarcated. As a result scientists have often had to shift the boundaries of science to accommodate new discoveries.

Psychology is the clearest example of the confusion caused by the unsolved demarcation problem. Jung’s collective unconscious is at one extreme and Skinner’s behaviourism is at the other. One thing is certain. It is unscientific to label any explanation as unscientific simply because it fails to satisfy the dogmas of empiricism. Both science and mathematics presuppose rationality and the value of rationality. Any explanation that clarifies the nature and origin of rationality is useful. It may be regarded as metascientific but does the use of such terminology make it less informative and valuable than other aspects of science?

 

[liquidpele]

Scientific explanation is widely assumed to be physical explanation, i.e. in terms of that which is in principle observable by the senses. Yet the truth of scientific laws and mathematical equations cannot be perceived by the senses. For this and other reasons most scientists are not materialists or physicalists although they tend to restrict science to physical reality.The problem is that physical and non-physical reality have never been clearly demarcated. As a result scientists have often had to shift the boundaries of science to accommodate new discoveries.

Psychology is the clearest example of the confusion caused by the unsolved demarcation problem. Jung’s collective unconscious is at one extreme and Skinner’s behaviourism is at the other. One thing is certain. It is unscientific to label any explanation as unscientific simply because it fails to satisfy the dogmas of empiricism. Both science and mathematics presuppose rationality and the value of rationality. Any explanation that clarifies the nature and origin of rationality is useful. It may be regarded as metascientific but does the use of such terminology make it less informative and valuable than other aspects of science?

First off, you’re confusing math and science. Math has proofs. Science has theories. Science, as far as I’m aware, has never proved anything 100% certain, while a math proof only shows that the math works to support something.

Lets say that I have a theory X. Is there evidence for it, can it be falsified, and does it predict things? These are the basic requirements for a hypothesis. If there is no evidence for it, you have to find it. If it cannot be falsified, it’s a poor theory because it defines itself in a way that can only allow it to be true instead of letting experimentation decide. If it cannot predict anything, then it is useless as a theory that explains something about reality.

Theories are never perfect, but we strive to improve them. The sun revolving around the earth was replaced by the earth around the sun and Newtonian physics, which was replaced by General relativity. Each time, the predictions and calculations improved, but it doesn’t mean it can’t be proven wrong in the future. How do we know that general relativity is right? We don’t… but it predicts the orbits of the planets to a higher degree than Newton’s equations, so we use that theory because it’s evidence and predictions are better.

So it is will all science - striving for better explanations.

 

[tonyrey]

First off, you’re confusing math and science. Math has proofs. Science has theories. Science, as far as I’m aware, has never proved anything 100% certain, while a math proof only shows that the math works to support something.

Thanks for your reply.
I’m puzzled about your idea that I’m confusing math and science. I stated:

1. Yet the truth of scientific laws and mathematical equations cannot be perceived by the senses.
2. Both science and mathematics presuppose rationality and the value of rationality.

Where is the confusion? The difference is clear. One is inductive and the other deductive.

The really interesting question is where the physical ends and the non-physical begins
but I think you’re a physicalist and deny the existence of any non-physical reality!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

Both science and mathematics presuppose rationality and the value of rationality.

I would only add to this that they also presuppose imagination. For example, Democritus imagined the existence of the atom, but could not prove it. In other words, it could not be falsified, as Aristotle pointed out, because the existence of something so small you could not see it meant that we needn’t take the idea seriously.

For several thousand more years it was not taken seriously; perhaps partly because of Aristotle’s censure? But finally what began in the imagination began to make more and more sense as a rational concept, until finally the existence of the atom is no longer questioned as a scientific concept.

In another thread at CA on intelligent design, the same problem prevails. ID cannot be falsified, yet we can imagine it and it makes sense, and increasingly makes sense the more you think about it, especially because the math is in favor of it and against abiogenesis by chance. Those who fight it are in the same position as Aristotle, unwilling to grant what the senses cannot directly perceive, yet what the imagination and reason can deduce from all the available data. Moreover, those who oppose ID cannot prove their own hypothesis, that abiogenesis happened by the random gathering of atoms and molecules. Their own hypothesis is not falsifiable, and yet they have the nerve to complain that ID is not falsifiable.

P.S. Einstein’s theory of relativity is rooted in the imagination as much as the intellect. It was a bizarre theory to the physicists of his day, and is praised as much for Einstein ability to imagine along with his ability to reason.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

*The really interesting question is where the physical ends and the non-physical begins
but I think you’re a physicalist and deny the existence of any non-physical reality! *

Yes, this is a great point. The scientific materialist can hardly stand sacred music. He doesn’t see a border between the material and the spiritual, and man straddling that border. I had an atheist friend over one evening, played some beautiful sacred music for him, and it was evident he could hardly wait to get out of the room.

 

[liquidpele]

Thanks for your reply.
I’m puzzled about your idea that I’m confusing math and science. I stated:

1. Yet the truth of scientific laws and mathematical equations cannot be perceived by the senses.
2. Both science and mathematics presuppose rationality and the value of rationality.

Where is the confusion? The difference is clear. One is inductive and the other deductive.

The really interesting question is where the physical ends and the non-physical begins
but I think you’re a physicalist and deny the existence of any non-physical reality!

Ah, my apologies. I thought you implied that although reading your original post again I’m not sure why!

Actually, I’m not sure what the strict definition of a physicalist is… but maybe

I think that there is no evidence of other existences, and so while I don’t deny that they could exist, I don’t see any point on believing on them much less deciding one possible example is real over the other. I also think immaterial ideas like Love, Nationalism, Pride, etc are real things… but only in that they effect the world through us. It’s like a symbiotic relationship, we use the ideas and the ideas exist only because we exist. Just my own thoughts there though.

Rationality is presupposed because it’s derived from causality, and causality is presupposed because otherwise nothing can be explained or predicted. After hundreds of years of experiments, we have so far not broken causality in a permanent way, so it is about as safe a bet as you could make assuming you believe history.

The truth of things, both math and science, can be seen with the senses. You can simulate 2+2=4 with apples, and simulate more complex things with computers or experimentation… your senses show you the output. Much of experimentation is observation, using the senses. While you are right that much of it is within our minds, a large part of it is from our senses… for without it applying to our senses in some way or another (even indirectly) what use is it, at least in this reality?

 

[liquidpele]

tonyrey

*The really interesting question is where the physical ends and the non-physical begins
but I think you’re a physicalist and deny the existence of any non-physical reality! *

Yes, this is a great point. The scientific materialist can hardly stand sacred music. He doesn’t see a border between the material and the spiritual, and man straddling that border. I had an atheist friend over one evening, played some beautiful sacred music for him, and it was evident he could hardly wait to get out of the room.

What an odd story… perhaps he has bladder problems?

Seriously though, music quality depends on taste. I’m reminded of my father who disliked the christian band DC Talk which I listened to at one point, and me disliking the dreadfully boring music from his generation.

 

[John7]

I always think of science with respect to the method. Science is a practice…prof. So-and-so practices science, kind of like a doctor practices medicine.

the 6 basic steps

1. 
   *]Ask question
   *]Research background
   *]Make hypothesis
   *]Test hypothesis (do experiments)
   *]Analyze data and draw conclusion
   *]Communicate results
   
   Can read about the doings of science in a book but that’s not science, that’s just learning or research about the results of someone having carried out science/scientific method.
   
   anyway…that’s just my hypothesis

 

[JDaniel]

Scientific explanation is widely assumed to be physical explanation, i.e. in terms of that which is in principle observable by the senses. Yet the truth of scientific laws and mathematical equations cannot be perceived by the senses. For this and other reasons most scientists are not materialists or physicalists although they tend to restrict science to physical reality.The problem is that physical and non-physical reality have never been clearly demarcated. As a result scientists have often had to shift the boundaries of science to accommodate new discoveries.

Psychology is the clearest example of the confusion caused by the unsolved demarcation problem. Jung’s collective unconscious is at one extreme and Skinner’s behaviourism is at the other. One thing is certain. It is unscientific to label any explanation as unscientific simply because it fails to satisfy the dogmas of empiricism. Both science and mathematics presuppose rationality and the value of rationality. Any explanation that clarifies the nature and origin of rationality is useful. It may be regarded as metascientific but does the use of such terminology make it less informative and valuable than other aspects of science?

A great question, Tonyrey.

Throughout history, there have been several meanings of the term “science”. However, today, science is usually defined simply as the kind of knowledge that we call physics, chemistry and biology. A little more specifically, it is certain knowledge obtained by measurement and controlled experimentation. Since these activities are designed to provide positive results, it may be said to be positivist.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

A great question, Tonyrey.

Throughout history, there have been several meanings of the term “science”. However, today, science is usually defined simply as the kind of knowledge that we call physics, chemistry and biology. A little more specifically, it is certain knowledge obtained by measurement and controlled experimentation. Since these activities are designed to provide positive results, it may be said to be positivist.

Before this modern definition, science was regarded as certain knowledge of things in terms of proper causes, reasons, or principles, and demonstration was a syllogism productive of such knowledge. - Posterior Analytics, Bk I, Ch. 2, 71 b, 8 - 18.

Positivism denies causation even though it presupposes it. In other words, science describes to us how the parts all work together, and how gasoline is mixed with oxygen and how it is used by the internal combustion engine, and all the while telling us that’s how we should “feel” when driving a car.

jd

 

[tonyrey]

A great question, Tonyrey.

However, today, science is usually defined simply as the kind of knowledge that we call physics, chemistry and biology. A little more specifically, it is certain knowledge obtained by measurement and controlled experimentation. Since these activities are designed to provide positive results, it may be said to be positivist.
jd

Thanks for the compliment, JD.

Why this strange prejudice that the physical sciences provide the best explanation of reality. Persons are prima facie more powerful, valuable, purposeful and significant than particles! I think the reason is that the success of science deludes people into believing that it can explain everything from the origin of the universe to the existence of human beings.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

*I think the reason is that the success of science deludes people into believing that it can explain everything from the origin of the universe to the existence of human beings. *

Also, I think scientists are notorious for not wanting to think outside their own comfortable little box. Einstein himself commented that he was not at ease with philosophy; others have noted that, given his philosophical logic in many areas, he had reason to feel that way. The tendency for scientists to be atheist or agnostic follows the same line … they just can’t see any logic beyond the empirical method, and feel most uncomfortable when they are challenged outside their comfort zone. One thinks, for example, of the biologist Richard Dawkins, who can be utterly hysterical on the subject of religion, about which he seems to know very little and would likely want to know even less.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

What an odd story… perhaps he has bladder problems?

Spoken lie a rabid materialist!

 

[liquidpele]

Thanks for the compliment, JD.

Why this strange prejudice that the physical sciences provide the best explanation of reality. Persons are prima facie more powerful, valuable, purposeful and significant than particles! I think the reason is that the success of science deludes people into believing that it can explain everything from the origin of the universe to the existence of human beings.

But that’s the thing… science doesn’t claim to explain everything. It never has. “I don’t know” is something that a person constantly says in science, in fact it is the *reason *for science! Science is the search for explanations, but in order to insure those explanations are valid, it has over the years built strict guidelines for the process.

An interesting video explanation on how science differs from faith can be found here: youtube.com/watch?v=SlaCq3dKvvI

 

[geometer]

Roger Bacon:
On Experimental Science, 1268

 

[JDaniel]

tonyrey

*I think the reason is that the success of science deludes people into believing that it can explain everything from the origin of the universe to the existence of human beings. *

Also, I think scientists are notorious for not wanting to think outside their own comfortable little box. Einstein himself commented that he was not at ease with philosophy; others have noted that, given his philosophical logic in many areas, he had reason to feel that way. The tendency for scientists to be atheist or agnostic follows the same line … they just can’t see any logic beyond the empirical method, and feel most uncomfortable when they are challenged outside their comfort zone. One thinks, for example, of the biologist Richard Dawkins, who can be utterly hysterical on the subject of religion, about which he seems to know very little and would likely want to know even less.

That hits the nail squarely on the head. Good analysis, Charles.

jd

 

[tonyrey]

But that’s the thing… science doesn’t claim to explain everything. It never has. “I don’t know” is something that a person constantly says in science, in fact it is the *reason *for science! Science is the search for explanations, but in order to insure those explanations are valid, it has over the years built strict guidelines for the process.

An interesting video explanation on how science differs from faith can be found here: youtube.com/watch?v=SlaCq3dKvvI

Science is based on faith in the power of reason and the intelligibility of nature.

 

[tonyrey]

Both science and mathematics presuppose rationality and the value of rationality.
I would only add to this that they also presuppose imagination. For example, Democritus imagined the existence of the atom, but could not prove it. In other words, it could not be falsified, as Aristotle pointed out, because the existence of something so small you could not see it meant that we needn’t take the idea seriously.

A very good point.
Ironically the minuscule atom is now regarded as the building block of everything that exists - including the mind that discovered it. So we finish up with a collection of atoms that know they and other collections of atoms exist! They can even control themselves!!!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

They can even control themselves!!!

But of course, because they were not intelligently designed!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Geometer

You know, of course, that Roger Bacon was a Franciscan priest.