The problems in the scientific community

How reliable is science?

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

The problems in the scientific community

#1  Postby bogdan9310 » Feb 06, 2019 9:50 pm

I’m going to start off by asking a simple question: What is science? Some might say it’s the only way to arrive at knowledge. But what questions does science answer? Science only analyzes existing concepts, and there is no scientific research before a concept is created. It is widely known that philosophy is preoccupied with concept creation, and it’s not until a concept is declared by philosophy, when a scientific field spawns to study it. What if science relies on philosophy to exist?

Every individual who had a new idea struggled getting acknowledgment from the community. Galileo Galilei was condemned not just by the Church, but by the scientific community too. Einsteins relativity theory was rejected by most physicists at first, and Einstein himself would not accept anything in quantum theory, no matter how many individuals supported it. Thomas Edison was committed to DC current, and considered Teslas AC unsafe for years. Maybe we should be more open minded if we don’t want to fall into the same trap, and repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

For example, any recent studies are based on the observations of others, not on first hand observations. In most cases, scientists don't experiment on themselves. And when they get any input, they have to use language, it's at that point where a lot of mistakes are made.

Source:

!
GENERAL MODNOTE
Link removed by moderator
User avatar
bogdan9310
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Bogdan Bacosca
Posts: 69
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The problems in the scientific community

#2  Postby felltoearth » Feb 06, 2019 10:19 pm

bogdan9310 wrote:
Every individual who had a new idea struggled getting acknowledgment from the community.


This isn’t even remotely true.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 13727
Age: 53

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The problems in the scientific community

#3  Postby zulumoose » Feb 07, 2019 5:57 am

I’m going to start off by asking a simple question


Should have stopped there, instead of launching into a tirade of mix-and-match assertions that give the impression you think of science as a random jumble of human failings.
User avatar
zulumoose
 
Posts: 3622

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: The problems in the scientific community

#4  Postby Cito di Pense » Feb 07, 2019 7:26 am

bogdan9310 wrote:I’m going to start off by asking a simple question: What is science?


Nah. Nobody's ever asked that, before. At least, nobody that was a scientist. The scientists know, because that's what they do. Department of Tautology Department.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29357
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: The problems in the scientific community

#5  Postby Evolving » Feb 07, 2019 8:01 am

Cito di Pense wrote:Department of Tautology Department.


:)
How extremely stupid not to have thought of that - T.H. Huxley
User avatar
Evolving
 
Name: Serafina Pekkala
Posts: 11993
Female

Country: Luxembourg
Luxembourg (lu)
Print view this post

Re: The problems in the scientific community

#6  Postby Hermit » Feb 07, 2019 8:09 am

Some epistemologist, possibly T.S.Kuhn, reckoned that science advances via the deaths of previous generations of scientists. Although I agree that humans generally resist change, this is not how scientific progress works.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 4022
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: The problems in the scientific community

#7  Postby Hermit » Feb 07, 2019 8:17 am

Evolving wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:Department of Tautology Department.


:)

It's Cito's second most often used expression (100), the most frequently used being 'goat roasters' (314). Makes him feel he contributes to discussions, I suppose.

ETA: Sorry, I got it wrong. References to the bending of spoons beats the other two expressions by a country mile (906).
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 4022
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The problems in the scientific community

#8  Postby Thommo » Feb 07, 2019 9:44 am

bogdan9310 wrote:I’m going to start off by asking a simple question: What is science? Some might say it’s the only way to arrive at knowledge. But what questions does science answer? Science only analyzes existing concepts, and there is no scientific research before a concept is created.


It feels like there's an implied answer to your own question "what is science" here that you're assuming has been accepted, but which isn't made explicit. It's very hard to agree that science only analyzes existing concepts without first saying what science is.

bogdan9310 wrote:It is widely known that philosophy is preoccupied with concept creation, and it’s not until a concept is declared by philosophy, when a scientific field spawns to study it. What if science relies on philosophy to exist?


I don't think this is widely known. It doesn't even sound like the sort of declaration that could be known, in that it's a matter of opinion, a view on how to conceptualise the genesis of new thoughts and not something which could be either true or false. More akin to "Oasis were better than Blur" than to "The Moon goes round the Earth".

Philosophy as a discipline does not lay some sort of claim to all thinking, or all novel thought generation. I'm not sure it could even be said that there's a "philosophical method" to follow.

bogdan9310 wrote:Every individual who had a new idea struggled getting acknowledgment from the community.


I'm not at all sure this is true. I've heard plenty of ideas in my life to which my response was "good idea!" and I've seen plenty of new concepts, laws, technologies and ideas catch on incredibly fast.

bogdan9310 wrote:Galileo Galilei was condemned not just by the Church, but by the scientific community too. Einsteins relativity theory was rejected by most physicists at first, and Einstein himself would not accept anything in quantum theory, no matter how many individuals supported it. Thomas Edison was committed to DC current, and considered Teslas AC unsafe for years. Maybe we should be more open minded if we don’t want to fall into the same trap, and repeat the same mistakes over and over again.


I'm not sure how accurate some of these claims are, for example how does the claim about Einstein (and which theory of relativity? He had two) relate to the table on p22 of this document:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a91e/4 ... 750265.pdf ?

Even if we take these examples at face value for the sake of argument, are they really representative of all new (scientific) ideas and their receptions? What should we make of ideas like Andrew Wakefield's?
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27038

Print view this post

Re: The problems in the scientific community

#9  Postby Cito di Pense » Feb 07, 2019 9:51 am

Thommo wrote:I'm not sure it could even be said that there's a "philosophical method" to follow.


That's why there isn't an accompanying publication with a title something like "Progress in Philosophy".
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29357
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: The problems in the scientific community

#10  Postby newolder » Feb 07, 2019 10:37 am

One of the problems in science (especially in the pseudosciences) is that sometimes the same mistaken idea gets repackaged in slightly different forms. Scientists have come to know this phenomenon as déjà woo.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7308
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: The problems in the scientific community

#11  Postby surreptitious57 » Feb 07, 2019 11:13 am

bogdan9310 wrote:
any recent studies are based on the observations of others not on first hand observations

Observations that are inter subjective and peer reviewed in scientic journals
That can also be replicated and subject to potential falsification at any time
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10195

Print view this post

Re: The problems in the scientific community

#12  Postby bogdan9310 » Feb 07, 2019 12:11 pm

felltoearth wrote:
bogdan9310 wrote:
Every individual who had a new idea struggled getting acknowledgment from the community.


This isn’t even remotely true.


I told you the reasons for why that is true, what is your argument?
User avatar
bogdan9310
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Bogdan Bacosca
Posts: 69
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The problems in the scientific community

#13  Postby bogdan9310 » Feb 07, 2019 12:12 pm

zulumoose wrote:
I’m going to start off by asking a simple question


Should have stopped there, instead of launching into a tirade of mix-and-match assertions that give the impression you think of science as a random jumble of human failings.


If we can't agree on the basics, how can we agree on more specific subjects? :think:
User avatar
bogdan9310
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Bogdan Bacosca
Posts: 69
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The problems in the scientific community

#14  Postby bogdan9310 » Feb 07, 2019 12:18 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
bogdan9310 wrote:
any recent studies are based on the observations of others not on first hand observations

Observations that are inter subjective and peer reviewed in scientic journals
That can also be replicated and subject to potential falsification at any time


There are not a lot of scientific studies that I can verify in my living room. The problem here is that we have to use language to describe our observations. And is at that point, where everything can go sideways.
I leave you with a video on Ludwig Wittgenstein.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ33gAyhg2c
User avatar
bogdan9310
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Bogdan Bacosca
Posts: 69
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The problems in the scientific community

#15  Postby Cito di Pense » Feb 07, 2019 12:23 pm

bogdan9310 wrote:The problem here is that we have to use language to describe our observations.


Do you really think that's the problem? Try mathematics.

bogdan9310 wrote:
zulumoose wrote:
I’m going to start off by asking a simple question


Should have stopped there, instead of launching into a tirade of mix-and-match assertions that give the impression you think of science as a random jumble of human failings.


If we can't agree on the basics, how can we agree on more specific subjects? :think:


Well, you should probably indicate why you'd insist that the basics start with a general term. The way science works is from the specific (the empirical) to the general (the theoretical). Once you're done a couple of those exercises, you're ready to relate one theory to another.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29357
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The problems in the scientific community

#16  Postby Cito di Pense » Feb 07, 2019 12:24 pm

bogdan9310 wrote:The problem here is that we have to use language to describe our observations....

I leave you with a video on Ludwig Wittgenstein.


Try mathematics. Oops. That didn't work for you. Figures.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Feb 07, 2019 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29357
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: The problems in the scientific community

#17  Postby bogdan9310 » Feb 07, 2019 12:27 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
bogdan9310 wrote:The problem here is that we have to use language to describe our observations.


Do you really think that's the problem? Try mathematics.


Math can only verify itself. You can only explain math with more math. Do you know where else that happens? In language. What do you get when describing a work? You guessed it, more words.
I think that everything emerged out of the human brain has a similar pattern. What if math is made up, just like language? What do you think is the purpose of math?
User avatar
bogdan9310
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Bogdan Bacosca
Posts: 69
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The problems in the scientific community

#18  Postby Cito di Pense » Feb 07, 2019 12:28 pm

bogdan9310 wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
bogdan9310 wrote:The problem here is that we have to use language to describe our observations.


Do you really think that's the problem? Try mathematics.


Math can only verify itself.


Yes, of course, but you started out by asking how we're going to agree on basics. If you don't want to agree on the basics, that's your business.

If you don't think mathematics starts with anything you can accept as self-evident, you're going to have to explain yourself.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Feb 07, 2019 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29357
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: The problems in the scientific community

#19  Postby bogdan9310 » Feb 07, 2019 12:30 pm

I'm really trying. Don't you think this can go deeper?
User avatar
bogdan9310
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Bogdan Bacosca
Posts: 69
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The problems in the scientific community

#20  Postby Cito di Pense » Feb 07, 2019 12:31 pm

bogdan9310 wrote:I'm really trying. Don't you think this can go deeper?


Deepity does not impress me. I want to see you sweat.

bogdan9310 wrote:What if math is made up, just like language?


What is it that leads you to say mathematics is not constructed from something self-evident, rather than something arbitrary? Could it be that even the basics of mathematics are not self-evident to you? If so, how is that anyone else's fucking problem but yours?

One way to begin with mathematics is to say, "Let's say there is this first thing that is obvious. Now, what happens if we try to do that again?"
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Feb 07, 2019 12:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29357
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest