The problems in the scientific community

[Hermit]

Wedging philosophical arguments into the practice of scientific method and the resulting successes ( or failures at times ) opens the door to Jamest type claptrap.

Empiricism has been the dominant philosophy underlying scientific practice since at least Francis Bacon. It is not wedged in. It is its foundation.

[Macdoc]

and ?? you think the Wright Brothers considered that >???

another ism added.

This is interesting perambulations - but practice preceded theory.

Among Peirce's major contributions was to place inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning in a complementary rather than competitive mode, the latter of which had been the primary trend among the educated since David Hume wrote a century before. To this, Peirce added the concept of abductive reasoning. The combined three forms of reasoning serve as a primary conceptual foundation for the empirically based scientific method today. Peirce's approach "presupposes that (1) the objects of knowledge are real things, (2) the characters (properties) of real things do not depend on our perceptions of them, and (3) everyone who has sufficient experience of real things will agree on the truth about them. According to Peirce's doctrine of fallibilism, the conclusions of science are always tentative. The rationality of the scientific method does not depend on the certainty of its conclusions, but on its self-corrective character: by continued application of the method science can detect and correct its own mistakes, and thus eventually lead to the discovery of truth".[37]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism#Pragmatism

So no....scientific method is NOT predicated on philosophy - philosophy may parse SM for those interested ....most won't give it a second thought.

[Hermit]

and ?? you think the Wright Brothers considered that >???

Most likely not. Nevertheless, empiricism is the dominant philosophy underlying scientific practice since at least Francis Bacon. It is not wedged in. It is its foundation. Not thinking about it does not make it go away.

[Macdoc]

more isms of no consequence '. .... basic math has been around since the zero and underpins science....so what....all you do by invoking philosophy in discussion of the scientific body of knowledge is leave the door open for Jamists et al.

Sure ...there is room for philosophical discussion when pondering the implications of scientific discoveries on human society and individuals. DIfferent arena.

[Hermit]

more isms of no consequence '. .... basic math has been around since the zero and underpins science....so what....all you do by invoking philosophy in discussion of the scientific body of knowledge is leave the door open for Jamists et al.

I don't know how empiricism can possibly leave the door open for woo-mongers. Empiricism is a branch of epistemology. Epistemology is not metaphysics, let alone theology. It is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge. Regardless of whether a scientist acknowledges empiricism, or even acknowledges that it exists he/she cannot science without using the method it describes; Observe and gather empirical observations and induce general laws from them.

There is of course a problem with the process, most famously formulated by David Hume, but it remains the best foundation for scientific knowledge we have. As long as we remain aware of the limitations of empiricism, it is enough to say: "It works".

[Blip]

!	GENERAL MODNOTE bogdan9310, please see my advice on our spamming policy here.

[Thommo]

Macdoc wrote:
Science is not a noun ....

Thommo
I don't think that can really be what you mean to say.

Nice out of context ...

I genuinely don't think I've ever met someone who takes correction worse.

It was hardly the most searing criticism ever, just mild fun. Science is a noun, as everyone knows perfectly well. Even "doing" words or processes are often nouns in the form of gerunds like "thinking", "distilling" or "diffusing" so the continuation of the paragraph actually only compounded the error, but I didn't want to belabour the point, which was the real reason I didn't post the next (also erroneous) sentence. Science is a noun both in terms of the scientific method and in terms of the body of knowledge acquired as a result.

Some of us like learning new things, or correcting our posts to be as accurate as they can be. I recommend trying it.

[bogdan9310]

bogdan9310, please see my advice on our spamming policy here.

I see, but how can it be related to this topic?

I think the world can be viewed through more than one lens. Some people view it through the lens of science, some not. But we are still looking at the same thing. We should agree on some basics here.

[NuclMan]

bogdan9310, please see my advice on our spamming policy here.

I see, but how can it be related to this topic?

I think the world can be viewed through more than one lens. Some people view it through the lens of science, some not. But we are still looking at the same thing. We should agree on some basics here.

Here's some basics:

Science, though imperfect (recognizing the types that complain it isn't perfect), is the best lens we have through which to view the world.

Agreed?

[zulumoose]

Science, though imperfect (recognizing the types that complain it isn't perfect), is the best lens we have through which to view the world.

Science, constantly trying to perfect itself and eliminate errors, is the most accurate lens we have through which we can strive to understand reality.

[felltoearth]

bogdan9310, please see my advice on our spamming policy here.

I see, but how can it be related to this topic?

I think the world can be viewed through more than one lens. Some people view it through the lens of science, some not. But we are still looking at the same thing. We should agree on some basics here.

Here's some basics:

Science, though imperfect (recognizing the types that complain it isn't perfect), is the best lens we have through which to view the world.

Agreed?

I think we’d be better off just obeying our lizard overlords.

[Cito di Pense]

We should agree on some basics here.

We should agree that sticking our heads up our asses more than so much is getting a bit beyond the basics.

[bogdan9310]

I think we’d be better off just obeying our lizard overlords.

Just hearing the word overlord makes me want to disobey.

We should agree on some basics here.

We should agree that sticking our heads up our asses more than so much is getting a bit beyond the basics.

Be that as it may, you are still not providing arguments.

[NuclMan]

bogdan9310, please see my advice on our spamming policy here.

I see, but how can it be related to this topic?

I think the world can be viewed through more than one lens. Some people view it through the lens of science, some not. But we are still looking at the same thing. We should agree on some basics here.

Here's some basics:

Science, though imperfect (recognizing the types that complain it isn't perfect), is the best lens we have through which to view the world.

Agreed?

I think we’d be better off just obeying our lizard overlords.

No wonder my work computer wouldn't open his hyperlink

[bogdan9310]

I see, but how can it be related to this topic?

I think the world can be viewed through more than one lens. Some people view it through the lens of science, some not. But we are still looking at the same thing. We should agree on some basics here.

Here's some basics:

Science, though imperfect (recognizing the types that complain it isn't perfect), is the best lens we have through which to view the world.

Agreed?

I think we’d be better off just obeying our lizard overlords.

No wonder my work computer wouldn't open his hyperlink

Because what I write is true, and they don't want you to see it.

[Cito di Pense]

Because what I write is true, and they don't want you to see it.

So you say, champ. Bend a spoon. If you insist something is true, show the effect of whatever it is in something other than dissing the responses of those who question your credentials. If NLP is responsible for your approach to discourse, I want none of it. Try to inspire me with something more than empty threats.

[bogdan9310]

Because what I write is true, and they don't want you to see it.

So you say, champ. Bend a spoon. If you insist something is true, show the effect of whatever it is in something other than dissing the responses of those who question your credentials. If NLP is responsible for your approach to discourse, I want none of it. Try to inspire me with something more than empty threats.

My discourse is shaped to fit in with the conversation, it adapts. I can speak with all kinds of different people, how do you expect me to answer?

[Cito di Pense]

Because what I write is true, and they don't want you to see it.

So you say, champ. Bend a spoon. If you insist something is true, show the effect of whatever it is in something other than dissing the responses of those who question your credentials. If NLP is responsible for your approach to discourse, I want none of it. Try to inspire me with something more than empty threats.

My discourse is shaped to fit in with the conversation, it adapts. I can speak with all kinds of different people, how do you expect me to answer?

I don't expect anything of you. This is your show. If you want to put NLP on the map, show how it has made you the wonder that we behold.

[Thommo]

Because what I write is true, and they don't want you to see it.

So you say, champ. Bend a spoon. If you insist something is true, show the effect of whatever it is in something other than dissing the responses of those who question your credentials. If NLP is responsible for your approach to discourse, I want none of it. Try to inspire me with something more than empty threats.

My discourse is shaped to fit in with the conversation, it adapts. I can speak with all kinds of different people, how do you expect me to answer?

This seems like a drastically overinflated way of saying "I copy and paste the same text and spam the same links to all sorts of different people".

[laklak]

Science, when it's done right, is pretty reliable. Enough that I'll get into a pressurized tube and hurtle through the stratosphere with a high degree of confidence I'll reach my destination safely. When it's not done right you get an oil leak. Except in Detroit Diesels, they don't leak oil, they sweat torque.