Monday, 3 January 2011
The nature of science
I would like to invite a discussion of the nature of science, as it appears to me that there are several competing views of what constitutes science. This is particularly important at this time that various scientists are making assertions about matters which, in my opinion, are outside the remit of science. I am concentrating, here, on science as a discipline that studies the events, processes and phenomena of nature as distinct from, say, political science, social science, library science, and so on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I asked you to start blogging more than six years ago as I felt some of your ideas needed sharing and chewing upon. I am kind of pleased to be the first human being to follow this blog. NOA
Thank you very much. So what is your take on the nature of science? Do you think that the world community has the right handle on this? Are you concerned about the claims of some scientists regarding what science can or cannot assert? Should science be able to say anything about the existence of God or other supernatural beings?
Perhaps I should say what I understand science to be. It is one of the ways by which we study our universe. What is specific about science as a way of studying and trying to explain our universe is that it relies upon the acquisition and analysis of DATA. This sets the parameters of science, such that anything regarding which we can obtain data falls within the remit of science, and anything regarding which we cannot obtain data is not science. Does this sound too restrictive, or do you consider that this brings clarity to our understanding of the character of science?
Ikechukwu
I think that a good working definition of "scientISM" is that everything can, in principle, be described and explained in the languages of physics and mathematics. In other words, only the quantifiable is the real.
I think that this attitude has become prevalent in Western society. Politicians are judged solely on their countries economic performance. A countries economic performance is judged solely by the flow of capital; not what the country produces. Again, only the quantifiable is the real. (Of course, the irony is that capital is not an empirical reality. It reflects a state of belief as most "money" is never printed. It never exists in a physical sense!)
So I wonder if your definition of Science may not concede too much ground to the like of Dawkins. On the other hand, maybe a good way to start is to grant this definition of Science, and then point out how much of the world is left unexplained.
Graham
Well, Graham,I find myself leaning towards your perception that if we were to define science in terms of the requirement to acquire and test data that could immediately make clear to us how much of our world remained unexplained. Experiment is at the core of science, and it is essential that any experiment be repeatable by other scientists. It is possible to repeat an experiment and compare findings if, and only if, there are data that may be compared. If something is open to study by science if, and only if, data about it may be acquired, most of our universe becomes inaccessible to scientific study or explanation.
Well, let's assume that there are fields that science cannot in principle investigate, since no data are obtainable. If that is the case, I would suggest that there is nothing *to be* known about such fields, and they can't possibly matter anyway as they cannot by definition impinge on the real world, otherwise they would leave the ghastly stain of *data*!
I agree that our thread on the non-historicity of the resurrection myths of Jesus the Nazarene over on the spectacularly amazing blog http://answersingenes.blogspot.com has grown a bit long and unwieldy (although I would contend that we've covered all the issues and it's still a myth), but many historians would be very surprised to find that the outdated view that science had nothing to say about the past was still held in some quarters. It's so passé, it's almost *quaint*! :-)
Shane, I shall wheel out an old and reliable chestnut: we have no data about the mechanism(s) of general anaesthesia. Does that mean that GA does not exist or does not impinge upon the real world? GA is, in my opinion, one of the greatest blessings ever to come the way of humankind: we don't know how it works, we cannot obtain any data about it, but we are so grateful that it exists.
I think that what we should be saying is that there are things regarding which we cannot currently gain data, and that those matters remain, for the moment, outside the field of science. Some day, we might be able to study them scientifically.
I would be happy to be corrected about history and science, but is it not the case that experiment is what distinguishes science from other ways of studying our world? If we asked "What would have happened if the USA had not dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?" we would be unable to put our predictions to experimental testing because it is not possible to recreate history in order to study alternative scenarios. This is why the methods of science cannot be applied to history [and why the late great Arthur Marwick argued that the strongest evidence available to historians is the artefacts that previous generations had left behind.]
Even the origins of life on Earth cannot be studied scientifically: we have various hypotheses, but we cannot test any of them. This was why Darwin started his story of the origin of species in the middle, as it were, with species already in existence and evolving.
We could ask a scientist, i.e Not the blog owner.
Come to think of it: can we, or can we not, test our hypothesis of origin(s) of life on Earth?
Or shall we just run with the 'organic soup' hypothesis and hope for the best?
Ike, you know not that of which you speak, as I have previously shown. To say that GA or biological origins are *in principle* beyond science is just dumb. Your example of what-iffery is not an example of scientific questioning, but we very much *can* test the principles of interaction. Part of the scientific process is knowing how to ask questions that matter. That is a skill you are far from mastering!
Shane, I have not said that anything is "in principle" beyond science.
This is me: "I think that what we should be saying is that there are things regarding which we cannot currently gain data, and that those matters remain, for the moment, outside the field of science. Some day, we might be able to study them scientifically."
I am saying that certain things cannot currently be studied using the methods of science - but that, in the future, we might be able so to study them.
We cannot study GA scientifically right now because we have no idea where to start to look, and certainly no data to work with. We also cannot study origins scientifically because the distant past is a long way away and we have no data to work with.
That is the way it is, Shane.
Well, it's not, Ike. When you look up at the night sky, you are getting data from the past. When you dig into the ground you are getting data about the past. These data allow you to test various hypotheses, and that, dear chap, is the very essence of science.
OK, Shane, let's knock this on the head once and for all.
I say:
Science relies upon the acquisition and analysis of data. We can obtain and analyse data about some things but not about others. Those regarding which we can obtain data fall within the remit of science; the rest, currently, do not though they might in future if we are able to get and analyse data about them.
Now, tell me which part of the above is not correct.
So what's left? Not origins and not anaesthesia, anyway. It is not the principle that is wrong, but your application. You should *do* some science before saying silly things about it!
Again, Shane:
"Science relies upon the acquisition and analysis of data. We can obtain and analyse data about some things but not about others. Those regarding which we can obtain data fall within the remit of science; the rest, currently, do not, though they might in future if we are able to get and analyse data about them." - IOA
Which part of the above statement is incorrect?
Post a Comment