The Philosophy of Science

by Oubliette 60 Replies latest members private

• 

  Oubliette

  The Philosophy of Science

  As part of my on-going personal growth and professional development, I recently turned my attention once again to a subject that I believe is of ultimate importance to anyone that seeks to understand, to really understand, the nature of things, at least inasmuch as we mere mortals are able. That subject is the philosophy of science.

  I realize that some of you might be unacquainted with this particular term, and may even think it is a contradiction in terms. I assure you it is not. The scientific way of thinking is a way of seeking to gain knowledge and understanding, it “deals specifically with what science is, how it works, and the logic through which we build scientific knowledge” (Understanding Science, 2010).

  It is sometimes simplistically called “the scientific method.” And while it’s true there are certain practices that scientists use, there really is no single “scientific method” that applies to all areas of scientific endeavor. Also, the real world is a messy place. The universe often gives us confounding, sometimes seemingly contradictory data.

  As humans, a scientific approach is the single best way we have devised to understand and explain all kinds of natural phenomenon, from the infinitesimally small to the vast expanse of space. All things considered, we’ve actually done a pretty damn good job of explaining many of the mysteries of life, the universe and everything.

  It is my hope that in this particular thread, those of us that are interested in such things can discuss this scientific way of thinking as a tool to understanding. We can discuss its history and development. We can talk about its successes and failures. We can—and should—talk about what it can and cannot allow us to know. I also think it is important to understand how empowering this particular philosophical skill-set is to us, both as individuals and as a species. It is vital for our individual lives and also for the future of humanity.

  The philosophy of science is applicable to all areas of scientific inquiry. It is the tool of choice for the so-called hard sciences (for example: chemistry, biology and physics) as well as for the softer sciences (psychology, sociology or economics).

  As a final note, it is a way of thinking that is of particular value to those of us here that are recovering from our experience as cult members. We were duped, misled, manipulated and fooled by individuals that are highly skilled in “the arts” of propaganda, manipulation and mind-control. Had we had highly developed skills in the scientific means of analyzing and understanding things, perhaps we would not have been so easily fooled, maybe we wouldn’t have been fooled at all.

  Either way, by embracing the scientific way of thinking and understanding, I believe we can move forward with our lives in a more positive, practical and healthier way.

  I look forward to your comments and contributions!

  - - - - - - - - -

  For any one wanting a more rigorous discussion of the Philosophy of Science, I would direct you to this website:

  • The philosophy of science

  The Understanding Science site was produced by the UC Museum of Paleontology of the University of California at Berkeley, in collaboration with a diverse group of scientists and teachers, and was funded by the National Science Foundation

  - - - - - - - - - - -

  Reference:

  Understanding Science. (n.d.). The philosophy of science. Retrieved April 22, 2014, from http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/philosophy
• 

  cofty

  Excellent OP.

  it is a way of thinking that is of particular value to those of us here that are recovering from our experience as cult members.

  I agree very much. I also think that science can be a powerful tool to help some JWs wake up to their false belief sysytem.

  Some posters here seem to think about science as a "them v us" conspiracy.

  It's important to understand that it is a method, a way of thinking about, and discovering reality. We all do science every day without realising it.
• 

  breakfast of champions

  An excellent subject!

  Philosphy of Science is really more important than we can even imagine - something I've come to realize as I progress through courses related to Cognitive Science.

  If you don't start by asking solid, answerable questions, you never really get anywhere.
• 

  prologos

  As current/former jws we are in the same boat as past scientists, lovers of natural wisdom, like Newton, Kepler who did remarkable long lastin scientific work, but also tried to apply the scientific method to bible study.

  Newton on the timescale of scripture, Kepler on doctrine.

  Kepler got himself even disfellowshipped for that.

  Wt pretended that scripture can be studied systematically, using logic, referencing, but failed because

  Scripture is not a perfect construct as is nature.

  So many here like to apply that mindset to the escape learning and

  love of wisdom sophia is called for.

  science though has become highly specialized, and the love for it by 'babes' can be smothered by authoritarians as

  it is in wt land [ not a spiritual, or wisdom loving paradise.]
• 

  never a jw

  Excellent subject that quite coincidentally came to mind recently when I was exploring I don't know what. I just know that I have a 200 page pdf introduction to P. of S. by Alan Rosenberg siitting in my hard drive. I will take a look at it so I can make an informed comment. thanks for the thread
• 

  BackseatDevil

  So I have heard this phrase before and it didn't really irk me, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me... or it seems incomplete in some way. The philosophy of science... what? Science itself is just a study. Sometimes it comes with pre-concieved notions that are then tested, experimented on, sample data collected, and conclusions are drawn... but the framework of such is that of constant looking and searching for answers. So once one develops a philosophy about such, you have crowded the (preferably) pristine way one goes about achieving answers with clouds of feelings and hopes, and ultimately biases in findings (think of findings that reflect that brand X yields better results based off a research study funded by brand X's parent company).

  Philosophy, at it's core is a social art. Science is just knowledge, but science can give building blocks so one can develop a philosophy, ideology, a hope, or a belief.

  Oddly (this is TOTALLY a personal opinion) I feel there is more of a science of philosophy when one looks at psychology, anthropological studies, the study of the creative brain, and human behavior then there is a philosophy of science which tends to be a little... well... stratifying and compartmentalizing. Now if you were to say the philosophy of science discovery, then you can look at the study of adventure or the philosophy of science experiments then you the almost sterile conditions in which science conducts research, etc. (if ANY of that makes sense).

  However, it is a very interesting subject. I look forward to the progress of the thread.
• 

  Viviane

  One thing I think it's critical to point out is that the word "philosophy" has two different uses. The most common layman's use is to to mean something you live by, a principle or act you do or don't do, as in "My personal philosophy is to always be nice to people".

  The other sense of the word, use here in this thread, is more about how and why we think about things the way we do and determining if that is the best way. It involves a LOT of critical thinking.
• 

  Oubliette

  Thanks all for your thoughtful comments. The last few days have been busy so I haven't had time for a proper response!

  Now I have a few minutes to at least respond to your comments:

  Cofty, I agree that learning a scientific way of thinking could "help some JWs wake up to their false belief sysytem." It worked for me and is one of the reasons I am interested in learning and writing more about this. I have children in the cult and want to help wake them up.

  What you wrote about the "us vs. them conspiracy" notion is also true. But as you pointed out, this way of thinking and analyzing our understanding of everything does tend to dispel beliefs that are not based on reality. Even the WTBTS has a public talk outline, "Do You Trust the Science or the Bible?" Interestingly, the points in the outline really pitted human organizations against faith in Jehovah (Jehovah being a proxy for the WTBTS).

  I'm not sure what you meant when you wrote, "We all do science every day without realising it." In my experience most people do NOT do science every day. If they did there'd be a whole lot less JWs. Could you clarify?

  BOC, Thanks for your perspective.Your comment, "If you don't start by asking solid, answerable questions, you never really get anywhere" is spot on! I think this is huge. Most people have not learned how to ask the right questions. They have also not been taught to relentlessly seek the appropriate answers. And we all know that in JW-land questions are completely discouraged, as is independent, critical thinking.

  I would certainly appreciate if you could share some of the particularly salient and relevant points you've learned from your studies in the Cognitive Sciences.

  prologos, Great point to compare our journey to some of the scientific giants of the past. Having a scientific outlook is not necessarily antagonistic to a belief in God; but it most certainly is to the kind of belief-systems of most organized religion. But more to the point, I think, is that a scientific viewpoint is anathema to a religion like JWs for at least 2 reasons: 1) WT "theology" cannot withstand a close scrutiny; and 2) it's really not about doctrine, it's about control. The leaders of a cult, any cult, want one thing: Unquestioning obedience.

  never a jw, Thanks for joining in. I look forward to anything you can share from your review of Rosenberg's book.

  BackseatDevil, your comments really cut to the core of why this is so important: most people really do not understand what science is and what it does. Correspondingly, they are confused about its underlying approach to asking questions, finding answers, understanding what we can learn about anything and everything around us--including ourselves--and applying that knowledge.

  Don't feel bad if your a little confused on the subject. You're in good company. Inspite of the thousands of years of inquiry on these subjects by literally tens of thousands (millions maybe?) of really intelligent people there is still some disagreement on some of the details.

  

  While we can perhaps clearly define certain subjects as falling within the domain of scientific inquiry and others as being outside of it, there is a large fuzzy area in the middle. The fact is the boundaries of these domain are neither clearly defined or rigid, as an historical survey of this subject reveals.

  I look forward to your continued participation in this thread.

  Viviane, you make a nice distinction between the way the word "philosophy" is used in everyday discourse and how it is used in the context of this thread. Really, that IS the point of this thread! Thank you.

  The scientific approach to thinking is by nature much more precise. It requires clear, critical thinking. None of these are things that most people do in their ordinary everyday activities.

  There are many words which, as a term of art , have a precise, specialized meaning in a certain field that is different than in conventional use. It is important to recognize this and be aware of the context and how that can change the meaning of a word or term.

  For example, when a physicist uses the term mass, he or she is referring to the amount of matter in a particular object and also perhaps to a numerical measure of its inertia. When a Catholic uses the term, they probably mean a liturgical ritual of their church. In either event, it is not synonymous with weight as is commonly misunderstood.
• 

  Oubliette

  To move this thread forward, I would like to take some time to focus on two common (albeit generally misunderstood) methods of reasoning and an excellent principle that, once learned, we can use to hone our thinking skills.

  • Induction — a method of reasoning in which a generalization is argued to be true based on individual examples that seem to fit with that generalization. For example, after observing that trees, bacteria, sea anemones, fruit flies, and humans have cells, one might inductively infer that all organisms have cells.
  • Deduction — a method of reasoning in which a conclusion is logically reached from premises. For example, if we know the current relative positions of the moon, sun, and Earth, as well as exactly how these move with respect to one another, we can deduce the date and location of the next solar eclipse.
  • Parsimony/Occam's razor — the idea that, all other things being equal, we should prefer a simpler explanation over a more complex one. (Philosophy of Science, 2014)

  One important distinction that I have just recently come to appreciate more clearly is this:

  • Induction - makes a generalization from a specific event or observation
  • Deduction - applies a generalization to a specific situation

  Inductive reasoning is one of the primary ways that scientists discover new knowlege. It has been describes as "the logic of developing generalizations, hypotheses, and theories from specific observations end experiments." Deductive reasoning, on the other hand, draws specific conclusions from general principles or premises.

  It is important to note that, via inductive reasoning, the premises or observations may support a conclusion or generalization, but do not ensure it. In contrast, unlike inductive reasoning--which always involves uncertainty--the conclusions derived from a deductive inference are always certain provided the premises are true.

  Scientists use inductive reasoning to formulate hypotheses and theories and deductive reasoning when applying them to specific situations (Herr, 2008).

  Occam's Razor is a handy little principle that we can use in conjunction with these, and other, logical tools to cut through obfuscation and other nonsense. Keep it in your logician's toolbox and keep it sharp!

  I look forward to your comments and observations.

  --------------

  References:

  Herr, N. (2008). The sourcebook for teaching science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  The philosophy of science. (n.d.). The philosophy of science. Retrieved April 27, 2014, from http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/philosophy
• 

  KateWild

  Interesting thread. Scientists know they have much to learn and don't know everything. This fuels their enquiry and keeps them asking questions and philosophising about the answers. Some may come up with one philosophy and some may come up with another. When they find the evidence through experimentation that is when a theory or philosophy has become a fact. We don't want to get caught up with semantics.

  That being said, as a student of Chemistry I learned it was a linear subject, once we grasped one concept it would lead us to understand the next. Everything I learned was absolute there was a right and wrong. The subject is black and white, in assigments there was no room for philosophy or opinion, the formula or experiment conclusion was either right or wrong.

  So the philosophy of science must be compartmentalised to only areas where scientists are asking questions and don't have the answers. I have unanswered questions about chemistry, and I can personally philosophise about the answers until I find the facts and see if I was right.

  Thanks for the thread

  Kate xx