The Philosophy of Science

by Oubliette 60 Replies latest members private

• 

  Oubliette

  Frazzled: I am not sure this thread is actually about the Philosophy of Science as opposed to Scientific Method.

  That's the point. They are not separate. It sounds like you didn't read my OP too carefully. Although people use the term loosely, there is really no such thing as "the scientific method." There IS a methodology or approach to attempting to understand things that is scientific. There are a variety of ways to approach this and try to answer questions and solve problems.

  FUBM: The Philosophy of Science is about scietific (sic) knowledge and truth - what is scientific knowledge and how does it relate to truth?

  Exactly to the first part and "What do you mean by that?" to the second part! Scientific knowledge is supposed to be based on things that are true. Admittedly, it doesn't always work out that way, which is part of the fun!

  FUBM: HOw does cscientific (sic) method deal with uncertainty and inconsistency?

  Are you asking because you don't know? It's hard to know how to answer your questions without knowing your knowledge base and reason for asking.

  I would think it would be obvious that a well designed experiment (or other means of scientific investigation appropriate to the subject at hand) deliberately attempts to eliminate or at least reduce uncertainty and inconsistency.

  FUBM: Has scientific knowledge advanced in a linear way or does it lurch from one paradigm to another with scientific research trapped within the bounds of the current paradigm.

  Again, It's hard to know how to answer your questions without knowing your knowledge base and reason for asking. The answer to the first part of your problem is clearly "No" and to the second part, "Yes."

  FUBM: do you know what Popperian falsification theory is? Have read or heard of Thomas Kuhn?

  Of course! Why do you ask?

  You ask a lot of really good questions. I'd like to redirect you to the Philosophy of Science website referenced in my OP:

  • 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. It is a great starting place for anyone wanting a more rigorous discussion of the basics.

  Spend some time there and then you'll be in a better position to contribute to this thread.

  Oubliette
• 

  Oubliette

  talesin: I'd like to see you address Frazzled UBM's question. Thanks.

  FUBM asked some interesting questions. As you'll see in my post above, it's hard for me to know how to answer them when it's unclear why they are being asked.

  As I wrote in my OP:

  • 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.

  I understand that not everyone may be ready for such a discussion. This is why I put a link to the POS UC Berkeley website in the OP, so anyone wanting to learn more can.

  Was there a particular question you wanted addressed?

  Thanks,

  Oubliette
• 

  Oubliette

  jgnat: her ability to evaluate her most basic beliefs is hampered by her worldview.

  And that is exactly why I think it is so important that we all develop these all important critical thinking skills.

  Some people mistakenly believe that adopting a scientific approach to thinking will somehow prevent them from having a sense of awe and wonder about the natural world. Nothing could be further from the truth.

  Most, maybe even all, of the people that made great scientific discoveries were motivated by a natural curiousity, a desire to know and to understand.

  I could see why those that have never felt this wouldn't understand it, but to dismiss what you don't know or haven't experienced merely because YOU don't know or YOU haven't experienced something is the definition of ignorance.

  Hopefully you can find a way to show your daughter you can have both!
• 

  villagegirl

  HERE IS A PARTIAL LIST OF VERY FAMOUS SCIENTISTS WHO ALL BELIEVE IN GOD.

  Now I know its lots of fun to post on a site inhabited by mainly high school graduates who assume

  you know something and are so well educated and wise and you can pose as their instructors

  or how to improve their thinking. But these men listed here have IQ's and education from

  Universities you could never even walk in to, and have contributed to mankind in ways

  you never will and have knowledge of math and science at levels you will never understand

  in your lifetime and YET , they all believe or believed(tillthey died) in God.

  So your assumptions that "knowledge of science will cause disbelief in God" is

  blatantly, clearly and absolutely WRONG

  EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE HIGH LEVEL SCIENTISTS BELIEVE IN GOD BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY

  KNOW ABOUT THE UNIVERSE THAT YOU PSEUDO, SCIENCE POSERS DO NOT KNOW.

  Werner Heisenberg (1901 – 1976)

  Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

  Arthur Compton (1892 – 1962)

  Ernst Haeckel (1834 –1919)

  Erwin Schrödinger (1887 –1961)

  Francis Collins (Born 1950)

  Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)

  Guglielmo Marconi (1874 –1937)

  Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

  James Clerk Maxwell (1831 –1879)

  John Eccles (1903 – 1997)

  Max Planck (1858-1947)

  And does attending singular classes, or seminars, equal a Univeristy degree from

  the University of California ?? I have a degree from the University of California, do

  you advising who qualifies to post also have an actual Bachelor of Science degree ?

  And I am not talking about community college classes ? Or is your "science education"

  the occasional "extended eduction" course which have no prerequisites to sign up

  for and are not transferable credits to any university. But makes you think you understand

  "science". ????
• 

  cofty

  Villagegirl - You are way off-topic.

  It is only in recent decades that it has been possible to say confidently that religious belief has absolutely nothing to contribute to the sum of human knowledge.

  Most of the scientists you list lived at a time when almost everybody was a theist or at least a deist. Newton foolishly credited god with everything he couldn't figure out an answer to. He was a god-of-the-gaps sort of scientist. Einstein firmly rejected the idea of a personal god.

  One interesting exception on your list is Francis Collins who just about manages to keep his exceptional scientific work separate from his superstitons. It is worthy of note that Collins sees nothing at all in genetics that requires a designer.

  It is only possible for a theist to do science by first depositing god in the locker outside the lab.

  PS - Would you please turn down the bold font, the underlining, the CAPS LOCK and the multiple question marks??????

  PPS - If you are going to boast about your education it would be good to check your spelling and punctuation.
• 

  villagegirl

  Cofty - what is your educational level ? Do you have a Bachelor of Science degree ? from any

  accredited university system ? Or are you just giving out advice here, based on your

  own distorted and ignorant opinions and by sounding dogmatic you think you sound profound?

  And what is your purpose on a site that exists to help the exist of wounded people from a cult ?

  Do you think mocking God and dismissing any form of belief makes you look smart ?

  It is only in recent decades that it has been possible to say confidently that religious belief has absolutely nothing to contribute to the sum of human knowledge.

  That is the most absurd and ridiculous statement I have ever heard. Its not true Cofty, but arguing with you

  is futile because you are so thick.
• 

  cofty

  Villagegirl - If you wish to make puerile personal attacks please use PM and stop hijacking a good thread.
• 

  villagegirl

  Cofty- it comes down to you attacking - spelling ? Really ????????????????????????????????

  Your a petty needler and a sad excuse for a put down artist.

  Bragging ?? About a simple common Bachelor of Arts degree ?

  You think that basic accomplishment is a brag ?

  Thats an indicator of your lack of any real education.

  Your a mean wheedly little dictator ( gee I hope I spelled it right )
• 

  cofty

  Are you having a bad day?

  I hope these sophomoric rants are helping your mood. They are certainly amusing me.

  Now please stop it, you are hijacking an interesting thread.
• 

  Oubliette

  Villagegirl, to whom are your directing your questions regarding qualifications to post on this thread?

  If it's me, you're very misguided. I can only say:

  1. If people on JWN could only start and/or post on threads the subjects matters of which they were "experts," then we'd have precious few threads here and even less commenting. I think you miss the point of JWN.
  2. You know very little, if anything, about me, so it is foolish to question what knowledge, credentials or qualifications (to use your word) I do or do not possess in reference to the subject which I started.
  3. If you followed my postings on JWN you would know that I'm not in the habit of talking about things I don't know about, and when I am speculating, I always make that clear.
  4. Finally, the fact is, I am qualified to write on this subject. It actually is what I do professionally.
  5. I'm not trying to "pose as anyone's instructor." Again, if you read my OP, you'll see that I wanted to initiate a discussion among JWN members that share in interest in this subject, particularly in reference to: a) improving our own thinking/reasoning abilities, and b) helping others still stuck in the cult known as Jehovah's Witnesses.

  Your vague rant is more than frustrating and certainly not on topic. If you would like to post comments in keeping with the intent of the thread as I stated in the OP, then please do. If not, then please start your own thread to "dis" unnamed people that you think are unqualifed to talk about science or whatever.

  Thanks,

  Oubliette