While I don't deny this corporate reality, this is not what a true cycle theorist points to in their criticism of science. Maybe this comes as a surprise. Although, I agree that it does indirectly affect science.↪Caldwell
Corporate control of research. Corporate control of scientific journals. Corporate control over regulatory bodies (IOW poor science, biased science being approved by bodies that are not objective or independent). Corporate control of media - which then can marginalize ideas, research, criticism and scientific debate that might undermine corporate research. — Bylaw
Speaking for myself, if I were an old-school scientist - the kind who are hardcore physicalists - I'd be worried about Quantum Physics and how it seems susceptible to pseudoscientific interpretations as can be found in books like The Tao Of Physics by physicist Fritjof Capra and also in the numerous books authored by people of the same ilk as Deepak Chopra. Quantum physics seems to be asymptotically approaching what scientists have gone on record to decry as woo-woo viz. mysticism Quantum Physics, if scientists aren't careful, will be the undoing of science. The decay has set in but can scientists do anything about this gangrenous limb that threatens to consume all of science itself? Time will tell. — TheMadFool
That is what we are facing when we are engaged in some sort of discourse against, or together with, the end-of-science theorists. Rule number one -- exactitude. If science were religion, a crippling doubt because we'd forgone causality and opted instead towards probability, is unholy.
Another source of complaint is the tendency to reduce everything and anything to equation. One that could possibly fit on a surface of a thumbnail. What does it mean? Reductionism and simplification. Keep in mind that cycle theorists believe in social sciences. And rightly so. What's good for the goose is good for the gander is false! — Caldwell
Archaeological digs of settlements dating back to Neolithic times have revealed a disproportionately high density of heel bones of sheep or other animals among the shattered pottery and flints that are usually found in sites that humans once inhabited. These bones are in fact ancestors of my casino dice. When thrown, these bones naturally land on one of four sides. Often there are letters or numbers carved into the bones. Rather than gambling, these early dice are thought to have been used for divination. And this connection between the outcome of a roll of a dice and the will of the gods is one that has persisted for centuries. Knowledge of how the dice would land was believed to be something that transcended human understanding. It's outcome was in the lap of gods. — Marcus du Sautoy (What we cannot know)
True. And let's be careful not to confuse precision or exactitude with mechanistic.Science has always been about a clockwork, deterministic, universe and, from what I can gather, its main selling point is the precision (to the 10th decimal place I'm told) of its predictions. Science, if it could speak, is telling us, "surely, if my predictions are that precise, I couldn't be wrong." — TheMadFool
No, that post I made is to clarify the point of this thread in general. To emphasize the argument. — Caldwell
If Science somehow "decays" as you propose, human beings might as well cease to exist. — TheSoundConspirator
The critique against science, insofar as the decline theorists are concerned, has always been metaphysical. That is, they are arguing about the very essence of science. How else can something be destroyed, but through the demolition of its very essence. Science has qualities essential to it. — Caldwell
While influences outside it from different schools of thoughts or political thoughts, even economic, have been..well.. influential in shaping the scientific research and development, those are not the object of their criticisms. The scientific decline theorists are, after all, philosophers. And being philosophers, they try to maintain the proper parameter within which to attack science. — Caldwell
Another thing I want to stress is that these same theorists show a high degree of respect for disciplines such as the scientific psychology. They are pragmatists and empiricists. They recognize the delineation between the cultural, organic, and behavioral on the one hand, and the atomistic world on the other. And here we can understand why they reject the increasingly mechanistic view of reality. When everything and anything is reduced to bare bones formulations, with the occasional corollary here and there, one can start to wonder whether scientists and the natural world are now the casualty. — Caldwell
True. And let's be careful not to confuse precision or exactitude with mechanistic. — Caldwell
I've read the OP and a few of your other posts and I am not quite sure what your position is. So, I may miss the mark.While I don't deny this corporate reality, this is not what a true cycle theorist points to in their criticism of science. Maybe this comes as a surprise. Although, I agree that it does indirectly affect science. — Caldwell
That is what we are facing when we are engaged in some sort of discourse against, or together with, the end-of-science theorists. Rule number one -- exactitude. If science were religion, a crippling doubt because we'd forgone causality and opted instead towards probability, is unholy. — Caldwell
Another source of complaint is the tendency to reduce everything and anything to equation. One that could possibly fit on a surface of a thumbnail. — Caldwell
Hi Tobi,An influential strand in the philosophy of science points out the political and economic nature of science. I think such a critique will hit science harder because it attacks the source of its legitimacy, its supposed purety and objectivity. — Tobias
The way you desscribe it, to me it seems these criticisms come from an environmental perspective. — Tobias
And because of propaganda and a carefully developed education program. It's made more sexy than it is in reality, though it can be great fun, especially the physics of quantum fields and general relativity. And their combination. Or the science of a black hole and Hawing (not Unruh!) radiation. A realcstretch for the mind! Good morning brain excercise. — Gobuddygo
Please see my response to @Gobuddygo above. If you could somehow explain to me how corporations influence or change science -- besides the enterprising part or profiteering -- that would be great.My concern is not at the meme level or even the cycle level. I see the threat to continued existence of those who might use science, as coming through what I batch labelled 'corporations'. — Bylaw
Please browse Oswald Spengler's writings. I don't have a link but you can look him up. Thanks.I am not sure what your idea is around cycles - perhaps a link?. — Bylaw
Hi Tobi,
You can critique science on political and economic grounds. But that would be different from the arguments of cycle framework. — Caldwell
One thing leads to another and these weapons are unleashed, exterminating 99% of the population, all scientists and other experts die in this mass extinction, and we are, voila, back to square one (some say we'll be sent back to the stone age). — TheMadFool
And what did you just try to explain? That scientists are mortal like normal people? We've touched on this -- violence kills, absolute violence kills absolutely! What now? A problem, yes! But hardly metaphysical in nature. — Caldwell
I am not sure what your idea is around cycles - perhaps a link? — Bylaw
Hi Tobi,
You can critique science on political and economic grounds. But that would be different from the arguments of cycle framework. — Caldwell
No, it's metaphysical. — Caldwell
I was simply trying out a different avenue, thinking of other ways of how science could cyclically rise and fall. — TheMadFool
Oooh, that would be the day.China can mass produce as much as it wants but only Europe is truly preparing for a new economy and will likely have significant returns in their investments in the future. — Shawn
I think that nearly anything can be literally destroyed without even a thought about it's very essence. Kill all those who know and burn the books. Wars aren't usually fought to destroy cultures and natural disasters don't have any objective or agenda, but they can put things back a lot.The critique against science, insofar as the decline theorists are concerned, has always been metaphysical. That is, they are arguing about the very essence of science. How else can something be destroyed, but through the demolition of its very essence. Science has qualities essential to it. — Caldwell
The complementarity principle is just that one object may possess pairs of properties such that only one but not both can be observed/measured at a time — TheMadFool
They have managed to get people to confuse corporate generated research and conclusions with science. Here's an example. If you go to somewhere like sciforums or any other 'place' where people, including scientists, belief (current) scientific practice is the only route to knowledge, you may well (and I have) encountered people saying things like if (some form of Alternative Medicine) worked, it would be part of regular medicine. Which, implicitly, assumes the independence of the FDA, the objectivity and openness of research, the inablity of corporations to create the conclusions they want, how the incredibly high price of meeting FDA protocols requires patentability, the lack of current paradigmantic biases, the power of corporations and organizations like the AMA to attack and suppress entities they consider threatening their markets, pharmas power in relation to media and likely other things I am not thinking of at this moment. Often alternative medicine products cannot be patented (despite corporations trying to patent things like the NEEM tree). For example.If you could somehow explain to me how corporations influence or change science -- besides the enterprising part or profiteering -- that would be great. — Caldwell
The complementarity principle is just that one object may possess pairs of properties such that only one but not both can be observed/measured at a time — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.