Wheatley's form of discussion, all talk, no listen. No wonder it is difficult for Wheatley to understand others.

all talk, no listen. — Metaphysician Undercover

I listen to people who have manners!

↪Caldwell
So, what's an example from another discipline in science? What is the general rule broken or mispractice of Bohr? — Bylaw

Empirical science which puts sensation and observation on a pedestal. Which, according to critics, is done to the detriment of things outside of our perception -- thing in itself. Whether you agree or not, this is a real concern for them.

At this point, I don't have much opinion anymore about Bohr's controversial quantum postulate (for which I provided snippets in another page of this thread. You are welcome to discern what you may from those quotes).

Science isn't a self-correcting system though, because it needs guidance from theory and hypothesis, which are derived from sources non-scientific, like metaphysics. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, the empirical scientific school of thought is criticized for this. There are principles outside of perception that are needed if the scientific methodology is to be judged scientific..

Yes, now as I have mentioned previously, the decline of Science is the decline of a means to express one's intrigue and curiosity which are the very fundamentals of thought and attributes of homo sapiens. Philosophically or metaphysically, Science as a concept and institution has the possibility for decline as any other institution. But the very essence and fundamentals of Science could never be extinguished or decay without the obliteration of the human race.

Too much of a good thing... sure, before science people died more often but is that any trade off for the now possible reality that all of mankind could die off as well as the entire planet becoming irradiated, unsuitable for 98% of intelligent life for thousands if not many more years - all from a mere pissing contest, misunderstanding or yes even simple and unintentional malfunction or glitch?

You science people are a strange bunch. I think enough has been discovered. It's time to hang up the white coats, cash out your trillions from all the profits, grants, and whatnot, go buy a sports car, go to the beach and just enjoy nature, while we still can. Your work has been done. Thank you for your service, I.. guess.

Science is not a snake's skin. Once it has served its purpose, it cannot be shed. Primarily speaking, it will never complete serving its purpose. Once we discovered that the Earth was a planet, we went on to discover an entire solar system, from there, the galaxies, the universe, what constitutes the universe, dark matter, subatomic particles, etc.
The point being, it'll never cease to exist as it is an inbuilt human nature. It isn't an institution or a religion, it is a thought process, it facilitates the use of neuronal synapses and it can never cease to exist. It could cease to exist as an institution (which would be chaotic and catastrophic), but it could never lose its essence.

Empirical science which puts sensation and observation on a pedestal. Which, according to critics, is done to the detriment of things outside of our perception -- thing in itself. — Caldwell

So, the decay in science is coming from people who believe science is slighting (the existence of) things outside our perception? Can you give me a recent example of this? (and I am not saying this is not a significant phenomenon or that you are incorrect, I just find it hard to know exactly what is meant at this level of abstraction.)

So, the decay in science is coming from people who believe science is slighting (the existence of) things outside our perception? Can you give me a recent example of this? (and I am not saying this is not a significant phenomenon or that you are incorrect, I just find it hard to know exactly what is meant at this level of abstraction.) — Bylaw

I was thinking this too. Since the "shut up and calculate" attitude the nature of that what the math described stands secondary.

I couldn't get this sentence, though I am glad you think we agree. Could you rephrase it?

shut up and calculate — Accounting

The actual way it happened: Calculate...whaaaat??? ( :chin: :scream: )...sh! sh! shut up!

1. Calculate...

2.WTF?!

3. Shut up!

Biology is a constant cycle between autonomic systems and a kind of re-calibration. The heart changes constantly in rate and force. The mind, too, relies largely on semi-mechanistic processes, but makes adjustments and recalculations, maybe even nanosecond by nanosecond. The adjustments may be calculations according to abstract formulae, or merely hunches, but between the passive play of predetermined processes and the proactive readjustment and recalculation, there must be a moment of recognition that the system is veering awry. It is all too easy to get caught up in the difference between mechanism and intervention, but the crucial meaning is neither, but is instead that moment of recognition. Whatever standards apply, when things begin to go awry something must intervene or disaster looms. The adjustment is no fix, there is no certain and permanent obviation of the moment of recognition. But there is literally no measurable duration between, and therefore no process or presence to identify the agency of that differentiation. Mind operates on divisions either/or, but that recognition of a system going awry is pure and wholesale differentiation. Neither prefabricated system nor re-engineering, It is neither/nor. Our minds are trained, autonomic and calculative, to see nothing there at all, until it's time to change. Which is constant, but infinitesimal, activity. Science is fixed upon the calculation, living is fixed upon the bio-mechanism. But mind is as much neither as it is nor, as much neither as not either. It's a cul-de-sac that takes a philosopher to clarify. Consider, for instance, how many times the steering-wheel of your car moves under your hand as you drive. You are not trying to set a fixed system of steering, but keeping you car in your lane. You may think about how to stabilize the steering, but it's not possible to anticipate the next flaw in your steering. Consciousness and agency is a constant intervention that cannot anticipate its being there at all. Science and habit are equally at a loss to avoid that moment of intervention. It's a tightrope. Get too habitual, or too calculative, and we fall. It's not a matter of finding the time, it's a matter of recognizing there is no time there at all, just moment neither one time nor the other. Being elusive is what it is.

So, the decay in science is coming from people who believe science is slighting (the existence of) things outside our perception? Can you give me a recent example of this? (and I am not saying this is not a significant phenomenon or that you are incorrect, I just find it hard to know exactly what is meant at this level of abstraction.) — Bylaw

If you notice in your reading that the physicists are mostly the culprit of the traditional science-decline sentiments, though they're not the only target of the critics. Quantum theory, relativity theory, reductionist physics, and oh, alternative knowing. I think the Germans promoted this alternative knowing. Not sure.

On the other side of this "speculative" physics, are the empiricists. Those who want to play it safe and remain down to earth. (not my idea). Perception and observation are the real scientific method according to this thinking.

But our ordinary lives depend on something else. The here and now happenings -- like the science behind the vaccines, or the CDC's understanding of the spread of diseases, and people's conception of freedom and rights relating to the containment of diseases. (If you tested positive for TB, you can't fly, etc. If you do, your record of communicable disease would be all over the media. And to the authorities, that's fair game). Yet squabbles about what's science and what's pseudo science in testing vaccines and efficacy of drugs and pandemic hardly become permanent inhabitants of scholarly books that get attacked by the likes of Hilary Putnam.

It seems to me that prominent philosophers who finally find time to write a criticism against a staunch critic of science always end up reacting against Marxism or socialism -- they use the background of science in order to get to the point of criticizing the marxist or socialist agenda. Not that I have any opposition to it. I don't care. I don't even understand.

But one gets excited over a narrative, only to be slammed with a marxist/socialist horror story. How about let's get to the business of criticizing science or defending it, and not be shuttered by more marxist socialist political tryst. Maybe we should read PW Anderson.

If you notice in your reading that the physicists are mostly the culprit of the tradi tional science-decline sentiments, though they're not the only target of the critics. Quantum theory, relativity theory, reductionist physics, and oh, alternative knowing. — Caldwell

I have seen criticism of QM mainly and relativity perhaps a bit and then that physics is reductionistic (though the reductionism charge I have tended to see aimed more at the biological sciences). But I am not sure how that relates to empirical critiques. Relativity has had many types of empirical confirmation, as has QM. In general. Specific interpretations of qm phenomena are seen as unjustified, but the data does not support seeing particles as tiny balls. IOW common sense metaphysics and the traditional sense of matter are contradicted by QM empirical data.

So, the decay in science is coming from people who believe science is slighting (the existence of) things outside our perception? Can you give me a recent example of this? — Bylaw

I am still stuck here. If my first summation of part of your position is off, please let me know.

Yet squabbles about what's science and what's pseudo science in testing vaccines and efficacy of drugs and pandemic hardly become permanent inhabitants of scholarly books that get attacked by the likes of Hilary Putnam — Caldwell

Right, or so I would guess, not having read much of Putnam, but philosophy often focuses on what's on paper, the ideal science, say epistemology. Not real world application of science where politics and money influence every stage from what gets investigated, by whom, how it is investigated, who confirms results, what results are found, how this is applied in the world and nowadays who in the scientific community even gets to talk. Peer review can be silenced. Counterevidence can be eliminated from public view not because it is false, but because it might cause someone to doubt. Well, that's what counter or new evidence ought to do. That is an incredibly complicated set of phenomena and a lot of academic philosophers want to focus on one topic at a time. And they very well may lack the training to evaluate
a lot of the factors. Those factors are studied is some ways in political philosophy, but that may not be their discipline. Further, only partially. They need media studies, economics, sociology, propaganda studies, and specific research into the relevent regulatory bodies/organizations/companies involved in the process, which should entail some expertise in financial forensics. A nice interdisciplinary panet (who can pass some kind of audit themselves) is probably necessary.

Science Of Decay.

Seems relevant.

People understand different things when they talk about science.
So I think we should first define the term and then identify what aspect of science is in decay.
Since science is not a single"method" we need to find out what really is.
Science is a Philosophical Category (Natural Philosophy) with a set of empirical methodologies that is mainly interested in the evaluation of our knowledge claims.
What people do with those knowledge claims is a separate issue.(politics, economics etc).

In my opinion the only decay related to science is the public understanding of what science is, their inability to distinguish technology from science and what elements make scientific knowledge so important and credible.
This decay is mainly product of the global system of education set to serve other priorities and the idea that knowledge is just an opinion.

I have seen criticism of QM mainly and relativity perhaps a bit and then that physics is reductionistic (though the reductionism charge I have tended to see aimed more at the biological sciences). — Bylaw

It's cause the reductionist charge is yet another issue addressed by the critics. It goes like this, in three separate issues:

1.science has now been invaded by probability because it strayed away from causality. The probability coming from QM and relativity. For example, it is now fashionable to have a theory of duality -- wave/particle quantum entities. Is it a wave or is it concrete particles? Causality gives science not only predictability, but also precision. That's the power of causation.

2. science has been used in all aspects of humanity -- whether it can actually explain fully the human psychology or behavior is not a problem. In the name of science, everything could be quantified and measured. (this is a separate issue from one). Notice that in #1, if we accept QM, we're okay to not have exact measurements. But here issue #2, according to critics, science would like to have a precise formula for understanding human behavior.

3. reductionism in terms of mechanistic interpretation of every thing, the world. Such as, one equation for everything. Again, go back to #2 -- there are humans and animals (whose intelligence are undeniable) in the world. Critics argue that the mechanistic view of the world would like to rid of the organic and metaphysical quality of the inhabitant of the Earth.

But I am not sure how that relates to empirical critiques. Relativity has had many types of empirical confirmation, as has QM. In general. Specific interpretations of qm phenomena are seen as unjustified, but the data does not support seeing particles as tiny balls. — Bylaw

This is criticism number 4. If we go with the empiricists, on the other hand, the empiricists would like to rid of realism in scientific terms. Do you agree? There are things in the world that exists with or without us. Now the empiricists would then say, then who's doing the science, but humans themselves. So ultimately, realism is defective. See the point?

People understand different things when they talk about science. — Nickolasgaspar

I concur.

Since science is not a single"method" we need to find out what really is.
Science is a Philosophical Category (Natural Philosophy) with a set of empirical methodologies that is mainly interested in the evaluation of our knowledge claims.
What people do with those knowledge claims is a separate issue.(politics, economics etc). — Nickolasgaspar

Again, I agree.

In my opinion the only decay related to science is the public understanding of what science is, their inability to distinguish technology from science and what elements make scientific knowledge so important and credible.
This decay is mainly product of the global system of education set to serve other priorities and the idea that knowledge is just an opinion. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, I have now accepted that we should change our focus to the understanding of what science is about. Start with education.

But the strongest critics of science are those that are against QM and relativity because QM is the gateway to all kinds of "speculative science", if you will. (See my response to Bylaw above). So, what better way to stop the bleeding than to get straight to the source -- which is the QM (and I'm not even knowledgeable of the enormity of the power of QMists to even change the foundation of science).
Heck, I don't understand, period.

Seems relevant. — TheMadFool

It's an apt metaphor.

1.science has now been invaded by probability because it strayed away from causality. The probability coming from QM and relativity. — Caldwell

The invasion of probability is due to the reliance on mathematics rather than description.

The invasion of probability is due to the reliance on mathematics rather than description. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. I haven't even thought that finally someone could say this. To some description alone is inaccurate.

Description can only go so far in providing for prediction. It used to be the case, that prediction was the means of validating the hypothesis (description), as the scientific method. Now, prediction itself is what brings in the money, so no one really cares about the description (hypothesis). And, the mathematics of probability is what enables prediction, so that's where the focus is.

Now, prediction itself is what brings in the money, so no one really cares about the description (hypothesis). And, the mathematics of probability is what enables prediction, so that's where the focus is. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ah, 'makes sense.

-"Yes, I have now accepted that we should change our focus to the understanding of what science is about. Start with education."
-We need to admit that this is a real difficult task. Our descriptions about science are still evolving so we have to expect this confusion.
The best description I have ever heard is by , in my opinion, one of the most important modern philosophers of Science,Paul Hoyningen-Huene. His book "Systematicity the Nature of science"(and his free academic lectures ) provide a clear demarcation and explains why the values of scientific epistemology expand in multiple dimensions (at least 9 aspects).

-But the strongest critics of science are those that are against QM and relativity because QM is the gateway to all kinds of "speculative science", if you will. (See my response to Bylaw above). So, what better way to stop the bleeding than to get straight to the source -- which is the QM (and I'm not even knowledgeable of the enormity of the power of QMists to even change the foundation of science).
Heck, I don't understand, period.

-Well, in my opinion, that is NOT science's fault. QM is a probabilistic framework due to the nature of the microscopic world and our limited abilities in observing systems without interfering with them (Observer Objectivity Collapse). On the other hand QM provides the most accurate predictions made by any of our scientific frameworks...(99,9999up to 14 decimal places!).
The problem is with PHILOSOPHY....again.... and with scientists and philosophers who find a chance to promote their personal pseudo metaphysical beliefs without having a adequate understanding of QM.

Should we discard such an instrumentally valuable framework and ignore our counterintuitive observations of the quantum scale just because some pseudo philosophers/scientists invoke the supernatural in their interpretations?
I think not.QM is science. Our observations and our mathematical formulations are of the highest standards.The problem rises with how some attempt to interpret those counter intuitive observations.!

I will insist in saying that the problem is created by people's (philosophers and scientists) ignorance on what Philosophy is and how it should be practiced.
Science is guarding its field of publications rigorously with the peer review process, something that Philosophy isn't doing at all. The dogma of "free inquire" allows pseudo philosophy to pose next to real philosophy and that confuses people who don't know how to demarcate Philosophy from pseudo philosophy. You will ask what philosophy has to do with the misunderstanding of science.
Well the think is that pseudo philosophy trives at the limits of our scientific epistemology. i.e. We have QM and we don't know how to interpret their relation to the classical world. That appears to be a chance for philosophy to offer more than 12 quantum interpretations and many more distorted versions of them.

A couple of thousand years ago, Aristotle organized and systematized Logic and Philosophy. He defined the Philosophical procedure while the etymology of the word informed us of its goal...."the intellectual endeavor of producing wise claims about the world". In order for a claim to be wise, Aristotle knew that it needed to be founded on credible epistemology, so he included Physika(modern science) as an important step in the any Philosophical inquiry.
The 6 essential steps of the Philosophical process according to Aristotle are:
1. Epistemology (what we know and how we know it).
2. Science(evaluate our current epistemology and produce new data)
3. Metaphysics(interpret what all the new data means for our epistemology)
application of the newly produced conclusions to the branches of
4.Aesthetics
5.Ethics
6.Politics
Unfortunately the only Philosophical category that follows Aristotle's blueprint(3 main steps) is that of Natural Philosophy...currently known as science. Its the only category that identifies and tests the epistemic claims, have a set of methodologies to do it and produces hypotheses(metaphysics) on consistent auxiliary principles and with high standards of evidence evaluation.
Most philosophers (Naturalists excluded) ignore the first two steps and jump in metaphysics from the get go or they use arbitrary and epistemically useless philosophical principles to interpret our epistemology (this is the case QM) according to their metaphysical beliefs.

This is a problem that we all personally experience in any philosophical forum (not only science). People believing that they can make meaningful philosophy while they ignore our latest epistemology, while using non naturalistic principles in their speculations(not those of Methodological Naturalism) and by not even bothering about the basic rules and criteria of Logic (Null HYpothesis, Demarcation,Burden etc).
When you point out to them that they are pseudo philosophizing they are surprised learning....that they need to follow rules in order for their philosophy to be real philosophy. So I think we need to reform and demarcate Philosophy if we need to get rid of the fluff and woo that accumulates at the borders of our scientific epistemology.

-"Description can only go so far in providing for prediction. It used to be the case, that prediction was the means of validating the hypothesis (description), as the scientific method. Now, prediction itself is what brings in the money, so no one really cares about the description (hypothesis). And, the mathematics of probability is what enables prediction, so that's where the focus is."


-The truth is far more complex than those simplifications.
Scientific Theories have the power to fuel 3 basic aspects of epistemology.
1. Accurate Descriptions.
2. Testable Predictions
3. Technical Applications.
The No. 3 is what has the power to generate wealth (bring money) ...but that is only possible if a theoretical or a mathematical framework have first the power to produce accurate descriptions and testable predictions. IF not ...we can not produce any applications.

QM checks all three aspects even if we currently lack a theoretical framework...that to be far has nothing to do with describing the phenomenon but more with our intuitive expectations of how nature should work in relation to our classical world. In QM ur math describe accurately what we observe(99.999999999999999%). Unfortunately "our observations" are not exactly ....observations. We need to crash particles in order to gain any measurement and that means that we need to interact with the system we try to observe.

Complexity science, emergence and chaos theory etc are some new "tools" that we have develop to study and quantify emergent phenomena that are far more noisy and messy. Statistical probabilities and the presence of ''noise'' were always part of our scientific observations, specially in social sciences...but for a weird reason, when physics reached that point (where our objective observations were compromised and the noise is a notch higher) everybody found an opportunity to push their meta ontology down people throats....and accuse science for letting this happen!
Nothing is wrong or fabricated or because of money in probabilistic Science!
Like the reductionistic method....probabilities JUST one more Method available to Science and now Physics needs to use it too!
Philosophers of sciences tell us again and again, that science is NOT "a method" but an intellectual procedure with numerous methodologies!

Science is guarding its field of publications rigorously with the peer review process, something that Philosophy isn't doing at all. — Nickolasgaspar

This is misinformation, I'm afraid. The philosophers of science are the scientists themselves. In the philosophy of mathematics, they are the mathematicians themselves. Logic, logicians. In my opinion, the rigour of theory building in philosophy requires much more than assiduous research. It is analyzed, debated, proofed, and debated again, then criticized. Plus it rallies the support of endowments (you can look this up). I think it's a misconception that physicists change hats between doing physics and doing philosophy. There's not a break in the rigour of their analyses -- they build on the works of past philosophers, not reinvent the wheel.

Most philosophers (Naturalists excluded) ignore the first two steps and jump in metaphysics from the get go or they use arbitrary and epistemically useless philosophical principles to interpret our epistemology (this is the case QM) according to their metaphysical beliefs. — Nickolasgaspar

No. I disagree very much. This is again misinformation. I'm afraid people who say this haven't read one book of a philosopher physicist. Nickolasgaspar, I really would like to discuss this, but this is a topic for another day. There's so much to say. I can't do it right now. I mean, how do we even begin talking about this when the part and parcel are all of the wrong specifications, so to speak. Some members in this forum are well equipped, not to mention eloquent, to tackle this sort of a mess.

-"The philosophers of science are the scientists themselves"
-they are philosophers...but even if they are scientists...they are doing philosophy.

-" In the philosophy of mathematics, they are the mathematicians themselves."
-they can be physicists....but again in the philosophy of mathematics...they do philosophy, not science.

-"Logic, logicians. In my opinion, the rigour of theory building in philosophy requires much more than assiduous research. It is analyzed, debated, proofed, and debated again, then criticized."
-And what is your point?

-" I think it's a misconception that physicists change hats between doing physics and doing philosophy. There's not a break in the rigour of their analyses -- they build on the works of past philosophers, not reinvent the wheel"
-Again you are confusing "science" with what scientists do!
I stated "Science is guarding its field of publications rigorously with the peer review process, something that Philosophy isn't doing at all."
This means for a hypothesis to become science, it needs to be objectively verified.
Unfortunately in philosophy not many care about verification and on top of that their hypotheses can be based on all different types of auxiliary presuppositions.(Supernatural, theological etc).
In science that is not permitted.

-"There's not a break in the rigour of their analyses -- they build on the works of past philosophers, not reinvent the wheel."
-That isn't an argument against Science's monitoring methods of its publications.


-"No. I disagree very much. This is again misinformation."
-Then you are wrong. Your philosophy can never be credible if the epistemology you have used to produce your conclusion was not credible too.

-"I mean, how do we even begin talking about this when the part and parcel are all of the wrong specifications, so to speak. Some members in this forum are well equipped, not to mention eloquent, to tackle this sort of a mess. "
-You can not argue against a fundamental fact of Philosophy(At least successfully!). Even the philosopher who systematized logic and Philosophy acknowledged that condition. Aristotle refers to the need of our metaphysics to be the product of credible up to date epistemology through the second most important step for every philosophical inquire. That term is Physika (science).
Logic on its own can not provide wise claims about the world. The GIGO effect is always a threat for our syllogism when we don't have a way to keep "garbage" off our data.
This is not even a controversial idea.
Philosophy is the study and production of wise claims about the world(Love of Wisdom) .A claim can not be wise if it isn't the product of knowledge.

I stated "Science is guarding its field of publications rigorously with the peer review process, something that Philosophy isn't doing at all." This means for a hypothesis to become science, it needs to be objectively verified. Unfortunately in philosophy not many care about verification and on top of that their hypotheses can be based on all different types of auxiliary presuppositions.(Supernatural, theological etc). In science that is not permitted. — Nickolasgaspar

Sorry, this is just wrong. You're misunderstanding the methodology and quality of theoretical building in philosophy. Of course the science has its own way, and philosophy has its own method. But let'ot confuse the two methodologies. I was arguing for the rigour.

No I don't misunderstand the methodology and quality of theoretical building in science. I just criticize the objectively low quality of logical standards of those methodologies and the whole evaluation process of the Academia. Those are the reason why pseudo philosophy parades side by side with credible philosophical ideas.
Rigour is non existent in the academia allowing logical fallacies to play a foundational role in philosophical auxiliary assumptions....under the excuse of ''free inquiry''.
Most people forget that Science is a philosophical category that produces theoretical frameworks with an unpresident epistemic success, not so much because of its empirical methodologies of investigation but mainly because of the Auxiliary Principles of Methodological Naturalism, the standards of Objectivism and Evidentialism and the absolute obedience to the rules, criteria and principles of Logic used on any scientific finding and interpretation.
Its not just my personal understanding on the topic. As I already wrote Mario Bunge has recorded far more many issues in our philosophical inquires tin his book Philosophy in crisis.
Many Naturalists Philosophers point out the epistemically and philosophically useless large volume of publications that are based on unfounded presuppositions that will always remain irrelevant to the rest body of knowledge and wisdom.

I hope to see a debate or discussion regarding the anti-scientific sentiments or movement towards the decay of science. — Caldwell

I feel that science is more of a methodology or “mindset” - so I find it hard to believe the pillars of logic could decay now that we have established a method that has clear structure based in reason. Observation - Hypothesis - experiment and conclusion. In principle this method is not even restricted to science as it is the concept of “trial and error” and the formulation of an explanatory “best fit”.

In essence we understand consistency, repeatability and predictive value as the core of what is “true” about the natural/ physical world. We have seen it work for us countless times in the past and led to the development of many a life enhancing technology, pharmaceutical or revelation. Sure you can “believe” whatever you want but there is little value in something that doesn’t offer practical application across the board for all.
Science combats skepticism because of its utility.