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.↪Caldwell
So, what's an example from another discipline in science? What is the general rule broken or mispractice of Bohr? — Bylaw
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
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.)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.) — Bylaw
shut up and calculate — Accounting
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.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 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.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 am still stuck here. If my first summation of part of your position is off, please let me know.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
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 evaluateYet 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
It's cause the reductionist charge is yet another issue addressed by the critics. It goes like this, in three separate issues: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
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?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
People understand different things when they talk about science. — Nickolasgaspar
Again, I agree.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
Yes, I have now accepted that we should change our focus to the understanding of what science is about. Start with education.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
1.science has now been invaded by probability because it strayed away from causality. The probability coming from QM and relativity. — Caldwell
Yes. I haven't even thought that finally someone could say this. To some description alone is inaccurate.The invasion of probability is due to the reliance on mathematics rather than description. — Metaphysician Undercover
Ah, 'makes sense.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
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.Science is guarding its field of publications rigorously with the peer review process, something that Philosophy isn't doing at all. — 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.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
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.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
I hope to see a debate or discussion regarding the anti-scientific sentiments or movement towards the decay of science. — Caldwell
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.