Science is not a just A methodology with a clear structure.
I will agree that our interpretations of facts are based on logic and our Auxiliary Philosophical Principles are Standard(that of Methodological Naturalism)but no one in science follows a specific set of steps.

-"In essence we understand consistency, repeatability and predictive value as the core of what is “true” about the natural/ physical world."
-Well science doesn't claim to be in the business of truth. Science sees those criteria as indications of knowledge.Truth is an evaluation used by science at far earlier points in the process, when we screen claims on whether they are in agreement with current facts.

anti-scientific sentiments or movement towards the decay of science — Caldwell

I don't think that there's such a thing as an "anti-scientific movement". If you can provide some references ...
Likewise about "anti-scientific sentiments". In fact, I can't think that the characterization "anti-scientific" sounds too dramatic, heavy and, most importantly if is unreal. Who can be against Science? (I will use a capital "S" to mean Science as an institution, in contrast, e.g. to "science" as a field of knowledge.) Our whole lives are based 99% on or affecte by Science.

Then, in what sense or way do you see the decay of Science? "Decay" can be "a state or process of rotting or decomposition" or it can be "a gradual decline in strength, soundness, or prosperity or in degree of excellence". Other kinds of decay may also exist but I believe that you have in mind the second of the ones I mentioned.

Then, what are the indications of such a decay that you see in Science? Is it that it has not made important breakthroughs or has advanced significantly in the last let's say 5, 10 or 50 years, comparing to its past achievements? Is it that it is not that important in our lives these days as in the past? Is it that it fails to provide answers to vital human problems? And so on.

Now, whatever of the above views matches your own, it will be still very difficult to judge, evaluate the evolution of the Science as a whole. Why? Because there are fields in it that advance faster and/or in a more impressive way than others. And of course it is impossible to talk about Science in average.

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. — Nickolasgaspar

Sorry, but it's not the philosophy's fault that there exist useless large volume of publications that are based on unfounded presuppositions. Just like in all schools of thought, or field of study, there's gonna be works that are useless, or unfounded. Don't blame philosophy, though.

Then, in what sense or way do you see the decay of Science? "Decay" can be "a state or process of rotting or decomposition" or it can be "a gradual decline in strength, soundness, or prosperity or in degree of excellence". Other kinds of decay may also exist but I believe that you have in mind the second of the ones I mentioned. — Alkis Piskas

None of the above.

And yes, I'm also trying to get to the bottom of this insane sentiment that science will someday decay. But not necessarily weaken, as an institution. Just to put it in perspective, a bad conglomerate can be strong and prosperous. I think the "decay" part is a metaphor for something that's hard to foresee or just understand. How dare critics insinuate that science can someday decay, no? Preposterous!

We needn't worry about the decay of science. Good ideas tend to resurrect even if they do die at a certain point in history. Look at Democritus' atomic theory - it was revived after, what?, a millennia? So, if science is worthwhile and it seems to be, its decline even if can't be stalled/avoided, can one day be brought back to life, Jesus-like - the interim period would be chronicled as a second episode of the Dark Ages.

So, if science is worthwhile and it seems to be, its decline even if can't be stalled/avoided, can one day be brought back to life, Jesus-like - the interim period would be chronicled as a second episode of the Dark Ages. — TheMadFool

Sounds like a plan.

Sounds like a plan. — Caldwell

:ok:

-"Sorry, but it's not the philosophy's fault that there exist useless large volume of publications that are based on unfounded presuppositions. Just like in all schools of thought, or field of study, there's gonna be works that are useless, or unfounded. Don't blame philosophy, though. "
-We don't find such types of publication in science...so its the fault of Academia for allowing "free inquiry" and unmonitored publications under its name.
We are talking about the publication of theoretical model based on epistemically failed principles like supernaturalism, theism or idealism

-We don't find such types of publication in science...so its the fault of Academia for allowing "free inquiry" and unmonitored publications under its name.
We are talking about the publication of theoretical model based on epistemically failed principles like supernaturalism, theism or idealism — Nickolasgaspar

Philosophy and science aren't competitors. In philosophy we find avenues which in the end bear no fruit, but in science we do as well. We find articles about subjects that were once hotly debated and have been forgotten nowadays, such as the substance 'Flogiston'. Maybe the same will happen to substances like 'dark matter'. The philosophical gaze is different from the scientific one. Philosopy traces concepts taken for granted in science, such as objectivity. See the work of Lorraine Daston and Peter Gallison for an illuminating trip through the history of science and the concept of objectivity. A philosopher such a Latour also points out how science becomes possible due to the specific constellation of people and things.

To get a grip on the question whether science is in decay we need a firm definition of what science is. Are we speaking about a practice, a method, an institution, or a certain kind of authority?

In philosophy we find avenues which in the end bear no fruit — Tobias

You're not entertained? Occupied at least? Doesn't entertainment bring happiness or at least contentment? Doesn't this advance (or at least as you say bear fruit of evidence of the advancement of) the human condition and well being? Is this not the point of science?

You're not entertained? Occupied at least? Doesn't entertainment bring happiness or at least contentment? Doesn't this advance (or at least as you say bear fruit of evidence of the advancement of) the human condition and well being? Is this not the point of science? — Outlander

Ohhh that is a misunderstanding, my apologies. I did not mean to imply all avenues of philosophical inquiry bear no fruit, just that some do not, just like in science. In fact, i think philosophy is critically important for our world view. I think there is a straight line to be rawn from Nietzsche through Michel Foucault, the feminist an equal rights movement, right to the new Bond movie. Our philosophical commitments, however implicit they are held, will determine the 'decay' of science. Behind all physcis lies metaphysics.

Then, in what sense or way do you see the decay of Science? "Decay" can be "a state or process of rotting or decomposition" or it can be "a gradual decline in strength, soundness, or prosperity or in degree of excellence". Other kinds of decay may also exist but I believe that you have in mind the second of the ones I mentioned.
— Alkis Piskas
None of the above. — Caldwell

In what way then? :brow:

I'm also trying to get to the bottom of this insane sentiment that science will someday decay. — Caldwell

Aha! Didn't see that coming! I thought that yourself believed in the deacy of science!
OK then, let others believe that! :smile:

Who said they are competitors?
-"Philosophy and science aren't competitors. In philosophy we find avenues which in the end bear no fruit, but in science we do as well."
-Why are you mentioning that?

-"We find articles about subjects that were once hotly debated and have been forgotten nowadays, such as the substance 'Flogiston'."
-This is before our current scientific paradigm. What "chronicling" has to do with the problems I point out ...which by the way they are not just my observations. Mario Bunge, a philosopher, in his book highlights the same issues and even more


-"Maybe the same will happen to substances like 'dark matter'.
-Substance? No the label dark matter doesn't necessary imply a "substance". Have you heard the new theory on Gravity by Erik Verlinde called Emergent Gravity. A new working hypothesis suggest something beyond a specific substance which is in agreement with emergence.
Either way the phenomenon is observable and the label won't go away like phlogiston did.



-"The philosophical gaze is different from the scientific one. Philosopy traces concepts taken for granted in science, such as objectivity. See the work of Lorraine Daston and Peter Gallison for an illuminating trip through the history of science and the concept of objectivity. A philosopher such a Latour also points out how science becomes possible due to the specific constellation of people and things."
-You are off topic. I am pointing out that publications that attempt to explain reality and ideas at the limits of our epistemology and beyond, constantly introduce supernatural principles in their interpretations. That is unacceptable.

-"To get a grip on the question whether science is in decay we need a firm definition of what science is. Are we speaking about a practice, a method, an institution, or a certain kind of authority? "
-Science is NOT decaying, neither as a method or an establishment or as a final product ( knowledge/theoretical frameworks). Being an institution within a corrupted economical system will always have its drawbacks but its self-correcting mechanism and monitoring of its peer view process and publications will protect the body of our epistemology from being polluted, something Philosophy can not do.

-Science is NOT decaying, neither as a method or an establishment or as a final product ( knowledge/theoretical frameworks). Being an institution within a corrupted economical system will always have its drawbacks but its self-correcting mechanism and monitoring of its peer view process and publications will protect the body of our epistemology from being polluted, something Philosophy can not do. — Nickolasgaspar

I am not saying science is decaying, I am saying that, if we want to answer the question we have to come to terms with what we mean when we speak of science. Sure, academic scientific endeavour has a review procedure, so does philosophy.. You seem to hold on to some ideal of value free science, but it is not there. Philosophers and sociologists of science have pointed that out time and again. I suggest reading the work on what they call the 'science policy interface', sheila Jassanoff and Jeremy Ravetz come to mind.

Latour and Woolgar wrote a very interesting book on how 'facts' are produced in laboratories in 1979. Science too rests on arguments of auuthority, paradigms, prestige and citation indices. Now I am not claiming sicence is dying. That is the claim Caldwell brought forth, not her own though but those of some authors apparently. I do not subscribe to it, but to see science as some sort of exalted untainted objective human affair is hopelessly naive.

-"I am not saying science is decaying, I am saying that, if we want to answer the question we have to come to terms with what we mean when we speak of science."
-Correct in every philosophical discussions all definitions should be offered before talking past each other.

-" Sure, academic scientific endeavour has a review procedure, so does philosophy.. "
-Yes but philosophy's procedure is inadequate to keep bad philosophy away from its published material.

-"You seem to hold on to some ideal of value free science, but it is not there."
-No I am not going to absolute claims. I only state that the scientific establishment makes a far better job in monitor its peer review procedures by using far more strict rules and standards...that's all.

-"Philosophers and sociologists of science have pointed that out time and again. "
-They have pointed what?

-"I suggest reading the work on what they call the 'science policy interface', sheila Jassanoff and Jeremy Ravetz come to mind."
-We should always judge a procedure by its outcome and science has enjoyed a huge run away success on epistemology while Philosophy still deals with pseudo philosophical worldviews masquerading as valid principles behind many publications.
We know that in a system where profit is the main player we will always experience drawbacks and delays, specially in scientific fields that are also commercial applications (Medical Science).
BUt the problem is identified and addressed by removing (better late than ever) anything that sneaks in as "knowledge".
The issue with Philosophy is that we don't even see any attempts to deal with the problem.

-"Latour and Woolgar wrote a very interesting book on how 'facts' are produced in laboratories in 1979. Science too rests on arguments of auuthority, paradigms, prestige and citation indices."
-Yes many philosophers or bitter scientists have accused Science for ignoring the Normative lane.
BUt again we should judge the procedure by its success not by "how it should be done".
In other words we should be focusing on Descriptive Science (why it works) not on Normative Science.
Paul Hoyningen-Huene in his amazing series of lectures on philosophy of Science highlights the lack of interest by many philosophers to focus on what makes Descriptive Science so successful. HIs conclusion identifies 9 main dimensions of the procedure holding Systematicity on top of the list.

Philosophy SHOULD learn by the strict evaluation standards of science and show equal respect to the rules of logic.
You keep referring to historical critiques...and I keep referring to established success and why that is the case.
We should listen to Philosophers like Hoyningen and Bunge that point out the problems in the current Philosophical procedure.

In what way then? :brow: — Alkis Piskas

Like in the way of apparatus. I know. Members here don't like this word apparatus. Cause it sneaks, and before you know it, we're unknowing participants -- believing it's still science. lol. I don't know.
Could someone explore this? Anyone?

Aha! Didn't see that coming! I thought that yourself believed in the deacy of science! OK then, let others believe that! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Not yet at least. We're in the exploratory mode.

-Yes but philosophy's procedure is inadequate to keep bad philosophy away from its published material. — Nickolasgaspar

Well, I do not read bad philosophical articles. Why do you think academia is flooded by bad philosophy? It is also a tough proposition to test because there is less of an agreed upon method in philosophy than in the natural sciences.

-No I am not going to absolute claims. I only state that the scientific establishment makes a far better job in monitor its peer review procedures by using far more strict rules and standards...that's all. — Nickolasgaspar

The problem is that you use similar criteria to judge the two enterprises, I think that is not productive. Studying the natural world is a different enterprise from studying the social world, let alone question our deep seated assumptions.

-They have pointed what? — Nickolasgaspar

They have pointed out the intertwinement of politics and science, where politics is understood in a broad sense. The nfluence of epistemic communities, different schools of thought, the importance of aqcademic prestige and the influence of publication pressure on the rigour of the scientific process. We see that in action in the corona pandemic. The science is the same right, however every country chooses different paths and virologists from Sweden disagree with those from the Netherlands and both are held in high regard in the scientific community.

-We should always judge a procedure by its outcome and science has enjoyed a huge run away success on epistemology while Philosophy still deals with pseudo philosophical worldviews masquerading as valid principles behind many publications. — Nickolasgaspar

I do not know which journals you read... I do not see philosophy dealing with an outdated metaphysics. This result oriented view is actually exactly what might be criticized. You say "we should always judge a procedure by its outcomes" but whether we in fact should is a philosophical quetion not a scientific one. Of coourse science has been succesful, but people are now questioning the down side of this success. Maybe that is what is meant by the death of science. Science is criticise for insance for having only a result oriented view without care for its moral implications. Many environmentalists for instance hold this view. Scientific legitimacy also seems to be eroding. Now I am not saying I would concur, but if something like that is meant by the death of science it might be dying.

Philosophy SHOULD learn by the strict evaluation standards of science and show equal respect to the rules of logic. — Nickolasgaspar

Good god, the screaming is hurting my ears. Luckily you do not get to decide what philosophers should do no matter how hard you wag your fist and how many capital letters you use. Of course learning can never harm, but you seem to buy into the iddea that there is one sort of criterion according to which every endeavour should be judged. It is an open question whether there is such a criterion.

We should listen to Philosophers like Hoyningen and Bunge that point out the problems in the current Philosophical procedure. — Nickolasgaspar

Or we shpuld read people like Latour, Daston and Beck who take a sociological approach to science. That way science learns something about itself and that in the end is I think the goal of philosophy. It is a hermenutic endeavour and not as you seem to think a descriptive one.

Like in the way of apparatus. — Caldwell

Science decaying in the way an apparatus is decaying? :confused:

We're in the exploratory mode. — Caldwell

OK.

-"Well, I do not read bad philosophical articles."
-You may not, but many do. Metaphysics specifically suffer by bad non naturalistic speculative frameworks from philosophers and scientists who find a way to publish their ideas outside the difficult "audience" of science.

-"Why do you think academia is flooded by bad philosophy?"
-Again its not my personal thought. Its a fact that many philosophers point out.IF you subscribe to Academia.edu you will receive all kind of "news letters" on new publications spanning from "the role of intuition"(while Psychologist Daniel Kahneman won a Nobel in Economics by exposing intuition's untrustworthy nature as a heuristic) to papers about the " improper implications of an improper undertanding of genesis 1-1 and arguments on Ockham's razor simplicity(when its all about necessity).

-" It is also a tough proposition to test because there is less of an agreed upon method in philosophy than in the natural sciences."
-Not really , because its not about the method, even if Aristotle has defined the philosophical method almost ~2200 years ago. Its about epistemically failed and unfounded non naturalistic presumptions that people use to guide their interpretations.
Science has far more high numbers in its methodological approaches but the Principles(Methodological Naturalism) and standard of Evaluation are all the same. i.e. Sting Theory may not meet those standards(Objectivity, independent verification, falsifiability etc) but the principles behind its conclusions are naturalistic, in agreement with the current scientific paradigm and there are ideas on how to be tested with possible future technologies.

-"The problem is that you use similar criteria to judge the two enterprises, I think that is not productive. Studying the natural world is a different enterprise from studying the social world, let alone question our deep seated assumptions."
-This is what I argue. This is the reason why Philosophy only has a handful of major advances to display while Science as a philosophical category is enjoying a long lasting run away success in epistemology.
This is the main reason why most people still lose their time with pseudo philosophical principles .
Well we also have social sciences studying the "social world" but you don't see they using theology or idealism or supernaturalism to produce knowledge or wise claims on what we try to explain or solve.
Again the problem rises because of that Special Pleading you mention. The standards of logic and evaluation plus our principles SHOULD be the same for ALL our intellectual endeavors.
Sure Philosophy tackles a far wider spectrum of questions but that should not let it off the hook from obeying logic, verified epistemology and epistemically successful principles and presuppositions.

That is a common misconception many people hold about Philosophy. For some weird reason, the rules , criteria and principles of Logic shouldn't apply on our Philosophical inquiries. Verified knowledge can be ignore for the shake of people presumptions and Objectivity and evidence based evaluations are viewed as unnecessary in our conclusions.
All those attempts to free our thinking from the rules of logic and credible methods of evaluation are responsible for the see of pseudo philosophy that floods our philosophy daily.

-"They have pointed out the intertwinement of politics and science, where politics is understood in a broad sense. The nfluence of epistemic communities, different schools of thought, the importance of aqcademic prestige and the influence of publication pressure on the rigour of the scientific process. We see that in action in the corona pandemic. The science is the same right, however every country chooses different paths and virologists from Sweden disagree with those from the Netherlands and both are held in high regard in the scientific community."
-All those are true...but again in order to prove that those affect our body of epistemology you will need to point out cases where pseudo science has been accepted as scientific knowledge for respectful period.
You will not find any due to science's self correcting mechanism that philosophy doesn't have.
Independent verification is needed for any claim to be remain as part of our epistemology so any attempt to sneak in an idea (cold fusion,Sheldreak's woo) all fall short in the long run.

-"I do not know which journals you read... I do not see philosophy dealing with an outdated metaphysics."
-You need to investigate it. Try subscribing to some of them.

-"This result oriented view is actually exactly what might be criticized. You say "we should always judge a procedure by its outcomes" but whether we in fact should is a philosophical quetion not a scientific one. "
-Actually this is a criterion we use to identify pseudo philosophy..."philosophical" conclusions that insist in using epistemically failed principles or outdated knowledge in their interpretations.
So of course we should judge a philosophy when it doesn't offer WISE claims about our world. When the claims are for "other worlds or dimensions" the we are dealing with religious claims, not philosophical ideas that can assist us in understanding this world.

-"Good god, the screaming is hurting my ears. Luckily you do not get to decide what philosophers should do no matter how hard you wag your fist and how many capital letters you use. Of course learning can never harm, but you seem to buy into the iddea that there is one sort of criterion according to which every endeavour should be judged. It is an open question whether there is such a criterion."
-So IMHO you are part of the problem. There is not an open question about it. Its something that Bunge and Hoyningen and Richard Carrier and many others have being pointing out and it is something that can be verified by the results. ITs the reason why many scientists accuse Philosophy for not contributing to our advances...while they are doing philosophy to conclude to that position.
So Philosophy is not the problem here but how people tend to do philosophy!

-"Or we shpuld read people like Latour, Daston and Beck who take a sociological approach to science. That way science learns something about itself and that in the end is I think the goal of philosophy. It is a hermenutic endeavour and not as you seem to think a descriptive one."

-That is an irrelevant aspect that has nothing to do with the main problem of Philosophy. You are arguing about a completely different topic. Nothing of what I say keeps us from doing philosophy of science. And again... any hermenutic endeavour should be interpreted by the same standards and principles. — Tobias

Here are simple example on the problem and its extensive implications.
We have Consequentialism the main philosophical principle behind Secular Morality and our ability to produce objective moral evaluations, but we still have "philosophers" arguing and publishing papers on Divine or Absolute Morality (vs. authoritarianism / absolutism).
We have Aesthetic Relativism explaining different human preferences but we still see philosophers arguing in favor of cosmic aesthetics or confusing aesthetics as an extension of morality.
We have Evidentialism and Objectivism still giving a fight against mysticism, authoritarianism, dogmatism, a priori facts, faith. (I see disagreement falling in this category)
We have real life Political( and economics) Ideas ignoring Human rights and well being. ( exploiting humans as a mean to an end... for backing up a specific social organization system and meeting economic markers).
We have Naturalism still fighting against the epistemically failed principles of Idealism and Supernaturalism....and of course the pseudo idea of "free will" justifying unscientific social practices.

All the above Philosophical clashes are not limited inside the pages of philosophical journalism.Unfortunately they fuel and provide justification to outdated and unscientific solutions by which we insist to organizeour societies....so the implications are serious far more extensive and affect all of us.

-You may not, but many do. Metaphysics specifically suffer by bad non naturalistic speculative frameworks from philosophers and scientists who find a way to publish their ideas outside the difficult "audience" of science. — Tobias

It may be. I hardly read metaphysics papers anymore sadly and if I do they would be in the contental vein. Though I think you would disapprove of them, but that is just a hunch.

-Again its not my personal thought. Its a fact that many philosophers point out.IF you subscribe to Academia.edu you will receive all kind of "news letters" on new publications spanning from "the role of intuition"(while Psychologist Daniel Kahneman won a Nobel in Economics by exposing intuition's untrustworthy nature as a heuristic) to papers about the " improper implications of an improper undertanding of genesis 1-1 and arguments on Ockham's razor simplicity(when its all about necessity). — Tobias

I have an acaemia page... The paper on genesis may be interesting enough from the field of theology or philosophy of relgion, I cannot judge that. The one on intuition may be interesting. The concept has a history in philosophy which is different from the one in science. If I write on the concept of intuition in pre Kantian metaphysics though Kagneman will get me nowhere.. By the way, the field of social psychology os frowned upon by many academics I believe. I enjoy it much though.

This is what I argue. This is the reason why Philosophy only has a handful of major advances to display while Science as a philosophical category is enjoying a long lasting run away success in epistemology. — Tobias

The problem is disagreement over what an ' advancement' is. Our understanding of scientific paradigms is a philosophical advancement, our interest for discourses of power is too. The problem is you are just unreflectively putting forward your (or the scientific community's) criteria for advancement and start judging. It is like me using legal criteria to judge a football match, it leads to misunderstanding.

-All those are true...but again in order to prove that those affect our body of epistemology you will need to point out cases where pseudo science has been accepted as scientific knowledge for respectful period. — Tobias

The dutch team of scientific experts cited lack of proof in order to wait with making mouth masks mandatory while the whole world wore them. This is a small example but why would that not happen by and large? Epiemiology for instance is plagued by data dredging, finding corelations which are represented as causations. Economic analyses have often been proven wrong or inadequate due to failures of assumptions.

So of course we should judge a philosophy when it doesn't offer WISE claims about our world. When the claims are for "other worlds or dimensions" the we are dealing with religious claims, not philosophical ideas that can assist us in understanding this world. — Tobias

Ohh ear the screaming again. Well if wisdom is your criterion we are in a whilly different ball park. A claim may well be wise, though it has no truth value. First explain what a wise claim is.

-So IMHO you are part of the problem. There is not an open question about it. Its something that Bunge and Hoyningen and Richard Carrier and many others have being pointing out and it is something that can be verified by the results. ITs the reason why many scientists accuse Philosophy for not contributing to our advances...while they are doing philosophy to conclude to that position.
So Philosophy is not the problem here but how people tend to do philosophy! — Tobias

I am not part of the problem at all. You just want your and your schools take on philosophy to rule. Sadly for you it does not. A claim like that is a mere claim to power, with a hidden assumption that they know what good or bad philosophy is.

-That is an irrelevant aspect that has nothing to do with the main problem of Philosophy. You are arguing about a completely different topic. Nothing of what I say keeps us from doing philosophy of science. And again... any hermenutic endeavour should be interpreted by the same standards and principles. — Tobias

Ohh I thought we were arguing about the same topic. Luckily you always put us back on track telling us what we should be talking about. That is just so helpful! The problem is you want to push your own schools of thought, fine but I am doing philosophy, not some reductionist game to reduce philosophy to the language game of science.

I am not arguing philosophy cannot learn from the peer review processes of science, just that the difference is far more nuanced than you make it out to be.

We have Consequentialism the main philosophical principle behind Secular Morality and our ability to produce objective moral evaluations, but we still have "philosophers" arguing and publishing papers on Divine or Absolute Morality (vs. authoritarianism / absolutism). — Nickolasgaspar

We unfortunately do not have objective moral evaluations, as anyone versed in the field of law or ethics will tell you. You yourself are badying about very controversial and misguided claims here.

We have Evidentialism and Objectivism still giving a fight against mysticism, authoritarianism, dogmatism, a priori facts, faith. (I see disagreement falling in this category) — Nickolasgaspar

Ohh an objectivist... that explains a lot. You do not mean those texts that seem to fail in every philosophcal peer review process I have encountered.

We have real life Political( and economics) Ideas ignoring Human rights and well being. ( exploiting humans as a mean to an end... for backing up a specific social organization system and meeting economic markers). — Nickolasgaspar

Human rights... that is an interesting one. They run rather cunter to consequntialist ethics. But anyway, show me the philosophical or scientific basis for human rights.

We have Naturalism still fighting against the epistemically failed principles of Idealism and Supernaturalism....and of course the pseudo idea of "free will" justifying unscientific social practices. — Nickolasgaspar

Ohh dear and we should not want any unscientific social practice, no sir! Strawson an analytic philosopher argues against your position. the problem is you mix up the normative with the desriptive. I see that a lot in scientists. It can be cureed, read up on philosophy.

Science has become a big business, which is goal oriented: to make money. It has become an absurdity, yet in its own right, a religion which it insists that people worship no matter how clownish it acts. The Wuhan Lab cover-up being the most recent and scariest episode.

Science decaying in the way an apparatus is decaying? :confused: — Alkis Piskas

Er, no.

The Wuhan Lab cover-up being the most recent and scariest episode. — MondoR

Is this true?

Like in the way of apparatus.
— Caldwell
Science decaying in the way an apparatus is decaying? :confused:
— Alkis Piskas
Er, no. — Caldwell

Great explanation! :grin:

You are confusing Science with Economics and Politics.
Any type of knowledge fuels our commercial practices, but that is not Science's intrinsic goal.
Are our current establishments using Science for their own benefits and agenda. Sure they do.
Does that mean that they can introduce their "epistemology" as science, no they can not.
Science as a method can't be affected or decay.

Does that mean that they can introduce their "epistemology" as science, — Nickolasgaspar

They manage to rather well. I get your point: scientific methodologies/epistemology cannot decay. But here on earth what gets called science can decay, and money is effectively doing that. Given the increase in wealth at the top and decrease in the number of media companies (that reach significant numbers), I am not seeing an easy way for us to break free from this.

You will need to define what you mean by "science".
"Science" refers to 3 main aspects:
1. The Academic Establishment
2. The Set of Methodologies and Standards of Theoretical evaluations.(what we wrongly refer as Scientific Method)
3. The produced outcome (scientific epistemology).

If one of those aspects decays...it will take the rest of them with it.
From your comment I understand that you are pointing to political and economical practices misrepresenting science. That is a completely different issue and has nothing to do with how science functions.
If you refer to Medical Science I will point out that you are addressing a commercial application of Science , not an Academic discipline like Biology.

You said

Does that mean that they can introduce their "epistemology" as science,, no they can not.

And yes, I was referring to economic and then political practices allowing them to present, for example, poor methodolgies and research practices as science. And then effectively paint critics, including scientists, as against science through media that they have much more contol over as a mouthpiece. The specific epistemologies they present are often highlighted by critics and part of their criticisms, but since these are hard for the general public to follow, and even other scientists conflate corporate sponsered research as following The Set of Methodologies and Standards of Theoretical evaluations AND who assume that 'of course' regulatory bodies including scientists would not allow terrible epistemologies (demonstrated in specific examples of poorly done research that supports positions corporations want) to be approved
stuff that is not sound
gets past off as the conclusions of sound scientific methologies.
They don't say 'hey, we have a new epistemology or epistemological viewpoint.' But their unsound and then approved as sound practices are examples of practices that should fall outside The Set of Methodologies and Standards of Theoretical evaluations.

Does that mean that they can introduce their "epistemology" as science, no they can not.
Science as a method can't be affected or decay. — Nickolasgaspar

And yes, I was referring to economic and then political practices allowing them to present, for example, poor methodolgies and research practices as science. And then effectively paint critics, including scientists, as against science through media that they have much more contol over as a mouthpiece. — Bylaw

I'm trying to reconcile these arguments into something clearer to me. I've been grappling with it since the beginning. What Nickolasgaspar's quote above represents is what the decay critics have been saying. When QMists introduced their theories and postulates into science, they were presented as theories on par with causality, which irritated the critics. But, is this a manipulation similar to what Bylaw above is saying -- sleight of hand scientific practices more in tune with profiteering rather than scientific truth? And is the effect the same -- science deteriorates as a result? And who could tell the difference hundreds of generations from now? Just a thought.

Its easy to answer that question. Name one framework that isn't compatible with the principles of Methodological Naturalism and doesn't meet the standards of evidence demanded by science (objectivity/independent verification, Demarcation/ tentative nature etc)and unable to offer Accurate descriptions, testable predictions and technical applications.
Just one will prove the decay of science as a real threat and a fact.

IMO most people who make that claim don't really understand the scientific procedure and the self correcting mechanism that is included in its methodologies.