Faith and Reason.

[Kuya]

Also, in Kuhn's theory of the revolution of scientific paradigms, he makes it quite clear that it is necessary for the bases on which the natural sciences stand on, to not be questioned too much or deep and rigorous research is impossible, as then a crisis will occur that will take time away from the research itself.

Indeed this is a characteristic of social science, which is by nature, multi-paradigmatic, which disallows it to produce deep and rigorous research, as the foundation of the systems by which such knowledge is created must also be defended in the face other such multiple systems that are epistemological in nature.

[Tristam]

The idea that science itself and its methodologies are based on pure logic and reason is simplistic. If you look at Kuhn's explanation of change within the scientific community it can be seen that logic or reason are not necessarily what wins. Furthermore, what is referred to as the scientific method is in itself a positivist and inductive method, which must assume, that only that which is empirical is true. In other words, it assumes a priori that if you can't observe it, then it is not true. So i do not understand what people are exactly disagreeing with Kaylia about.

If that example is the sort of thing that Kuhn is suggesting happens frequently, I don't know if I agree with him, I know for sure John Gribbin and Tim Ferris would argue against the "Paradigm Shift" idea for most advances in science. Scientific revolutions, they argue, do not happen atall. And the idea of a single figure causing a "paradigm shift" in the way we view the world is not the way science operates. Just because history (and yes, science) tends to reward primacy, does not mean that any particular field is dominated by one or a few ideas.

I would say most scientific models, when changed, must be changed to incorporate all the prior evidence into the new model.

Now just because debates happen when dealing with new experimental results, it dosen't mean that people are being illogical and unreasonable. Frequently we are misled by errors in analysis or a single representation of a more complicated phenomenon. To debate the accuracy of experimental measurements is not illogical, and to debate the merits of models with experimental weight on either side is not illogical, although in hindsight the people on the falsified model are viewed as unreasonable.

[Kuya]

If that example is the sort of thing that Kuhn is suggesting happens frequently, I don't know if I agree with him, I know for sure John Gribbin and Tim Ferris would argue against the "Paradigm Shift" idea for most advances in science. Scientific revolutions, they argue, do not happen atall. And the idea of a single figure causing a "paradigm shift" in the way we view the world is not the way science operates. Just because history (and yes, science) tends to reward primacy, does not mean that any particular field is dominated by one or a few ideas.

I would say most scientific models, when changed, must be changed to incorporate all the prior evidence into the new model.

Now just because debates happen when dealing with new experimental results, it dosen't mean that people are being illogical and unreasonable. Frequently we are misled by errors in analysis or a single representation of a more complicated phenomenon. To debate the accuracy of experimental measurements is not illogical, and to debate the merits of models with experimental weight on either side is not illogical, although in hindsight the people on the falsified model are viewed as unreasonable.

The theory does not state that a single anomaly leads to s scientific revolution, but rather many anomalies and they also have to be considered substantial. It may also depend on what a society considers socially pressing at the time. If you mean that science does not tend to be dominated by a single idea (world view, theory) then i would agree with you, as social science is in fact science but tends to be dominated by multiple world views.

The second thing you say, that the model must be changed to incorporate all dissenting theories is partially true, but it ignores something of special importance, and that is that the theories do not have to be radically different to be opposed, and often what can be described as occurring is simply a difference in emphasis. Take for example, the not so catastrophic argument of whether a "species" as a category really exists, there really isn't here a battle between two dissenting theories, but a difference in what constitutes a species.

And yes, the Popperians are criticized, specifically by adherents of Kuhn's paradigm because they are too critical, which according to Kuhn is not possible for a natural science that must be practical and highly rigorous. If you question the philosophical basis of science far too often, it becomes difficult to produce knowledge, and i agree with that, in fact:

However, more recently some of the leading critical theorists have recognized that their critiques have at times been counter-productive, and are providing intellectual ammunition for reactionary interests. Writing about these developments in the context of Global warming, Bruno Latour noted that "dangerous extremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won evidence that could save our lives. Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies? Is it enough to say that we did not really mean what we meant?"[16]

[Max™]

Like I pointed out to Neosutra earlier, you can't use the method to prove the validity of the method. Well, you can, but recursivity doesn't give you "true" or "false" unless there is an initial statement somewhere to stop the loop.

Exactly, you cannot use the scientific method to prove the validity of itself.

You can only seek disproofs, and if you are unable to conclusively show something is wrong, you can then claim it is right until further notice.

[Demosthenes11]

No they would actually agree with me as their purpose is to understand the processes we experience of reality.



Source: Cognitive science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A philosopher would laugh in my face for saying this. But again I am only being extremely rudimentary with this line of thought as I've said things such as "touch this" or "pinch." Something momentarily tangible.

I know as where Max comes from there are quantum aspects to reality and experience that cannot be defined, as well as philosophical structures from ages ago that touch on these topics, and even psychological structures wherein a captive can come to see their captors as friends through mental conditioning or trauma.

But please, give yourself 5 minutes of google-time before throwing around big phrases like "cognitive science."

you didn't refute what i said at all lol
You gave a definition of cognitive science, as quoted by wiki, to refute my claim that reality and the world we observe are 2 completely different thing

I've spent a lot of time with that lakoff guy btw ;p

[Tristam]

The theory does not state that a single anomaly leads to s scientific revolution, but rather many anomalies and they also have to be considered substantial. It may also depend on what a society considers socially pressing at the time. If you mean that science does not tend to be dominated by a single idea (world view, theory) then i would agree with you, as social science is in fact science but tends to be dominated by multiple world views.

The second thing you say, that the model must be changed to incorporate all dissenting theories is partially true, but it ignores something of special importance, and that is that the theories do not have to be radically different to be opposed, and often what can be described as occurring is simply a difference in emphasis. Take for example, the not so catastrophic argument of whether a "species" as a category really exists, there really isn't here a battle between two dissenting theories, but a difference in what constitutes a species.

I suppose it doesn't have to incorporate all dissenting theories, just incorporate the evidence in such a way that one theory is the most accurate description of all of the evidence. I would agree for the species example there is a grey area that must be defined, since we're currently observing separate populations of species of fish that are in the process of becoming genetically distinct species, yet there doesn't appear to be a hard and fast boundary but rather a progression towards genetic incompatibility.

One thing that is agreed on however is once genetic incompatibility is reached, then you definitely have a new species, because at the moment that's a sufficient definition that incorporates all the available evidence. For instance, I think it's actively being argued right now (in some circles) whether or not the domesticated household goldfish constitutes a new species than the ancestral carp from which it was derived sometime in Japan in the 1800s. They could probably be forced to interbreed and have fertile offspring in the lab, but in the wild the two species would never select each other as mates.

edit: For third paragraph, I agree 100%, interesting point and good context, I'll need to think about it.

[Mizango]

So, sorry if I wasn't there reading page after page of every clone thread regarding the elections where there was likely to be shitstorming everywhere. Way to assume I read every thread on this forum, pathetic =)

lol You're really good at making excuses and talking in circles, I can see the relation now.

[Max™]

I'd say that Reality and Observation are a degree of filtering, we receive a filtered... watered down version of Reality through our eyes, and an even more filtered version through our other senses.

Btw, Kuhn is quite cynical about the scientific method, which is ironic for someone with such a positivist view.

Jesus Christ, I sound like a philosophy student with this bullshit.


I cannot prove I exist.
I can attempt to disprove my existence, but as of yet do not know of any successful examples of this, so I must infer until given further evidence otherwise, that I exist.


Facts are not true or false, they are observations, data.

Dropped objects fall (when within a gravity well, neglecting that for the moment).

I propose that objects fall because there are fairies which don't like to be between two massive bodies, and simple gas pressure effects drive them together.

I perform experiments which falsify this proposal, I go back to step 1, observation, and amend my observation: objects fall regardless of observable effects such as gas pressure among fairies.


The scientific method provides a means to winnow these observations to the ones most applicable to reality (fairies don't bear much resemblance to the reality you or I interact with), and a framework within which to test postulates about these observations.

Only after you formulate a framework within which to test a postulate, and are unable to falsify it, can you claim that framework as a theory, and it's subject to be a fact.

If any means to falsify it shows up later (perhaps a new particle accelerator enables scientists to determine that there are actually fairies, but they are incredibly tiny), then one must go back and amend your previous observations, postulates, hypothesis', experiments, and theories accordingly.



ALSO: A very important part of being a scientist is listing ANY AND ALL shortcomings in your theory.

If you are unable to delineate a boundary condition, YOU SHOULD ADMIT AND SHARE THIS INFORMATION. If you are unable to falsify a state, YOU SHOULD ADMIT AND SHARE THIS INFORMATION. You should be honest, and forthcoming, or the entire process breaks down.

[Meian]

lol You're really good at making excuses and talking in circles, I can see the relation now.

Excuses to not read every topic on BG especially in regards to something such as "politics" that I am sure "everyone" enjoys, yes, I too can see the relation now.

Oh, the irony, heading to youth group soon. Won't start for a while so I'll see if I can read more when I get there from the more civilized posters.

[Seraph]

You should be honest, and forthcoming, or the entire process breaks down.

No different than anything else.

[Max™]

I'd say it's more important than anything else, but yeah, you're right.

[Rammses]

It follows that if we assume two things, that humans are both logical and irrational creatures, and that complete knowledge is impossible, and by that i mean that any explanation of an origin requires itself another explanation, and so forth, then we can conclude that logical yet empirically unfalsifiable beliefs will continue to exist just as long as human nature remains as such.

Beliefs that may well be independent of religion and deities.

[Kuya]

Naturally.

[Mizango]

Excuses to not read every topic on BG especially in regards to something such as "politics" that I am sure "everyone" enjoys, yes, I too can see the relation now.

Oh, the irony, heading to youth group soon. Won't start for a while so I'll see if I can read more when I get there from the more civilized posters.

Rawr.

[Linliel]

The problem with latching on to any particular scientific method is that they all have problems. Science is not done according to a rule book or anything like that, no Kuhnian or Popperian or any other model adequately describes science as a whole. But they're interesting to think about because some aspects of science can sometimes follow these models in a microcosm type way.

It's been a long time since I did my honours year subject on scientific method but it starts to get even more complicated when you ask things like "what is a fact" and "what is a hypothesis" and look at how realism and anti-realism play parts in the way scientists look at and measure data.

Anyway the big problem for me with the intersection of religion and science is when they conflict, what side do you (personally, I'm not religious, so this is aimed at religious scientists) take? How do you justify taking one position over the other, when they are conflicting?

[Seraph]

Anyway the big problem for me with the intersection of religion and science is when they conflict, what side do you (personally, I'm not religious, so this is aimed at religious scientists) take? How do you justify taking one position over the other, when they are conflicting?

Give a specific example, and I can give you an answer.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Give a specific example, and I can give you an answer.

The concept of the soul and its location in the body, medically speaking.

[Seraph]

The concept of the soul and its location in the body, medically speaking.

Science has not found it, or determined sufficiently it doesn't exist, since not all human biological functions are completely understood. In addition, it has yet to explain conscious thought, dreams, and other mental (and supposedly biological) functions as well. They might be the same thing, or directly related, or not related at all. I don't see a contradiction at this point, mainly because there just isn't even close to enough information to come to a sound conclusion either way, and I don't mean that in a 'we will never know!' sense either.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Science has not found it, or determined sufficiently it doesn't exist, since not all human biological functions are completely understood. In addition, it has yet to explain conscious thought, dreams, and other mental (and supposedly biological) functions as well. They might be the same thing, or directly related, or not related at all. I don't see a contradiction at this point, mainly because there just isn't even close to enough information to come to a sound conclusion either way, and I don't mean that in a 'we will never know!' sense either.

Conscious thought has been shown from neurological studies to come from the brain. Nice dodge but like you said, they haven't found a soul in the body, medically speaking, because it doesn't exist or hasn't been proven to exist in the manner in which it has been religiously taught to have existed.

In the case of religious text and teachings it has been placed everywhere from the eyes, the heart, the chest, and the head.

This is a conflict of religion and science that one could come to personally.

[Kuya]

Are my eyes deceiving me or are we now talking about a poorly defined concept from a non empirical stand point being argued within an empirical framework?