How Science Can Be Incapable of Recognizing Facts

Not at all.
It is not that they did not investigate, it is that they could not investigate, according to the Scientific Method.

In 1916 the Scientific Method required repeatability and experimentation. It is the nature of rogue waves that they are seldom, and difficult to find. I would not want to say it was impossible to apply the Scientific Method to rogue waves, but certainly it would have been so expensive, in time and money as to make it virtually impossible.

The followers of science were not capable of proving or disproving rogue waves, even though they used what they had available as acceptable evidence, and that did not include first hand accounts of explorers such as Shackleton. As the Scientific method progressed, changed, it allowed the use of computer models.

If I would have suggested to one of my teachers that I was going to do an experiment to show the possibility of rogue waves and I would do it with a slide rule, he would have laughed at me, not possible to do such an experiment with a slide rule.

I see computers as very good, very fast, very efficient, slide rules.
When the Scientific method changed, with this new allowance of computer models to replace experimentation, the followers of science were still not capable of recognizing the fact of rogue waves.

They got it wrong.
They got it wrong, not because of an actual error as much as they were using a flawed technique.
I’m not saying the technique needs changed, or that it is possible to have a flawless system.
I am saying all truth finding systems are flawed.
The current flaw of the Scientific Method is that in its eagerness to be as correct as possible, some real facts fall thorough the cracks, are considered false beliefs, but are facts.

~ ~ ~ ~

Glaucon
You and I seem to have a different view in the meaning of many posts I read here.
I get the distinct impression that some of the followers of science believe they have a perfect fact finding system.
I get the distinct impression that some do not value human experience in determining facts, if they are not demonstrated as factual by the scientific method.

I believe my discussion of rogue wave above does this.

I made this very argument myself, in my thread on facts, that I referenced.

I argued that a particular society (such as a society of scientists) determined what constituted facts.

I was told by many of your regular posters that I was mistaken.
I follow the rules of the playing field, and I liked the meaning given, and accepted it as my own.

You now suggest that I may have been right all along. And now I disagree with you, on the side of the others.
In philosophy, facts are actual occurrences, and pronouncements of followers of science does not change the facts.

Then you miss the majority of the point.
It is only half that science gets it wrong.

The rest is why it gets it wrong, and this reason why, (its methods disregard human experience as they can be unreliable) is the reason others get it right, even when science gets it wrong.

Is the scientific method the better of the two? Of course.
Do rational people recognize facts, even when followers of science deny them? Yes, and with good reason.

What an individual is willing to accept as justification for true beliefs, is denied by the followers of science.
For these reasons many persons accept the Scientific method in matters of science, and value more their own experiences, especially when the Scientific Method can not falsify or verify.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Alright, enough of this. The answer is that they are both right. Both people are right.

Those two completely contradicting statements are both correct.

That is utterly impossible if there was a universal truth, if there were then one would be right, the other wrong. There is no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong' in this scenario, both people are right.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Science is as guilty of this as is any...

The special theory of relativity was founded on a set of a priori facts.

This.., the top result of a google search...

Most of theoretical physics is in some part based on a priori facts.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. It is just a fact of the way we develop ideas, whether they are philosophical or scientific.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

On the other hand the pharmaceutical industry is based on science, true? And they seem to be very interested in folk lore and remedies. They have made fortunes following wife's tales.

 

You mean the theory of special relativity.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm sorry, was there any actual point with your post? The first reaction I had was, "no sh*t sherlock."

 

Llike?

It's called mass psychology, go where the money takes you.

 

Comparing Shackleton's observation and subsequent description of a rogue wave, to sightings of the loch ness monster is a weak comparison.

I have a question, based solely on what I have read in this threat, so far... First, Shackleton observed and then described a rogue wave the existence of which was not accepted by scientists and the scientific method until 80 years later. Does that mean that the wave Shackleton described and rogue waves generally were fictions until accepted by the scientific community?

Of course not! Though we can not often prove past events, it is a fairly sound assumption that rogue waves were a fact, long before there were even drunken sailor to tell their stories.

 

Look it up... The special theory of relativity, aka Special Relativity.

I just dropped in on this thread today because it sounded like there might be a good discussion somewhere in here. I am still looking, but I'd have to say one of my first impressions was "Oh sh*t" not another...

Often what could be a good discussion seems to become a debate or argument.

 

Some, yes, but certainly neither all, nor most. Nonetheless, point taken.

But that is the very definition of facticity. While experience certainly does (indeed must) play a role in the determination, if it takes place outside the scope of the scientific methodology, then it is not a fact....

I disagree.

Then we are in agreement.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Fair enough.

But... recognize that one must reply to criticisms that are leveled against oneself, regardless of one's own conviction. Simply because you choose to accept meaning A doesn't mean that all others must as well. Nothing is certain, and thus, even if one supports the orthodox position, one must always be prepared to defend. Not only is that reasonable, it's also essential to the scientific methodology itself.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Indeed. However, as always in philosophy, it's not about right and wrong, but rather, the argument of support....

Well, not to go offtopic, but to the first part, that's not true. There are many philosophical traditions, even in Western thought, that would not maintain that "facts are actual occurrences".....

In any case, even if one granted that, you would be hard pressed to get many scientists to disagree, so it's fairly moot.

OK.

But.....
You're assuming that others "get it right", as if this is somehow in opposition to 'science got it wrong'.
You're creating a false dichotomy. Just because person X believed that the Earth wasn't flat when the 'scientists' of the time held that it clearly was flat doesn't mean that 'science' got it wrong.

Ah, see, now this is where you err.
They did not recognize the fact "with good reason", but rather, as hinted at above, simply by fiat, or by (happy) mistake.

"Good reason" must be part of a reliable methodology that leads one to a fact. That's clearly an acceptable definition of the scientific method (SM). Again, it's not the recognition of the fact that matters, but rather, the means by which it has come to be such.

Quite a sweeping generalization.

OK

And that's all fine and dandy.
But you're forgetting something particularly important. Science is a social structure, one that requires peer evaluation and approval. What the individual values is, of course, perfectly acceptable to themself, but in and of itself is wholly irrelevant to a community. And in science, it's the community that determines fact.

And that's a fact.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And here is the heart of our disagreement.

We are in the general philosophy section, and here you are stating things about science, that is not generally accepted by General Philosophies.
The majority of the world, does not need science to validate all of the facts that concern them.
The group that says "Scientific methodology is not necessary to know facts." is larger than the group that says "if it takes place outside the scope of the scientific methodology, then it is not a fact".

Philosophy does not put meaning to the actuality of facts, purely from a scientific point of view.
You have to step into one particluar type of philosophy, to get that position.

Certainly there will be philosophers who want to put forth a purely scientific worldview, but they will be far fewer then those who oppose them.

Your position lacks objectivity.

 

The point of Science is that it is the best method of achieving an objective understanding and an objective "fact". A scientific fact (as opposed to any other type you want to put forward) is as close to objectively true as you can care to get, with "facts" from other areas open to far more subjectivity.
You will also note that much of the arena of philosophy is built upon the foundations of scientific fact.

To demonstrate, please provide a non-scientific fact so that we can use it as an example?

 

I'm confused.
Are you saying glaucon has it right, and that facts are only what Science says they are?
What we call 'facts', may have little to do with an actual occurance?
'Facts"are a social construct lorded over by Science?

And what of baseball statistical facts?
It it Science that gets to decide who hit the most home runs in 1985?

~ ~ ~

As for what Philosophy owes Science, and what Science owes Philosophy, as I have explained here, Science owes it's existence, and mental tools to Philosophy.
Science owes it ability to be just and moral to Philosophy.
Science owes its ability to use logic, and reason to Philosophy.
Philosophy leads the way, and Science follows behind.

The greater challenge, would be to name some benefit of Science, that did not stem from Philosophy.
Philosophy started it all, and keeps track of its progress, condemng immoral actions.
They work together, surely we can agree to that.
Symbiotic.

Philosophy is certainly no parasite, living off the life blood of Science.

Let Science disappear, and Philosophy lives on, quite well thank you.
When a disclipline makes some new development in its area of study, Philosophy will consider it, and discuss it, and explain its meaning to those outside of the displine.
Philosophy is the mediator, the gate keeper.

You tell us that science is best method of achieving an objective understanding and an objective "fact"., and I said as much myself.

BUT, and here is the important part:
It is not the only method.
It has competition.
We have seen in the case of rogue waves, that science failed, for generations, where other methods succeeded.
We do not have to choose only one method.

We can chooose any number of methods, and when Science can not show it is not an actual occurance, then Science is undecided.

Although the followers of Science declared that Rogue Waves were not factual, in the truest sense, Science 'itself', could make no pronouncement, yes or no.
It did not have the capability to determine if rogue waves were facts ot not, but the convincing evidence said, "No, rogue waves not factual'.

Saying Science it the best way, and therefore must be the only way, is not rational.
When Science can make no decision, a follower of science must go undecided, or refer to a different system.
There is certainly nothing I can see that is irrational about using an additional system.

 

It's pretty simple:

scientific fact
- any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+fact

 

can someone give me an example of science investigating something and saying it wasn't a fact when it actually was?

sorry if this was asked before but i am new to the thread.

 

While this definition is true, it also demonstrates that many facts that "science" or scientists do not accept as proven, are in fact based on the results of just such observation(s), just not by "scientists".

In the rogue wave example, rogue waves were observed by "drunken" sailors over an extended period of time and yet dismissed, as folk lore or drunken delusions.

The repitition of observation is a prerequisite of the scientific process precicely because all observations are fundamentally subjective.

In some respects what seems appearant from this discussion is that the repititon of confirmed observation(s) alone is not enough. They must also be made by a like minded individual, i.e. another scientist.

People knew that fired would burn you, even before the scientific method was defined. Fire is hot and does not require that it be proven by a "scientist". Understand why it is hot is a different issue.

Some facts are facts as a matter of common experience. Sometimes science accepts these as a priori facts and sometimes not.

 

Yes, it's pretty simple, but you asked the wrong question.
I wouln't expect a correct answer.
This is the general Philosophy section, so we want a 'general philosophy' meaning, as was provided right here.

 

Part of the point is that science was not capable of apply the full Scientific Method to the claimed fact.
When it was able to apply the Scientific Method (through compute models), mixed reports left the decision that rogue waves as described by Shalckelton and others wer not factual.

This for a starter. (The OP is always a good place to start)


More here.

 

Well, it goes deeper than that.
Shackelton was an explorer, he was a scientist of sorts. Not lab science, but he was out there in the thick of it, studying nature like a scientist of 1916.


As I mentioned in another thread, if exact circumstances could not be repeated, it was not considered trustworthy.
You could have 10 different scientists on 10 different occasions, experience rogue waves, spontaniously, not controlled, but that would not pass Scientific muster of 1916.
And you still have the computer models of the 1980's or so, that said such things not possible.

 

That is why I added the qualification, "like minded". Even today there is division between how scientists in differing disciplines view the same "things". Another reason why pier review is by qualified persons in the same field.

Additionally it was not uncommon, at that time for "scientists" to use as givens concepts which had not yet met the test of the scientific method. Einstein's 1905 paper, "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies", in the first section, "The Kinemetical Part", he states, "In agreement with experience we further assume that c is a universal constant----the speed of light in empty space." empty space was assumed and the experience he referred to while supported by experiment did not include the measurement of the speed of light in "empty space". It had been measured in vacuo or vacuum and that was once again assumed to be equivalent to empty space. Thus an assumption of fact rather than a proof of fact.

To some extent a comparison of the scientific method and philosophy should exclude theoretical models, which often include unproven assumptions and hypotheticals.

 

Made I a big mistake if I think science is incorporated in philosophy?
If science is a part of philosophy?