Science is not a perfect institution

j

i would rather th scentific method check itsELF!....you know, likeits history, and metaphysical assumptions .....Obviously i dont mean an entity, i mean the peple that rave on about it as THE measuring stick for ALL---even peoples 'non-ordinary' experiences whic it does insidiously as the mask of 'mental hygene'.....!

this is what is happening. ANYone who speaks of things NOT cnsidered measured or measureable, is considered by this sci-cult as being woo woo or crackpot or etc....that is by the scientific materilaist branchy. rtherer are other flava of scince just as dedicated who are more open to exploring difficult fields of inquiry.......so i am not anti science as such. i am anti the cult that is positivist---backed up by a philsosphy which is of same ilk

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I didn't understand what you were saying in the original message. Where does the "Another Problem in Science" come from? Is that going somewhere?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A UFO, Ophiolite? Sure you havnt been at the christmas ale again?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you meet any of them, please point them in my direction. They may well be deluded. People often forget that a tool is a tool, with certain ways of using it safely.
As for non ordinary experiences, I am kind of split. Ultimately whoever is saying something needs to produce some evidence. Like with UFO's, they are called UFO's, precisely because they are unidentified. Some people have put forwards some ideas, many fo which have been debunked, or are just plain unlikely. But theres still this residue of stuff which has not or cannot be explained.

Well, as I have said before, to be scientific it has to be independantly verifiable and in some way measurable. Theres nothing that can be done about it, thats just how science works. Observation, theory formation, testing of theory against observations, predictions etc.
But, positivists are probably fools, I agree there. I am reading an interesting book called "The revival of the Democractic Intellect" by Andrew Lockhart Walker. Its essentially a book about the poverty and mindlessness of the modern university system in the UK, and how the old Scotish system was better. He takes on logical positivism and make many good points about the way science is misused by the powers that be. He does at times though get confused to my mind about exaclty what science does/ is, he makes the same mistake buddha1 and yourself do, which is to confuse the scientific method and its fruits with some kind of monstrous world viewpoint. Indeed, he seems to go so far as to suggest that science is almost culturally determined. Which is is not, what is culturally determined is what use shall be made of scientific discoveries. The Chinese invented clocks before they did in europe (yes, clocks arent quite scientific, but anyhow...) but they did not use them in any great numbers, for cultural/ philosophical reasons. Both atheists and religious people, despite you would think having somewhat different world views, find themselves agreeing on many matters of science. (eg evolution)
Lockhart Walker also seems to see that the 2 cultures, humanities and science, split is bridgeable. I do not agree. In fact I have extreme trouble seeing how they are interpenetrated in the way he seems to suggest. Certainly, humanities issues have been used to suggest scientifici research, and vice versa, let alone the effects of science upon artists, who have used it for inspiration. BUt I see it more as a conversation rather than interpenetration.

Indeed, Lockhart Walker is looking for a more unified idea of "reality", like what we used to have after the enlightenment. In my opinion, he is somewhat deluded in this respect, and also seems to seek it in a unity of science and humanities, whereas I see it more as science taking steps further onwards and upwards in understanding, (the modern synthetic areas of cross disciplinary research are a good start) so that, knowing finally how everything is connected to everything else, we can make what we can of it. And if that isnt a dangerously philosophico/ religious statement I dont know what is.

Yet this problem with a science/ humanities split is I think tangentially related to the problems of liberal edcuation and creating a rounded human being. I can see that people think it is central to the problem, but I dont think it is quite that simple.
Anyway, with what I have learnt since university, I think university should be completely reformed and changed, as should schools. And lets not get into too much specialisation. Moreover, I understand from American friends that the USA university and college system maintains something of this breadth of arts subjects with its students. but it has effectively degenerated to stuff that I had to do when I was at senior school, ie before university. And it is also not supported or part of the the wider society, therefore students do not get the full benefit of it because they do not see the point.

 

Technology brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other.

C.P. Snow

 

nature is a ruthless and cold blooded murderer, a cast iron bitch
-leopold99

 

Yet, we are part of nature. We are nothing without it.

Nature is also life-giving and life sustaining.

We can lead happy and meaningful lives only if we maintain our connection with nature --- i.e. we live according to it and die according to it.

Often when nature gets furious, those who are in touch with it get to know it in advance and they often manage to save themselves. A quali9ty civilised humans have lost.

At the time of the Tsunami, several wild animals, and wild human populations sensed the impending danger and went into hiding, saving themselves from the disaster.

 

technology has brought us the polio vaccine, microwave ovens, the computer you are using.

 

Vaccines have serious side-effects, micro-wave --- ditto, and the computer that I have to use, has ruined my eyesight.

 

I think you'll find Bhudda1, if you will just check a few of Happeh's posts, that it wasn't the computer that ruined your eyesight.

 

.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

A good definition of science (I think its perfect):

Science refers to our (human beings') current understanding of the physical laws of nature.

Please comment giving justifications.

 

Knowledge isn't the same as science.

 

Its not quite there, for one reason that spuriou monkey points out. Another is that Science is more a method, of observation, experiment, and observation of said experimetns results, and the drawing of conclusions from a wide variety of experimental results.

 

Do you mean it's more, less or different? How?

 

You are saying science is more about the method than the end result? let me think over it.

Is it only about the method? Is it unconnected with the results or the 'knowledge'/ or information that is acquired?

 

When we are taught science in schools we are taught about all the 'knowledge' that is generated through 'scientific studies'. Therefore, science definitely is knowledge --- even though it may be one part of science.

 

Actually we gathered and hunted food, but it was the scientific method that told us how to do that. He had to test to see which foods we could eat. Then we had to apply scientific principles to form hypotheses about where to find more. Finally we had hypotheses that led us to the beginning od agriculture which is a science.

 

Nothing could be more misleading than that.

Pre-science people had a much more wider perspective on things than what science with its 'only-what-can-be-proved-to-be-seen-exists' principles. The facts are the other way round. Science uses some of the principles that the pre-science man used. But the pre-science man, especially the pre-civiilsation man did not use science.

The difference between their approach and science is the difference between Turmeric and 'cucumysin' explained earlier.

 

One of the obvious difference was that the early man considered himself part of nature and only took as much from nature as he could without disturbing the nature. Examples of it could be seen in today's tribals living in the wild. They workshipped the forests and perhaps even the animals that they ate.

Science on the other hand sees nature as something to be exploited for the short term pragmatic gains of the humans. So it really doesn't care for how its procedures or inventions harm the nature. The basic goal is to control and exploit nature. Something that the early humans couldn't think of.