PDA

View Full Version : What is Science?


kathleen
09-15-2004, 08:23 PM
Interesting Opinion (http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1296101,00.html)

Recently I read in the papers that the celebrated scientist Stephen Hawking has made a statement that is sensational, to say the least. He maintains that he made an error in his theory of black holes (published back in the 70s) and proposed the necessary corrections before an audience of fellow scientists.

For those involved in the sciences there is nothing exceptional about this, apart from Hawking's exceptional standing, but I feel that the episode should be brought to the attention of young people in every nonfundamentalist or nonconfessional school so that they may reflect upon the principles of modern science.

Science is frequently criticised by the mass media, which hold it responsible for the devilish pride that is leading humanity towards possible destruction. But in doing so they are evidently confusing science with technology......................

.....................Modern science does not hold that what is new is always right. On the contrary, it is based on the principle of "fallibilism" (enunciated by the American philosopher Charles Peirce, elaborated upon by Popper and many other theorists, and put into practice by scientists themselves) according to which science progresses by continually correcting itself, falsifying its hypotheses by trial and error, admitting its own mistakes - and by considering that an experiment that doesn't work out is not a failure but is worth as much as a successful one because it proves that a certain line of research was mistaken and it is necessary either to change direction or even to start over from scratch.

This way of thinking is opposed, as I said before, to all forms of fundamentalism, to all literal interpretations of holy writ - which are also open to continuous reinterpretation - and to all dogmatic certainty in one's own ideas. This is that good "philosophy," in the everyday and Socratic sense of the term, which ought to be taught in schools.

arod
09-15-2004, 11:41 PM
Science is knowing something you didn't know the moment before. Discovery. That's all.

Those who worship at the altar of the Falsifiability Boogeyman seek to make others doubt what they know. It's a subtle form of intellectual O'brienism.

kathleen
09-18-2004, 02:22 PM
Science is knowing something you didn't know the moment before. Discovery. That's all.

That's all? ???

I find discovery to be the most important aspect of my life. If I ever stop "discovering" you have my permission to put a bullet in my head, because, quite frankly, life wouldn't be worth living, IMHO.

Besides, that isn't what science is. Not precisely, anyway. It's the way that discovery is made that is crucial.

You should know that. Anyone who has graduated from middle school should know that.

Science education definitely needs improvement, I see. ;D

arod
09-18-2004, 04:05 PM
That's all? ???

That's not enough?

I find discovery to be the most important aspect of my life. If I ever stop "discovering" you have my permission to put a bullet in my head, because, quite frankly, life wouldn't be worth living, IMHO.

Then I guess it IS enough. So what are you complaining about, bitch? :smiley3:

Besides, that isn't what science is. Not precisely, anyway. It's the way that discovery is made that is crucial.

Ah. So there are right and [/i]wrong[/i] ways of discovering things. Do tell.

This oughta be good. ;D

You should know that. Anyone who has graduated from middle school should know that.

Science education definitely needs improvement, I see. ;D

Anyone who measures the success of an educational system by how well one of its products is able to regurgitate any particular catechism has no idea what education is.

kathleen
09-18-2004, 04:11 PM
So there are right and [/i]wrong[/i] ways of discovering things. Do tell.

I assume you are an adult who graduated high school. In which case I shouldn't have to explain the scientific method to you. ;D

Anyone who measures the success of an educational system by how well one of its products is able to regurgitate any particular catechism has no idea what education is.


Well then, my idea of education is much different from yours. I was never reduced to regurgitation of information in any of my educational pursuits. NEVER!!!!!

I have no idea what's wrong with you that you had to do so. :P

arod
09-18-2004, 04:15 PM
I assume you are an adult who graduated high school. In which case I shouldn't have to explain the scientific method to you. ;D

I defy you to point to anything in any interpretation of the scientific method which places any constraints on methods of discovery.

Well then, my idea of education is much different from yours. I was never reduced to regurgitation of information in any of my educational pursuits. NEVER!!!!!


I'm not so sure of that.

Larry_Oldtimer
09-24-2004, 03:24 PM
And that is exactly why I am disappointed with the form of "science", relying heavily on statistical analysis rather than real science, which is in vogue today. Far too many of those who call themselves scientists are much busier trying to prove that something is right rather than trying to prove it is wrong. Those scientists who truly practice scientific method are villified by these "junk scientists". The junk scientists ignore confounding elements, or any suggestion that their theories are in error. Just the opposite of science.

Larry_Oldtimer
09-24-2004, 03:27 PM
Of course, I learned science in the 1950s and early 1960s in college. There was a lot less to know then, so we spent far more time on the basics than is done now. The results of more recent graduates not having the basics of science taught to them are quite evident, and dismaying.