DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Radicals and a science fetish?

394 posts / 0 new
Last post
Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 21 2006 16:26
revol68 wrote:
Gurrier, as a scientist don't you think you should be able to offer a definition of it that doesn't rely on circular logic? I mean seriously saying that we judge what is scientific by means of a scientific method is just ridiculous.

much as i'm baffled by Gurrier's insistence on a pure science existing independently of people, that's not really true.

Wikipedia wrote:
Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning.

So science is that. You can problematize it, but it isn't circular.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 21 2006 16:36

well i'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he was using 'scientific method' as shorthand for what wikipedia says it is, as opposed to saying science = science, which would indeed be pretty poor reasoning for a scientist.

revol68 wrote:
I like you Joseph K but sometimes you seem to deliberately go out of your way to interpret my posts in the most idiotic manner possible.

don't worry, my old tagline will be back to reflect this fact as soon as i get my anabaptist fix wink

MalFunction
Offline
Joined: 31-10-03
Nov 21 2006 16:40

I think science is like the TARDIS

it looks totally different from the outside than it does from the inside.

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Nov 21 2006 16:40

Science IS the scientific method. That's all.

It is an approach to gaining knowledge about the world which can be reduced in its essence to the following cycle

hypothesis -> test -> refinement of hypothesis -> validation -> reproducibility. You can define science as an approach to learning about the world which holds that you adopt the theories which best explain the observed data. The most important corrolaries are the following:
a) occam's razor (if there are competing theories with equal explanatory powers, you adopt the one with the least number of unproven assumptions).
b) Reproducibility. The best way to validate your research is to publish your methods and allow others to reproduce it.

That's it. That's all there is to science. It's a simple evidence-based approach to accumulating knowledge about the world. While science is as old as the hills - it's hard-coded into our brains at a very basic level - the systematic and conscious application of the method to the universe is about 300 years old.

To choccy: while no honest scientist would ever claim to be 100% objective, many do try as hard as they can to be as objective as possible, while many others don't. This is where reproducibility comes in. If somebody publishes a piece of research, they basically have to publish their methodology alongside it (or else nobody will even bother looking at it). By publishing your methodology, it allows me and all those other scientists who might disagree with your hypothesis to examine it, to point out flaws in the methodology and to recreate the experiment to see if we come up with the same results.

While the various philosophers are correct to point out the fact that absolute objectivity is impossible, they all seem to ignore the fact that people can attempt to get as close as is possible and there is a big difference between such attempts and the science that makes no such effort. Most mature areas of science have well-defined 'gold standards' in terms of methodology and research that follows such methodology is a million miles more objective than much other published science.

Also, in my experience, it is only at post-graduate level that scientific disciplines actually encounter scientific thinking at all. Up till then it's just about learning off all the various things that scientists have demonstrated in the past.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 21 2006 16:44

aye, like i said "you can problematize it, but it isn't circular" wink

MalFunction
Offline
Joined: 31-10-03
Nov 21 2006 16:53
Quote:
While science is as old as the hills - it's hard-coded into our brains at a very basic level - the systematic and conscious application of the method to the universe is about 300 years old.

from what i understand humans haven't changed much for many millenia in terms what's hard-coded into the brain. that being the case why is it only in the past 300 years apparently have we (ie in western europe) discovered a method that was already there?

having been reading Foucault's "The Order of Things" and "The Archaeology of Knowledge" plus other texts in the history of science it seems that the "scientific method" is something that has been applied in various domains (which are themselves subject to transformation for millenia) at different times. and from feyerbend one can argue that there is no singular scientific method.

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Nov 21 2006 17:04
revol68 wrote:
Joseph K. wrote:
aye, like i said "you can problematize it, but it isn't circular" ;)

except it still is circular if you don't explain or bulk out the terms of the definition. I mean one problem is that scientific method is defined by rational, empirical research yet these terms themselves are very often defined and policed throguh scientific method.

see the problem?

No.

There is no problem. I will demonstrate.

Scientist A publishes research showing that theory B is true. She uses a particular methodology, C, in her experiments to demonstrate this.

Scientist D subsequently publishes research showing that an alternative experimental methodology, E, produces results that correspond more closely to the observed evidence. He then goes on to demonstrate that, using this methodology, theory B is not true.

This illustrates the use of the scientific method to analyse the methodology used in another attempt to apply the scientific method. No assumptions, no circularity, the only external thing that it requires is an ability to compare a prediction to reality and although there is no perfectly objective way to do this, there are all sorts of ways to get as close as you can.

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Nov 21 2006 17:07
revol68 wrote:
And isn't this basically what theorists and philosophers are doing? They are enriching knowledge and enquiry by placing what constitutes "science" under the microscope. It seeks to look at those variables necessarily external to the experiments; social relations, technological development and historical context. The problem of course is that these discourses that seek to explain and contextualise science do not arise in a vacuum but are themselves socially produced and so we get the infinite regression all the way down, who polices the police etc and so on.

Now what makes critical realism interesting is that it acknowledges this impossibility, it doesn't run away into nihilism or frozen reified positivism but rather seeks to engage dynamically, being self aware yet not crippled by it, having the confidence to declare truths without naturalising and dehistoricalising them.

Nope, that's what scientists do. They examine current theories, try to identify methodological flaws and so on and try to improve upon them using logic and evidence. The theorists and philosophers just waffle on for the benefit of people who don't understand how easy it all is.

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Nov 21 2006 17:45
revol68 wrote:
Well I agree that scientists should be taking the time to contextualise themselves in history and to get a grasp on the philosophy of science,

I obviously didn't say that. Scientists should acquaint themselves with the scientific method and use it to analyse the current state of the art in order to identify problems and flaws.

revol68 wrote:
but I thought you said earlier that you saw little point in people like Kuhn, Popper or Bhaskar as science was so easy anyway, which i take to mean self evident and immediately transparent, which clearly is bullshit as there are clearly tough, complex discussions as to what consitutes logic, what is the nature of logic ie as historically contingent or innate and pure

There are no tough or complex discussions as to what constitutes logic, no meaningful ones anyway. What people consider to be logical may change, but logic doesn't since it's simply the mathematics of derivation.

revol68 wrote:
there is also much arguemnt over the viabiility of empiricism, as David Hume aptly displayed many many moons ago and then the wider issue of the limits of knowledge.

That's just so silly. Hume "aptly displayed" that empiricism is not viable? Super-conductors, nuclear bombs, space ships, nano-technology, genetic engineering, etc, etc, etc, would disagree. But then again, if some ancient philosopher made some abstract argument about it being unviable, that's good enough for me. Better get going eliminating all that bogus unviable science and technology that's been mistakenly developed since Hume dropped his bomb.

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Nov 21 2006 18:21

This comment has been moved here.

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Nov 21 2006 18:25

I'm with gurrier on this (might be because I trained as a theoretical physicist perhaps). I don't think that the "anti-science" people seem to be showing an understanding of what "science" (the body of knowledge gained through application of the scientific method) actually is. There seems to be a conflation of what i understand science to mean with the misapplications of the knowledge, hierarchical power structures which administer it and thus dictate which things get investigated etc.

these things are different.

As someone said above, science seems to look completely different from the outside.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 21 2006 18:29

This comment has been moved here.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 21 2006 18:42

This comment has been moved here.

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Nov 21 2006 18:51

This comment has been moved here.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 21 2006 18:57

This comment has been moved here.

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Nov 21 2006 19:01
revol68 wrote:
I never said empiricism wasn't viable and neither did David Hume, he rather pointed out certain limits to it, that whilst it's our best way of navigating the world it isn't without contradictions and contestion. That ultimately it isn't stable ground for us to stand on, that it is contingent on other beliefs, on an ontology.

Faulty assumptions create faulty results. Big deal. Every half-decent scientist in the world knows that her results are only as good as her assumptions and that her basic assumptions might turn out to be completely wrong. Let's remember who came up with quantum theory, shall we? It undermined a whole load of the most basic assumptions about reality, and caused a whole load of people to go back to the drawing board. The scientific method contains within itself the tools and methodology for actually identifying such faulty assumptions and addressing them. The idiots who like to blather on about science just repeatedly point out the fact that no knowledge is perfect as if that was news to anybody.

revol68 wrote:
Furthermore the idea that logic is nothing more than mathmatics is plainly absurd and overlooks the fact that what constitutes a set, subset or addition is dependent on interpretation.

yeah. sure. you know a whole load about set theory so. These things that you mention are not related to maths or logic at all, they concern the mapping between our universe and the mathematical universe within which we will reason.

revol68 wrote:
Logic only works with the data it's fed and so it requires an apriori, to count the legs of a sheep requires us to have a notion of legs and of sheep. The world afterall is analogue, it is perspective that creates the rupture, the particular, that breaks up the singular.

God, they teach you to regurgitate some awful meaningless tosh. That's pretty close to a parody.

The world isn't, in any meaningful way "analogue". In fact, for about the last hundred years it has been commonly accepted that the world is discrete - look up the meaning of 'quanta'.

You are not talking about 'logic' working, you are talking about applying logic to reality. A very different thing.

"perspective creates the rupture" - what is being ruptured? is there a particular test that I can apply to verify that 'perspective' is the causal agent in said rupture? Or is it semi-poetic mystic bollox.

"the particular, that breaks up the singular"

What is this singular? What is the particular? Is the particular itself singular, or does it come in multiples? Indeed, what the hell are you on about at all?

revol68 wrote:
Furthermore the idea that what people consider to be logic might change but logic itself doesn't is a tad strange. Afterall logic is a human construct, it's a particularly human attempt to make sense the world we live in.

c.f. the difference between logic and the application of logic to the world referred to above.

revol68 wrote:
Is there some pure logic? Some logic disembodied from human brains? Isn't this not the appex of idealist nonsense?

Nope, it's called mathematics. Mathematics is all about the definition and exploration of pure abstract spaces with their own set of rules. You see, 2+2=4, regardless of what a leg is or what a brain is. It's an abstraction of quantity, divorced from things.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 21 2006 21:50

Sorry Gurrier, but is you argument "I am a scientist therefore I am right". That should make you feel a little unconfortable when defending "science", whatever that means - I mean, are you claiming that Newton's laws are the scientific method, or that Newton's laws are not science?

It seems a little cretinous to keep saying "science" when you mean something else.

You can't just reject the philosophy if you are going to be discussing the philosophy of science.

Quote:
Science is inherently unbiased and objective by definition. All it is really is the study of how we can get closer to objective truth.

gurrier wrote:
hypothesis -> test -> refinement of hypothesis -> validation -> reproducibility.

Can you show the first quote follows from the second. Of course, I can't take you seriously - I study philosophy of science to a poor underdraduate level, the idea that its all bullshit because scientists disagree, would only lead me to conclude that scientists are courrupt and don't take kindly to crticism.

I mean, youa are idiot for spouting shit like this.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 21 2006 21:53

You can't just accpet everything that a community says about itself, especially if skilled outside observers disagree. I find it a little quiant, that scientists are always sticking up for themselves like this - it only shows that they do not have philosophical skills.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 21 2006 22:04

I mean, I'm not saying that I disagree with it, but you can't just say

Quote:
It's an abstraction of quantity, divorced from things.

. I mean, wtf are you on about - that the scientific community can do philosophy better than philosophers, or that philosophy is useless - but as soon as you start making claims about the nature of things you show that you need philosophy, or its just quaint chest beating.

Eta: I mean, you seem to saying that the scientific community is not willing to engage with philosophy. How can that be ok?

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 21 2006 22:33

I mean, you don't think that economic pressures/etc determine what is researched and what is not. That the body of scientific knowledege at any given time, regardless of fraud - which I have been led to believe is quite rare, is determined by investment etc.

I would be inclined to believe that Gurrier has read very little philosophy of science (I had to explain to him what falsifiability is a few months ago) - a bit starnge that he believes that he is in a position to criticise something he is unacquianted with. Just back slapping lol.

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Nov 21 2006 23:35

I'm puzzled by the fact that Pingtiao has actually labelled people "anti-science" - you seriously cannot think that is the point that either I or Revol has been trying to make in this thread.

Listen I love science, it's the fuckin best shit there is for understanding the world around us. I'm a qualified science teacher and now doing a phd relating to the teaching of the nature of science - to imply I'm anti-science because I am able to critically reflect on the science and scientific community which I'm pretty familiar with is bonkers.

As Revol has repeatedly pointed out, a degree of selfawareness and reflexivity within the scientific community is in no way the same as a descent into daft relativist bollocks. Our best way of understanding the world and phenomenon is of course by getting as close to that ideal of which Gurrier speaks yet realising that no matter how hard we try we should ackowledge that our methods, technology and interpretations are of course located in specific contexts. No one is suggesting throwing the baby out with the bathwater at all - I don't know why Gurrier and Pingtiao are so defensive on this one.

Of course I still think scientific knowledge is better than other forms of knowledge because it relies on evidence rather just some oul bollocksy shite, and should be replicable, with testable theories, open to falisification etc etc.

jason's picture
jason
Offline
Joined: 22-07-06
Nov 22 2006 00:20

Ditto that choccy. The anti-science claims are a bit off the mark. I am finishing up a PhD on the evo-devo of insect neurobioligy. I have presented at international conferences, being well recieved and scoring lab visits out of it. I love science. Current medicine and technology make socialism possible. BUT, science is embedded in capitalist social relations and to me is becoming increasingly dodgy. This may be a relatively recent trend, as places like unis and hospitals are brought under market logic. Or it might have been around for ages, eg. we've had race scientists for a long time. Whatever.

Gurrier, this is the bit you don't seem to get: How can two trained biologists disagree that human races exist or not? The problem is not the scientific method that you seem to dwell on, but the sociology of science.

Eg.

Quote:
Scientist A publishes research showing that theory B is true. She uses a particular methodology, C, in her experiments to demonstrate this.

Scientist D subsequently publishes research showing that an alternative experimental methodology, E, produces results that correspond more closely to the observed evidence. He then goes on to demonstrate that, using this methodology, theory B is not true.

But my friend sent a good paper with great experiments to a top journal and after a few reviews they basically said that they wont publish it coz its differs from the currently accepted theory! Not that there was anything wrong with the experimentation. So using this methodology to show theory B is not true is not so simple when egos and empires are involved. In this case the journal is probably worried about upsetting a big gun in the field.

So "prestigious" journals don't really mean shit to me.

Let me provide another example. A biologist in my department studies sexual selection. I think sexual selection is a bit of a crock and that its more to do with species recognition than mate quality choice. His experiments showed that the offspring of the males that females were choosing were actually less fit. Does he conclude that there is no simple relation between female choice and fitness, and that concepts like species recognition should be looked at? No, he concludes that the males invest so many resources into being attractive to females that they don't have the resources left over to devout to quality sperm! And this was published in "Science", I believe coz current thinking in sexual selection basically refelects what society wants to hear.

I went to a seminar last week on "how to be a successful scientist" by a dude with a list of credentials 8 feet long. All he talked about was presenting and selling your work. Networking and "smooching" at conferences. Not one word on quality of work.(After I complete my degree my goal is to find work as far from any campus as possible.)

My problem is exactly that people love science. But since its basically done by a bunch of sleazy salespeople nowadays, how do lay people sort the wheat from the chaff?

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Nov 22 2006 00:29
choccy wrote:
I'm puzzled by the fact that Pingtiao has actually labelled people "anti-science" - you seriously cannot think that is the point that either I or Revol has been trying to make in this thread.

Listen I love science, it's the fuckin best shit there is for understanding the world around us. I'm a qualified science teacher and now doing a phd relating to the teaching of the nature of science - to imply I'm anti-science because I am able to critically reflect on the science and scientific community which I'm pretty familiar with is bonkers.

As Revol has repeatedly pointed out, a degree of selfawareness and reflexivity within the scientific community is in no way the same as a descent into daft relativist bollocks. Our best way of understanding the world and phenomenon is of course by getting as close to that ideal of which Gurrier speaks yet realising that no matter how hard we try we should ackowledge that our methods, technology and interpretations are of course located in specific contexts. No one is suggesting throwing the baby out with the bathwater at all - I don't know why Gurrier and Pingtiao are so defensive on this one.

Of course I still think scientific knowledge is better than other forms of knowledge because it relies on evidence rather just some oul bollocksy shite, and should be replicable, with testable theories, open to falisification
etc etc.

To be honest I don't think that you've been making anything like the same point as revol has. And, if you want to know why I'm touchy, scroll back to page 1 and see how revol greeted my first comment on this thread, a comment which made the very point that you make above, albeit with less detail. For some reason, I find it particularly irritating when some juvenile blowhard who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about starts deriding my comments as ill-informed in an area in which I have expended so much thought and effort.

You see, when I make a totally non-confrontational and constructive comment and somebody responds "Where did you pull that out of? Your arse or a Key Stage 3 science textbook?" I find that very rude. Since this is an area where I know that I am almost infinitely better informed than the person who was deriding my knowledge of the area, I thought it was appropriate to demonstrate that this disdain was based upon ignorance and that it was, therefore, a pretty shameful way to behave.

The secondary motivation for making a fuss about such things is the fact that I think that evidence-based knowledge and rational enquiry are the most powerful tools there are. Rather than deriding 'science' in general, we should be encouraging people to apply a scientific frame of mind to the world. It's just a good idea to ask: "what's the evidence", "according to who", "what are their interests," "who paid for it" and so on before you decide to believe anything. That's scientific thinking.

The problem with generalised critiques of 'science' as a 'belief system' is that it throws the baby out with the bathwater. Alongside all of the glaring problems with the way that professional scientific enquiry is currently conducted, they throw out the whole notion of evidence-based rational enquiry. And without that, you just have faith of some form or another. Tou're a fucking mug to every snake-oil salesman with a convincing manner that you come acrros. Next thing you know you'll be out buying homeopathic remedies. To me, one of the whole points of anarchism is that you don't ever believe something because somebody important says it's so, you believe it because there's evidence and logic to support it.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 22 2006 00:53

I ought to have more to say on this but

Quote:
am almost infinitely better informed than the person who was deriding my knowledge of the area

it is clear that you don't follow philosophy of science, so how are you better informed? You meet the criteria for scientism, btw - e.g. that the scientific method is the only intellectually acceptable method, that philosophy problems are scientific problems etc. - which apparently no philosopher would ever admit to.

I mean, I understand that you are touchy - you have vested interests in maintaining you and your friends prestige and status!

I would say that you do not know what you are talking about (a bit thick coming from someone with no memory), you come onto a thread that is suppsoed to be critiquing science and you say: everyone is wrong about science except scientists (I think this would be a step beyong scientism, tbh) - how is that not just showing your ignorance? The fact that you can say that with a straight face!

You are vocal about not being willing to engage with the philosophy of science, aren't you part of the problem that the OP brought up, so yeah, you should expect some abuse.

Sorry, I have studied a fair amount of HPS, its just that I have a poor memory. The reason that I find you insulting is for the exact same reasons as when you hear it on Urban75

Quote:
odn't ever believe something because somebody important says it's so

Quote:
"what are their interests," "who paid for it"

failing to apply that to yourself

Quote:
That's scientific thinking.

thats not scientific thinking, thats common sense, you can't just go around claiming everything that is good for "science" just like you cannot claim that the scientitific community is defacto correct about the philosophy of science - you don't expect the mathematics community to be have the final say on mathmatical realism, or priests the final say on the existence of God - whats the difference?

Yeah, I really think some of the claims you are making are rediculous.

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Nov 22 2006 01:16
gurrier wrote:
You see, when I make a totally non-confrontational and constructive comment and somebody responds "Where did you pull that out of? Your arse or a Key Stage 3 science textbook?" I find that very rude.

Come-on that was funny! Cheeky but funny wink

Quote:
Since this is an area where I know that I am almost infinitely better informed than the person who was deriding my knowledge of the area

In fairness in this particular thread you have not demonstrated such infinitely better knowledge about the nature and philosophy of science, and it's a rather grand claim to make, I'm sure it was tongue in cheek but you're implying Revol know nowt about philosophy of science, clearly not true.

Quote:
Rather than deriding 'science' in general, we should be encouraging people to apply a scientific frame of mind to the world. It's just a good idea to ask: "what's the evidence", "according to who", "what are their interests," "who paid for it" and so on before you decide to believe anything. That's scientific thinking.

No-one on this thread has "derided" science at all. The questions you asked above are not quite "scientific thinking"; rather they are critical thinking about science.

Quote:
The problem with generalised critiques of 'science' as a 'belief system' is that it throws the baby out with the bathwater. Alongside all of the glaring problems with the way that professional scientific enquiry is currently conducted, they throw out the whole notion of evidence-based rational enquiry.

Strawman - not a single person on this thread has demonstrated anything even close to the notion that science is a belief system like any other.

Quote:
And without that [evidence-based rational enquiry], you just have faith of some form or another. Tou're a fucking mug to every snake-oil salesman with a convincing manner that you come acrros. Next thing you know you'll be out buying homeopathic remedies. To me, one of the whole points of anarchism is that you don't ever believe something because somebody important says it's so, you believe it because there's evidence and logic to support it.

I think even revol would concur with this one smile

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Nov 22 2006 01:18

Admin - HIV/AIDS discussion split to here.

bastarx
Offline
Joined: 9-03-06
Nov 22 2006 03:41
gurrier wrote:
revol68 wrote:
Joseph K. wrote:
aye, like i said "you can problematize it, but it isn't circular" ;)

except it still is circular if you don't explain or bulk out the terms of the definition. I mean one problem is that scientific method is defined by rational, empirical research yet these terms themselves are very often defined and policed throguh scientific method.

see the problem?

No.

There is no problem. I will demonstrate.

Scientist A publishes research showing that theory B is true. She uses a particular methodology, C, in her experiments to demonstrate this.

Scientist D subsequently publishes research showing that an alternative experimental methodology, E, produces results that correspond more closely to the observed evidence. He then goes on to demonstrate that, using this methodology, theory B is not true.

This illustrates the use of the scientific method to analyse the methodology used in another attempt to apply the scientific method. No assumptions, no circularity, the only external thing that it requires is an ability to compare a prediction to reality and although there is no perfectly objective way to do this, there are all sorts of ways to get as close as you can.

No assumptions, yeah right. Here you show your ignorance of the very first thing you learn in the most basic study of the philosophy of science - that inductive reasoning is logically unsound because it relies on the very large assumption that the future will be the "same" as the past.

From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction):

Quote:
The problem of induction is the philosophical issue involved in deciding the place of induction in determining empirical truth. The problem of induction is whether inductive reason works. That is, what is the justification for either:

generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class of objects (for example, "All swans we have seen are white, and therefore all swans are white", Hume's Problem of Induction, C18, pre discovery of Cygnus atratus in Australia); or
presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, the attractive force described by Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation, or Albert Einstein's revision in general relativity).
Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and numerous others up until at least the late 19th century have considered inductive reasoning the basis of scientific method—indeed inductive reasoning is used today, though in a more balanced interaction with deductive reasoning and abductive reasoning. By the inductive approach to scientific method, one makes a series of observations and forms a universal generalization. If correct and stated in a sufficiently accurate way, an inductively arrived at statement relieves others of the need for making so many observations and allows them to instead use the generalization to predict what will happen in specific circumstances in the future. So, for instance, from any series of observations that water freezes at 0°C at sea-level it is valid to infer that the next sample of water will do the same--but only if induction works. That such a prediction comes true when tried merely adds to the series; it does not establish the reliability of induction, except inductively. The problem is, then, what justification can there be for making such an inference?

David Hume framed the problem in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, §4.1.20-27, §4.2.28-33[1]. Among his arguments, Hume asserted there is no logical necessity that the future will resemble the past. Justifying induction on the grounds that it has worked in the past, then, begs the question. It is using inductive reasoning to justify induction, and as such is a circular argument. This logical positivist formulation of the problem would prove to be a tenacious counterargument to the use of inductive propositions. Further, even the largest series of observations consistent with a univeral generalization can be logically negated by just one observation in which it is false. By Hume's arguments, there also is no strictly logical basis for belief in the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 22 2006 07:43

I'm not sure what Gurrier is arguing for tbh (apart from his own infallibilty on every topic) yeah sure experimental procedure is improved upon, and creates more and more miracles. But to say that everything that works is true and objective (you are aware that these are different terms, right) is a rediculous claim. When thinking I am a deity makes me feel happy when I am depressed, dies this make it true?

A social procedure is the very "definition of objectivity"! Surely the word "definition" is just rhetoric here, you don't mean that the lingusitic meaning of what you have set out as the scientific method is the meaning of objectivity! Tbh, I think you could mean anything by that. Though I would have thought that, the scientific method cannot be the definition of objectiovity if the scientific method is always changing, anyway, unless what is objective changes as science does! Bit convenient, and sums up your unwillingness to engage with criticism.

I fear, that Gurrier is conflating many different categories in his approach.

This is a joke. Scientism +1. I think that it is fair to say that Gurrier fetishizes science.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 22 2006 09:53
Quote:
hypothesis -> test -> refinement of hypothesis -> validation -> reproducibility

You have maybe shown that you can show something about a scientific method using another scientific method. You have not shown that science can answer ANY question, indeed I doubt that you do believe this.

What scientific test do you propose for the reality of atoms, or the reality of scientific laws?

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 22 2006 10:13
Quote:
Scientist A publishes research showing that theory B is true. She uses a particular methodology, C, in her experiments to demonstrate this.

Scientist D subsequently publishes research showing that an alternative experimental methodology, E, produces results that correspond more closely to the observed evidence. He then goes on to demonstrate that, using this methodology, theory B is not true.

confused How has method E defined method C? E has not defined C as anything other than false.

E only defines method C as "unscientific" with the assumption that if C does not fit the data as well as E then it is unscientific. But that assumption defines the scientific method, I mean you've already defined the sceintific method without an empirical test, and the experiments that were done did not add to the definition.

confused