Subject:
|
Re: Critical Thinking
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 22:11:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
601 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> > But I'll be happy to! "Scientific" doesn't change; what you're getting at
> > is that science's understanding of the universe changes, and that's as it
> > should be. I discuss this elsewhere in the thread.
>
> Sorry, science does change - at least the way we understand it.
You're right to call me on that; I wrote that improperly and more-or-less
in direct conflict to my overall argument. Science changes in that it is
progressive and cumulative, letting go of obsolete or outmoded theories, or
at any rate modifying them as understanding increases.
> Science is not how we understand things. Science is the framework we use to
> understand things.
From Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things," excerpting the amicus
curiae brief written through collaboration of numerous Nobel Prizewinners in
science as well as universities, faculty, and independent scientists:
"Science is devoted to formulating and testing naturalistic explanations
for natural phenomena. It is a process for systematically collecting and
recording data about the physical world, then categorizing and studying the
collected data in an effort to infer the principles of nature that best
explain the observed phenomena." (pg 167)
Since elsewhere in this thread there has been general agreement that Nobel
Prizewinners in science can speak with some authority about science (though
not religion), I'm inclined to accept that explanation. Therefore I should
think we can take "to infer the principles of nature" to mean "to understand
(as well as we are able) the natural world."
You're apparently mistaking my assertion that "science is the way we
understanding things" to mean "science is a body of knowledge," which is not
what I stated. Science is both the product of our understanding and the
means by which we understand things.
> Just because we don't have an explaination for something doesn't meant it
> doesn't exist, or didn't occur.)
That's not very pursuasive, since it leaves the door open for everything
from ghosts to the Jersey Devil. Unexplained does not mean inexplicable.
> You would probably claim that science is recent, I would say it's millenia
> old. My perspective on science is a bit longer, and from that view I see it
> shifting in how it interprets reality...
Okay, then we're dealing with unintentional equivocation between us.
Modern science, using the scientific method to explain the natural world, is
actually the science to which I refer, and the only science that has any
real relevance today. I agree that some fundamentals of science have been
around for millennia, but to claim that science has been around for
millennia implies some direct lineage between the earliest sheep-liver
diviners and modern aerospace engineers. Would your definition of science
include the court magicians of ancient Egypt? In the same sense that
Heisenberg and Pauli were scientists? If so, then your definition of
science is too broad to claim useful kinship with modern science, though I
agree that certain basic principles have been around for a very long time.
Any in any case, science doesn't interpret reality; it is the method by
which we interpret (ie: understand) reality.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: (big snip) (...) Perhaps this is the crux of the divergence. You're saying that science focuses on reality - I agree, but how we each define "reality" is different. Reality for you is only the realm (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) Ah - "current" to you means currently in vogue, whereas to me it meant recent. Ok. (...) Sorry, science does change - at least the way we understand it. (Science is not how we understand things. Science is the framework we use to understand (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
198 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
