science is childs play

[Yet]

Something I thought about quite a while ago...

Science (if you strip it down) is so much like a tiny child playing about and exploring the world...
It throws about stuff and watches it move. It does that several times with one material. It 'learns' that a ball will roll and pottery will brake. It watches and 'draws' conclusions. It pours water and pours sand ... well you get the picture.

If you think of it our scientific rules are based on the same principle and made more 'complicated' methodologically and with quantitative data analysis. But in essence...

Science is so human ... so see-through

Makes you wonder whether there would be other ways.

b.e. a bee sees the world in a total different way or a fly.
How would we experience 'science' ... what would our picture be of reality?

Just random thoughts...

 

[Architectonic]

I think there was a book which compared the learning of young children with the outlooks of scientists, but I can't remember the title off the top of my head.

But the whole point of the scientific methods is to form a picture of reality that is universal, regardless of your personal perspective. This picture is not claimed to be the absolute underlying picture, but merely the best we can do with our current body of experience.

 

[Yet]

I think there was a book which compared the learning of young children with the outlooks of scientists, but I can't remember the title off the top of my head.

But the whole point of the scientific methods is to form a picture of reality that is universal, regardless of your personal perspective. This picture is not claimed to be the absolute underlying picture, but merely the best we can do with our current body of experience.

f*ck ... whenever I think of something new, have a 'creative' thought someone wrote about it ...

second bit: yep !
hence methodology and statistics to avoid biases

 

[gruesomebrat]

f*ck ... whenever I think of something new, have a 'creative' thought someone wrote about it ...

"There are no new ideas. There are only new ways of making them felt."
-Audre Lorde

 

[AlisaD]

Something I thought about quite a while ago...

Science (if you strip it down) is so much like a tiny child playing about and exploring the world...
It throws about stuff and watches it move. It does that several times with one material. It 'learns' that a ball will roll and pottery will brake. It watches and 'draws' conclusions. It pours water and pours sand ... well you get the picture.

If you think of it our scientific rules are based on the same principle and made more 'complicated' methodologically and with quantitative data analysis. But in essence...

Science is so human ... so see-through

Makes you wonder whether there would be other ways.

b.e. a bee sees the world in a total different way or a fly.
How would we experience 'science' ... what would our picture be of reality?

Just random thoughts...

I've also often wondered whether they would be other ways. A different vision of the world would be bound to change the way we scientifically explain things, but I often think that even much smaller changes would have made all the difference

What if the Greek thinkers were to just drink and be happy instead of setting the basic principles western rationality operates on thousands of years later - most of the conclusions we drew from the world would necessarily be different. And even smaller than that, what if Tesla was never born? What if the Mr. Diesel never was?

Most fields of science have one giant figure that sets the premises and then a thousand others that work using them. If one of the thousand others was to be taken out of the picture, the picture would probably change only slightly, but what if we take away the main figure? I'm pretty sure that another one would emerge, but they might have entirely different ideas about the same fields. And then the thousand others would work on something else and develop it further. It's mind boggling

Not sure about the playfulness any more, though. Science is becoming so rigid it reminds me more and more of religion every day. Too many rules. People seem to be too sure of what they know and too scared of what they don't know. It's often more about presenting a successful project then making a discovery
Not in all cases, of course, but in a lot of them.

But the whole point of the scientific methods is to form a picture of reality that is universal, regardless of your personal perspective.

So scientist are like little children claiming their imaginary friends are real?
It is impossible to form a picture of reality that is universal, the very thought makes no sense. A quick example - did you ever look into non-euclidian geometry? Perfectly valid. Perfectly scientific. Change just one basic premise which was arbitrary to start with, and you get an entire new geometry which is perfectly logical, perfectly valid, perfectly scientific and perfectly different then what they teach you most of your life.
So which of the truths is universal? Do two parallel lines ever ever intersect? It's a perfectly simple, basic question. Do they?
Everything is always a matter of perspective.

 

[Architect]

Let me guess, you're not a scientist, are you?

 

[Architectonic]

hence methodology and statistics to avoid biases

The irony is that rigid adherence to statistics and specific methodology itself can lead to biases. See the debate of 'evidence based medicine' vs 'science based medicine'. The former is based on specific methodology and statistics, but arguably the science is limited.

So scientist are like little children claiming their imaginary friends are real?

You're not real?

Not sure about the playfulness any more, though. Science is becoming so rigid it reminds me more and more of religion every day. Too many rules. People seem to be too sure of what they know and too scared of what they don't know. It's often more about presenting a successful project then making a discovery

I personally was referring to the mindset of scientists themselves, rather than the institution of science, with all of its politics, bureaucracy, etc. The practise of science these days is that you must jump through hoops to secure funding. Does this affect the science itself? Absolutely.

It is impossible to form a picture of reality that is universal, the very thought makes no sense. A quick example - did you ever look into non-euclidian geometry? Perfectly valid. Perfectly scientific. Change just one basic premise which was arbitrary to start with, and you get an entire new geometry which is perfectly logical, perfectly valid, perfectly scientific and perfectly different then what they teach you most of your life.
So which of the truths is universal? Do two parallel lines ever ever intersect? It's a perfectly simple, basic question. Do they?
Everything is always a matter of perspective.

Euclidian geometry might be scientifically useful in some cases, but it is hardly valid in the sense that it can be assumed to always reflect reality. It wasn't the mathematical discovery of non-Euclidian geometry that caused science to reject it, it was the fact that it was no longer useful.

Reality is not a matter of perspective. It is our understanding that is a matter of perspective.

 

[AlisaD]

You're not real?

God no.

Euclidian geometry might be scientifically useful in some cases, but it is hardly valid in the sense that it can be assumed to always reflect reality. It wasn't the mathematical discovery of non-Euclidian geometry that caused science to reject it, it was the fact that it was no longer useful.

So you say that science is a matter of usefulness?
Also, it was never rejected. It is still used when it's handy. So, you see, scientifically, two lines never intersect and intersect at several points, depending on which answer you need for your theory.
It's all very realistic.

 

[Architectonic]

I mean the use of mathematical tools is very much based on usefulness.

If a more simplistic mathematical method predicts the same answer, then it is often used in the model, even though the more complex method is assumed to more accurately reflect the underlying reality.

 

[AlisaD]

But the whole point of the scientific methods is to form a picture of reality that is universal, regardless of your personal perspective.

I mean the use of mathematical tools is very much based on usefulness.

If a more simplistic mathematical method predicts the same answer, then it is often used in the model, even though the more complex method is assumed to more accurately reflect the underlying reality.

Science will pick a less accurate model to form a picture of reality, just because it's more simple and convenient. Yet, this is universal and free of personal perspective?





I must look up the expression "free of personal perspective", I think I had it wrong all this time.
"Universal" as well.

Damn, I feel silly

 

[Architectonic]

There is a difference between a goal or ideal and the actual outcome of a process such as science, as carried out by humans.

I did say "same answer" though.

 

[Trebuchet]

Going back to the idea of children and scientists, I do think children are natural scientists. They don't have the math or experience, but they have the drive. If you say to a class of 6-year-olds, "We're doing science today," they all start cheering. If you set them to investigate something, they can get quite creative and show a lot of focus on the problem.

I'm not sure when or how the enthusiasm wanes, but my guess is that it is taught as a rigid bunch of rules and terminology to memorize, which takes the shine off.

My enthusiasm never left me, so I majored in physics. Now I have a daughter and I'm trying to figure out how to keep her interest up, too. So far all I have come up with is letting her investigate what she wants, and not overloading her with a bunch of facts. I am just her answer machine, plus I'm in charge of anything that needs to be lit on fire.

So, yes, it is a human thing. Humans like science. It is entertaining and interesting and exciting.

 

[Yet]

Let me guess, you're not a scientist, are you?

I'm not sure who you are adressing;
I do research on a regular bases. But it is not my profession, merely hobby. I work fulltime and in spare time I love to study whatever interests me. Universities tend to ask you to do research now and again.

For a profession I don't think I'dd like it much ... publishing must be a pain considering peer-review. In particular if you discover something that does not agree with general tendensies or even worse: clashes.
And I'm not much of a writer, that doesn't help. I just like to ease my curiosity: form hypotheses, build a 'mold', gather data and analyse + interpret.

 

[Yet]

AlisaD

What if the Greek thinkers were to just drink and be happy instead of setting the basic principles western rationality operates on thousands of years later - most of the conclusions we drew from the world would necessarily be different. And even smaller than that, what if Tesla was never born? What if the Mr. Diesel never was?

it would have been called Magyar thinkers, Mr. Rubik and Mr. Tihányi and it would run on pálinka.

(it is mind boggling how many possibilities there are ... but would it be all that different you recon?)

 

[Yet]

Trebuchet

I'm not sure when or how the enthusiasm wanes, but my guess is that it is taught as a rigid bunch of rules and terminology to memorize, which takes the shine off.

school systems hey ...

 

[AlisaD]

AlisaD
it would have been called Magyar thinkers, Mr. Rubik and Mr. Tihányi and it would run on pálinka.

(it is mind boggling how many possibilities there are ... but would it be all that different you recon?)

Mmmmmm Palinka - Om Nom Nom - brings up some very good memories

Yes, I believe some things might have been quite different if different people were in different places or thought different things
I may be wrong, though.

 

[Joohanh]

Someone quick prove to me by The Scientific Method that these pink elephants I'm seeing are not real.

Thought so.

 

[gcomeau]

Science will pick a less accurate model to form a picture of reality, just because it's more simple and convenient. Yet, this is universal and free of personal perspective?

Ugh...

For example: We COULD go to General Relativity to calculate the gravitational effects on the orbits of the planets. It's easier to use Newton's laws, which give us perfectly accurate answers for almost anything we might be calculating that for... but if we used General Relativity we'd get the answer to some number of decimal points higher precision.

But if the reason we're calculating the answer doesn't NEED those extra levels of precision and we're just going to ignore all those extra decimal places of precision in the answer as irrelevent anyway and calculating it that way takes a ridiculously larger amount of effort... then doing all that work to get the extra precise answer you're not even going to use would be kind of a stupid waste of time and energy.

Get it? That has nothing to do with questions of whether science's answers are unviersal . Both methods produce the correct answer, it's just a question of how precise you need to be in your acheived results. That is not a matter of "personal perspective" influencing the result or the answer not being universal, it's just a practical question of the needs of the application determining how much effort you bother putting in to refining the precision of the answer.

 

[a detached retina]

Yes newton's laws and relativity both MODEL reality.
If something works in the model we can assume it works in reality, but obviously the models have limits. If we're calculating the trajectory of a rocket near the speed of light or if we're determining whether the pink elephants you see are real then Newton's model doesn't work and we need to use something else. Yanni's theory of pink elephants: "They're not real" that models reality pretty well I think, but it might not be a perfect model.

Science strives to model the truth as best as it can, and in that way it is very human like a child playing to discover its surroundings. But science is also predictive (we can predict whether a building will stand based on newton's model), and in that way it's useful. It's kind of a false dilemma to ask whether science is driven by trying to find the truth or trying to be useful.

 

[EvilScientist Trainee]

Someone quick prove to me by The Scientific Method that these pink elephants I'm seeing are not real.

Thought so.

We would need to pick a good number of samples from these elephants to compare to other elephants. Later, we would run tests (Biological, physical and chemical) to see if these elephants are the same as other elephants.

After all this, we may know that they are not elephants.

To prove that they do not exist it would require years and years of research.

 

[AlisaD]

Ugh...

For example: We COULD go to General Relativity to calculate the gravitational effects on the orbits of the planets. It's easier to use Newton's laws, which give us perfectly accurate answers for almost anything we might be calculating that for... but if we used General Relativity we'd get the answer to some number of decimal points higher precision.

But if the reason we're calculating the answer doesn't NEED those extra levels of precision and we're just going to ignore all those extra decimal places of precision in the answer as irrelevent anyway and calculating it that way takes a ridiculously larger amount of effort... then doing all that work to get the extra precise answer you're not even going to use would be kind of a stupid waste of time and energy.

Get it? That has nothing to do with questions of whether science's answers are unviersal . Both methods produce the correct answer, it's just a question of how precise you need to be in your acheived results. That is not a matter of "personal perspective" influencing the result or the answer not being universal, it's just a practical question of the needs of the application determining how much effort you bother putting in to refining the precision of the answer.

Ugh...
Picking one example that has nothing to do with the original discussion proves nothing.

I never claimed that science is not practical, nor that it is not convenient when it comes to describing reality.


I am saying that it does not provide a universal picture of reality under any of the the definitions of the word universal:

Spoiler

universal–adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience.
2.
applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure.
3.
affecting, concerning, or involving all: universal military service.
4.
used or understood by all: a universal language.
5.
present everywhere: the universal calm of southern seas.
6.
versed in or embracing many or all skills, branches of learning, etc.: Leonardo da Vinci was a universal genius.
7.
of or pertaining to the universe, all nature, or all existing things: universal cause.
8.
characterizing all or most members of a class; generic.
9.
Logic . (of a proposition) asserted of every member of a class.
10.
Linguistics . found in all languages or belonging to the human language faculty.
11.
Machinery . noting any of various machines, tools, or devices widely adaptable in position, range of use, etc.
12.
Metalworking .
a.
(of metal plates and shapes) rolled in a universal mill.
b.
(of a rolling mill or rolling method) having or employing vertical edging rolls.

Claiming to provide a universal picture of reality is a religious thing.
Get it?

 

[Cognisant]

Not sure about the playfulness any more, though. Science is becoming so rigid it reminds me more and more of religion every day. Too many rules. People seem to be too sure of what they know and too scared of what they don't know. It's often more about presenting a successful project then making a discovery
Not in all cases, of course, but in a lot of them.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[gcomeau]

Someone quick prove to me by The Scientific Method that these pink elephants I'm seeing are not real.

Thought so.

Thought what? That you don't know how the scienctific method works?

The scientific method never "proves" things. It establishes levels of confidence. Proof is for math and alcohol. And if you want me to establish that the pink elephants you're seeing are *probably* not real according to the evidence we have available to assess that question, step right up and we'll play.

"Ugh...
Picking one example that has nothing to do with the original discussion proves nothing.

The original topic of discussion was SCIENCE. I'm pretty sure I'm right on topic.

Claiming to provide a universal picture of reality is a religious thing.
Get it?

No, making *unfounded* claims about providing a universal picture of reality is a religious thing.

Backing it up with objectively verifiable evidence is a science thing.

Get that?

 

[AlisaD]

The original topic of discussion was SCIENCE. I'm pretty sure I'm right on topic.

You quoted my post, child. It was about how to completely exactly opposite claims are both considered valid by this thing called science, that claims to provide a universal picture of reality. Based on those two opposite claims entire hierarchies can be built, work on different principles and both are considered valid.
What you discussed was a level of accuracy, not contradictory claims.

No, making *unfounded* claims about providing a universal picture of reality is a religious thing.

Backing it up with objectively verifiable evidence is a science thing.

Get that?

Really?
Really?

Oh my, it seems that if one looks hard enough, one can find "objectively verifiable evidence" for pretty much anything one chooses to claim.
Objectively verifiable evidence is still subject to interpretation.
Science does not provide universal answers.
Deal with it, boy.

 

[gcomeau]

You quoted my post, child. It was about how to completely exactly opposite claims are both considered valid by this thing called science,

And my response to you, genius, explained that you didn''t understand what those claims were because they WEREN'T "completely exactly opposite" or anything remotely resembling it. They were describing that sometimes two means of slightly different precision of arriving at the same damn answer might be used depending on the needs of the application.

that claims to provide a universal picture of reality. Based on those two opposite claims entire hierarchies can be built, work on different principles and both are considered valid.
What you discussed was a level of accuracy, not contradictory claims.

Because there WERE NO contradictory claims, there was just your lack of understanding of what was being explained to you. Read for comprehension.

Really?
Really?

Oh my, it seems that if one looks hard enough, one can find "objectively verifiable evidence" for pretty much anything one chooses to claim.

Yes, really. Acquaint yourself with the meaning of objectively verifiable evidence before we discuss this topic any further.

You hysterically pointing at errors (or pseudo-science crackpot nonsense like alchemy) as if they indicate that scientific findings aren't objectively verifiable is like pointing at your kid's math homework where he wrote 2+2=5 and declaring it is a refutation of the validity of mathematics.

 

[AlisaD]

And my response to you, genius, explained that you didn''t understand what those claims were because they WEREN'T "completely exactly opposite" or anything remotely resembling it. They were describing that sometimes two means of slightly different precision of arriving at the same damn answer might be used depending on the needs of the application.

My original post was about these two claims:
Two parallel lines never intersect.
Two parallel lines intersect several times.
How are these two claims not completely exactly opposite?
Do I need to look up the word opposite too?
I know English is not my native language, but I never knew it was this bad.

Because there WERE NO contradictory claims, there was just your lack of understanding of what was being explained to you. Read for comprehension.

Again, you are referring to your post, not mine. The discussion started by you quoting my post. It contained contradictory claims. You then took another example which suits your theory better and ignored what was right in front of you, because it does not fit your beliefs. This is what scientists do.
That is why I don't trust them as the only source of truth.

You hysterically pointing at errors (or pseudo-science crackpot nonsense like alchemy) as if they indicate that scientific findings aren't objectively verifiable is like pointing at your kid's math homework where he wrote 2+2=5 and declaring it is a refutation of the validity of mathematics.

Oh please try to look at the world. I dislike history greatly, but if it shows us anything it's that science today is an amusing misconception tomorrow.
The pseudo-science crackpot nonsense like alchemy was once considered valid science. It was practised by Isac Newton and Roger Bacon, not just by some crazed, delusional ignoramuses looking to rule the world, as you would like to present it.
Face it, in a few centuries, people are most likely going to consider our picture of the world pseudo-science crackpot nonsense.
We are not the grown up when it comes to describing the world.

We are the kid writing 2+2=5


I at least admit it.
You say that anyone claiming 2+2 may not be 5 lacks comprehension.

 

[Minuend]

In addition to BEING rigid, there also a lot of dilly-dally theories NOT being REALLY scientific proven. What you see most OFTEN is the correlation does NOT imply causation. If you read an ARTICLE and ask yourself "could it BE the other way around?" Often the answer is YES.

 

[gcomeau]

My original post was about these two claims:
Two parallel lines never intersect.
Two parallel lines intersect several times.
How are these two claims not completely exactly opposite?

You know perfectly well how they're not opposite. They're talking about COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things. You're just acting as if you have no idea what the independent context of those two statments is even though everyone here has already seen you state that you know what they are talking about.

The proper formulation of them is "IN EUCLIDIAN GEOMETRY two parallel lines never intersect". and "IN NON EUCLIDIEAN GEOMETRY two parallel lines can intersect multiple times". You just ignoring the first part of those statements then pretending they contradict is like me hearing you say:

"If it's Monday I'm in New York, if it's Tuesday I'm in Los Angeles"...

...then hysterically ranting "You said you're in New York and in Los Angeles! You contradicted yourself! You can't be in two places at once ! AHA!!!!!"


...and then when someone explains to me why that's obviously not a contradiction I just stamp my feet and keep repeating "In New York! In Los Angeles! completely exactly opposite! completely exactly opposite!"

Sheesh.

Again, you are referring to your post, not mine.

No. I'm still referring to both.

Oh please try to look at the world. I dislike history greatly, but if it shows us anything it's that science today is an amusing misconception tomorrow.

No, it doesn't. A real look at history shows us that when *actual* science is practised, as defined by the scientific method, it's progress tends to be a linear progression. It constantly improves our understanding of the universe. 100 years ago our understanding of the world was better than what it was 500 years ago. 50 years ago it was better thasn it was 100 years ago. 20 years ago it was better than it was 50 years ago, and today it's better than it was 20 years ago. This has NOT been acheived by every so often declaring that everything we knew yesterday was WRONG and now we're starting over with new data. The majority of scientific activity involves the refiniement of the accuracy of our physical models, not just randonly overtturning old knowledge, tossing it the trash bin, and starting over from scratch.

Perhaps you should overcome your dislike for history and try studying it more closely. Like, for example, when the scientific method was really formally adopted in any serious measure and when alchemy was taken seriously by anybody. That Newton believed in alchemy didn't make it any less of a ridiculous crackpot idea that had ZERO science behind it.

Face it, in a few centuries, people are most likely going to consider our picture of the world pseudo-science crackpot nonsense.

Highly unlikely. They will consider it incomplete and less accurate than their own more refined knowledge base.