Spooky
twisty turny thing
Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236 |
 What is Science?
INspired by Kuglo, I decided to write this post. I apologise if it gets too long.
What is science exactly? What is the nature of science? What makes something be what we call 'scientific'. Many thinkers over time have asked this question. The answer is not as simple as we might originally think. When you look at the question deeply it comes to fruition that the answer is entwined with the idea that sceinec is not really a school, but more a model or mode of thought in which we gain knowledge. A set of predetermined rules that produce some kind of truth. However, as I will show they can never produce absolute truth.
One of the foremost thinkers on this subjkect is Karl Popper. Popper was rprimarily concerned with showing people what was not sceintific, or what he called pseudo science. As such, by doing this he would also explain what constitute scientific methodology. The end sum of this debate will be that sceince is in fact nothing more than method, and when the method is used we call the results scientific. However, like I said before they is one rule that must exist in all scientific claims.
The methodolgy then. To summarise it breifly the methodology is that of observation. Then testing. Then observing agin, then testing agin, unytil the results prove to a greater than 50% chance that the hypothesis proposed is either correct or false. N.B. Note the word chance.
The reson we mus note the word chance is that in reality no statement can be said to be absolute. Thus, if we take Kuglo's example in chat, that of gravity, we can say scientificall that when I drop a brick it will fall to the ground because of gravity. That does not however mean that gravity is absolute, becasue there is a logical opposition to that statement, in that it might actually go up. Of course we can test this numerous times and see that it won;t, but that still does not change the the logical opposuition that one day it might. Thus for Popper science is that which is tested until the samllest possible amount of chance is left and we can say with coinfidence that it our theory is right, but while still accepting the possibility it might not be.
The nature therefore of science and scientific theory is nothing more than observing and testing to a point where the logical opposition is so minute, as too make a statement be claimed to be scienitific. But we must alwasy accept, if we want to be the true sceinetist that that statement is not absolute truth.
If we move onto Thomas Kuhn, another great thinker, we will see why we must not acceot any 'sceintific' theory as absolute truth. Kuhn was influenced by Marx in his thinking. He took Marx's materialist conception of history, and its revolutionary elements,and applied it to science.
Kuhn, argued that science moves in revolutionary circles. That when a scienitist makes a break through, other sceintists pick up the idea. They test the idea, look for hoels in the idea,. try to expand the idea. Eventually a new scientist will come along and bring up a new idea or way of looking at things. The scientists studying the old idea will ebcome so overwhelmed by this idea that they will drop the old and one and concentrate all efforts, like before in the new one.
The classic example of this, used by Kuhn, is that of physics. If we lokm at the way understadning of time and space have gone through the centuries, we see that it began with Copernicus, Copernicus, introduced a new world view, which the community (eventually) embraced. This idea then fell to the ideas of Newtonian physics, these in tunr fell to the ideas of Einstein, and then in turn some of these feel to the ideas of Hawking.
Thus what we see in science are revolutions of ideas that follow a pattern.
Now, one of the things that Kuglo argued was that no matter what world view you choose to take from NEwton onwards, gravity exists. What Kuglo failed to see, was that the nature and understanding of gravity changed so extensively during the revolutions I cited above. Proves the arguments put forward by Popper in that science will never find absolute truth, but will only ever find 'best guesses' for want of a better word.
I thin to end I will say this. If one looks at science as a way and methodolgy of gaining the best guess about the world around us, then one can be content in accepting its theories as near truth. However one must alwasy accept that those 'facts' as Kuglo put it, might not always be fact for posterity, becasue the nature of science is such that fact are proved to be worng when the new theory arrives. One only has to look at General Relativity to see this. Einstein said that placing a constant in his Universe model was the 'greatest blunder' of his life. However, it now seems that that the 'blunder' may have actually be right.
Absolute truth is beyond us now, and will probably remain so. To think otherwise is folly, and wholly unscientific.
Thank for your time. I am out all day today, so don't expect me too answer any of the flames etc. I will be back tonight.
------------------
sp00ky
---------------------------
Disclaimer
------------------------------
I am not expecting to change anything by this post other than awareness. Please do not take anything I say as fact, I am only relaying opinon of limited sources, who themselves know nothing and thus should also be ignored as heresay and could never be admissable in a court of law.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
![[new thread]](/images/vb/button_newthread_off.png "Post New Thread")
![[post reply]](/images/vb/button_newreply_off.png "Post A Reply")
04-16-2001 09:37 AM
