The Trouble With Kittens

[Zach]

The "method" I am ultimately using (or more accurately, the question I'm trying to ask myself and others) is 'what works?' or conversely, 'what does not work?'.  In my experience, using the Scientific Method is usually a way to determine the "whys" and "hows". 

Perhaps this is why you are having such a problem with Science. It does not seek to determine, as you said, "the 'whys' and 'hows'." Science can only answer "how?" It can never answer "why?", nor does it claim to answer that.

 

That's a distinction that is reserved for philosophy or theology.

[Cerise]

So Science can't answer the question of why your arm goes numb when you hit your funny bone on something?

 

'Cause all through grade school, I thought those were the kind of "whys" science was answering.

 

Maybe you are thinking of different "whys" such as "why are we here" etc. Science does not really seek to answer those kinds of "whys" but I wouldn't use the word never so lightly.

[Zach]

So Science can't answer the question of why your arm goes numb when you hit your funny bone on something?

 

'Cause all through grade school, I thought those were the kind of "whys" science was answering.

 

Maybe you are thinking of different "whys" such as "why are we here" etc.  Science does not really seek to answer those kinds of "whys" but I wouldn't use the word never so lightly.

Not really. Because "why?" questions can just as easily be answered theologically. "Why is that man so fat?" can be answered a number of ways, from a number of perspectives. "How does adipose tissue become hypertrophic?" is a more mechanistic question that, if applied to the Scientific method, gives a mechanistic answer.

[chefranden]

Schrodinger's cat huh?

 

I don't think you can mix the scientific method and morality. The scientific method says nothing about morality, and nor should it. It is merely a way of establishing truth based on hypothesis, experimentation, observation, measurement and analysis.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moral judgements must be made using a completely different set of criteria. Furthermore, morality varies greatly from person to person. So for any given experiment, while one might consider it immoral another might consider that in the balance of things, it would be less moral not to perform the experiment. Those are never easy questions to answer.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But on the whole, I have a problem with the postulation of this thread at a base level, as it mixes the idea of science and morality, and ultimately they are two different tools for two very different purposes.

 

This is one of the problems of this culture. The guiding light may not be questioned, whether it be the Church, or, as is now more the case, Science.

 

This thread is asking the question: Why can't Science be judged by the same criteria of result as religion.

 

My definition of Science: The institution/s that uses the scientific method to further its own agendas that include, like the church, getting continued funding, prestige, and power for its members, under the (perhaps) illusion that it is working for the benefit of mankind. The "Benefit of Mankind" is assumed to be man's exclusive domination of the earth, and if possible the rest of the universe. The institution's faith is the assumption that empirical objectivism is the only way to find out what is real.

 

The fact, if it is a fact*, that Science says nothing about morality, does not mean that its actions and results may not be judged morally.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes I agree to some extent. But in my mind this does nothing but support the idea that Science is not the best way to find out what is real. Science, like religion, confuses what is real with what is absolute. Science supposes that it is better at detection of what is absolute than is religion. And it supposes that what it finds to be absolute will be for the benefit of mankind, like religion. It assumes that what it finds to be absolute for one must be so for all -- ignoring, like religion, that humans are relative beings, as you have pointed to here. Therefore, it is of no more interest to Science that an Apache clan lives in relationship, with a mountain then the Church does if it should want that mountain to do Science.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Morality is hardly a tool, but lets suppose that Science is. Let's suppose that Science is not an institution, like the Church. Let us suppose that Science is a tool, like a hammer, or a car. The use of a car is not allowed to everyone. Children and Drunks for example may not use a car. It is a moral judgment based on experience that these classes of people may prove to be too incompetent to use the tool, even though it may not be necessarily so in individual cases. Looking around at the results of people using the Science tool, some of which have already been mentioned above, we could well judge morally that the class "humans" should not be allowed to use it, even if some may prove competent. Whether Science is an institution, like the Church, or a tool, like a machine gun, it may be judged morally.

 

*Working for the benifit of mankind seems a moral stance to me. The same one taken by the Church.

[Cerise]

Not really. Because "why?" questions can just as easily be answered theologically. "Why is that man so fat?" can be answered a number of ways, from a number of perspectives. "How does adipose tissue become hypertrophic?" is a more mechanistic question that, if applied to the Scientific method, gives a mechanistic answer.

 

Then really, isn't that a question of language and not a question of science? Does science become useless in the abstract? And should that be a concern for human beings who are creatures that rarely live elsewhere besides the abstract?

 

The problem I see is that today's people are looking at science as the answer instead of just an answer. The same way a few centuries ago Religion used to be the answer.

 

What happens when that questions that really need to be asked, the ones that are important, aren't ones that science can appropriately deal with? I'm afriad that, as with religion, those questions will mysteriously disappear under the general assumption that they 1) aren't important and 2) are taboo questions.

 

Do we really need to know why adipose tissue becomes hypertrophic? Is that going to solve Mr. Fat-Man's dilemma?

[Zach]

Yes I agree to some extent.  But in my mind this does nothing but support the idea that Science is not the best way to find out what is real.

If, as you say, the scientific method is not the best way to explore reality, what do you propose as an alternative?

[Zach]

Then really, isn't that a question of language and not a question of science?  Does science become useless in the abstract?  And should that be a concern for human beings who are creatures that rarely live elsewhere besides the abstract?

 

The problem I see is that today's people are looking at science as the answer instead of just an answer.  The same way a few centuries ago Religion used to be the answer.

 

What happens when that questions that really need to be asked, the ones that are important, aren't ones that science can appropriately deal with?  I'm afriad that, as with religion, those questions will mysteriously disappear under the general assumption that they 1) aren't important and 2) are taboo questions.

 

Do we really need to know why adipose tissue becomes hypertrophic?  Is that going to solve Mr. Fat-Man's dilemma?

 

Agreed. Science does not answer the ultimate question of Life, the Universe, and Everything (especially since we know it's 42). Science is a tool by which we can understand the nature of reality. Confined to that domain, it remains an abstract pastime for ivory-tower academics and is completely useless to society at large. Application of that Science, however, to develop technologies have been the bread and butter of humanity since before there was humanity. What we need to focus on is not the scientific process, but rather the technological applications. If we know how adipose tissue functions, can we then apply nutritional guidelines or pharmaceutical interventions to allay obesity? If so, then we are in the domain of ethics.

[chefranden]

If, as you say, the scientific method is not the best way to explore reality, what do you propose as an alternative?

 

I'm not proposing anything yet!

 

I'm just exploring the hypothesis that Science fucks up much more than it fixes and the hypothesis that Science has taken over most of the burden of supporting Taker culture in the West from Christianity.

 

If I were to argue for a replacement I would argue for Lakeoff and Johnson's Experientialism in place of both religious subjectivism and Scientific objectivism. seePhilosophy in the Flesh : The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought

 

Why?

 

I don't have to explain to you why to reject Religious Subjectivism. However, Scientific Objectivision may also need rejection, in part or in whole, because the universe being explored is not "other" to us. It is not some mere collection of chemicals making up objects for us to manipulate however our -- not fit for the task -- intellect may decide. The universe is part of our being, or maybe better we are part of its being. That means when I destroy something in the environment I am killing something of myself, maybe something that could have let my grandchildren survive. We can (maybe) know our environment better by empathetic projection, so that we can really see how we fit in. Right now Science leads us to reject experience in favor of data, analyzed only by reason that ignores as much as possible the emotion and sensation that tells us what is really going on in relation to parts of us/universe. This is also a gift given us by evolution, and one that certainly came before reason, and was not replaced by reason.

[woodsmoke]

This is one of the problems of this culture.  The guiding light may not be questioned, whether it be the Church, or, as is now more the case, Science.

 

This thread is asking the question: Why can't Science be judged by the same criteria  of result as religion.

 

For one, and as you well know, they operate under completely different perameters.

 

When a decision is made in religion it is allegedly done so by a/the ruling deity, and thus is handed down as a "divine mandate" which threatens dire punishment for doubters.

 

When a decision is made in science, it is ever-after open to review, especially if new knowledge is discovered which impacts the decision in some way. You have a point in that "orthodox" scientists are often reluctant to admit their "baby" could be wrong (to say the least), but in virtually all such cases throughout history the timeless process of young and new replacing old has eventually corrected this. It's an unfortunate truth of the universe that the scientific community will lag behind scientific discovery and process at times.

 

My definition of Science: The institution/s that uses the scientific method to further its own agendas that include, like the church, getting continued funding, prestige, and power for its members, under the (perhaps) illusion that it is working for the benefit of mankind. The "Benefit of Mankind" is assumed to be man's exclusive domination of the earth, and if possible the rest of the universe. The institution's faith is the assumption that empirical objectivism is the only way to find out what is real.

 

There are many who believe that the purpose of science is to further the propserity of the human race, and it's hard to argue against the fact that most discoveries and progress made have served to do exactly that.

 

Speaking for myself, however, I must disagree with that notion. As I understand it, the purpose of science is to further humanity's understanding of the physical universe. Again, it's inevitable that much of this understanding works to improve our lot, but I feel that's hardly surprising. "Knowledge is power," after all.

 

With that knowledge, though, comes the understanding that the universe is far more complex than anyone could have imagined. At the risk of looking like a crazy New Ager, I think it's wise to point out that the various parts which constitute the whole of any system, from cellular photosynthesis to planetary climate to the workings of the universe at large, are all interconnected so intricately that hampering or removing just one of those parts (no matter how insignificant they may seem) is enough to significantly reduce the efficiency of that system, if not bring the whole structure crashing down. That being said, it's nothing short of indescribable foolishness for some very few and very arrogant human beings to ASSume that they are the end-all and be-all of creation and the universe exists solely to serve their purposes.

 

The fact, if it is a fact*, that Science says nothing about morality, does not mean that its actions and results may not be judged morally.

 

Science doesn't act. It can't act. It's an abstract concept, a school of thought inside the minds of human beings which has no will of its own and never comes into contact with nor manifests itself corporeally in the physical universe at any time. People act. Any consequences of something involving the application of science in the physical universe is the result of an action taken by human beings, in which case the judgment should rest squarely on their shoulders.

 

Yes I agree to some extent.  But in my mind this does nothing but support the idea that Science is not the best way to find out what is real.  Science, like religion, confuses what is real with what is absolute.  Science supposes that it is better at detection of what is absolute than is religion.  And it supposes that what it finds to be absolute will be for the benefit of mankind, like religion.  It assumes that what it finds to be absolute for one must be so for all -- ignoring, like religion, that humans are relative beings, as you have pointed to here.  Therefore, it is of no more interest to Science that an Apache clan lives in relationship, with a mountain then the Church does if it should want that mountain to do Science.

 

Ironically enough, the opposition to the erection of that observatory is partially founded upon scientific evidence that the site is unfavorable for such a purpose. Removing all human elements from the picture at square one, science alone is enough to shoot down the proposal.

 

I think you're expecting science to fill a role for which it was never intended. Science is the best known method of determining what is real within the physical universe. As such, everything not a part of the physical universe exists outside the realm of science, and science is not--indeed, cannot be--beholden to explain its nature as it does material phenomena.

 

As a side note; considering that everything alleged to exist outside the bounds of the physical universe cannot be proven (nor even tested) by any means known to humanity, it is hardly a fault of science or scientists to doubt the validity of such claims.

 

Morality is hardly a tool, but lets suppose that Science is.  Let's suppose that Science is not an institution, like the Church.  Let us suppose that Science is a tool, like a hammer, or a car.  The use of a car is not allowed to everyone.  Children and Drunks for example may not use a car.  It is a moral judgment based on experience that these classes of people may prove to be too incompetent to use the tool, even though it may not be necessarily so in individual cases.  Looking around at the results of people using the Science tool, some of which have already been mentioned above, we could well judge morally that the class "humans" should not be allowed to use it, even if some may prove competent.  Whether Science is an institution, like the Church, or a tool, like a machine gun, it may be judged morally.

 

You defeat your own argument. Science is not to blame. Those who use it for unethical or malicious purposes are, and they should be judged according to their intentions. If they were simply weilding the tool in ignorance, educate them as to its proper use(s). If they knew the function(s) of the tool and were consciously using it to harm or negatively affect others, they need to be disciplined accordingly and given the chance (and aid) to redeem themselves.

 

Nevermind that dividing populations into "classes" and delegating to them as if they were a single individual has very little to do with science and a hell of a lot to do with bad politics.

 

*Working for the benifit of mankind seems a moral stance to me.  The same one taken by the Church.

 

Here, at least, I can agree with you. This is somewhat of a moral stance, though it can be partially justified by proposing that doing so is a way of satisfying the survival instinct. After all, the better off your species is in the overall scheme of things, the more likely they'll continue to survive, possibly even thrive for ages to come. Propogation of the species is a very strong motivational factor in animal behavior. Make no mistake; humans, for all our large brains and comparatively great understanding of the universe and how we can bend or work with it to our will or work with it for our own good, are still just as much a part of the animal kingdom as cockroaches, seagulls and carp--if a significantly more desireable part, IMO.

[woodsmoke]

I'm not proposing anything yet!

 

I'm just exploring the hypothesis that Science fucks up much more than it fixes and the hypothesis that Science has taken over most of the burden of supporting Taker culture in the West from Christianity.

 

If I were to argue for a replacement I would argue for Lakeoff and Johnson's Experientialism in place of both religious subjectivism and Scientific objectivism. seePhilosophy in the Flesh : The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought

 

Why?

 

I don't have to explain to you why to reject Religious Subjectivism. However, Scientific Objectivision may also need rejection, in part or in whole, because the universe being explored is not "other" to us.  It is not some mere collection of chemicals making up objects for us to manipulate however our -- not fit for the task -- intellect may decide.  The universe is part of our being, or maybe better we are part of its being.  That means when I destroy something in the environment I am killing something of myself, maybe something that could have let my grandchildren survive.  We can (maybe) know our environment better by empathetic projection, so that we can really see how we fit in.  Right now Science leads us to reject experience in favor of data, analyzed only by reason that ignores as much as possible the emotion and sensation that tells us what is really going on in relation to parts of us/universe.  This is also a gift given us by evolution, and one that certainly came before reason, and was not replaced by reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My apologies for the double post, but I feel this merits the occasion.

 

Finally, some common ground!

 

I understand much better your state of mind now, and to some extent I can agree with it. Humans are not "apart" from the rest of the universe anymore than frozen water is "apart" from the Earth's hydrosphere. It may not contribute (as) directly or often to the regular cycle of evaporation, condensation and precipitation the Earth's liquid water undergoes, but you can bet with full knowledge that screwing with any one of those elements in the equation will have some decidedly dramatic effects, to say the least.

 

It's exactly the same for humanity. There's a damn good reason we feature just as fully in the scientific classification of the Earth's living organism as any other mammal, reptile or protozoa. We may not have equally as much in common with all three, but I'd say it's pretty damn evident from our understanding of the natural world that the whole damn thing is built up like a game of Jenga; removing one or two elements from the overall equation may not have an overtly noticeable effect, but you look deep enough and you're going to see it like ripples traveling through a pond. It may not be very powerful, but it touches everything.

 

The point where we seem to disagree is on our repsective opinions of the merits of the scientific method. I'm fully convinced of the near certainty that there are countless phenomena out there which we wouldn't have a ghost of a chance of understanding with the current state of science. However, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. As we learn more our understanding of the universe and the way it works will change, and our knowledge of science will progress and grow accordingly. All concepts of such magnitude and importance experience growing pains, and science--arguably still in the womb, in the full scope of things--is no exception.

 

Time will pass, and our perception of science will change. A lot of crazy ideas will come and go, and a lot of stupid and stubborn people in positions of authority will do one thing or another to halt the advancement of science for a little while; whether through actively combatting science as a whole, only certain parts of it to ensure reigning scientific "canon" which is profitable to them remains on top, or some other method altogether. However, that passing time is exactly what is needed in order our perception to change and our knowledge to grow. It's going to be a long, hard road, and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy; but the only regret I can see myself having when my time is up is that I couldn't stick around just a little longer to see what comes next.

[Cerise]

Agreed. Science does not answer the ultimate question of Life, the Universe, and Everything (especially since we know it's 42).

 

Personally, I think that question and the "how many lick's" tootsie-roll question should be combined. The answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything? 42 licks of a tootsie roll, baby!

[chefranden]

Oh I like the new posting format here!

 

I'm just stopping by to report that Zach is much more right in this old argument than I.

 

I'm about half way through The Big Bang Never Happened, by Eric Lerner. I've been somewhat mislead in calling science as a whole religion, or near to it, because the science I'm most familar with, cosmology, is pretty much religious in nature. That is it relies on mathmatically induced myths, rather then on observation. If an observation doesn't match a theory's prediction (example: background Microwave temp of 3*kelvin actual rather then 30* kelvin as predicted by big bang) a fudge factor is incorporated rather than question the theory. My major error was in supposing that science as a whole must be like this. My bad.

 

Most other sciences don't do operate like that. Zach's science relies on actual observation and experiment, so it would have to be self correcting as opposed to cosmology in its present form which does rely on bishops.

 

So Zach, I concede most of the argument to you.

[Saviourmachine]

IMHO it's very obvious that there are environmental and economical problems on this world because of the indifference of so many people. They don't give a shit. Science is very hard needed, development economics but also e.g. knowledge engineering what I am studying. You wouldn't know about the ozone layer without science (environment), you wouldn't know how to distribute votes over different countries like in the Europian Union (righteousness), you wouldn't know how to cure a lot of people (relieve of suffering), etc. etc.

 

Does science offer export subsidies? Does science tax import? Does science pinch money meant for charity? Or are it stupid people? People with brains in some pristine state? People that never learned to you won't become rich from stealing. People who don't understand that there is something like the Prisoners Dilemma. That there are situations in which cooperation offers most. The non-zero games where Robert Wright is speaking about (see book). I am not the inhabitant of a country, not of a continent, but of the whole world. That people are poor in Africa does affect me (indirectly). If they would have been rich the whole world would have been a better place. More time, more entertainment, more trade, more money, more knowledge. There could have been 50 good unversities in Africa. Lost brainpower! Brainpower that could have been used to develop solar cells, wind mills, etc. And also preserving our ecosystem is definitely necessary. We gonna choke ourselves if we don't watch out.

 

Go! Go with your flags for a better world. But don't attack a hypothetic enemy. You would abalienate a lot of people that are elseway at your side.

 

_________________________________________________________

Edit: Sorry old thread.