Post-Scientific Paradigm?

[GreyICE]

Nowadays we assume that Science - narrowly defined here as a system of gathering knowledge based on the scientific method - is some form of universally applicable system that is nearly flawless.

There's no question that it's better than what came before, but just because Aristotle came up with something that was better than anything before, science can still fall to a superior system of reasoning.

Some current flaws in science that suggest such a system might exist are present. The first I think of is the lack of firm integration with engineering. When people think science, they mostly think engineering, yet there is currently no reasoning within the method to incorporate any form of abstract problem solving. The method can comment on the success of the problem-solving, but that doesn't mean it necessarily integrates problem solving at all. As a result, solutions to problems frequently remain obscure long past the point we could solve them. Many other problems relate back to this integration problem - discoveries end when their impetus ends, until someone else picks them up and runs with them.

So, does a post-science paradigm exist? Is there a way to add abstract problem solving directly to the method, to increase interconnections? That would remove those 'oh duh' moments where we realize we could have solved a problem for 20 years, at no cost, and with an efficiency gain, but didn't because we didn't realize that we already had solved it. My favorite example of this is the transistor. It was invented in 1925, and yet vacuum tube computers persisted for nearly two decades.

I am not proposing a post scientific method paradigm. For one, when we find it, its going to revolutionize 'science' like Galileo did. For another, I'm nowhere close to putting together a method from my speculations. I'm just wondering if anyone else is curious about this.

 

[GodMark2]

Are you trying to say that science is flawed because engineering (the act of applying knowledge to problems) isn't part of science (the method of gathering knowledge).

That's like saying that a screwdriver is flawed, because it doesn't have a sledgehammer attached permanently.

Engineering is definitely used during the scientific method. Remember that part about "testing the theory" well, the only way to do that is through engineering. Using knowledge to make something happen, that's engineering.

The scientific method is definitely used during engineering. Something didn't work, and you need to know why, so you can fix it? That's science's department, gathering information.

As for the persistence of Vacuum tubes, did you ever thing there might actually be some working difference between tubes and transistors? Something that could preclude the use of transistors for the tasks we used tubes for until, say, the signal to noise ratio of the transistor fell dramatically? Oh, signal-to-noise ratio, that could be it. Early transistors weren't actually better than tubes, in fact, there were tubes that performed tasks that trannies couldn't. Heck, we still use vacuum tubes (look at most television sets, that big glass thing: it's a vacuum tube), because they do different things than a transistor.

Different tools for different tasks.

 

[GreyICE]

Are you trying to say that science is flawed because engineering (the act of applying knowledge to problems) isn't part of science (the method of gathering knowledge).

That's like saying that a screwdriver is flawed, because it doesn't have a sledgehammer attached permanently.

Engineering is definitely used during the scientific method. Remember that part about "testing the theory" well, the only way to do that is through engineering. Using knowledge to make something happen, that's engineering.

The scientific method is definitely used during engineering. Something didn't work, and you need to know why, so you can fix it? That's science's department, gathering information.

As for the persistence of Vacuum tubes, did you ever thing there might actually be some working difference between tubes and transistors? Something that could preclude the use of transistors for the tasks we used tubes for until, say, the signal to noise ratio of the transistor fell dramatically? Oh, signal-to-noise ratio, that could be it. Early transistors weren't actually better than tubes, in fact, there were tubes that performed tasks that trannies couldn't. Heck, we still use vacuum tubes (look at most television sets, that big glass thing: it's a vacuum tube), because they do different things than a transistor.

Different tools for different tasks.

I am saying the method is flawed because it is slow to draw parallels. Yes, I am using engineering because it is the discipline I'm most familiar with. But how often in science does someone in biology, say, stumble across a principle in physics that explains something and lets them create new theories? And how often is that mystery rather old, and the solution rather old? We've all read examples of this if we read sciences.

Moreover, I am having trouble envisioning a paradigm shift, because a paradigm shift is impossible to envision. I don't know what the possible better method of thought is, I just wonder if one exists, and if so, can we kick around any theories on what it might be?

If one does exist, it will open up new vistas of science, the same way the scientific method opened up new vistas compared to Aristotle's paradigm.

 

[Complexity]

Post-Scientific Paradigm?

No, I don't think so.

 

[wollery]

The problem with your example of a biologist discovering a bit of physics that allows them to solve a problem is that each discipline is now so specialised that such broad knowledge is virtually impossible.

 

[athon]

I'm wondering if you're comprehending what science is.

It isn't a process developed overnight which overtook a previous methodology. Science is a method which has slowly evolved over the past few thousand years, starting with philosophical thought as per the likes of Aristotle, Plato and Democritus.

That said, there have been small 'revolutions' which contributed to our modern system. The first was the luxury of critical thought. Prior to sedentary lives, nomadic existence couldn't the risk of overturning what was considered useful knowledge passed on by ancestors. Settling in one place provided the resources and lowered the risks critical thinking brought on, paving the way for the first thinkers. They could observe the world around them, create empirical conclusions and publicly preach their conclusions, even if they conflicted with the beliefs of the social group.

Of course many situations in coming centuries would be incompatible with such philosophy, however the concept had been developed and taken root.

Following in the late middle ages/early Renaissance (around the time of Paracelsus) was the practice of testing one's 'thinking' conclusions in experiments. This was the key to modern science and the core of the scientific method.

Significant tools have been added since. The 19th century, for example, brought in tools of blind testing.

The question is not 'what is post science'? It is 'what tools will we find useful in the future?'

To be honest, I think changes will be less in methodology and more in communication and education amongst the community. It will diversify in its application, with more people using science to think rather than as a rigorous process restricted to professionals.

Athon

 

[Darat]

I am saying the method is flawed because it is slow to draw parallels. Yes, I am using engineering because it is the discipline I'm most familiar with. But how often in science does someone in biology, say, stumble across a principle in physics that explains something and lets them create new theories? And how often is that mystery rather old, and the solution rather old? We've all read examples of this if we read sciences.

...snip...

This was a quite a major theme in science fiction from the 40s and 50s - the idea that the knowledge base was now "too large" and was splintered into non-connected disciplines; several authors came up with the idea of an almost or actual superhuman "generalist" or "synthesist" - someone who wouldn't just be educated in one area of knowledge but be able to "synthesize" ideas from different disciplines to make breakthroughs impossible to a "specialist". (As with many authors of that time they of course didn't predict computers as we now have!)

I would say computer aided research (CAR) will be the area that will provide a major new tool (to use Athon's term) that will help tease out possible links across disciplines. We are already seeing the importance of CAR in the real-world (from the simple search engines we all use day-to-day to much more complex software that is already proving to be better at experts in some areas) and I think CAR will be increasingly important in all areas of knowledge and understanding.

Will that be a paradigm shift? Well as you say who can know beforehand?

 

[Dr. Imago]

But how often in science does someone in biology, say, stumble across a principle in physics that explains something and lets them create new theories?

This is the principle of "serendipidity", and many great scientific breakthroughs have come about as a result. It is not a reason to dismiss the scientific process, which works.

-Dr. Imago

 

[Soapy Sam]

Does a post-science paradigm exist?

I don't think so. I doubt one will, unless human intelligence improves.

Intriguing question.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Nowadays we assume that Science - narrowly defined here as a system of gathering knowledge based on the scientific method - is some form of universally applicable system that is nearly flawless.

There's no question that it's better than what came before, but just because Aristotle came up with something that was better than anything before, science can still fall to a superior system of reasoning.

Some current flaws in science that suggest such a system might exist are present. The first I think of is the lack of firm integration with engineering. When people think science, they mostly think engineering, yet there is currently no reasoning within the method to incorporate any form of abstract problem solving. The method can comment on the success of the problem-solving, but that doesn't mean it necessarily integrates problem solving at all. As a result, solutions to problems frequently remain obscure long past the point we could solve them. Many other problems relate back to this integration problem - discoveries end when their impetus ends, until someone else picks them up and runs with them.

So, does a post-science paradigm exist? Is there a way to add abstract problem solving directly to the method, to increase interconnections? That would remove those 'oh duh' moments where we realize we could have solved a problem for 20 years, at no cost, and with an efficiency gain, but didn't because we didn't realize that we already had solved it. My favorite example of this is the transistor. It was invented in 1925, and yet vacuum tube computers persisted for nearly two decades.

I am not proposing a post scientific method paradigm. For one, when we find it, its going to revolutionize 'science' like Galileo did. For another, I'm nowhere close to putting together a method from my speculations. I'm just wondering if anyone else is curious about this.

My guess is that the "post-scientific" paradigm would simply be an upgrade to the current one. Science, as we currently know it, is comprised of a basic epistemological philosophy and methods of experimental and mathematical empiricism are used to act out on that basic philosophical premise. If the basic epistemological premise is maintained [the acquisition of objective knowledge is achievable and desirable] then what ever new methods of acquiring and verifying that knowledge would still be "science".

 

[GreyICE]

My guess is that the "post-scientific" paradigm would simply be an upgrade to the current one. Science, as we currently know it, is comprised of a basic epistemological philosophy and methods of experimental and mathematical empiricism are used to act out on that basic philosophical premise. If the basic epistemological premise is maintained [the acquisition of objective knowledge is achievable and desirable] then what ever new methods of acquiring and verifying that knowledge would still be "science".

The same could be said for the upgrade from the Aristotelean Method to the Scientific Method. If you missed my first sentence, I said science, narrowly defined as knowledge gained through the scientific method. Using it less narrowly as all knowledge gained by humanity on the natural world, it obviously will persist.

The 'mere' upgrade from Aristotelean thought to Galileo's paradigm completely revolutionized science. It led to theories that simply weren't possible before (for instance, gravity making denser objects fall faster vs. the scientific method-derived fact that they fall at the same pace completely changes the theories of gravity). An upgrade to a new paradigm would be just as major.

As an example, deriving a TOE might require a new paradigm of thought - this one isn't working too well.

 

[ben m]

The same could be said for the upgrade from the Aristotelean Method to the Scientific Method. If you missed my first sentence, I said science, narrowly defined as knowledge gained through the scientific method. Using it less narrowly as all knowledge gained by humanity on the natural world, it obviously will persist.

GreyICE, I suspect that you're using a very narrow idea of what the "scientific method" is. Observation, hypothesis, prediction, test, and so on. Modern science does not (and never really has) worked like that---we're throwing together data, theories, predictions, post-dictions, models, statistics, trial-and-error, observations, consistency tests, brute-force searches, data mining, cataloging, iterative optimization, see-what-happens envelope-pushing, and guesswork. It all goes together in whatever order works. The only thing that makes it "science" is the fact that the final, published results (whatever it is) should correctly represent the thing being discussed within an appropriate standard of observer-independence and the appropriate level of repeatability.

It's really hard to imagine a paradigm shift that improves on "Apply every aspect of human understanding in every way you can think of to everything you see".

 

[Dancing David]

The same could be said for the upgrade from the Aristotelean Method to the Scientific Method. If you missed my first sentence, I said science, narrowly defined as knowledge gained through the scientific method. Using it less narrowly as all knowledge gained by humanity on the natural world, it obviously will persist.

The 'mere' upgrade from Aristotelean thought to Galileo's paradigm completely revolutionized science. It led to theories that simply weren't possible before (for instance, gravity making denser objects fall faster vs. the scientific method-derived fact that they fall at the same pace completely changes the theories of gravity). An upgrade to a new paradigm would be just as major.

As an example, deriving a TOE might require a new paradigm of thought - this one isn't working too well.

I have to disagree, there has been a shift in paradigms from the time of Aristotle, Ari (if I may call him that) used a sort of top down, think first and fit that data to fit the thought model, and it was sort of also used by various political entities to maintain the status quo. Staring with Democritues and many other some people on a limioted basis began to use the data to drive thought, and that is a very different system. It had Democritus asking why oil spread so thin on top of water, it had bombadiers inventing trigonometry (or rediscovering it), it had Levosier make some outrageous claims but some really dound ones and so one, Pasteur Curie (Marie) and the huge struggles of quantum theory, general relativity, economic theory and radical behaviorism.

There could be another huge paradigm shift in the future and there will likely be some whoppers, however please not that the reductionist model and the observational model have basically remaioned the same during these huge (like Gellman and Feynman huge) paradigm shifts where there is the whole dialectic of orthodoxy, evdience and synthesis.

If QM and relativity were not enough to topple the scientifc method, I don't see that the paradigm shift will do much to the nature of science.

 

[Polgara]

So, does a post-science paradigm exist? Is there a way to add abstract problem solving directly to the method, to increase interconnections?

It seems to already be in the throes of being considered, or developed.

For instance, in my studies of neuroscience history & current research, the Top Down/abstract seem to be the key to unlocking the future in science.

Refer to snippet from (Crap I'm a newbie and can't post web addresses) This is from SeedMagazine (.com) Titled: The Future Sciences of Art

Of course, the standard response of science is that such art is too incoherent and imprecise for the scientific process. Beauty isn't truth; Monet got lucky. The novel is just a work of fiction, which is the opposite of experimental fact. If it can't be plotted on a line graph or condensed into variables, then it's not worth taking into account. But isn't such incoherence an essential aspect of the human mind? Isn't our inner experience full of gaps and non-sequiturs and inexplicable feelings? In this sense, the messiness of the novel and the abstraction of the painting is actually a mirror. As the poetry critic Randall Jarrell put it, "It is the contradictions in works of art which make them able to represent us—as logical and methodical generalizations cannot—our world and our selves, which are also full of contradictions."

No scientific model of the mind will be wholly complete unless it includes what can't be reduced. Science rightfully adheres to a strict methodology, relying on experimental data and testability, but this method could benefit from an additional set of inputs. The cultural hypotheses of artists can inspire the questions that stimulate important new scientific answers. Until science sees the brain from a more holistic perspective—and such a perspective might require the artistic imagination—our scientific theories will be detached from the way we see ourselves.

I have been traveling the world of current mathematics for my upcoming college endeavors, and this inclination in current science to lean towards Top Down/abstract seems to follow hand in hand.

goto --Newscientist (.com) Titled: Student Review the Changin Face of Mathematics.

I have been traveling the world of computer program design, with one of my son's, this science too, is leaning towards the trend of Top Down/abstract.

Springerlink has various articles that the abstract is being focused on more and more. These articles assert that although using both Bottom Up and Top Down are the most reliable in establishing things, the focus on abstract seems to be making things come to fruition quicker and better.

So the reasonable answer would appear to be - yes. The current concensus is that you need existing knowledge to work with, but there are certain things that cannot necessarily be deduced working Bottom Up, cannot be fathomed without utilizing the abstract reasoning and Top Down design.

goto --Physicsworld (.com) Titled: cws/article/news/23307

I, for one, am a proponent of abstract thought. It has rarely, if ever, failed me in an endeavor.

I ended up on this forum, as a result of abstract thought. I came to a conclusion about someone and worked my reasoning backwards. I found precisely what I thought I would, or rather who.

And, if you follow history, it would seem that a new paradigm would have to follow.

Intuition is a beautiful thing. Surfing the internet to follow your nose, is better yet.

 

[Earthborn]

If/When a new paradigm is necessary, scientists will incorporate it into science. It will not be 'post-scientific', it will be 'differently scientific'.

Science is just a process of trying to learn more about the world around us, and it cannot be 'post-scientific' unless scientists stop trying to learn. The paradigm shift GreyIce is talking about will just result in scientists believing that the concept known as 'The Scientific Method' is an overly simplified and naive description of science, and there may in fact be more than one scientific method. Just like most philosophers of science and indeed many scientists already do believe.

Perhaps this paradigm shift has already occured, or perhaps it hasn't really been a scientific paradigm to begin with.

 

[Polgara]

I see patterns.

GreyIce You might find this article interesting. It plays in paradigms, Kuhn, subjective judgment, mechanisms of delusion, and my current favorite 'interpreting something into existence'.

This piece concludes with the following from the suggested line of steps to follow when processing an issue:

Do the unthinkable: Try your very best to find faults in your experiment or to falsify your interpretation. If this is done fairly, objectively, and passionately, even if you turn out to be wrong, you will be true to your science..

columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.4/turro.html

Earthborn. More than one method - seems like that is where we are currently at, and continuing to head towards. Bottom Up, Top Down, Abstract thought.. a culmination.

Perhaps it hasn't been a paradigm shift- I tend to meander and look at things like the ole magic realm. The wizard with the wand (or spells). The wand the tool that creates what the wizard is looking to be created. -Does the wand, the tool, create for the wizard? Or does the energy that makes the wizard, make the magic, and the wand is just something the wizard manifests to have understanding for himself? The scientist with his instruments, diagrams, compounds... The instruments, diagrams, compounds.. are the tools. -Do these tools that the scientist use create whatever things are desired, at hand, or does the scientist? -A very 'in short' analogy.

I am tumbling towards understanding. -SK

 

[Cuddles]

The paradigm shift GreyIce is talking about will just result in scientists believing that the concept known as 'The Scientific Method' is an overly simplified and naive description of science, and there may in fact be more than one scientific method. Just like most philosophers of science and indeed many scientists already do believe.

But the trouble with this is that it simply doesn't make sense. The scientific method is really very simple:

1) Look at what happens.
2) Try to explain how and why.
3) See if explanation works.
4) Go back to 1).

That's it. How can this possibly be wrong or subject to change? There are only three components, none of which it even makes sense to consider being wrong. Changing 1) would result in not actually observing the world. Changing 2) would result in preventing any increase in knowledge. Changing 3) would result in nonsense hypotheses with no connection to the real world.

For some reason some philosophers love to pontificate about different scientific paradigms, but the fact is that none of it makes any sense to anyone who actually understands what science is.

 

[GreyICE]

But the trouble with this is that it simply doesn't make sense. The scientific method is really very simple:

1) Look at what happens.
2) Try to explain how and why.
3) See if explanation works.
4) Go back to 1).

That's it. How can this possibly be wrong or subject to change? There are only three components, none of which it even makes sense to consider being wrong. Changing 1) would result in not actually observing the world. Changing 2) would result in preventing any increase in knowledge. Changing 3) would result in nonsense hypotheses with no connection to the real world.

For some reason some philosophers love to pontificate about different scientific paradigms, but the fact is that none of it makes any sense to anyone who actually understands what science is.

Obviously science isn't wrong. That's an absolute strawman, and shows a lack of reading on your part.

What I hypothesized wasn't that science was wrong. It was that that the method might not be the best method of obtaining new knowledge.

If you consider the scientific method paradigm, you realize its relatively recent. 600 years old at best. It's raw arrogance to say its absolutely the best method, no questions can be asked, goodbye.

I agree such a paradigm shift would be incorporated directly into science (exactly like the Scientific Method itself was) but that doesn't mean it could not occur, or would go unnoticed.



Polgara: Thanks for the links. I'm still reading them over, I'll comment when I'm done.

 

[Polgara]

winstonbrill.com/bril001/html/article_index/articles/351-400/article360_body.html

The above offers an interesting, if light, consideration.


Try an analogy: Imagine that your favorite fictional detective (Sherlock Holmes, Miss Marple, Nancy Drew, or whoever) is working on a difficult case in which the clues only come by fits and starts. Most detectives keep their working hypotheses to themselves until they've solved the case. However, let's assume that our detective decides this time to think out loud as the story unfolds, revealing their current prime suspect and hypothesized chronology of the crime as they go along. Now introduce a character who accompanies the detective and who, as each clue is uncovered, exclaims "See, this changes what you thought before - you must be all wrong about everything!" Our detective will think, but probably have the grace to not say, "No, the new evidence just helps me sharpen the cloudy picture I had before". The same is true in science, except that nature never breaks down in the last scene and explains how she done it. -UGA, piece on science and what it is.

 

[Cuddles]

Obviously science isn't wrong. That's an absolute strawman, and shows a lack of reading on your part.

Wow, that's the strongest irony I've seen in a while. I never claimed that you said science is wrong. That's an absolute strawman, and shows a lack of reading on your part.

What I hypothesized wasn't that science was wrong. It was that that the method might not be the best method of obtaining new knowledge.

And as I clearly said, this just doesn't make sense. Look at world, try to explain it, see if explanation works. That's it. No matter how you look at it or how you try to explain it, this is the only way possible of learning about the world since any other method will miss out either on the learning part or the world part.

If you consider the scientific method paradigm, you realize its relatively recent. 600 years old at best.

Nope. It was only recognised as such around then, in some places, but has been used for as long as humans have existed. Every single invention and advance has been discovered through the scientific method. The fact that people often didn't realise this led to an awful lot of junk coming out of places like ancient Greece, and in fact this is a perfect example of what I have said - they were really hot on step 2), but didn't pay much attention at all to steps 1) and 3), so we got all kinds of philosophical nonsense that was fun to think about, but had nothing to do with reality. Once people really realised that checking if things actually applied to the real world was a good idea, things really got going.

And that's the whole point. The scientific method is just checking ideas against the real world. That's it. The only way this can change is either by not having the ideas or not comparing them with the real world. Neither of those options is going to improve anything.

It's raw arrogance to say its absolutely the best method, no questions can be asked, goodbye.

It's not arrogance, it's understanding. The ways in which we observe the world can change. The way we come up with new ideas can change. The way we test new ideas in the world can change. The fact that these three steps are required to learn about the world can't.