Post-Scientific Paradigm?

[Polgara]

The infant's (the beginner's-Polgara's) intuition smells something coming from the Cuddles and the GreyIce debate.



I'm going to break out the popcorn and listen now.

 

[ben m]

GreyICE, I suspect you and everyone else on this thread are talking at cross purposes.

narrowly defined here as a system of gathering knowledge based on the scientific method

When you say "scientific method", I suspect you're talking about a fairly schoolbook definition of it. Cuddles (and I) are talking about what scientists actually do, which is to compare data/theories/models/predictions/postdictions in whatever combinations seem to lead to interesting truths.

Please tell us your definition of "scientific method", then it'll be easier to discuss whether we can "get beyond" it.

 

[Polgara]

Naturalism and/or Beyond Naturalism?

 

[GreyICE]

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.

From your post:

That's it. How can this possibly be wrong or subject to change?

I'm sorry if I interpreted this wrong, but what I took this to say was an accusation that I thought science was wrong. This is not the case. If I misunderstood this sentence, I apologize.

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.

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.

Nonsense. The scientific method was undiscovered before Galileo. In fact, it wasn't really codified until the 17th century. Saying that they were secretly using the scientific method, but didn't really understand that they were using the scientific method is insane. It's obvious ex post facto justification. "Oh, they didn't know what they were doing." The scientific method is simply one way of discovering things. It is not some true, universal principle that people tapped into before they even knew it existed.

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 slightly more complex than that. It's specifically a method of developing and testing hypotheses. Not against the real world, but against eachother. It's also a method of DEVELOPING the tests used. Saying that its as simple as testing the ideas against the real world is an oversimplification to the point of inaccuracy.



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.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jimbo07]

The scientific method was undiscovered before Galileo.

Citation?

In fact, it wasn't really codified until the 17th century.

Really?

Saying that they were secretly using the scientific method, but didn't really understand that they were using the scientific method is insane. It's obvious ex post facto justification.

Are you sure?

It's specifically a method of developing and testing hypotheses. Not against the real world, but against eachother. It's also a method of DEVELOPING the tests used. Saying that its as simple as testing the ideas against the real world is an oversimplification to the point of inaccuracy.

We might want to start with Wikipedia's entry on Scientific Method as a common starting point for this discussion.

We can then compare and contrast, given our own knowledge, between that article and what scientists actually do.

 

[Earthborn]

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?

I didn't say it could be wrong. I said that it is overly simplified and naive. Take number 1 for example; it quite obviously ignores the fact that scientists have to make choices what they are going to look at, and these choices depend on their previous knowledge, on unproven assumptions and their personal subjective preferences. Another thing that number 1 ignores is the fact that what scientists will see when they look at something is also influenced by those things; according to many philosophers of science including Karl Popper, theory precedes observation. I don't think that is entirely true, but it is true that empirical observations are coloured by already existing ideas. Similarly which explanations are offered depends on the ideas scientists already have, and the judgement which explanations "work" does as well.

None of this means the above list is actually wrong, and as many philosophers of science have argued none of this prevents science from advancing. It just means that the list is simplified as it ignores many of the problems science needs to face, and naive because it is usually presented as if The Scientific Method is "really very simple". If it was, no science would have been so far removed from an everyday layperson's experience as General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are, and no one would be able to design a flawed experiment.

 

[69dodge]

It's slightly more complex than that. It's specifically a method of developing and testing hypotheses. Not against the real world, but against eachother. It's also a method of DEVELOPING the tests used. Saying that its as simple as testing the ideas against the real world is an oversimplification to the point of inaccuracy.

Can you elaborate a bit?

For example, what do you think science says is the method of developing hypotheses?

I don't think science says anything about how a hypothesis ought to be developed. If it works once it's been developed, that's all that matters.

Watch Feynman say the same thing.

 

[GreyICE]

Citation?

Commonly accepted. Can move up to 17th century with Sir Francis Bacon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_method

Really?

Yuppers!

Are you sure?

Are you useful?

We might want to start with Wikipedia's entry on Scientific Method as a common starting point for this discussion.

Yes, lets. Oh wait, it agrees with me.

We can then compare and contrast, given our own knowledge, between that article and what scientists actually do.

You have some point, and you're not making it. Stop being cute, you're not clever, you're not funny, and I have no idea what you're doing because you are failing at communicating.

 

[Polgara]

As to the original ponderings of abstract and paradigm shifts, and as to the following take on scientific method:

Nonsense. The scientific method was undiscovered before Galileo. In fact, it wasn't really codified until the 17th century. Saying that they were secretly using the scientific method, but didn't really understand that they were using the scientific method is insane. It's obvious ex post facto justification. "Oh, they didn't know what they were doing." The scientific method is simply one way of discovering things. It is not some true, universal principle that people tapped into before they even knew it existed.


I can't touch on insanity, at the moment. I personally delve so far in sometimes that I have to reach behind myself and pull myself out by the shirt collar.

However, science is based on symbols. Symbols (hello) are abstract thought turned into tangible representations. If scientific method utilizes symbols (which represent abstract), since - let's say - 'day one of scientific method', it would appear that it continues to utilize the abstract, that it has utilized the abstract. It would appear that abstract is a fixed element in the scientific process.

To attempt to clarify, are we just changing the symbols as we progress through time? As we evolve through time, society, intellect...do we perhaps just find ourselves dawning upon new 'symbols'. New symbols that represent more clarity in thought because they match the influencing inputs and factors of our present interpretations of reality? Further, does this mean we are not necessarily changing the 'the process'- just the symbols we use to represent? Evolving thought needs evolving symbols.

-I am supposed to be at work, so if the above P on symbols isn't tidy enough, forgive me.

Ok. I think I've laid my own foundation regarding paradigm shifts, and that they hedge upon the shift in abstract interpretations.

re: Kuhn -A scientific revolution occurs, according to Kuhn, when scientists encounter anomalies which cannot be explained by the universally accepted paradigm within which scientific progress has thereto been made.

I am thinking that the anomalies, are just things that we have not yet figured a way to manipulate - through abstract - into symbolism.

I think that the 'shift' in a paradigm is completed when we tumble across a way to perceive a new (or more dynamic) symbolism.

I think it would stand to reason that:

1)Abstract has always played a part in the scientific method.
Abstract thought leads to symbolism so that we can collectively gather
information, and continue to manipulate that information.

2)Abstract evolves or morphs - this establishes the paradigm shift.
Abstract, or symbolism, changes according to the impressions in our minds
with regards to how our experiences dictate. New symbols- new
manipulations- new science.

Conclusion: I think the symbols change, the process does not I think that we need to use abstract, and that we have been using abstract. I think the change of symbols demands a continued need to facilitate paradigm shifts – new science. I think the process has worked, the linguistics just get adjusting as we go.

I believe that, as I referenced a link in prior conversation here, the arts may be a big key to unlocking the abstract symbols of the future.

To go back to the question pertaining to when the scientific method started, I would have to think it started when coding started. That settles that particular tiny matter, in my mind. I'm 'all in' with GreyIce on this one.

Perhaps we are just glorified cavemen. :O)

I'm going with Hofstadter - loops.
Everything mirrors, loops abound.

 

[Jimbo07]

Okay. The vitriol in your post suggests that I took it too far in the first place, by being curt. I'm sorry.

Commonly accepted. Can move up to 17th century with Sir Francis Bacon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_method
Yuppers!

Are you useful?

The point of my three (obviously abrasive) comments was to reaffirm this statement:

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

re: the Wikipedia article

Yes, lets. Oh wait, it agrees with me.

At least as far as Cuddles' point for investigations resembling science long before Bacon, it doesn't. It's almost a truism that for a very general definition of 'science,' all knowledge of the physical world, over the millennia, has advanced through science.

It's in nailing down specific definitions of scientific method, that philosophers of science write, that gives us headache-inducing discussions, etc. The very specific procedures by which a scientific method unfolds really seem to be discipline specific.

You have some point, and you're not making it. Stop being cute, you're not clever, you're not funny, and I have no idea what you're doing because you are failing at communicating.

I've apologized for my opening approach. These comments seem harsh.

 

[GreyICE]

Okay. The vitriol in your post suggests that I took it too far in the first place, by being curt. I'm sorry.

In a curt style: Same

The point of my three (obviously abrasive) comments was to reaffirm this statement:

re: the Wikipedia article

Without a codified process, science isn't science. In some form the method (testing hypotheses) has been used for human history. A child drops a glass on the floor, watches it break, and learns about gravity and fragile objects. It drops two more objects on the floor, and has a repeatable experiment. While we can say things like this, this is hardly comparable to codified science in a method.

At least as far as Cuddles' point for investigations resembling science long before Bacon, it doesn't. It's almost a truism that for a very general definition of 'science,' all knowledge of the physical world, over the millennia, has advanced through science.

And yet atoms were first theorized long before we could think of a single testable experiment to determine their existence. Knowledge might only advance through science, but that's because we've redefined thought experiments like the Greeks conducted into experiments that did not advance actual knowledge. Or, in other words, we define knowledge as something we gain through science, then we note that we only gain knowledge through science.

It's in nailing down specific definitions of scientific method, that philosophers of science write, that gives us headache-inducing discussions, etc. The very specific procedures by which a scientific method unfolds really seem to be discipline specific.

Once again, its not some universal principle. It's a method, subject to modification - and replacement.

I've apologized for my opening approach. These comments seem harsh.

I apologize then. I hate it when people have some point that they're obviously holding back, and refuse to make so they can have one of those Sherlock Holmes "now the criminal is revealed" moments (at least in their head).

 

[Jimbo07]

Okay, I came late to this thread. I'll have to back up. My initial post was a stream of consciousness post, from following along with the other posts. I got to a point, where I assumed Cuddles was so obviously correct, that I couldn't understand opposition. In some sense, I still can't.

Without a codified process, science isn't science.

Okay, but that's into the headachy specifics I mentioned. Which codified process? I've never met a practicing scientist who has a recipe card in their office with the list of steps or instructions ("Okay... step 4.1, reexamine hypthosesis... whew almost forgot that one!" )

And yet atoms were first theorized long before we could think of a single testable experiment to determine their existence. Knowledge might only advance through science, but that's because we've redefined thought experiments like the Greeks conducted into experiments that did not advance actual knowledge.

Or... exactly as Cuddles said,

Changing 3) would result in nonsense hypotheses with no connection to the real world.

Experiment, or checking against the real world, is all important. As far as accepting that one line as a "codification" of science, I suppose I don't understand why a post-scientific paradigm is necessary (or perhaps possible).

In my personal experience, I haven't seen anything in engineering (relating back to the OP) which dictates a post-scientific paradigm, either.

I apologize then. I hate it when people have some point that they're obviously holding back, and refuse to make so they can have one of those Sherlock Holmes "now the criminal is revealed" moments (at least in their head).

We all have a taste (if not a gift) for the dramatic, I suppose...

 

[Polgara]

Sherlock says:

Back to the drawing board. Critical thinking and serendipty are currently under consideration.

 

[Jimbo07]

Sherlock says:

Back to the drawing board. Critical thinking and serendipty are currently under consideration.

I don't understand this.

Conclusion: I think the symbols change, the process does not I think that we need to use abstract, and that we have been using abstract. I think the change of symbols demands a continued need to facilitate paradigm shifts – new science...

I believe that, as I referenced a link in prior conversation here, the arts may be a big key to unlocking the abstract symbols of the future.

I think many men o' straw have been fabricated here... Is the implication that current scientists are not artistic? Have not benefitted from serendipity? Are not critical thinkers?

What would the artistic post-science paradigm look like and how could it help us better understand physical reality than we do now?

I don't know what, specifically, is being referred to in this thread as the "scientific paradigm." Is it:

i) Reductionism?
ii) Experimentation?
iii) Academic Indoctrination?
iii) Specialization?
iv) The current Standard Model in physics?
v) The "germ" theory of disease?

 

[CapelDodger]

I didn't say it could be wrong. I said that it is overly simplified and naive. Take number 1 for example; it quite obviously ignores the fact that scientists have to make choices what they are going to look at, and these choices depend on their previous knowledge, on unproven assumptions and their personal subjective preferences.

So perhaps Q 1.1 : Decide if anybody cares (including yourself). If not, desist.

Another thing that number 1 ignores is the fact that what scientists will see when they look at something is also influenced by those things; according to many philosophers of science including Karl Popper, theory precedes observation.

I've not much time for philosophers of science . But I'll let that pass.

Let's consider an example : thermodynamics in the Age of Steam. As for 1.1, lots of people cared deeply. It was of paramount economic, strategic, and technological importance. The observations were originally brought to the scientists (along with funds), so the theory followed. The environment was extremely competitive; the need to get it right squeezed out fixed preconceptions pretty damn' quick.

It was the battle-hardening of the scientific method, and scientific practice. When it was called on to handle electro-magnetism, chemicals, internal combustion, both were ready. The evidence is there in history : Protestant societies surged ahead, Catholic societies lagged behind. That's history of science .

 

[Polgara]

1) Back to the drawing board. Critical thinking and serendipty are currently under consideration.

This statement was me trying to:

a) maintain focus. -Jokes are permitted.
b) sit back and evaluate, and gain some input in doing so.

I am on this site because I am looking for method (in whole or in part) in which I can operate under reasonable logic.

In my posts I should have been asking things like 'Where does the engineering factor in?' I didn't grasp any correlation so I chose to ignore it. I chose to assume I knew what the nature of the question was.

I am trying to focus on picking out the relevant items and consider them - the best way, in order to process them to a reasonable conclusion.

So, does a post-science paradigm exist? -GreyIce

My answer -was- leaning towards no, but not including considering QM. However, while reaching that conclusion with corresponding facts, I seemed to also have been pushing a personal agenda in validating my propensity towards thinking in the abstract.

2) I think many men o' straw have been fabricated here... Is the implication that current scientists are not artistic? Have not benefitted from serendipity? Are not critical thinkers?

Where does thinking in the abstract fit in with critical thinking? I am very 'abstract' in my thought process but lacking in discipline, or understanding on how to utilize it. This is what seems to have been my gist. Again, I see that I was pushing a personal agenda rather than focusing on the original question.

3) I don't know what, specifically, is being referred to in this thread as the "scientific paradigm." Is it:

Had I asked GreyIce what he specifically meant, I probably would have been able to answer your question. I was too busy pontificating.

 

[Jimbo07]

[derail]
Polgara... like the nickname. Belgarath fan myself...

(or at least, I was, many moons ago)
[/derail]

 

[Polgara]

Eddings rules. The series are light reads, but they are a very interesting play of characters, for me.

The first female character to play a lead role in the fantasy genre. :O) Let's not break that statement down. lol

I haven't read through them in a while. My youngest son is currently blasting through Eddings, as we speak.

 

[GreyICE]

Okay, I came late to this thread. I'll have to back up. My initial post was a stream of consciousness post, from following along with the other posts. I got to a point, where I assumed Cuddles was so obviously correct, that I couldn't understand opposition. In some sense, I still can't.

Fair enough.

Okay, but that's into the headachy specifics I mentioned. Which codified process? I've never met a practicing scientist who has a recipe card in their office with the list of steps or instructions ("Okay... step 4.1, reexamine hypthosesis... whew almost forgot that one!" )

Yes they do. Maybe not a list of steps, but there's definitely a checklist of things you should do before you submit your paper for peer review - and peer review ought to catch the things you didn't do.

Or... exactly as Cuddles said,

And yet atoms exist. The Greek philosophers were able to discover very many relatively useful things, despite the fact they held beliefs that we regard as poor now. And why do we regard them as poor? They were worse than science. But, and this is important - they worked. Just not very well. And if a method exists that is worse, a method may exist that's better. Your brilliant way around this was to hypothesize that everything everyone has done to expand knowledge throughout the ages is the scientific method, even if they held beliefs (and rigidly followed them) that were antithetical to the scientific method.

Experiment, or checking against the real world, is all important. As far as accepting that one line as a "codification" of science, I suppose I don't understand why a post-scientific paradigm is necessary (or perhaps possible).

In my personal experience, I haven't seen anything in engineering (relating back to the OP) which dictates a post-scientific paradigm, either.

Nothing dictates it. As I said, if a post science paradigm is discovered, it will propagate infinitely faster than even the scientific method (which was accepted quite quickly). With modern information sharing, discovering it would be equivalent to putting it into effect.

There are aspects of the scientific method and science that are currently quite frustrating, however. A large reason the Greek method was discarded was its very poor at getting practical results. A method that is better at getting practical results than the scientific method would be nice.

It would naturally incorporate the scientific method, and build upon it, expanding it past where it currently is (just as the Greek method became part of the scientific method).

As for what I refer to as paradigm, the scientific method has a paradigm - an ideal way of testing a hypothesis and gathering information that we should follow.

Another method would have another way of doing things.

 

[Jimbo07]

There are aspects of the scientific method and science that are currently quite frustrating, however. A large reason the Greek method was discarded was its very poor at getting practical results. A method that is better at getting practical results than the scientific method would be nice.

Okay.

A new paradigm is dictated by a need for it, and I'd like to pursue this. What aspects are frustrating? Is it questions that haven't been answered, or that can't be answered? How would a new paradigm address these? A worked example would be nice.

As for what I refer to as paradigm, the scientific method has a paradigm - an ideal way of testing a hypothesis and gathering information that we should follow.

What is this ideal way of testing a hypothesis? Is it universal across scientific disciplines?

Another method would have another way of doing things.

I'd agree with this in the most general sense, but let's go back to needs and the worked example. We'll start with (from the OP):

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.

Are you asserting that scientists do not engage in abstract problem solving? What do you mean by a lack of firm integration between science and engineering? Some have interpreted your comments to mean that there isn't some integrative information sharing. So is the specific problem specialization?