Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Togo1]

Science really has to be more than mere observation, or else it's less a method, and more a state that people can't help but fall into. Obviously you have to observe something before you can take any action, but that's true of almost everything, including religion, jumping to conclusions, story telling and con artistry. I'd hesitate to call it part of the scientific method.

The scientific method is about systematised observation, and empirical measurement. Both of these require at least a starting hypothesis. The hypothesis may be wrong, but you still need one. So in that sense, Science begins with an idea, a hypothesis, and then designs and builds observations around that hypothesis, to see if it can be falsified. The entire point of proper scientific controls is to avoid observing any effects you had not planned to, so that your hypothesis is being tested in comparative isolation.

In modern practical terms, you need to fit your hypothesis into existing theory, indeed make it seemingly compatible with as many existing theories as possible, or else funding is extremely hard to come by.

[Alan Jones]

Scientists use their imaginations and methods to fathom, describe, explain, and predict nature. Human individuals and cultures and the ways of thinking (including modes of inquiry) used by them are assumed by most scientists to have emerged naturally (to have evolved). The emergence of science from natural philosophy has been a gradual move away from closed belief systems, a freeing of thought from ideals, certainties, and dogmas.

Reasoning abilities have improved as mental and physical tools used to observe, measure, compare, imagine and predict are improved. There is feedback. There is non-linearity. As various geometries have been found useful in various contexts, scientists use various assumptions (laws), abstractions, hypotheses, theories, and other mental tools in various contexts and at various scales. Abstractions, though reified for particular uses, remain mental tools. Induction, deduction, reflection (assumption testing with experiments), the use of evidences, the qualification of findings (assessment of error probablilities), and other components of scientific inquiry allow "only" for a relative freedom from inate and social cognitive biases and other constraints. I'm happy with ambiguity, uncertainty, a relatively free form of inquiry.

[Paradigmer]

Can science ever be or was it ever a free inquiry via observation rather than theory first and proof by observation, logic, testing, consensus. All science seems to be theory driven now, perhaps it always was. How much influence does theory as a priori have on outcomes? It does seem possible to make observations without having a theory, but this may be an illusion. What is the current thinking on this?

The consensus of the scientific method is a hypothetico-deductive approach, which is officially endorsed methodology with hard science.

Another upside down approach, which seems to be what you are proposing, is the grounded theory approach. This is generally considered as soft science, and is rarely used for the nowadays research in physics.

If the Gettier problem of an apparent observation is eradicated, thus resolved the illusion of conventional wisdom, a propositional knowledge of a soft science can be an immutable truth, which the a priori knowledge is imperative for its a posteriori hard science. An example of this approach, is the propositional knowledge on the apparent retrograde motion of planets that was endorsed in geocentrism, is a relative motion illusion of its apparent observation.

[Supine]

As an answer to question #1 of this thread:

Science is a rational means of investigating physical phenomena. That rational means is employed through the scientific method. The scientific method can begin by observation first and then formulating a hypothesis or by not necessarily observing a thing but just reflecting deeply in thought, or an instantaneous "light bulb" going of in a persons head, and thereby formulating a hypothesis regarding a problem. You can think of a problem as a mystery or riddle if you wish. Same difference just semantics.

A scientific theory is different than a scientific hypothesis. The latter is conjecture and the theory is grounded in a lot of evidence. Evidence does not mean proof. But mounting evidence is more than mere conjecture.

A scientific law is different than a scientific theory or a hypothesis. Scientific laws are grounded in facts and usually these facts can be expressed mathematically and very often in mathematical statistical probability or predictability. A scientific theory is formulated to explain the aggregation of these laws or facts.

Kept unpolluted from politics--or some would also say financial interests or even fame--science is pretty pure in free inquiry. (Not to say you don't need money to fund and carry out scientific research because you do.)




But science is not divorced from politically biased humans nor from humans motivated by their own career advancements, financial welfare, or personal egos.

Today, politics infiltrates the sciences. Not really in computer science or technological engineering. But in branches of sciences where you have Americans and Europeans out marching with protest signs, cursing others, calling people stupid etc... the politics runs "science."

Philosophers can have a big impact on science. Probably those in the philosophy of science provide the committed critiques that can propel the various fields of science on the straight and narrow so-to-speak. Prodding science on what it can and can not accomplish as a vehicle for valid explanations. Proposing limits on what should or should not influence scientific investigators.

As for examples of lack or free inquiry in the sciences I offer these videos for food for thought.

(Climate)

(False data/Corruption)

Question: “I am a 24-year-old graduate student in medicinal chemistry/chemical biology. I had been admitted to various different schools and had multiple offers from individual labs upon finishing my undergrad degree. I eventually made the best decision I could have with the information that had been made available at the time and I picked a specific medicinal chemistry/chemical biology lab that seemed to have copious amounts of both money and publications. The reason I chose this lab was that it seemed to be the best place to propel my career forward despite it being 5,000km away from my home, family, and friends.“

“As I was gearing up for the long and grueling five years that were to come, I saw the lab I had chosen for what it really was. The reason this particular lab had so much money and fame was because he was forging his results. And presented these erroneous results to both private and public funding organizations in an attempt to gather more money for himself. Worse still, when graduate students, post docs, or lab techs brought the non-consistent data to his attention, he simply would brush them off and tell them to hide the information.”

“It even got so bad that the professor fired a couple of post-docs and graduate students because he thought they weren't going along with his manipulated data. This professor is more concerned in being the rock-star of the university and the celebrity of the city than he is in being an honest scientist in the pursuit of truth. Sadly, I think this attitude is pervasive in the minds of many of my colleagues. I think this is so because our society has a tendency to view scientists as the new "priests" and science as the new ‘God,’ as you have so precisely pointed out.”

(Antidepressants)

The recent book, Psychiatry Under the Influence - co-authored by Robert Whitaker and Lisa Cosgrove - investigates the actions and practices of the psychiatry establishment and presents it as a case study of institutional corruption.

Robert Whitaker has won numerous awards as a journalist covering medicine and science, including the George Polk Award for Medical Writing and a National Association for Science Writers’ Award for best magazine article. In 1998, he co-wrote a series on psychiatric research for the Boston Globe that was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. Anatomy of an Epidemic won the 2010 Investigative Reporters and Editors book award for best investigative journalism.

[Paradigmer]

Supine, thanks for posting the Dr. Judith Curry video. Many of her statements had struck my chords.

Visited her "Climate Etc." page on "The Republic of Science", other than medicine, nutrition, and psychology as mentioned in "Partisanship and silencing science", she pointed out that climate and environmental sciences are also the scientific fields suffering from politicized science.

Would like to further add that the mainstream modern science is also not excluded, and the below link addresses the issues in intricate details:

Critiques of the scientific method

Intrinsically, the endorsed scientific method has critical flaws from first principles for its scientific theories and scientific laws.

[Supine]

Supine, thanks for posting the Dr. Judith Curry video. Many of her statements had struck my chords.

Visited her "Climate Etc." page on "The Republic of Science", other than medicine, nutrition, and psychology as mentioned in "Partisanship and silencing science", she pointed out that climate and environmental sciences are also the scientific fields suffering from politicized science.

Would like to further add that the mainstream modern science is also not excluded, and the below link addresses the issues in intricate details:

Critiques of the scientific method

Intrinsically, the endorsed scientific method has critical flaws from first principles for its scientific theories and scientific laws.

I accept and concur with the article about illusions. The geocentric model is no longer accepted today but my understanding is that it was good science at the time, provided explanatory power, and mathematically allowed scientists to accurately predict positions of celestial bodies in time and space.

The article says this:



"Any person in all honesty developing any scientific theory with mathematical rigors in physics to establish the a posteriori knowledge of any empirically observed natural phenomenon, and thus asserts the axioms of its a priori proposition with its unassailable deductions, at best is an intelligent fool fooling himself in circular reasoning. And with its mathematically validated proof for the a priori proposition concluded through its a posteriori knowledge, at its best, such scientific theory can convincingly fool the mass majority with its artificial cognitive paradox that renders its illusion of knowledge."



So, wouldn't the geocentric model be an example of this? And to whatever vary degrees our current perception of the universe? One could justifiably make the earth the center (or any celestial body) of the universe for the purposes of the calculations. My understanding is satellites launched in space are calculated with the earth as the focal point of the universe.

So, yeah, a scientific theory can be biased based upon the clique of observers who champion it and successfully have it advanced in all major institutions, when a smaller number of observers see something different but are not successful in persuading major institutions to adopt the framework of their basic thesis or first principal. Peer review itself has developed some, to use a phrase from the article, "delusions of grandeur" within the sciences. That can potentially be a corrupting, highly political process if as it works in a closed systems of those deemed elite and unquestionable to even self educated, inquiring lay minds.

[Atreyu]

A good example of that is how science scoffs at all the evidence that cosmic bodies in general grow...

[Paradigmer]

A good example of that is how science scoffs at all the evidence that cosmic bodies in general grow...

Perhaps the progenies of mainstream science, have been emboldened by how scientists like Dr. Judith Curry are being ostracized for challenging the politicized science.

[Tsur Taub]

It does seem possible to make observations without having a theory

Making an observation without having a theory is the purest form of science.
Much of the scientific research carried out today is done in the following form: One research question, a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis using a single method.
In the past, it was not like that. A scientist would a certain phenomena through many methods without necessarily assuming he knows the answer (or even the question). Only experimenting in order to gather observations on the characteristics of that phenomena.
This attitude leads to more breakthroughs and less biased research.

[Alan Jones]

Hello Tsur Taub,
Please read this about the need for observation (description) and a testable explanation: http://arachnoid.com/theory/

[Paradigmer]

It does seem possible to make observations without having a theory

Making an observation without having a theory is the purest form of science.

Indeed.

This is the very essence for qualitative analysis with abductive reasoning. It is a form of logical inference which goes from an observation to a theory which accounts for the observation.

Much of the scientific research carried out today is done in the following form: One research question, a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis using a single method.
In the past, it was not like that. A scientist would a certain phenomena through many methods without necessarily assuming he knows the answer (or even the question). Only experimenting in order to gather observations on the characteristics of that phenomena.
This attitude leads to more breakthroughs and less biased research.

Well summarized.

And several renowned scientists in the field of physics who had made such significant breakthroughs, just to name a few, are Archimedes, Galileo, Descartes, Lord Kelvin, Nikola Tesla, Michael Faraday, Einstein, Satyendra Nath Bose, Edwin Hubble, and Hannes Alfven.