The Place and Value of Science

[Zetetic11235]

What of science? If it might be presumed that man is a beast, and thus interested in survival first and foremost, it should be of utmost concern that we should find the best means by which we can secure our survival. Society, it seems, builds from this urge to saftey and security. Certainly as society and technology have progressed, the survival rate of our species and the normative quality as well as quantity of life have generally been on the uprise. No longer do we suffer from the bondage of total uncertainty and inconsitency, though we have certainly not conquered these aspects of life; nor do I condone any such efforts to this effect, lest we abandon the value of spontaneity in life.

We have most certainly improved the average lifespan and cut back the rate of infant mortality. We have most certainly cured a myriad of diseases and made nearly innocuous countless more. We have indeed covered the globe with our lines of communications and our systems of mass transit. We have even travelled to space and gazed upon other worlds, and we have looked at them with the hope that we might make them liveable in view of many possible cosmic and man-made dangers that pose a threat to our species so long as we inhabit only the earth.

The ultimate place of science and of society in general, is that of utility. Its first and foremost intent should be to ensure life and improve its quality in those ways that are within its domain of influence.

That being said, it is the hope of many that science might reveal the relational framework of reality in its entirety, and thereby enable us to master to the greatest degree possible, the physical universe(which to many is the only aspect of the universe). It is indeed a hope that goes well beyond the pragmatic basis of this field of study, and it may be a false hope. It may well be that the day will never come that we will know all there is to know of the physical universe, but should that discourage us from this course of action? It does hold true that past attempts at such a unification have yielded some very useful results, as have current ones(such as string theory). In that sense they are pragmatically justified, though it was not necessarily their intent to be such.

Theory is in a sense pragmatic, for it allows for application. The broader the theory the greater the range of applications. Take the basics of newtonian mechanics; with a touch of theory, we put a man into orbit. The equations were certainly not the most complex or esoteric, but their application was very powerful. Look at Einstein, who's theories allowed for applications both great and terrible. Theory is the essence of utility. Without the theory, the possibility of application does not arise. But to what extent does theory go too far? Why is it that so often the nature of a scientific theory is forgotten and it adopts the sense of a law for the general public? Certainly insofar as a theory is useful in application and no superior substitute is available, it should be taken as valueable. There is however, always the factor of vested interest. There are those who would have it assumed that the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics are law simply because their lives have been directed towards the development of these theories, and it is certainly understandable that they do so, though it is not right.

Mathematics is the safest venue for those of inclination to the hard sciences and logic, for propositions in mathematics are provable, as they range over a closed system. The sciences hold domain over open systems, and thus conjectures are constantly shifting with new data, but the conjectures can only range over a closed system i.e. the set of previously gathered empirical data. It is then the case that empirical data, insofar as it does not contradict the prevailing system, only adds to it. But what of when we try to fit data into the prevailing system, taking it as true? We begin to interject a bias into it, where should wedraw the line? Certainly if there are multiple theories which might fit the total set of data, we should pick the simplest most effective one(not unlike Ockham's razor) in order to best enable application. When we have theories which build upon theories by taking into account new data, are we indeed building a house of cards? Is there an underlying problem of methodology here? Should we not attempts to periodically re-evaluate the data from the base up? Is this feasibile?

If we are to have any hope of eliminateing bias in the sciences, it seems that there needs to be a system of checks and balances in the scientific community such that it can prevent the old from blocking the new with predjudice, but how might such a system be orchestrated? Is it possible to create such a system?

Is science overstepping its bounds in today's society? Are we creeping ever closer to the enlightenment ideology that came to a crashing halt with the advent of nuclear proliferation? What of science?

[Aedes]

People post threads like this every month or two, and despite me asking I still have never gotten any specific examples of how science is encroaching on other domains of life. And citing someone like Richard Dawkins or even Carl Sagan doesn't cut it, because they are not representative. I'll pose you the same challenge -- go to the scientific literature and pull some articles that exemplify your point. There's a group of journals called PLoS (public library of science) that you can reach at PLoS.org. Pull some articles for us to demonstrate whether the bias is actually in science, as opposed to in non-scientists who talk about science.

[Khethil]

Random thoughts on this...

Science, like every other human endeavor, brings us good and ill. Even when done poorly, we can learn by it. For the mystical, religious or ideological it can show us intricacies that inspire - for the materialist, it brings the empowerment of knowledge.

As far as a "standard" for objectivity goes. Sure! Just not sure how such a thing could ever be implemented. What's more, the twists on the scientific theory that *individuals* place on it often bring about break-through's we all can be grateful for (if I could, I'm not sure I'd want to obliterate that dynamic).

But like all things, results of experimentation and discovery need to be placed into their proper context.

[iconoclast]

I view this from an altogether different perspective from Zetetic11235, and come to almost the opposite conclusion, in that I think science is used as a tool and ignored as a rule for the conduct of our affairs.

We found our identities and purposes in fond metaphysics and employ valid epistemology to serve ends thus described - and it's the wrong way around.

We should recognize valid conceptions of reality and the human being and let the metaphysics fall where they may.

iconoclast.

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

If we are to have any hope of eliminateing bias in the sciences, it seems that there needs to be a system of checks and balances in the scientific community such that it can prevent the old from blocking the new with predjudice, but how might such a system be orchestrated? Is it possible to create such a system?

... hmmmmm - I think there already exists such a bias-checking system for science: it's called science! ... science always has been and always will be influenced by biases - in a very real sense they're what keep science moving along ... metaphysical biases are what feed the basic research programs of pure science; metaphysical biases are what feed the option-generating programs of applied science and additionally provide the intellectual framework for option selection; peer review and entrenched scientific theories keep science on track despite the never-ending fog of questionable metaphysical biases - but metaphysical biases with staying power can emerge from the fog and untrack even the most entrenched of scientific theories (Kuhn's so-called "paradigm shift").

As for the general public forgetting the nature of the scientific method and (mis)taking science as law, a wise science fiction writer once said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistiguishable from magic." ... and so it may be that the magic of technology is what lures the general public into a false sense that science is fully baked - that the scientific theories of today can't possibly be eclipsed by the scientific theories of tomorrow.

[cupofcoffees]

Originally Posted by Aedes

And citing someone like Richard Dawkins or even Carl Sagan doesn't cut it, because they are not representative.

[gets excited] Then you must be arguing with the wrong crowd.

I will pull out my good, more popular friends John Zerzan and poor dear scrutinized Ted Kaczynski, or maybe you know him as the "Unabomber". Lol, what do you know. I looked him up in Tru crime and their harshest defense is "His mother had to face the cruel reality that her firstborn bombed, killed and maimed innocent people for nearly eighteen years — in a mindless crusade against progress." Progress! Ha! That is how they describe it, and he is the psycho?

Zerzan and Kaczynski are they themselves some of the brighter kin known to society, geniuses in fact (I'm not lacking in the IQ department myself). Don't be fooled, they have their "degrees", and...in science for a shocker! So why is it people in their "right" state of minds would propose such an insane "revert" in a "progressive" wave of the future? Let me introduce to you what it means to be anarcho-primitivist.

According to an article by Alston Chase for the June 2000 issue of The Atlantic Monthly, students in Murray's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-sponsored study, dubbed MKULTRA, were told they would be debating personal philosophy with a fellow student.[4] Instead, they were subjected to the stress test, which was an extremely stressful and prolonged psychological attack by an anonymous attorney. During the test, students were strapped into a chair and connected to electrodes that monitored their physiological reactions, while facing bright lights and a one-way mirror. The "debate" was filmed, and students' expressions of impotent rage were played back to them at various times later in the study. According to Chase, Kaczynski's records from that period suggest that he was emotionally stable at the start of the study. Kaczynski's lawyers attributed some of his emotional instability and dislike of mind control to his participation in this study.

Stories like this...THIS, kill me inside. It's so inhumane it's inconceivable! And yet it goes unnoticed, it's allowable, and it will only proliferate. He was no criminal, but a martyr; he was tortured to put it mildly, and treated like a lab rat (not that animal testing is ok, either).

There are still opposers? Well, without further adieu, I will officially critique the op.

What of science? If it might be presumed that man is a beast, and thus interested in survival first and foremost, it should be of utmost concern that we should find the best means by which we can secure our survival. Society, it seems, builds from this urge to saftey and security. Certainly as society and technology have progressed, the survival rate of our species and the normative quality as well as quantity of life have generally been on the uprise. No longer do we suffer from the bondage of total uncertainty and inconsitency, though we have certainly not conquered these aspects of life; nor do I condone any such efforts to this effect, lest we abandon the value of spontaneity in life.

Interesting how your choice of word is "bondage" in your last sentence, when the irony is that we suffer from the bondage of certainty and consistency.

We have most certainly improved the average lifespan and cut back the rate of infant mortality. We have most certainly cured a myriad of diseases and made nearly innocuous countless more. We have indeed covered the globe with our lines of communications and our systems of mass transit. We have even travelled to space and gazed upon other worlds, and we have looked at them with the hope that we might make them liveable in view of many possible cosmic and man-made dangers that pose a threat to our species so long as we inhabit only the earth.

We have even polluted the oxygen and H20 we once needed to stay healthy in survival, but today we live on gasoline and redbull, am I right?

We have so many advancements in medicine, in fact, that the earth is overpopulated. We are so pampered, thought for, labored for, and given the legal right to take a piss that we forget we started in a machine; a force against nature for the sake of "progress"; an unidentifiable concept conviently laid out when we ask ourselves "why"; the new religion, if you will.

The ultimate place of science and of society in general, is that of utility. Its first and foremost intent should be to ensure life and improve its quality in those ways that are within its domain of influence.

Looks like it fails to meet your qualifications.

That being said, it is the hope of many that science might reveal the relational framework of reality in its entirety, and thereby enable us to master to the greatest degree possible, the physical universe(which to many is the only aspect of the universe). It is indeed a hope that goes well beyond the pragmatic basis of this field of study, and it may be a false hope. It may well be that the day will never come that we will know all there is to know of the physical universe, but should that discourage us from this course of action? It does hold true that past attempts at such a unification have yielded some very useful results, as have current ones(such as string theory). In that sense they are pragmatically justified, though it was not necessarily their intent to be such.

An easy way to lose sight of the universe is in the belief that our perspective, the human mind, from its preconditioned, determined state is in a position of power in comparison to its origin.

How brave a statement to say we, a mere species among the brethren of others, has the authority to conduct the universe. This isn't a question of power, because clearly we have the power, but we don't have the wisdom, and in our questions we find no answers but a line of greater questions. In an attempt to radicate nature, we may theorize, invent, and use our brains to severe lengths, but we remain animalistic, evolved forms of a world that we are determined by.

Theory is in a sense pragmatic, for it allows for application. The broader the theory the greater the range of applications. Take the basics of newtonian mechanics; with a touch of theory, we put a man into orbit. The equations were certainly not the most complex or esoteric, but their application was very powerful. Look at Einstein, who's theories allowed for applications both great and terrible. Theory is the essence of utility. Without the theory, the possibility of application does not arise. But to what extent does theory go too far? Why is it that so often the nature of a scientific theory is forgotten and it adopts the sense of a law for the general public? Certainly insofar as a theory is useful in application and no superior substitute is available, it should be taken as valueable. There is however, always the factor of vested interest. There are those who would have it assumed that the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics are law simply because their lives have been directed towards the development of these theories, and it is certainly understandable that they do so, though it is not right.

When did it go too far? When man's imagination outgrew his reality.

Mathematics is the safest venue for those of inclination to the hard sciences and logic, for propositions in mathematics are provable, as they range over a closed system. The sciences hold domain over open systems, and thus conjectures are constantly shifting with new data, but the conjectures can only range over a closed system i.e. the set of previously gathered empirical data. It is then the case that empirical data, insofar as it does not contradict the prevailing system, only adds to it. But what of when we try to fit data into the prevailing system, taking it as true? We begin to interject a bias into it, where should wedraw the line? Certainly if there are multiple theories which might fit the total set of data, we should pick the simplest most effective one(not unlike Ockham's razor) in order to best enable application. When we have theories which build upon theories by taking into account new data, are we indeed building a house of cards? Is there an underlying problem of methodology here? Should we not attempts to periodically re-evaluate the data from the base up? Is this feasibile?

When we "try to fit data into the prevailing system, taking it as true" we commit as much of a logical fallacy as we do in language, only it's unrecognized as such.

If we are to have any hope of eliminateing bias in the sciences, it seems that there needs to be a system of checks and balances in the scientific community such that it can prevent the old from blocking the new with predjudice, but how might such a system be orchestrated? Is it possible to create such a system?

I believe the system of which you speak is the lost art of tribalistic living; extreme, I know, but remember that science is a child, but a child of philosophy. It's a branch of thought mistaken for thought itself, and the mode of life. Philosophy and thought is a result of neurology, and the brain a spec to its predecessor.

Is science overstepping its bounds in today's society? Are we creeping ever closer to the enlightenment ideology that came to a crashing halt with the advent of nuclear proliferation? What of science?

What of sprinkles on your sundae?

[iconoclast]

cupofcoffees,

It's difficult for people of genius level IQ to operate in a society made for relative morons - but the clue is in unaBOMBer, if you look closely enough! Kaczynski was a genius, but he was also philosophically niave and a nutter.

In his manifesto, he says:

"science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of the human race or to any other standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and corporation executives who provide the funds for research."

(all quotes from wikipedia)

This is essentially what I'm saying - but from a different perspective. Because Kaczynski places the highest value on niave concepts like freedom - he

"attribute[s] the social and psychological problems of modern society to the fact that society requires people to live under conditions radically different from those under which the human race evolved and to behave in ways that conflict with the patterns of behavior that the human race developed while living under the earlier conditions."

This is what I mean about having the metaphysics and epistemology and the wrong way around. As smart as he is/was - Kaczynski makes the same mistake as society in general makes. In fact the human being is an evolutionary creature, socially defined rather then an innate individual character or free spirit, and adaptable to changing circumstances.

But in the end, his anarcho-primtivism is just a self-justifying rant:

Two years later, in 1971, he moved into a remote cabin he built himself in Lincoln, Montana, where he lived a simple life on very little money, with no electricity and no running water, feeding himself as a hunter-gatherer.

He chose this because he couldn't live in society - and so condemned society and lauded his choice as the right one, as people will tend to do, however smart or dumb they are, they always think they're right.

iconoclast.

[cupofcoffees]

The actual real-life no strings attached ~Unabom Manifesto~
It may be helpful to read, if you haven't already.

I can live in society, and throughout my childhood I've had no choice, but I will just as soon run to the forest and hide my life away if it gets to such a point.

No joke...

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by cupofcoffees

Stories like this...THIS, kill me inside. It's so inhumane it's inconceivable! And yet it goes unnoticed, it's allowable, and it will only proliferate. He was no criminal, but a martyr; he was tortured to put it mildly, and treated like a lab rat (not that animal testing is ok, either).

... to lay the blame of man's inhumanity toward man at the foot of science is to claim that man's inhumanity toward man did not exist prior to the scientific method - are you making such a claim? ...

[iconoclast]

cupofcoffees,

When I said 'self-justifiying rant' I didn't mean you - I meant Kaczynski. The problem with his philosophy is that he doesn't seem to appreciate it's difficult for everyone - (even the 'over-socialized') - to negotiate a truce with the demands society makes. And what's more, it always has been, throughout the history of civilization, and I suspect, as it was for individuals in hunter-gatherer tribal life. That's just the nature of society - the difficulty of reconciling the 'I' with the 'we' - a question Kaczynski failed to ask, much less answer satisfactorily. Rather he projects his own hang-ups onto society as a whole.
But if i've learned anything it's don't run away. Stand your ground, for no matter how far or fast you run, you always take yourself with you.

regards,

iconoclast.