There is no scientific method or epistemology

[Arjen]

Somethings that relate directly to science and where science would fall short are:

- A reason for that what science calls "big bang" happening (or even a reliable description of what actually happened).
- How is it possible that humans can reason (and not the way it functions; but how is it possible that that gets kick-started)?
- How is it possible that space and time bend to a point where it no longer follows the "laws of nature" (or how does it really function)?
- How come any moral philosophy focussing on "facts" is always itself opposite (or why does it not comply to normal logical formulae)?

These questions could be reshaped into the following "problems" (or experiments)
- How do big bangs happen?
- How does reasoning start?
- How does space and time function at the "core" of a gravity well?
- How does moral philosophy function?

[Didymos Thomas]

Be as condescending as you like, you've jumped ahead of yourself.

You say:

in science there is no regard for ontological differences. Therefore things don't add up.

Yet, you do not sufficiently support the notion that the scientific method needs to account for metaphysical ramblings.

How is the scientific method supposed to have any regard for ontological differences when those differences are not agreed upon? It would be, in my humble opinion as a non-scientist, terribly unscientific for the scientific method to try and account for ontological differences.

You bring up issues that are supposed to illustrate the problem. But I do not see why these are necessarily ontological problems. Unless you expect the scientific method to play little words games - hmm, are three toothpicks a pile? How about 10? How about 10,000?

I simply do not think the scientific method to be the sort of tool for metaphysical speculation. I think metaphysical speculation requires people of above average intellect who are exceedingly bored. Scientists, it seems, are preoccupied with the study of science.

[Arjen]

Didymos, between the two of us I think you are the one rambling. The thing of it is that the examples I placed are not metaphysical problems, but transcendental problems. Science envelopes the study of processes. A process is "a taking place in space and time". This "taking place" is then studied from a start point until an end point; the process is that which takes place in the middle. Seeing as no start point can be found or examined in space and time (and therefore by human percieving and reasoning..and thus science) no processes can be examined properly. Science can only "guess" (in a scientific way) about what is going on. Although I appreciate that one can study thing after they came into existence and some relative certainty can be found in this no certainty can be reached because the processes leading to the existence of these things cannot be studied. All of science is in that sense based on assumptions. Which is, as I sais, quite unscientific of science.

Contrary to what you may think of me I do not think science is useless or anything. It has its place and its values. I do, however, think people in general and scientist more so should realise its place and appreciate its delicate existence. All things humanity "knows" are based on assumptions (axioms) which cannot be proved.

Like I said, don't get me wrong: When looking for scientific answers I mostly am on the frontlines; but when discussing science as a whole I always point out its weaknesses. Without realising exactly what science is and does one misvalues the "truths" found by science.

Anyway, to clarify:

How is the scientific method supposed to have any regard for ontological differences when those differences are not agreed upon? It would be, in my humble opinion as a non-scientist, terribly unscientific for the scientific method to try and account for ontological differences.

I think that science should not so much "have a regard" for "ontological differences which have not been proved", but that science (scientists) should not deny the fact that they cannot explain certain things. This kind of deni-all is what the church has professed allthrough the dark ages and is what has kept Europe back for more then a thousand years. Please do not repeat the mistake.

The rest of your post I will not reply to. I find the remarks a little "off"; especially for a moderator. I am not going to report the post because I think the values you have added to yourself (a.k.a. ego) have suffered enough due to my reasoning.

I am going to end this discussion with this thought:
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education.
~Albert Einstein

[Didymos Thomas]

Didymos, between the two of us I think you are the one rambling.

Well, gosh, I'm sorry to hear that.

Seeing as no start point can be found or examined in space and time (and therefore by human percieving and reasoning..and thus science) no processes can be examined properly. Science can only "guess" (in a scientific way) about what is going on.

The only thing you've established is that science cannot observe the entire process of space and time. Of course science cannot observe the big bang - it already happened and there were no cameras around. But this does not mean that we cannot study any process from beginning to end.

Even then, it does not seem fair to criticize science for not doing something it cannot do, like observe the big bang as it happens.

Contrary to what you may think of me I do not think science is useless or anything. It has its place and its values. I do, however, think people in general and scientist more so should realise its place and appreciate its delicate existence. All things humanity "knows" are based on assumptions (axioms) which cannot be proved.

I imagine scientists are well aware of the limitations of their study.

I think that science should not so much "have a regard" for "ontological differences which have not been proved", but that science (scientists) should not deny the fact that they cannot explain certain things. This kind of deni-all is what the church has professed allthrough the dark ages and is what has kept Europe back for more then a thousand years. Please do not repeat the mistake.

Scientists do admit that they cannot explain certain things. In fact, they do this a lot. That's one hallmark of science, the admission that no findings are absolute and that science can not explain everything, even some of the things it might attempt to explain.

Maybe you just haven't had the best science teachers coming up. It's a shame how poorly some teachers do their job.

The rest of your post I will not reply to. I find the remarks a little "off"; especially for a moderator. I am not going to report the post because I think the values you have added to yourself (a.k.a. ego) have suffered enough due to my reasoning.

Fine with me. Report the post if you like, couldn't bother me in the least. As a moderator I try to be nice to people. But when users talk down or are generally condescending to myself, other users, or other moderators, I do not waste my time trying to be particularly nice.

So, report the post. For that matter, report this one. You'll only waste space in my inbox. So go ahead, but do not think you have caused any damage to my ego, especially at the hands of your so called reasoning.

[Arjen]

Say Didy, I am glad you are finally seeing the light and thereby agree with me that science cannot claim to know anything for sure because the beginning of the process cannot be observed. Perhaps you should have read my posts before reacting. That was my entire argument.

I do, however object to your degrading remark on my teachers. Even though I may not like them all and think some of them are not well versed in their own field I will have you knwo that my university has been around for centuries and has been a very fine one for all that time. I don;t think any university in America has been around for that long, has it? Apart from that I don't think that you really care about the truthfullness of anything you say, do you?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Arjen

Somethings that relate directly to science and where science would fall short are...

These are NOT related to science. They are related to human psychological quests for meaning.

The reason for the big bang (for example) is irrelevant to science, and something for which science should be indifferent. A reason (if there is such a thing) for the big bang or anything else does nothing to help us understand what it was, how it happened, etc.

In fact finding reason in natural things is completely antithetical to science, because it is teleological. And there is probably no worse source of bias and contamination in science than teleology.

So fine, science isn't capable of looking at nonscientific things like metaphysical yearnings for meaning. But these things are irrelevant to science and frankly relevant only to the subset of humans that can't find meaning in their own lives unless it happens to flow out of the universe as a whole.

In fact, it's a statement of the obvious that science can't investigate these things, just as it would be a statement of the obvious that Christian theology doesn't opine about photosynthesis or the geology of glaciers. Similarly, it's a statement of the obvious that metaphysics will never help us discover a new species, sequence a gene, find an HIV vaccine, or lead us to understand better what happened at the beginning of the universe.

Originally Posted by Arjen

I will have you knwo that my university has been around for centuries and has been a very fine one for all that time. I don;t think any university in America has been around for that long, has it?

Does that matter? Stanford University opened in 1891, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology opened in 1861, and Cornell opened in 1865, and yet I'd rather get my science education at one of them than at the University of Al-Karaouine which opened in 859 AD.

[Arjen]

Originally Posted by Aedes

These are NOT related to science. They are related to human psychological quests for meaning.

It only appears that way in my opinion.

The reason for the big bang (for example) is irrelevant to science, and something for which science should be indifferent. A reason (if there is such a thing) for the big bang or anything else does nothing to help us understand what it was, how it happened, etc.

Science is all about cause and effect. It observer processes from a beginning (cause) to an ending (effect). Without a beginning there is no process and therefore no science. I do appreciate the smaller processes science can observe though, but without a full insight into the cause science is based on axioms alone. That is something very important to remember.

In fact finding reason in natural things is completely antithetical to science, because it is teleological. And there is probably no worse source of bias and contamination in science than teleology.

I did not mean that kind of reason. I ment cause. But in a normal sentence I felt awkward using the word.

So fine, science isn't capable of looking at nonscientific things like metaphysical yearnings for meaning. But these things are irrelevant to science and frankly relevant only to the subset of humans that can't find meaning in their own lives unless it happens to flow out of the universe as a whole.

In fact, it's a statement of the obvious that science can't investigate these things, just as it would be a statement of the obvious that Christian theology doesn't opine about photosynthesis or the geology of glaciers. Similarly, it's a statement of the obvious that metaphysics will never help us discover a new species, sequence a gene, find an HIV vaccine, or lead us to understand better what happened at the beginning of the universe.

I am going to ignore this.

Does that matter? Stanford University opened in 1891, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology opened in 1861, and Cornell opened in 1865, and yet I'd rather get my science education at one of them than at the University of Al-Karaouine which opened in 859 AD.

Perhaps, but be aware not to get involved in any prison experiments...


Anyway, I do not take kindly to people talking down to my school before they even know which it is. It makes no sense.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Arjen

Science is all about cause and effect.

That's not true. Cause and effect in science are simply temporal associations -- but the formal concepts of "cause" and "effect" can only be spoken of colloquially in science. Furthermore, there are many types of investigation in science that are NOT related to causality and a produced effect. For instance, the human genome project (and other genetic mapping projects) are undertaken to make our knowledge base more comprehensive and to generate further research, but they are not answering a question about causality or mechanism. Doing a gene knockout to find out whether a gene is essential or to learn what functions an organism lacks absent that gene is also not about cause and effect -- it may produce an effect, but the question being asked is mechanistic.

I am going to ignore this.

Why? I made some valid points, and I'm interested in your response.

Anyway, I do not take kindly to people talking down to my school before they even know which it is. It makes no sense.

Understandable. But to be fair, you can get a bad education at a good school, or you can get no education at a good school. Harvard may have one of the most respected philosophy departments in the country, but in my 3 years at Harvard I never spent a moment in contact with that department -- so I'm not going to invoke my affiliation with that institution to defend my understanding of philosophy. Similarly you can be at a great school and not get a science education -- and one NEEDS a good background in science to critique it -- otherwise you're only critiquing a preconception.

I don't imply one way or another that your science education has been good or bad. But you talk about science using generalities that from within science seem ignorant of what science actually is and does.

[Arjen]

Aedes, I do not think I am going to get this across because I have tried to for three pages. My bet is you don't want to open up to this because of some sort of definition you are humoring. I am not going to take guesses this time because that has been proven to be destructive for any kind of conversation. You are on your own there. I am going to briefly respond in a last effort to get through to you and after that I am not going to try anymore. You will be on your own from there; not an inch from where I found you.

Originally Posted by Aedes

That's not true. Cause and effect in science are simply temporal associations -- but the formal concepts of "cause" and "effect" can only be spoken of colloquially in science. Furthermore, there are many types of investigation in science that are NOT related to causality and a produced effect. For instance, the human genome project (and other genetic mapping projects) are undertaken to make our knowledge base more comprehensive and to generate further research, but they are not answering a question about causality or mechanism. Doing a gene knockout to find out whether a gene is essential or to learn what functions an organism lacks absent that gene is also not about cause and effect -- it may produce an effect, but the question being asked is mechanistic.

Science is about studying processes. One studies processes by taking a starting point and an ending point. The change that have taken place are the process. The starting point needs a cause and the ending point is what one calls an effect to the cause in question. One can do random test or researches, but these fall into a greater study which again concern cause and effect. Also the random tests or researches take beginnings and endings of their own; describing processes witnessed.

Why? I made some valid points, and I'm interested in your response.

Because they have no bearing whatsoever on my words.

Understandable. But to be fair, you can get a bad education at a good school, or you can get no education at a good school. Harvard may have one of the most respected philosophy departments in the country, but in my 3 years at Harvard I never spent a moment in contact with that department -- so I'm not going to invoke my affiliation with that institution to defend my understanding of philosophy. Similarly you can be at a great school and not get a science education -- and one NEEDS a good background in science to critique it -- otherwise you're only critiquing a preconception.

Tell this to Didymos_Thomas. He basis his argumentation on such strange notions. You should also take this thought to heart yourself on account of your reasoning below.

I don't imply one way or another that your science education has been good or bad. But you talk about science using generalities that from within science seem ignorant of what science actually is and does.

I think that you have simply lost your focus. I have used no generalities apart from necessities for science to be science. Therefore these ar perhaps generalities, but also particular to every scientific act. Being within science you should know this because being the scientist you are you must have examined my words with great detail.

If you do not realise that science is metaphysical in nature and that all science does is reason about things witnessed, you need to re-evaluate your position. It exists purely as metaphysical, it therefore necessarily has a causal existance; ergo cause and effect.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Arjen

My bet is you don't want to open up to this because of some sort of definition you are humoring.

I have a career in this field, so why would you assume that I'm stubbornly holding onto a definition? Isn't it natural that with your and my different experiences of science that I'm going to see it differently than you do? It so happens that I think you have a lot of stereotypes and misconceptions about science and perhaps (puzzingly) some antipathy. But I'm operating from the standpoint that perhaps your thoughts on the matter and my experience in the field could lead to some kind of productive discussion. Instead you leave another frustrated ultimatum about how this is your last exasperated attempt to get through my obstinacy.

Science is about studying processes.

Except for the billion things science studies that are NOT processes. Studying anatomy is not the study of a process. Neither is cataloguing genetic diversity. Neither is studying haplotype maps, gene sequencing, taxonomy, or phylogenetics.

Because they have no bearing whatsoever on my words.

They were points that I independently made. For lack of a response I'll regard you as conceding all of these points.

If you do not realise that science is metaphysical in nature and that all science does is reason about things witnessed, you need to re-evaluate your position. It exists purely as metaphysical, it therefore necessarily has a causal existance; ergo cause and effect.

Yes, science "reasons about things witnessed", or systematically investigates the observable. Metaphysics, on the other hand, is a human mental construct -- there is no sense data, no external verification, and therefore no reason whatsoever to presume that there is such a thing as a metaphysical truth. It's just a language game.

To say that science is metaphysical in nature is truly absurd. Cause and effect are not real things. They're human impositions on observations (just like the rest of metaphysics). As you point out there is infinite regress of causes from a metaphysical point of view. But since science can pick whatever resolution it wants, there need not be any conception of prior cause if it's irrelevant to the question at hand. If insulin causes glucose to go into muscle cells, it really doesn't matter if ultimately this is because of a primal cause at the beginning of the universe -- you can understand insulin physiology or treat diabetes anyway.

Metaphysical questions are really not interesting from a scientific standpoint, they don't inform science, they don't advance science, and they belong in churches and philosophy classrooms, not in labs. Science exists independently of any metaphysical question, and this has been true historically -- metaphysics arose by abstracting concepts from observable things, NOT the other way around. And unlike metaphysics, scientific questions can actually be answered. If some in this thread argue that there is no scientific method, then there REALLY is no metaphysical method.