Philosophy and Science

Sapien

Your piece from Wikipedia says it as well as anyone could. It is impossible to become a scientist without this fact about the nature of the scientific process being indelibly etched into one's mind. Scientific training in any discipline effectively involves being brought through the sequence of ideas that have lead to current theories in a more or less chronological way. The replacement of theories with more sophisticated iterations punctuates the course of learning with such regularity that it becomes second nature to expect it. It is difficult to appreciate this without having undergone training oneself.

I appreciate your point about professional reputations being linked to the acceptance of theories, but this fact does not affect the integrity of the scientific process. A scientist will defend his position through logic, mathematics, and assessment of the evidence. Theories do not become sacrosanct and may always be challenged. In fact, progress depends on successful challenges occurring as frequently as possible. Similarly, new ideas must be challenged and old ones defended - or else unfit theories will be adopted too readily. This is how the system works - it is robust and effective.

If you are genuinely interested in becoming a watchdog of epistemological integrity, then become a scientist. If you choose to remain a layman - then defer to those who are in a position to comment intelligently. Certainly, refrain from facile observations about the divisibility of the atom, and scientist "changing their minds". The term "scientific fact" has never, and will never be used by an actual scientist. Any who have previously been a scientist, upon deploying the term, are automatically stripped of their recognition. We have ways of telling.

democrates

I think we're agreed on the integrity of the scientific method itself sapien.

If you are genuinely interested in becoming a watchdog of epistemological integrity, then become a scientist. If you choose to remain a layman - then defer to those who are in a position to comment intelligently. Certainly, refrain from facile observations about the divisibility of the atom, and scientist "changing their minds". The term "scientific fact" has never, and will never be used by an actual scientist. Any who have previously been a scientist, upon deploying the term, are automatically stripped of their recognition. We have ways of telling.

Please note I put the term 'scientific fact' in quotes, a standard method of indicating the term is in use but is disputed, so we are agreed on that.

Again all I was asking for was a few words from those who are posessed of some deeper knowledge and understanding, and started by saying much of the thread covered areas I had not studied, so clearly I have shown some deference.

My purpose as I said in the first post is to steer ordinary people away from dogma when the opportunity arises, do you accept that one doesn't have to be a scientist in order to say "even clever people can be wrong"? I wouldn't expect anyone to defer to anyone else on that point.

I'm a bit surprised that you assume a lay person is not in a position to comment intelligently upon science. I'm not suggesting that lay theories or results should be elevated to the same level as those produced by scientisits, we depend upon scientists to earn their keep and apply the scientific method, supporting or refuting hypotheses. We probably share a concern at the field of medicine being besieged by alternative medicine practicioners some of whom seem to be little more than witchdoctors for example.

The scientific method requires creativity, both in formulating hypotheses and designing tests. Taking Paul Churchlands view of the brain as a neuro-computational matrix that solves problems by matching patterns, the more patterns you have the more problems you can solve. Collecting patterns does not require deference, so what if the source is not a scientist?

Again I'm not suggesting that scientists defer to lay people outright, but I think it's reasonable to expect them to keep an open mind in keeping with the scientific method.

I think I gave you the wrong impression when I said that much of the preceding thread involved areas I haven't studied. By this I meant I hadn't gone through the system to degree level or beyond in the disciplines, not that I somehow avoided all such knowledge or understanding. I studied Chemistry, Biology, and Physics for the leaving cert, did more physics in college along with electronics, have read many books, watched many documentaries, and had many discussions about science and philosophy with a physicist among others over the years. I'm not trying to start a credentials contest which I'd lose, I'm a lay person, but that label doesn't mean zero scientific knowledge either.

If you add to the mix the capacity for reason and personal experience (years of collecting patterns that represent the world and solving problems in my case), it's reasonable to expect that a lay person can be capable of making an intelligent comment about science, or any other discipline for that matter. Without going to the extreme of assuming they are always right, I think it would be less than scientific to assume the other extreme, that they are always wrong.

Can you accept that it is possible for a scientist to benefit in their work from listening to a lay person, and that to do so does not contravene the scientific method?

ISAW

Son Goku wrote:

What do people make of this statement of science?
I'd disagree with quite a bit of it, but I'm not going to start a thread with an opinion.
I'll state it later after others have posted.

Is The Goal of Scientific Research to Achieve Truth?

Assumption here that there is an absolute truth. Odd considering the constructivist slant at the end.

Except in special cases, most scientific researchers would agree that their results are only approximately true.

Same assumption. and wholly different to saying that science uses error bars in an empirical measurement. furthermore no evidence is presented for the opinion about what most scientists agree. Again seem to smell of the social constructivist school. Whether most scientists agree on something does not necesarrily make it true! Most of them agreed that the Earth did not move.

Nevertheless, to make sense of this, philosophers need adopt no special concept such as "approximate truth."

But I just pointed to the fact that what "apporximate" or "absolute" truth are assumed and ill defined. Also who has said that scientists need have a concept of approximate truth? Where is the evidence for that?

Instead, it suffices to say that the researchers' goal is to achieve truth, but they achieve this goal only approximately, or only to some approximation.

It does not suffice at all. the commentary began with a sweeping statement about an ill defined comment. It goes on to make bold claims about scientists with no evidence.
Well now it is suggested that "achieving truth" and "doing science" are analogous. But "measuring things within error constraints" is not necessarily the same as "approximate truth". The nature of a "fact" changes over time. sometimes through social negotiation but also through development of theory paradigm shifts and other influences.

Other philosophers believe it's a mistake to say the researchers' goal is to achieve truth. These 'scientific anti-realists' recommend saying that research in, for example, physics, economics, and meteorology, aims only for usefulness.

If it works it works. Don't knock utilitarianism! Science however has an uncanny knack of development over time which points out where something doesnt work and a need to develop theory.

When they aren't overtly identifying truth with usefulness, the instrumentalists Peirce, James and Schlick take this anti-realist route, as does Kuhn. They would say atomic theory isn't true or false but rather is useful for predicting outcomes of experiments and for explaining current data. Giere recommends saying science aims for the best available 'representation', in the same sense that maps are representations of the landscape. Maps aren't true; rather, they fit to a better or worse degree. Similarly, scientific theories are designed to fit the world. Scientists should not aim to create true theories; they should aim to construct theories whose models are representations of the world.

Sounds like an arch consrtuctivist. The problem I have with Constructivism in my personal construct is that I hate it! But like Berkley's philosophy about the existance of God it is impossible to disprove. But I believe that while some facts are socially constructed reality is NOT! Yes we may "see" things differently but there is something really out there.
Okay our map of it is not the territory and we all have different maps but that does not mean the territory does not exist!