Posted on 03/18/2013 4:06:40 PM PDT by neverdem
srbfl
To quote a little known science professor, Cornelius Krasel; "Science is a game we play with God, to find out what his rules are."
bump for later
That’s an interesting proposition. Is there such thing in science as a dis-proven theory? Is science ultimately capable of giving only a negative answer?
I suspect that "provoking a sense of moral superiority and making them less altruistic,” far from being limited to the “liberal” position on organic foods, is typical of all liberal positions from gun control to AGW to nuclear power to fracking and evolution.It would in fact seem likely that the causation is reversed, and that a desire for a feeling of moral superiority, and a concomitant lack of altruism, generally motivate people to take “liberal” positions.
The Three Words:
Jungle Rules Rule.
Bump to read later.
Did you mean to write “when” the real conservative party line, etc......?
If not, I don’t know what you’re saying.
The geocentric “theory” (really a mere hypothesis since, in part, it was impossible to test) has been disproved. It doesn’t look like phlogiston exists, neither does the ether but if further study could demonstrate with some certainty that they did, good science would have to be open to it.
That is probably the first time in 25 years I have heard phlogiston mentioned. Awesome!
Scientists should not be political activists.
Even if the climate data were true, the solutions climate scientists are pushing are destructive to human life.
For modern science, the funder of the research influences the research outcome and political activism. We lost most medical researchers to drug companies and the Federal government a long time ago and it will get worse under socialized medicine. Our cutting edge in medicane days are over.
Power brokers who fund research that serves their money and power, can create the “science” they need to justify what they want to do or to support what they beleive. The opposition can do that, too. It’s been like this for a long time - since I started my career.
Yeah, I’m old
This comment gets to the crux of the issue. To the left, science is important ONLY for how it can used to drive public policy. So to make the changes they want in society, they'll use science, or at least the science THEY pay for and accept.
Science is the the laborious effort to discover an order imposed upon this universe. Truth is absolute, unchanging regardless of location, exclusive, and narrow.
Science is not without its own faith. Science presupposes philosophy and is a slave to it. Science declares it as the arbiter of reason but cannot account for science. The materialist declares a world of matter, energy,time, and space. There is, in their mind, no other. Yet logic, rational thought, and reason must not exist in the materialist world. Neither consciousness, mind, vice, or virtue can exist. Scientific method itself, cannot be accounted for by the scientific materialist because there is no scientific method to prove scientific method. So, objective truth claims cannot be verified as scientific truths. So when scientific materialists claim the truth they must do so without reason or logic to be consistent-because reason itself is impossible in a world goverened by chemical and physical forces.
Throw some Karl Popper and Imre Lakatos also into the arena.
Bailey’s article used the polling of scientists (i.e. consensus) as the standard for getting the science “right”.
The gold standard of correctness of science is Demonstration. What can you show me? Consensus is a political standard. Karl Popper is also kinda leery about calling fields like psychology and economics a science because they have a hard time demonstrating causal relationships. Also, any science worth the paper it is written on needs to be falsifiable.
You can tell an advancing research program by its ability to predict outcomes. You can tell a failing research program by its making excuses for its failures. I will leave it to my fellow Freepers to decide which direction the programs outlined in the article are taking.
Science and and the rules for scientific method are designed for answering the question “how”. They are not suited for answering “why”. Science is about process, and how to get from one configuration of matter and energy in space-time to another configuration of matter and energy in space-time, all of which is subject to measurement.
Philosophy is for answering the “why”. It is about purpose, which cannot be derived logically from process. Purpose is not something that can be measured or quantified.
A person needs both science and philosophy. We too often see scientists with doctorates in their fields making moral pronouncements, which is a subject that is totally outside their fields. This is the same pride that makes actors experts in Congressional hearings. It is an effect of pride as old as Socrates.
Save for later
The metaphorical palette is quite suitable as it sets forth the fundamental tension. Yes, the “how” and “why” dichotomy trips us up, with the scientific method being wholly suitable only for the former. Nor are “reason” and “faith” at odds, since everyone begins, at some point, with faith in axiomatic immutability as a prerequisite to scientific inquiry.
In the case of science, "theory" refers to a framework that ties together the known facts and allows for the formulation of testable hypotheses that uncover new facts. It is not, as in ordinary lay language, a wild supposition. The theory of evolution is, like the theory of electromagnetism, the theory of gravity, etc., supported by a boatload of experimental evidence. It affects our lives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.