Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Science as a way of knowing
Guardian ^ | November 27, 2008 | Adam Rutherford

Posted on 11/29/2008 1:13:55 PM PST by Soliton

science serves humankind by expanding our knowledge and understanding of the universe. It also gives us technologies that benefit our lives and drive social evolution.

But it also teaches how to think rationally and sceptically. I often use the phrase "science as a way of knowing", because, for me, that is why it is important. It is the best method we have of understanding how things are. It doesn't bother me too much that students, as the report suggests, are being taught how to pass exams. In my experience, most people do university degrees not for the intellectual stimulus, or to learn how to think, but because it's a qualification that will help them get a good job. I have no problem with that, as long as there is the framework in place that allows students to learn how to think if they want.

The RSC suggests that this intellectual framework is absent. Being able to apply logical critical thinking in a scientific way is essential in all aspects of life. It pains me ever to congratulate the Conservative party, but I praise their recent decision to encourage evidence-based policy-making by enforcing science literacy tutorials on all their MPs.

(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: evolution; id; science
They are asking their government to base their decision on facts. How rediculous!
1 posted on 11/29/2008 1:13:55 PM PST by Soliton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Soliton
They are asking their government to base their decision on facts. How rediculous!

There are many who think what you just said is heresy. They pick and choose which aspects of science are "valid" and which are not.

2 posted on 11/29/2008 1:17:04 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

A good way of looking at science is to compare it to the game of chess.

Both science and chess have a very precise set of rules. If you follow these rules, you either conduct a scientific experiment or you play a game of chess. Nothing more and nothing less.

Importantly, it is just as wrong to interpolate and extrapolate in science as it is to do so in chess. That is, if an experiment works, in very controlled conditions, to assume it will behave in exactly the same way in uncontrolled nature. That is as wrong as saying that because you consistently win against an intermediate level chess computer program, you will consistently win against an intermediate level human chess player.

Very few students can handle the rigors of a properly executed scientific experiment. It tends to go against typical psychology, except in a few people who are inclined to good science. However, by understanding the rules of science, students are greatly helped in telling the difference between good science and bad science.

And this has great value in its own right. But it has far greater value than that, because it teaches students the value of objectivity. And this can be life changing.

When someone is asked their opinion, often their response can be prefaced by either “I feel”, which is a subjective, or emotional response, or “I think”, which implies some understanding of the thing in itself, and its objective character. Subjectivity needs no justification to like or dislike something. Objectivity required open mindedness and a willingness to set aside feelings to divine deeper truths.

Our society, and civilization itself, is very dependent on objectivity to maintain order and reason. It is critical to the law, and large parts of government, to many businesses, to medicine, etc. And when objectivity is lacking, very bad things can happen.


3 posted on 11/29/2008 1:40:05 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
Both science and chess have a very precise set of rules.

The government of scientific thinking by a "precise set of rules" is a chimera, and is itself the result of poor scientific thinking. For if one reviews a history of the great achievements in science, it's easy to see that passion and imagination, as well as illusion and error, were important elements of the process just as much as reason and logic.

4 posted on 11/29/2008 2:32:59 PM PST by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dr_lew

I agree completely, except at that point it is not science. The brilliant idea must first pass through the gauntlet of uninspired others, who methodically reproduce the innovation and discovery by a strict set of rules. The idea must have a logical progression and a proof. And they, the uninspired others, are what makes it science, not the genius who gets all the credit.

I might add that this also showcases a different theory of knowledge, based in creativity and inspiration, which produces the irreproducible result. It is just as valid as science for its purposes, and encompasses an even larger field of *study*, not science. Social studies, for example, can be very reputable and objective, but they are not sciences.


5 posted on 11/29/2008 3:10:41 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
I agree completely, except at that point it is not science. The brilliant idea must first pass through the gauntlet of uninspired others, who methodically reproduce the innovation and discovery by a strict set of rules. The idea must have a logical progression and a proof. And they, the uninspired others, are what makes it science, not the genius who gets all the credit.

The genius who gets the credit partakes as well in illusion and error. It remains to posterity to conveniently overlook these and to remold his achievements so that they form a suitable basis for modern dogma.

Case in point: Lavoisier. He himself stressed the principle of logical progression. In his preface to the ELEMENTS, he laments that "Imagination" can lead us into "deceiving ourselves" and notes that as a consequence, "... in the science of physics in general, man have often made suppostions instead of forming conclusions." He resolves to do better, stating, "We must trust to nothing but facts : These are presented to us by Nature, and cannot decieve."

Au contraire, mon frere! He goes on to advance several errors as fact: That acids contain a universal "acidic substance" and that heat is a substance.

Recognition of these sorts of imperfections only make his achievements all the more impressive, just as in the case of Galileo, who drew many wrong conclusions.

6 posted on 11/29/2008 4:22:58 PM PST by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dr_lew

Lavoisier’s errors you mentioned were not entirely unfounded. His contention that what made an acid was universally oxygen. At the same time, English scientists asserted that acids universally contained hydrogen. They were correct.

In practice, Lavoisier’s was not an unreasonable assumption, as the great majority of common acids at the time contained oxygen, and because it is such a noteworthy and reactive and reductive ion. Only with the later discovery of hydrochloric acid did it become plainly clear that oxygen was not the essential characteristic of acids.

His other incorrect assumption, that heat was a substance, was likely due to an entirely new state of matter unknown at the time: plasma.

Plasma can most definitely act like a substance, which would lend itself to the impression that heat, not the invisible plasma, was exerting pressure. This would appear to be the case in Lavoisier’s time. Proof that heat was not a substance would be very difficult.


7 posted on 11/29/2008 5:39:46 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
His other incorrect assumption, that heat was a substance, was likely due to an entirely new state of matter unknown at the time: plasma.

What? This makes no sense. He was quite familiar with the common understanding of heat, and of course expert in its laboratory applications. He gives careful explanations of the common experiences of heat in terms of the passage of caloric between bodies.

I don't know why you would want to attribute the idea of caloric to some experience or anticipation of a plasma state. The closest thing in our modern understanding to caloric ( i.e. the concept of heat as a fluid substance ) is enthalpy, the thermodynamic state function with symbol "H", which we always jokingly said stood for "Heat".

The point is that "caloric" was in our terms a misconception of which, for very understandable reasons, Lavoisier was never disabused, in spite of his belief that he was dealing in Facts of Nature.

8 posted on 11/29/2008 7:21:14 PM PST by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dr_lew

This was a wild guess on my part. What do you think of his other assumption, of oxygen defining acid?


9 posted on 11/29/2008 8:24:32 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
What do you think of his other assumption, of oxygen defining acid?

Your answer will be available when you show us the oxygen in Hydrochloric acid....

10 posted on 11/29/2008 8:28:05 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made.
Richard Feynman


11 posted on 11/29/2008 8:29:56 PM PST by razorback-bert (Save the planet...it is the only known one with beer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

As I said before, the common acids available to him were generally oxygen component, leading him to incorrectly assume it was a characteristic of acids in general. However, at the same time, the English scientists asserted that the common element was hydrogen, which was in fact correct.

However, error does not disqualify a scientist as much as superstition, which was implied, that I point out was not the case.


12 posted on 11/29/2008 8:54:31 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
What do you think of his other assumption, of oxygen defining acid?

Note that the very name, "sharp-maker", reflects this observation, and it certainly corresponds to a variety of acids. He had the advantage of the atomic hypothesis, so his systematic method carried him very far, as we appreciate.

Of course, he overgeneralized the significance of oxygen, and his conception foundered on "muriatic acid" or HCl. He assumed that Cl must be an oxide, XOn, and it's impressive enough that he observed of the presumed "acidifiable base", X, and Oxygen, that "... no method has hitherto been devised for separating them".

Again, the point is that he was not doing what he thought he was doing in his method of interpretation, i.e. reasoning deductively from experiment. He was conceptualizing and testing his concepts against experiment, and in terms of any governing "precise rules", this conceptualizing step is the wild card, and what gives life and power to the whole process.

13 posted on 11/29/2008 9:14:37 PM PST by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
Calculate the maximum volume of hydrogen, measured at rtp, that can be liberated by the action of 100cm3 of 0.5M hydrochloric acid on magnesium.*
The jerk who wrote this article left out this essential piece of information which was provided in the original question:
One mole of any ideal gas occupies 24 dm3 at r.t.p.
I never was good at remembering those constants. I had to look it up in order to solve the problem!
14 posted on 11/29/2008 9:37:16 PM PST by Zero Sum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson