More the philosophy of science than science itself. To the latter, I give the nod to Democritus for his amazing abstraction of atomism.
Kids are told they have to go to college, and conservatives are kept from becoming teachers in college. An opposition to the increase of knowledge. It's a ruinous cycle.
The author makes unsupported statements as to what people think science is ... I have no idea how the author comes to his/her conclusions - guessing and generalization I suspect. This not a valid critique on the subject...
Science is politicized; thus, science is political.
I also think the use of the word "science" is misleading. It would be better to use the term "scientific method". Using the word "science" feeds into the idea that "science" is some sort of mystery cult led by mystical geniuses who have access to special knowledge. "Scientific method", on the other hand, emphasizes that what good scientists do is follow a specific methodology to develop equations that will help us predict the future behavior of systems within a reasonable set of limits.
What distinguishes the scientific method from other methods is not that the experiments are controlled, but that when an experiment occurs all of the important factors are well understood. This allows scientists to look at ancient geographic formations and come to scientific conclusions about how those geographic formations arose without having to construct "controlled" mountain building or seismic fault simulating experiments.
Too much silliness is launched at the theory of evolution because it supposedly can't be tested, e.g. we can't breed a race of dinosaurs, hurl a meteor into Earth, and see if they all die after a period of time.
Einstein's theories were proven in part by waiting for a particular astronomical event to occur. This event was not created or controlled by any scientist. What the scientists had was a complete understanding of all of the important factors that might affect their observations. The observations they then made lined up more closely to Einstein's predictions than Newton's.
I agree with the essayist that science is not a search for the truth. It can't be. Philosophers haven't proven much, but everyone agrees that they have clearly shown that no certain truths can come from empirical observations no matter how much clever math and logic follows. Anything that starts with empirical observation can only have about it a tentative possibility of being true.
There's a YouTube video where four different physicists discuss their different takes on the quantum mechanical "measurement problem". Although they disagree about how to resolve the problem, they all agree that science has nothing to say about what "is", but only about what changes might occur at some time 't' in the future given a well-specified initial state and a fully fleshed out hypothesis.
I'm also not a big fan of folks who take a dig into Aristotle. He was a big fan of empirical observation which is not a minor point. Many of his observations on other philosophic topics have stood the test of time. He was also a big fan of the Socratic method where all theories were open to continuous questioning. Aristotle would have been the first one to question his own proto-scientific writings given the increasing amount of empirical evidence. It's not Aristotle's fault that generations of intelligentsia treated him like a god rather than as a colleague, i.e. the way Aristotle treated Plato.
What a mouthful of nonsense.
A Freeper kept insisting to me that Bill Nye is a scientist. There’s the problem in a nutshell.
When people are stuck in an ideology hell bent on believing languages that, say, are meant to ignore or subhumanize private entreprise vs. Government, no amount of truth or science will be accepted if such result contradict the wishful ideology.
Global warming is a prime example of a concept fundamently driven by rigid ideology which will deny facts and science to the contrary.
This is, in fact, false. Historical data over the past 400 000 years indicates that temperature leads carbon dioxide concentration, rather than the other way around.
There is no reasonable explanation how a rise in CO2 today can cause a rise in temperature 100 years ago.
Well done!
And I just love this zinger:
...science advocate, cultural illiterate, mendacious anti-Catholic propagandist, and possible serial fabulist Neil DeGrasse Tyson....
Naming Aristotle as the first “proto-scientist” betrays the author’s lack of a classical education.
The first “proto-scientist” was (as far back as is recorded) was Imhotep, an Egyptian circa 2650-2600 BC.
Much of what Aristotle did was based on knowledge he gained from Pharonic Egypt, which was gained from the sea-people of western north Africa (or ancient Libya: everything west of the middle of the Nile Delta to the Atlantic sea coast {mostly a blue-eyed, blond people}).
No Science, No Logic and No Morality: Atheism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxz84kS8k4U
I agree with the author.
Our “Modern” culture has taken Science to mean Truth on the surface, and when they are challenged with contradictions they will shift into science being the process.
To think this issue is not ideologically driven would be foolish. Everybody, and I mean everybody has a bias.
The Left has co-opted “Reason” as their clarion call for a just world. It is a world that can’t exist using their own logic and leaves them only to “Embrace Uncertainty” as their only escape.
They are in fact, certain about everything being uncertain. In addition, they will fight anybody that is certain because to be certain is to be judgmental and that is unacceptable.
"What distinguishes modern science from other forms of knowledge such as philosophy is that it explicitly forsakes abstract reasoning about the ultimate causes of things and instead tests empirical theories through controlled investigation."The author gives no source for his definition and evidently has not studied in any depth the philosophy of science. And what are "empirical theories", if not a form of "abstract reasoning"? The statement seems self-refuting.
Way back in 1994 Stephen C. Meyer gave an account of the state of affairs of attempts to define demarcation criteria regarding what constitutes science and what does not:
As the philosopher of science Larry Laudan has shown, such contradictions have plagued the demarcation enterprise from its inception. As a result, most contemporary philosophers of science regard the question 'what distinguishes science from non-science' as both intractable and uninteresting. Instead, philosophers of science have increasingly realized that the real issue is not whether a theory is scientific, but whether a theory is true, or warranted by the evidence. As Laudan puts it, "If we could stand up on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like 'pseudo-science'. . .they do only emotive work for us." As Martin Eger has summarized, "[d]emarcation arguments have collapsed. Philosophers of science don't hold them anymore. They may still enjoy acceptance in the popular world, but that's a different world."
The Use and Abuse of Philosophy of Science: Response to J.P. Moreland
Well, there’s the kind of science only a diminutive portion of the human race understands, and then there’s the “Science” Liberals parade around to prove their collective intelligence while branding Republicans, Conservatives, & Christians stupid.
F.A. Hayek wrote an excellent little book about the misuse of science: “The Counter-revolution of Science: studies on the abuse of Reason”
The writer confuses ‘science’ with the ‘scientific method’.
I would expect a better grasp on in the history of philosophy of science from an author named “Pascal”.