Talk:Science
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. | ||||||||||
 |
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
||||
 |
This article has had a scientific peer review which has now been archived. It may contain ideas that you can use to improve this article. |
 Archives |
|||
|
 To-do list for Science: |
edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|
Science brief definitions Science=Logic+Observations |
|
Contents |
[edit] Criticism Section?
I'm concerned because many topics that are entangled with philosophy and/or politics have specific headings for criticism, but science does not. My bias is in favor of science, so I'm not sure what exactly people would say against science, but to imply that there is no criticism seems misleading. (And I know that controversy can be found within the subtopics, but this still seems a little misrepresentative). Topher0128 22:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I can think of two:
- As our world is destroyed by technology I think we need to ask ourselves whether further progress is really necessary, if we really can find solutions to problems created by manipulation by means of further manipulation or whether this is a vicious cycle escapable only by learning to let natural processes occur on their own and minimally intervene.
- Scientific progress is a business, not the humanist endeavor many would like to believe. In a society with so much military spending, scientists often wind up working for the military and other organizations with antisocial goals.
Brallan 13:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- That goes in the face of Original Research and NPOV. Trying to find a reliable source that doesn't shove down some agenda down reader's throats is going to be supremely difficult. --BirdKr (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The current "Critiques" section appears to be a grab-bag of random thoughts without any structure or flow. I think it badly needs a re-write and more content. The current criticisms seem to be:
- Unethical practices.
- Poor journalistic communication with the public.
- Negative impacts on society.
- Emphasis on results over philosophical wanderings.
- Jung prefers passive observation over laboratory experiments.
The statements about "considerations of meaning" and "important qualitative aspects of the world" seem too vague. Both could be explained better. I also think we need some counter-arguments.—RJH (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Is Naturalism integral to Science
I seem to recall that the definition of Science in Webster's New Collegate dictionary does not mention any requirement that science must be filtered through a naturalist philosophy.
Is it reasonable to change the phraseology to indicate that science is often influenced by Naturalistic philosophy instead of stating that science is a discipline of Naturalism? Gryff (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- you'd have to provide a source for that definition. Science must use a naturalism approach, saying something occurs because of 'magic' is not science; miracles and magic, being essentially inexplicable one-off events that are unrelated to the uniform physical processes that are assumed to make up the universe, are not useful as explanations and by their very nature could not be explained by science. I think naturalism is fine, I have a hard time thinking of a scientific discipline that uses non-naturalistic explanations. Parapsychology? WLU (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Looking in my American Heritage dictionary, the following definition is provided:
-
-
- 1a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
- b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
- c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
- 2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
- 3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
- 4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
- 5. Science Christian Science.
-
-
- My thinking had been that the phenomina were natural. M-theory, for example seems to rely on a hypothesis that other universes account for dimensional variables in our universe. To the extent that M-theory allows the introduction of variables that can be fit to observable, repeatable, and verifiable data, it seems to rely on the theoretical existance of leakage from other unknown and unknowable universes. Hence, M-theory relies on a cause that is either a theoretical construct or supernatural.
-
- Net effect is that I agree with you. Leaving the definition as-is is probably fine. Gryff (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Positivism and Science
To Ryan Paris: You have removed the following edit from the definition:
A not entirely compatible definition is that Science is the attempt to create procedures to predict the outcome of experimental situations. Such definitions become increasingly relevant at the microscopic scales of Quantum Mechanics. Ironically the latter is often considered to be the foundation of all (at least Natural) Sciences.
Please explain why you have removed this. Do you consider that what Neils Bohr did was not Science?
Any description of Science is not complete without a Positivist understandins. At the moment the article is biased towards realist models of the world. This is particularly inappropriate for Quantum Mechanics.
Keith Bowden (Theoretical Physics Research Unit, Birkbeck College, London) Keithbowden (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
To Kenosis: You have replaced the edits of myself and Ryan Paris with the "long standing lead".
This is much better. The introduction is now entirely neutral on realism and positivism.
It is inappropriate to talk about "understanding" and "explanation" in Science without a balancing definition which allows the positivist point of view (and even a discussion of the schism). These should perhaps go elsewhere in the article.
I completely agree with the intro as it stands today. Keithbowden (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Scientific Method section
I'm puzzled by the end of the section on the scientific method, where it talks about Karl Popper:
Karl Popper denied the existence of evidence[15] and of scientific method.[16] Popper holds that there is only one universal method, the negative method of trial and error. It covers not only all products of the human mind, including science, mathematics, philosophy, art and so on, but also the evolution of life.[17]
Wouldn't it be clearer and more accurate to say that Popper's proposed scientific method relied mainly on falsifiability? That doesn't come through at all to me, reading the text that's there.
I notice that the same text appears in the main article on the Scientific_method.
Lukekendall (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Where did Popper propose that "scientific method" exists and "relied mainly on falsifiability"? How come the cited sources say the exact opposite? --rtc (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] False claims in the Method Section
re:
"Scientists never claim absolute knowledge of nature or the behavior of the subject..."
It is not true that scientists NEVER claim absolute knowledge. Some scientists have claimed absolute knowledge.
Why was it a problem that my edit had it that "Scientists usually do not claim absolute knowledge" ? Is that false?
Do the users who reverted my edits have absolute knowledge that no scientist has ever made claims to absolute knowledge?
Perhaps, by making such a claim to absolute knowledge of the history of science, these users are showing that they are not scientists themselves. Jncc0 (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- In principle I agree that the word "never" is too strong. However, the proposed changed seemed wishy-washy. I think a different phrasing needs to be explored on the talk page first. Cheers, Silly rabbit (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- The problem, as I see it, is that the section is titled "method" -- which is a philosophy, or a procedure -- and the sentence in question is about people (that is, all scientists at every moment of their professional lives). Scientists are people and people periodically fail to live up the principles that they espouse. So, unless the point of the sentence is that a working scientist stops being a scientist when he or she make a claim of absolute knowledge about the world i should be changed. Therefore, I suggest that the section focus on norms or rules of procedure
-
- If "never" is too strong, but "usually" is too wishy washy, then how about changing the sentence to be a statement along the lines of the following
the rules of the scientific method hold that scientists should never claim absolute knowledge
or, more precisely
according to Karl Popper, scientists should never claim absolute knowledge
Jncc0 (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, these are both improvements. I think the first one is probably better. The latter seems to suggest that only Popper holds the view, but I think it is relatively uncontroversial that scientists should never claim absolute knowledge. I know of no serious modern philosopher of scientist who disputes this. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. I think the first is better too. However, it has the problem that it suggests that there is only one scientific method.Jncc0 (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Where does Popper say that scientists should never claim absolute knowledge? --rtc (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well Popper basically said that scientific theories are merely abstract ideas used to explain and predict outcomes, and that it isn't possible to absolutely comfirm a theory, though it must be possible to falsify a theory in order for it to be science. Ergo, it isn't scientific to claim absolute knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightnin Boltz (talk • contribs) 12:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oops, forgot to sign my post, but it looks like a bot just did it for me. Oh well, better late then never --Lightnin Boltz (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Meissner effect.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Meissner effect.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WTF!?
Why cant we edit this damn page!? Warning: Wikipidia may stop you when you're on an intellectual roll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PleaseVisitTheAppropriatePagesRegardingSaidTopic (talk • contribs) 00:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- As is mentioned at the very top of the article, new and unregistered users are temporarily prevented from editing the article due to recent and frequent vandalism. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism
Added to the criticisms section is a bit featuring input from Carl Jung and Robert Anton Wilson. Science#Epistemological_inadequacies A psychologist and a novelist aren't really great people to critique science in my mind, and surely there's a better way of pointing out the inadequacies of the scientific method. Any other thoughts? WLU (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- If anything they used there main careers as an outlet for there philosophy that has had a rocognizable influence on our culture. Other critiques that still remain on the page have been made by historians and economists, if we can keep those then whats all uproar for two men who are notable philosophers as much as they are psychologists and writers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProductofSociety (talk • contribs) 17:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Notable as philosophers of science? Jung is historically important but I don't believe his theories are even seriously taught anymore, and has Wilson published anything academic? Also, using quotes for both, neither of whom are best known as philosophers of science, places huge weight upon their opinions. Can their quotes be summarized instead? WLU (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that a philosopher of science would critique science anymore then a philosopher of nihilism would for do the same for his branch of philosophy. Once you start to put serious doubt on science, would the scientific community ever consider you one of there own? Thats just me and I could be wrong, but do you see my point in that it may be asking for a bit much? If you want a critique of science the two most common learned communities you'll get it from are the schools of postmodernism and eastern thought who reject the mechanistic world view of the west- each of which is expressed by Jung and Wilson.
- Notable as philosophers of science? Jung is historically important but I don't believe his theories are even seriously taught anymore, and has Wilson published anything academic? Also, using quotes for both, neither of whom are best known as philosophers of science, places huge weight upon their opinions. Can their quotes be summarized instead? WLU (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Wilson has worked with people of the trade, but not produced any academic material. And I wouldn't mind summarizing the quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.153.22 (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The view from nowhere has been criticized by philosophers, I've read an article on it and think it would be a much better criticism than the current versions. If Jung and Wilson are expressing two different worldviews, their criticisms would be better buttressed or replaced by philosophers of science. They're indeed critical of their own work, or they wouldn't be philosophers : ) I'll see if I can track down the article and in the mean time will summarize the quotes. WLU (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
The following statement makes great sense, but is credited to Lawrence A. Kuznar's "Reclaiming a Scientific Anthropology"--wasn't this idea popularized by David Hume in the early 1800's (and thus he should be credited)?.
As such, the scientific method cannot deduce anything about the realm of reality that is beyond what is observable by existing or theoretical means.[16]
Lhomme77 (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Problem with the lead section
The lead section doesn't really serve as a summary of the article (per Wikipedia:Lead section), but instead focuses primarily on the major divisions within science. There is also heavy emphasis on empirical vs. formal sciences, which the main body barely touches upon. Hence, that may need to be folded into the main article, followed by a re-write of the lead.
At the suggested length of four paragraphs, I believe that would leave about one paragraph each for the following:
- Introduction and History
- Scientific method
- Philosophy and critiques
- Scientific community.
Any thoughts?—RJH (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I merged most of the lead with the "Fields" section. It may need some clean up for flow.—RJH (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] See Also
Is there a reason why the See Also list is right justified? I think it looks better on the left, see here. Any objections to the change? Jdrewitt (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
