What is science and what constitutes it?

[Native]

Subject OP: What is science and what constitutes the development of its ideas and evidences?

Can philosophy of science have an impact on physics? | Sabine Hossenfelder interview.

Sabine Hossenfelder tends to lean more and more on a philosophical approach to science.
---------------

Clifford Redin (born 15 September 1935) is a Zimbabwean ecologist, livestock farmer, and president and co-founder of the Savory Institute. He originated Holistic management (agriculture), systems thinking approach to managing resources.

About generally learning from direct observations of nature itself.

Your relevant remarks to this?

Regards
Native
Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Denmark.

 

[blü 2]

Can philosophy of science have an impact on physics?

The answer is so clearly YES that I wonder if I've misunderstood your question.

Physics aims to make accurate statements about reality, based on empiricism, induction, repeatable experiment, maximized objectivity, publishing of method as well as results, peer review, a requirement of frankness and honesty ─ and so on.

Since nothing protects a conclusion of physics from unknown unknowns, no statement is ever absolute. If it is the consensus of those best able to make informed judgments about the relevant field of science that the statement is correct, then it will effectively be true until something changes and it needs to be qualified, amended or replaced.

 

[MikeF]

Subject OP: What is science and what constitutes the development of its ideas and evidences?

Can philosophy of science have an impact on physics? | Sabine Hossenfelder interview.

Sabine Hossenfelder tends to lean more and more on a philosophical approach to science.
---------------

Clifford Redin (born 15 September 1935) is a Zimbabwean ecologist, livestock farmer, and president and co-founder of the Savory Institute. He originated Holistic management (agriculture), systems thinking approach to managing resources.

About generally learning from direct observations of nature itself.

Your relevant remarks to this?

Regards
Native
Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Denmark.

Here is my definition for science that I cobbled together in another thread:

"Science is a professional discipline and system of knowledge, the purpose of which is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena in accordance with strict principles and standards that mitigate the inherent fallibility and bias of an investigator."​

Science is improved philosophy. Both have been about trying to answer fundamental questions, it is just that science puts principles and standards in place to actively mitigate the fallibility and bias of the human investigator.

If the goal is to understand objective reality, then science is required. If one wants to debate subjective things for which there is no right or wrong answer, or you want to speculate beyond the current limits of what our current level of science can explain, then your choice is traditional philosophy.

 

[exchemist]

Science makes predictive models of nature, to account for reproducibly observed phenomena in nature.

 

[cladking]

"When new insights emerge they can never ever be peer reviewed."

Science has always maintained a status quo but in the past (like people born before 1935) most scientists were open minded enough to consider almost anything. This is no longer true and few scientists can see past the tip of a Peer's nose.

Part of the problem is experiment is usually expensive and it is money that drives science rather than truth now. The money is provided by institutions with axes to grind and Kumbaya to sing. If you don't play along with Peers and the status quo you can get neither funding nor a job.

We're in real trouble.

Peer review can only be applied to things that fully agree with the status quo. New ideas never agree with the status quo.

 

[sun rise]

"Science is a professional discipline and system of knowledge, the purpose of which is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena in accordance with strict principles and standards that mitigate the inherent fallibility and bias of an investigator."

That sounds very reasonable to me.

"When new insights emerge they can never ever be peer reviewed."

That's just 100% wrong. Peer review happens all the time as does verification by other investigators.

 

[cladking]

That's just 100% wrong. Peer review happens all the time as does verification by other investigators.

Homo omnisciencis.

What you say is tantamount to saying only Peers can have new insights.

The statement was made by a very clever man in the second link above.

Science used to be observation > experiment but it has become only what Peers agree it to be.

"Peers" are irrelevant to the scientific method. Peers are paid to keep everything as it is. New ideas are seldom even seen by Peers but would be immediately dismissed if they were. Peers would not, could not, and never will consider ideas from outsiders but in a very real way virtually all scientific progress comes from outsiders. No new ideas, no new progress. No new ideas, 100 years stuck on the unified field theory.

 

[exchemist]

Homo omnisciencis.

What you say is tantamount to saying only Peers can have new insights.

The statement was made by a very clever man in the second link above.

Science used to be observation > experiment but it has become only what Peers agree it to be.

"Peers" are irrelevant to the scientific method. Peers are paid to keep everything as it is. New ideas are seldom even seen by Peers but would be immediately dismissed if they were. Peers would not, could not, and never will consider ideas from outsiders but in a very real way virtually all scientific progress comes from outsiders. No new ideas, no new progress. No new ideas, 100 years stuck on the unified field theory.

What nonsense. Peer review is the means by which new findings and insights are scrutinised, that's all. It's a quality control process, nothing more. Einstein's insights were all peer-reviewed - and immediately recognised as extremely valuable.

You have no idea how this works. The peers doing the reviewing are....peers. That means other researchers in the same field - who also publish new findings of their own. So the notion that peers are people who see their job as to squash innovation is ludicrous.

It is also utter rubbish to say that almost all innovation comes from "outsiders". That's just a romantic myth.

 

[cladking]

That means other researchers in the same field - who also publish new findings of their own. So the notion that peers are people who see their job as to squash innovation is ludicrous.

That is not what I meant. watch the second video again. Peers will not consider any new ideas that are not in strict conformance with the paradigm. It's just this simple. I don't agree that researchers come out ofg college "brain dead" but nobody is being taught metaphysics any longer. I was exposed to this my entire life even before school but even more in second grade. Now days schools indoctrinate and colleges tend to expect students to parrot back what they have been told. Nobody is taught critical thinking any longer. This means many Peers don't understand how science works and wouldn't know what a paradigm is except that it excludes things from Peer review.

This is just the way it is. How many climatologists do you think don't believe in global warming? This is pushed everywhere and anyone who doesn't accept it AND the politics that channel even more money to the rich to combat it will be out of a job. Any paper that doesn't agree with the assumptions that ancient people were stinky footed bumpkins who dragged tombs up ramps and never changed will never be Peer reviewed. You can't just agree with one or two of these assumptions. You must agree to every single one of them.

As fewer and fewer people understand science it is increasingly important that people believe in it. Part of this is to believe we live in a golden age created by science even though suicide and murder rates are probably the highest in recorded history. We live in interesting times caused largely by an inert and fixed status quo incapable of even considering alternatives to wasting the planet's resources to enrich the few. And this made possible by Peers who can't see past the tips of their own noses in many instances.

 

[cladking]

It is also utter rubbish to say that almost all innovation comes from "outsiders". That's just a romantic myth.

It is paradigm shifts that tend to come from outsiders. The hard work of creating experiment and analyzing results is mostly done by peers who look over each others' shoulders in a process known as "peer review" which is not and never was part of the scientific method.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What nonsense. Peer review is the means by which new findings and insights are scrutinised, that's all. It's a quality control process, nothing more. Einstein's insights were all peer-reviewed - and immediately recognised as extremely valuable.

Probably the only paper Einstein wrote that was peer-reviewed was rejected (apparently somewhat to Einstein's benefit, not so much because the paper contained errors--as Einstein elsewhere published errors he later publicly retracted with admirable humility far too infrequently seen among academics of any stripe-- but because of subsequent interactions before the same paper was published elsewhere: Einstein Versus the Physical Review), and Einstein apparently had a certain contempt for the entire peer-review process. This would not have been unusual, given that until relatively recently even the top journals like Nature had no peer-review process to speak of and the general idea was still that the "real" peer-review occurs after publication.

It is also utter rubbish to say that almost all innovation comes from "outsiders". That's just a romantic myth.

"Supported" occasionally by taking actual historical persons and events and making them appear to be far more inline with this myth than was historically the case. This apparently makes it easier to claim that individuals behind youtube videos should merit attention above and beyond the scientific literature relevant (including, often enough, their own contributions to this literature in the rare case that these exist). "Hey, we should listen to X youtuber because they are willing to challenge the established, dogmatic thinking prevalent in the literature I don't (and can't) read, just like [insert Romanticized Rebel scientist here]"

 

[rational experiences]

Science doesn't exist.

Created creation in any of its forms does.

All human's to day emerge as a human baby into a human adult life body returned.

Never being the original human.

The human philosophy of life live and let live.

Change as little as possible as change occurs by itself as the science law.

There never existed phenomena.

Human life and life's biology lived exact.

We lost our evolution to humans scientific pursuit and science of human terms time shifted biology back into a created destruction.

Introduced phenomena.

As only natural history a story owned reactive causes. All reactions are hence past tense as they ceased naturally.

Life was not involved in any reaction hence it wasn't science.

As human's studied the magical philosophical terms to produce an event myself. To gain a change from a natural product. Was a want.

In human man natural philosophy we taught we had everything we needed.

Want by pursuit hence became cause of human's pursuit to practice science.

 

[Native]

Sorry for my absence. Does the RF board still have problems notifying when new replies are posted? Well I´ve certainly missed the replies here.

Since nothing protects a conclusion of physics from unknown unknowns, no statement is ever absolute. If it is the consensus of those best able to make informed judgments about the relevant field of science that the statement is correct, then it will effectively be true until something changes and it needs to be qualified, amended or replaced.

Agreed in this. If only all scientific debaters here would hold onto this back in their minds when debating.

 

[Native]

Science is improved philosophy. Both have been about trying to answer fundamental questions, it is just that science puts principles and standards in place to actively mitigate the fallibility and bias of the human investigator.

One of Newtons titles was"'Natural Philosopher" and he even had alchemistic and religious ideas as well besides his more scientific and mathematical ones.

This was about 350 years ago and only Einstein has revised Newtons old thoughts and he even stated Newtons gravity to not be a force at all. IMO Einsteins gravitational thought also ned seriously revising as Newtons basic ideas still are attached to Einsteins space-time-field.

Newtons "celestial motions" was directly contradicted in galactic realms, by the galactic rotation curve but there were no specific scientific gravitational philosophical ponderings or revisions - and "dark matter" was simply inserted in the contradiction.

1 failed assumption was followed by yet another assumption without any philosophical ponderings at all.

If the goal is to understand objective reality, then science is required. If one wants to debate subjective things for which there is no right or wrong answer, or you want to speculate beyond the current limits of what our current level of science can explain, then your choice is traditional philosophy.

Strict science and philosophical ponderings are both equally needed IMO.

 

[Native]

Part of the problem is experiment is usually expensive and it is money that drives science rather than truth now. The money is provided by institutions with axes to grind and Kumbaya to sing. If you don't play along with Peers and the status quo you can get neither funding nor a job.
We're in real trouble.
Peer review can only be applied to things that fully agree with the status quo. New ideas never agree with the status quo.

I fully agree in this and it fits my profile signature as well.

 

[Native]

Probably the only paper Einstein wrote that was peer-reviewed was rejected (apparently somewhat to Einstein's benefit, not so much because the paper contained errors--as Einstein elsewhere published errors he later publicly retracted with admirable humility far too infrequently seen among academics of any stripe-- but because of subsequent interactions before the same paper was published elsewhere: Einstein Versus the Physical Review), and Einstein apparently had a certain contempt for the entire peer-review process. This would not have been unusual, given that until relatively recently even the top journals like Nature had no peer-review process to speak of and the general idea was still that the "real" peer-review occurs after publication.

The clever part in this, is to make very difficult cosmological claims and put it in long mathematical calculus so difficult, that the peer reviewers confirms it all to publication for being afraid being revealed as ignorants - and the same could be the cases for the Noble Prize Committee members who find the winners.

In this sense it all could be something of a H. C. Andersen case of "The Emperors New Clothes".

 

[MikeF]

One of Newtons titles was"'Natural Philosopher" and he even had alchemistic and religious ideas as well besides his more scientific and mathematical ones.

This was about 350 years ago and only Einstein has revised Newtons old thoughts and he even stated Newtons gravity to not be a force at all. IMO Einsteins gravitational thought also ned seriously revising as Newtons basic ideas still are attached to Einsteins space-time-field.

Newtons "celestial motions" was directly contradicted in galactic realms, by the galactic rotation curve but there were no specific scientific gravitational philosophical ponderings or revisions - and "dark matter" was simply inserted in the contradiction.
1 failed assumption was followed by yet another assumption without any philosophical ponderings at all.

Strict science and philosophical ponderings are both equally needed IMO.

IMO

Not sure what you are trying to say exactly in regards to Newton and Einstein.

You seem to imply in your comments that those in science cannot ponder, speculate, and dream about what lies beyond what is confidently know. This is simply not true.

If you feel compelled to label speculation and guesses about what lies beyond what is currently known as Philosophy, then fine, as long as you understand it is speculation and guesses and not truth beyond the ability of science to verify. It will only join the canon of knowledge once it has been scientifically verified.

The scientific approach requires making a concerted effort in clearly demarcating between what is know with confidence, what is working theory, and what is clearly just not know. Not everyone has the courage to accept the unknow and consequently look outside of science to fill the void.

EDIT: I should stress that scientific investigation is not perfect, or by any means fool-proof, because it is conducted by human beings, which are far from perfect. However, the scientific process has the mechanisms and tools in place for self-correction. This is what sets it apart from traditional philosophy. In both science and philosophy, human beings are the weak link, it is simply that science acknowledges that weakness and takes active steps to mitigate it.

 

[Native]

You seem to imply in your comments that those in science cannot ponder, speculate, and dream about what lies beyond what is confidently know. This is simply not true.

This was certainly the truth in the case of being contradicted in the galactic realms regarding "celestial motion around a common gravity center". Here the scientist simply failed to follow the standing scientific rules when a conventional law is being contradicted.

These scientists still used 1/4 part of the fundamental forces and forgot to include the other 3/4 part fundamental E%M forces in order to find an other solution. Adding more assumptions to the one which failed, surely isn't the way forward.

And now has astrophysical and cosmological science fought "dark matter" for 100 years and "dark energy" for several decades - and they still holds onto these illusive matters - because they don´t ponder over if the other fundamental forces but "gravity" plays the main roles.

BTW: Forget your patriarchal and downgrading notions of what "I know or don´t know". The standing science only knows of 4 % of the observable Universe, so please be more humble, realistic and respectful.

 

[MikeF]

This was certainly the truth in the case of being contradicted in the galactic realms regarding "celestial motion around a common gravity center". Here the scientist simply failed to follow the standing scientific rules when a conventional law is being contradicted.

These scientists still used 1/4 part of the fundamental forces and forgot to include the other 3/4 part fundamental E%M forces in order to find an other solution. Adding more assumptions to the one which failed, surely isn't the way forward.

And now has astrophysical and cosmological science fought "dark matter" for 100 years and "dark energy" for several decades - and they still holds onto these illusive matters - because they don´t ponder over if the other fundamental forces but "gravity" plays the main roles.

BTW: Forget your patriarchal and downgrading notions of what "I know or don´t know". The standing science only knows of 4 % of the observable Universe, so please be more humble, realistic and respectful.

Not that it makes much difference, I had added this edit to my last post while you were posting your message:

EDIT: I should stress that scientific investigation is not perfect, or by any means fool-proof, because it is conducted by human beings, which are far from perfect. However, the scientific process has the mechanisms and tools in place for self-correction. This is what sets it apart from traditional philosophy. In both science and philosophy, human beings are the weak link, it is simply that science acknowledges that weakness and takes active steps to mitigate it.
​

As to my patriarchal notions of what what you know, my only assumption is that you know no more than humanities collective scientific understanding of the cosmos. If I am wrong in that assumption, please elaborate.

 

[Native]

As to my patriarchal notions of what what you know, my only assumption is that you know no more than humanities collective scientific understanding of the cosmos. If I am wrong in that assumption, please elaborate.

You mean: FIRST you give me your judgmental notions and THEN you ask into my collective understanding of what modern science says and if I have alternate or more knowledge than this!?

Excuse me, but I expect another approach in these matters.