Science is schizophrenic

[LegionOnomaMoi]

People frequently say things like "science shows that..." or "science can't tell us..." and otherwise attribute cognizance and agency to a concept. Schizophrenia comes from the Greek words for "divided in twain" and "mind" (or "divided mind"). In every scientific field, there are at least some contradicting, mutually exclusive, or incompatible theories, from the embodied cognition and massive modularity theories in neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and evolutionary psychology, to quantum physics and general relativity.
"Science", it would seem, disagrees about the proper methods to use, what conclusions it makes, what the dividing lines between it and other research areas or academic fields are, and more. It is, indeed, a mind quite divided.
Alternatively, perhaps it would be better to STOP empowering a concept with scientific authority almost equal to whomever the "they" or "its" is behind claims like "they say that yellow number 5 causes cancer" or "they've proved smoking reduces gun violence" or "it's the reason the economy is in the toilet", etc.
Metonymy is a useful linguistic device (metonymy is why sentences like "table number 3 wants their check" are grammatical; the "table" stands for the people sitting at it). But this particular misconceptualization tends not only to dominate discourse but pedagogy (including science classes) and popular understanding of the scientific enterprise and its nature. It presents as unified what is diverse; grants as singularly capable what only diverse methods, frameworks, etc., can and do achieve; props up as authoritative what is internally divided, and renders bereft of value many a would-be defense of the sciences themselves.

 

[Quintessence]

There are a few words in our language that have a singular form but should be (and at times are) understood to be plural. Science is, and never has been, a singular thing. Though we might stick an "s" on the end of the word to remind people, it'd also be good for us to just remember that in most contexts, the term "science" really means "sciences" or that more precise terms should be used in its place. The situation is similar with the word "religion" ironically. It should nearly always be understood as a plural term (as should other major religious identifiers like "Christian"), and more precise terms should be used in many cases. On the whole, it's a fundamental difficulty of communication. We simply and shorthand in communications routinely, sometimes out of necessity.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There are a few words in our language that have a singular form but should be (and at times are) understood to be plural. Science is, and never has been, a singular thing. Though we might stick an "s" on the end of the word to remind people, it'd also be good for us to just remember that in most contexts, the term "science" really means "sciences" or that more precise terms should be used in its place. The situation is similar with the word "religion" ironically. It should nearly always be understood as a plural term (as should other major religious identifiers like "Christian"), and more precise terms should be used in many cases. On the whole, it's a fundamental difficulty of communication. We simply and shorthand in communications routinely, sometimes out of necessity.

Brilliantly put (and if I could, I'd delete the OP and replace it with this).

 

[Revoltingest]

There are a few words in our language that have a singular form but should be (and at times are) understood to be plural. Science is, and never has been, a singular thing. Though we might stick an "s" on the end of the word to remind people, it'd also be good for us to just remember that in most contexts, the term "science" really means "sciences" or that more precise terms should be used in its place. The situation is similar with the word "religion" ironically. It should nearly always be understood as a plural term (as should other major religious identifiers like "Christian"), and more precise terms should be used in many cases. On the whole, it's a fundamental difficulty of communication. We simply and shorthand in communications routinely, sometimes out of necessity.

Balderdash!!
Piffle!
Barsh...flimshaw!
Pbbbbbt!
(Am I being too harsh?)
I like my "science" & "religion" being singular.
They conjure up images of a vast umbrella sheltering a diversity of approaches to the general concepts.
Their plurals, "sciences" & "religions", are useful in referring to the many which comprise this diversity.
Also, it would sound abominable to say "Science are".

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Balderdash!!
Piffle!
Barsh...flimshaw!
Pbbbbbt!

Best rebuttle since "this isn't an argument!" (Monty Python)

Am I being too harsh?

Not enough, really.

I like my "science" & "religion" being singular.

As count nouns, and rather than alternatives to the plural/singular dichotomy of most Indo-European languages (ancient Greek, Sanskrit, Hittite, etc., have a dual, as do non-IE languages, and number isn't so easily defined cross-linguistically)?

They conjure up images of a vast umbrella sheltering a diversity of approaches to the general concepts.

Concepts?

Also, it would sound abominable to say "Science are".

Hence my constant uses of "the sciences".

 

[Revoltingest]

Concepts?

I referred to 2 different concepts....religion & science.
(I wondered if I'd be unclear with my brevity. Tis good that you questioned it.)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I referred to 2 different concepts....religion & science.

Curse your exploitation of my lack of attention (and insomnia)! You made me look like an idiot (I use "made me look" rather than "revealed me as" because that way it sounds like I am actually not one).

 

[Revoltingest]

Curse your exploitation of my lack of attention (and insomnia)! You made me look like an idiot (I use "look" rather than "reveal" because that way it sounds like I am actually not one).

Oh, I know....I sense a triple digit IQ behind your posts.
And if I may brag again, my own is nearly 70.

 

[suncowiam]

There are a few words in our language that have a singular form but should be (and at times are) understood to be plural. Science is, and never has been, a singular thing. Though we might stick an "s" on the end of the word to remind people, it'd also be good for us to just remember that in most contexts, the term "science" really means "sciences" or that more precise terms should be used in its place. The situation is similar with the word "religion" ironically. It should nearly always be understood as a plural term (as should other major religious identifiers like "Christian"), and more precise terms should be used in many cases. On the whole, it's a fundamental difficulty of communication. We simply and shorthand in communications routinely, sometimes out of necessity.

I understand what you're proposing but I believe the right context should still be singular.

When one mentions science or religion, they are referring to the fundamental element behind all sciences or religions.

 

[suncowiam]

People frequently say things like "science shows that..." or "science can't tell us..." and otherwise attribute cognizance and agency to a concept. Schizophrenia comes from the Greek words for "divided in twain" and "mind" (or "divided mind"). In every scientific field, there are at least some contradicting, mutually exclusive, or incompatible theories, from the embodied cognition and massive modularity theories in neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and evolutionary psychology, to quantum physics and general relativity.
"Science", it would seem, disagrees about the proper methods to use, what conclusions it makes, what the dividing lines between it and other research areas or academic fields are, and more. It is, indeed, a mind quite divided.
Alternatively, perhaps it would be better to STOP empowering a concept with scientific authority almost equal to whomever the "they" or "its" is behind claims like "they say that yellow number 5 causes cancer" or "they've proved smoking reduces gun violence" or "it's the reason the economy is in the toilet", etc.
Metonymy is a useful linguistic device (metonymy is why sentences like "table number 3 wants their check" are grammatical; the "table" stands for the people sitting at it). But this particular misconceptualization tends not only to dominate discourse but pedagogy (including science classes) and popular understanding of the scientific enterprise and its nature. It presents as unified what is diverse; grants as singularly capable what only diverse methods, frameworks, etc., can and do achieve; props up as authoritative what is internally divided, and renders bereft of value many a would-be defense of the sciences themselves.

I'm just going to dive into your examples.

I simply don't believe psychology is a fundamental science so I won't debate that here. It is debatable if psychology is a social science. Wikipedia mentions psychology in that category. Like all social sciences, there's a human factor that simply can't be quantified at only one observeration but must be taken over many observations.

Now to Quantum Physics and General Relativity. Sure, we know this is in conflict with each other. That's easily admitted and been confirmed. That just means we haven't solved the final equation so there's a search for unification.

However, Quantum Physics led to the birth of all computers and other electronic devices. It is fundamental to all engineering. Basically, you wouldn't have that computer or the internet without QP. Sure, it conflicts with GR but so what. It describes an area of science with enough precision to better our lives through. I just think it's a little misleading to attribute conflict as a reason to undermine science authority.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I simply don't believe psychology is a fundamental science

I don't know what a "fundamental science" is but the examples I used that apply to psychology also apply to neuroscience.

Now to Quantum Physics and General Relativity. Sure, we know this is in conflict with each other. That's easily admitted and been confirmed. That just means we haven't solved the final equation so there's a search for unification.

And this relates to my post how?

However, Quantum Physics led to the birth of all computers and other electronic devices.

And the technology I use in my research (NMR, which is used in everything from quantum computing to medical imaging).

It is fundamental to all engineering.

No, it isn't. My cousin is getting her doctorate in biological and chemical engineering. She doesn't know any quantum physics. Few engineers that I have worked with (and I have worked with many) know quantum mechanics, and I've yet to meet one familiar with quantum field theories (QED, QCD, or QFT "proper").

Basically, you wouldn't have that computer or the internet without QP.

Yes, you would. We did. Neither ARPANET nor ENIAC required QM (and the first computer was designed mathematically by Turing in a publication on one of Hilbert's problems).

Sure, it conflicts with GR but so what.

So there is no unified "science" that warrants the frequent unified conceptualization found in common discourse.

I just think it's a little misleading to attribute conflict as a reason to undermine science authority.

Trust me, I would never undermine my own authority.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Also, it would sound abominable to say "Science are".

that harkens me back to my days as a Public Information Officer for a state agency, and the constant battle with attorneys, engineers, scientists, politicians and general staffers, and whether or not "staff" is singular or plural, whether or not a "department" could engage in action, and other quibbles of proper grammar.

 

[suncowiam]

I don't know what a "fundamental science" is but the examples I used that apply to psychology also apply to neuroscience.

And this relates to my post how?


And the technology I use in my research (NMR, which is used in everything from quantum computing to medical imaging).


No, it isn't. My cousin is getting her doctorate in biological and chemical engineering. She doesn't know any quantum physics. Few engineers that I have worked with (and I have worked with many) know quantum mechanics, and I've yet to meet one familiar with quantum field theories (QED, QCD, or QFT "proper").

Yes, you would. We did. Neither ARPANET nor ENIAC required QM (and the first computer was designed mathematically by Turing in a publication on one of Hilbert's problems).


So there is no unified "science" that warrants the frequent unified conceptualization found in common discourse.

Trust me, I would never undermine my own authority.

Maybe I misunderstand your post, then.

Concerning QP to engineering. If you're cousin is learning chemical engineering then she at least learned the electron states which suggests the formations of such elements in molecules compounds.

Here is link to suggest further suggest this: http://www.umich.edu/~elements/5e/web_mod/quantum/introduction_2.htm

Maybe she didn't need to learn all of QP but some of the fundamentals are involved.

Much like in engineering, we've abstracted various lower concepts so that we don't have to put time and energy rehashing it. But we have to assume this abstraction as valid in order to bypass it.

I'm not familiar with biological engineering but if it is a branch from chemical engineering, then I can make the same assertion.

Ahh, the difference between a scientist and an engineer. Sure, some scientist theorized the computer. Then some engineer actually had to build it. Fundamentally, its built on transistors and semiconducting basically made it applicable to our every day lives. So again, I speak from a tangible perspective.

I'm saying we have enough practical knowledge of electricity to apply it to our every day life. QP made that possible. It doesn't have to be perfect. But no other authority can undermind this than science. Religion or other fields aren't going to interject and suggest to me on how to make a better computer.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Maybe I misunderstand your post, then.

Concerning QP to engineering. If you're cousin is learning chemical engineering then she at least learned the electron states which suggests the formations of such elements in molecules compounds.

Which is a far cry from quantum mechanics. I've worked with specialists in nanotechnology, biochemistry, etc., and a small subset of these have taken quantum mechanics courses (and I don't mean courses that cover QM but are mainly concerned with e.g., statistical physics, spectroscopy, HCI, etc.).

Here is link to suggest further suggest this: http://www.umich.edu/~elements/5e/web_mod/quantum/introduction_2.htm

Thanks, but my doctoral work was on quantum physics (well, more specific than that obviously, but required mastering quantum mechanics, QFT/particle physics, and the literature on the interpretations and approaches to quantum physics (relative state interpretations such as the MWI and many-minds, decoherence, the classical projection postulate/Born's rule/collapse, Bohmian mechanics, etc.).

Maybe she didn't need to learn all of QP but some of the fundamentals are involved.

She didn't need to know a thing about Hilbert space, which is absolutely fundamental to quantum mechanics, nor did she need to know even the most basic components of relativistic quantum physics (and her knowledge of tensors, which is essential to any quantum field theory, was motivated from work in fluid dynamics and other fields).

Much like in engineering, we've abstracted various lower concepts so that we don't have to put time and energy rehashing it. But we have to assume this abstraction as valid in order to bypass it.

What? Too many pronouns without definite referents.

Sure, some scientist theorized the computer

And quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, particle physics, the standard model, etc. I'd be the first to acknowledge the benefits of the practical, pragmatic, down-to-earth perspective of engineers. But they didn't formulate modern physics. And they did build computers, but didn't require quantum physics.

I'm saying we have enough practical knowledge of electricity to apply it to our every day life. QP made that possible.

No,. it didn't. That would be mostly Maxwell, and remains mostly "classical" physics.

But no other authority can undermind this than science.

So what? Science undermines itself, I haven't proposed that we appeal to some higher power or something to replace science, and you appear to be attacking a position I don't hold.

 

[suncowiam]

Which is a far cry from quantum mechanics. I've worked with specialists in nanotechnology, biochemistry, etc., and a small subset of these have taken quantum mechanics courses (and I don't mean courses that cover QM but are mainly concerned with e.g., statistical physics, spectroscopy, HCI, etc.).


Thanks, but my doctoral work was on quantum physics (well, more specific than that obviously, but required mastering quantum mechanics, QFT/particle physics, and the literature on the interpretations and approaches to quantum physics (relative state interpretations such as the MWI and many-minds, decoherence, the classical projection postulate/Born's rule/collapse, Bohmian mechanics, etc.).


She didn't need to know a thing about Hilbert space, which is absolutely fundamental to quantum mechanics, nor did she need to know even the most basic components of relativistic quantum physics (and her knowledge of tensors, which is essential to any quantum field theory, was motivated from work in fluid dynamics and other fields).


What? Too many pronouns without definite referents.


And quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, particle physics, the standard model, etc. I'd be the first to acknowledge the benefits of the practical, pragmatic, down-to-earth perspective of engineers. But they didn't formulate modern physics. And they did build computers, but didn't require quantum physics.


No,. it didn't. That would be mostly Maxwell, and remains mostly "classical" physics.


So what? Science undermines itself, I haven't proposed that we appeal to some higher power or something to replace science, and you appear to be attacking a position I don't hold.

I didn't assert she needed to know everything concerning QM or QP. I don't see a difference between the two, but you do. I trust your expertise in this field more so than my knowledge, so then my assumption between the two was wrong.

And yes, I misunderstood your post.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I didn't assert she needed to know everything concerning QM or QP.

Quantum mechanics is a complete theory. You seem more than well-informed here, so perhaps the following analogy will help: a student in a second or even first semester calculus course may encounter differential equations. But they won't really be familiar with these until they take courses more devoted to them (such as a course in differential equations). Several of the texts I've used for statistical mechanics and thermodynamics have chapters on quantum mechanics, but they don't really cover quantum mechanics any more than a calculus II course does differential equations.

I don't see a difference between the two

Quantum mechanics is incompatible with special relativity. It suffers from other defects, but this is the most fundamental. There are no fields in quantum mechanics, but these are required formalisms for relativistic quantum physics, making the theoretical and formal structure of most quantum physics different than quantum mechanics.

And yes, I misunderstood your post.

Fair enough.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

People frequently say things like "science shows that..." or "science can't tell us..." and otherwise attribute cognizance and agency to a concept. Schizophrenia comes from the Greek words for "divided in twain" and "mind" (or "divided mind"). In every scientific field, there are at least some contradicting, mutually exclusive, or incompatible theories, from the embodied cognition and massive modularity theories in neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and evolutionary psychology, to quantum physics and general relativity.
"Science", it would seem, disagrees about the proper methods to use, what conclusions it makes, what the dividing lines between it and other research areas or academic fields are, and more. It is, indeed, a mind quite divided.
Alternatively, perhaps it would be better to STOP empowering a concept with scientific authority almost equal to whomever the "they" or "its" is behind claims like "they say that yellow number 5 causes cancer" or "they've proved smoking reduces gun violence" or "it's the reason the economy is in the toilet", etc.
Metonymy is a useful linguistic device (metonymy is why sentences like "table number 3 wants their check" are grammatical; the "table" stands for the people sitting at it). But this particular misconceptualization tends not only to dominate discourse but pedagogy (including science classes) and popular understanding of the scientific enterprise and its nature. It presents as unified what is diverse; grants as singularly capable what only diverse methods, frameworks, etc., can and do achieve; props up as authoritative what is internally divided, and renders bereft of value many a would-be defense of the sciences themselves.

Its not really a fault in science but the various outlooks of the fields within science. just as we have the field of philosophy and we have the different fields of philosophy(platonism, materialism etc.)with different outlooks which contradict eachother.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Its not really a fault in science

...because there really isn't any such a unified approach. Hence the greater accuracy of the term "the sciences". Nor am I trying to fault my own profession. I'm trying to clarify its nature.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

...because there really isn't any such a unified approach. Hence the greater accuracy of the term "the sciences". Nor am I trying to fault my own profession. I'm trying to clarify its nature.

Man, youre really an amazing character.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Man, youre really an amazing character.

Not a character. A person: An outdated profile page