Princeps Eugenius
Active Member
Next time you make a big discovery in any field, call me.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science is schizophrenic
- Thread starter LegionOnomaMoi
- Start date
That would be now. It involves a proof of the inadequacy of the most commonly used statistical measures across most sciences and a possible (semi-)resolution (it's not a resolution I like, but apparently one can't just pull the rug out from under so many and not pay lip-service to their approach, no matter how theoretically baseless it may be). Truth be told, the "resolution" isn't great, but the criticism is novel enough to be considered for publication in several journals. Of course, because I am criticizing a central method used across sciences the possible acceptance of my work depends upon how well I can sell my "resolution". But regardless, most of my work is behind the scenes: I'm a research consultant. I do work for which others take the credit (by design; I'm not complaining here).
And he's quite the dancer too!
Princeps Eugenius
Active Member
Do you really think you gain some sort of respect or credit when you use terms and sentence structures not understandable by the majority of people? You dont, it makes you only less understandable. "Keepin' it simple and objective" should always be a motto on the lip of any rational man or anybody who WANTS to reach the majority of people.
What fundamental element? Nobody agrees on what those are, and ultimately, whatever we consider "fundamental" is an arbitrary, opinion-grounded construct. No, thinking of them as singular provides the illusion of some sort of agreement about what these things mean when in reality there is none.
To start with, I strongly feel a fundamental element of science is math plus the scientific method.
I'm sure there's something fundamental about religion, but frankly, I don't know nor do I care that much. Maybe faith?
I'm saying there are core elements to these topics that folks can relate to when comparing all the sciences to each other, or all the religions to each other.
If you find that subjective, then I'm fine with that.
It's the language of the sciences (loosely and figuratively speaking). Of course, in some sciences it's barely required at all and in others you can't even understand the basics without some fairly advanced mathematics. Undergraduate engineers and physicists, for example, require several semesters of calculus (although not usually "real" calculus, i.e., real analysis), linear algebra, a course or two in differential equations, and often more (statistics, probability theory, measure theory, complex analysis, differential geometry, tensor calculus, etc.). Meanwhile, a cousin of mine who is finishing her dual MD/PhD program had to take calculus I and not much else. In fact, for a lot of sciences the undergraduate required mathematics course is simply calculus I (which is pointless, as calculus courses don't teach calculus concepts but procedures and single-variable calculus is basically useless, particularly given the understanding one receives from a single variable calculus course). Usually, these sciences and those that don't tend to even require calculus will require multivariate statistics courses in graduate school, but such courses are a serious problem. The mathematics underlying basically all of multivariate statistics is linear algebra, which is often the course students who are good at math even through upper level calculus suddenly find themselves floundering in (it is the first introduction to truly conceptually challenging mathematics). As grad students in these multivariate statistics classes don't have this foundation, and the statistical methods taught have grown in number and complexity, these courses have come to teach students just enough to know how to recognize X type of research question/data with Y statistical method and how to implement these in a program like SPSS.
There isn't any such thing.
The Myth of the Scientific Method
There isn't. First, with respect to religion, most religion were so fundamentally a matter of practice that language like Latin, Greek, etc., didn't have words for religion, and many ancient religions like Hinduism and Buddhism are essentially modern to the extent they fit the model of "religion" as consisting of some kind of belief system recognizably distinct from (even if incorporate into) sociocultural practices more generally.
Second, with respect to the sciences, time was that the "queen" of the sciences was mathematics, and many continue to argue it is a science. But it lacks the central feature of the sciences (empirical methods), while non-sciences such as classics, Biblical studies, etc., do not. In fact, many believe that history/historiography is a science, and several historians (particularly Tucker) have come to promote "scientific historiography." Meanwhile, cosmology is now most definitely a science (although much metaphysics remains), while an increasing amount of physics is arguably not concerned with science (and certainly not recognizably physics).
Just ballet and pole dancing. I see you've seen my work!
Pole dancing.....uhhhh...that's an image that will take an awful lot of alcohol to erase....why couldn't you have been a break dancer? So much easier to erase from memory....
Because it would be too easy to erase from memory. Plus the tips are better (you know, people throwing money at me to put my clothes back on...)
I just finished celebrating my son's 5th birthday. We had a great time!
Your first point is understood. And again, I did not mean to assert all math needed in all sciences. But sciences do have foundation of math or should I say SHOULD have a foundation in math. The subjective notion are what studies can be considered sciences, but I would argue that anything to be considered a science must at least rely on math. I'm not sure if we can come to an agreement on which studies are considered sciences, so I'm fine leaving that as a difference of opinion between us.
Concerning the second point, let me state the article's definition of TSM and the article's conclusion:
"Now, as anybody who has taken even high school science classes can tell you, The Scientific Method (TSM) says that if you continually confirm some hypothesis, then you accept it as theory (at least until it is falsified). "
"There is no Scientific Method. Scientists conduct research (ideally, anyway) using logic, interpretation of probability, and in general that unintuitive kind of analytic thinking that typifies formal argumentation and mathematical reasoning. They also, though, rely on frameworks (theories) within which all their work is conducted, and nothing in The Scientific Method hints at this, let alone attempts to explain it."
I agree with the definition of TSM given by the article. But the conclusion seems to then misinterpret its own definition of TSM. If TSM is a continuous process until falsified, then in theory, an infinite range of analytics and frameworks (internal and external) are involved. I'm not sure how the author jumped to his conclusion so easily. The key factor here is time and if TSM is a process with infinite time to disprove itself then I would expect a correlation of time to infinity with a conclusion to be valid. Otherwise, If any one of the infinite range of analytics and frameworks disproved the theory, we are done. Hopefully, that last parts made sense.
I'm poor in my understanding of religion, so basically, that's all over my head to even try there.
Last edited:
Congratulations and happy birthday to your son!
I couldn't agree more.
The Language of Science: Why Most Scientists Don't Speak It
It's not an article, it's a post from my blog. I wrote it. If you would prefer to hear there is no TSM not only from actual articles but peer-reviewed ones at that (or better yet, published conclusions from committees on science educations by the AAAS or National Academy of Sciences), I can accommodate:
“In Science for All Americans, the AAAS advocated the achievement of scientific literacy by all U.S. high school students...(American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989). This seminal report described science as tentative (striving toward objectivity within the constraints of human fallibility) and as a social enterprise, while also discussing the durability of scientific theories, the importance of logical reasoning, and the lack of a single scientific method.” (emphasis added)
Schweingruber, H. A., Hilton, M. L., & Singer, S. R. (Eds.). (2005). America's Lab Report:Investigations in High School Science. Committee on High School Laboratoriers: Role and Vision. Board on Science Education, Center for Education, National Research Council.
"This myth is often manifested in the belief that there is a recipe-like stepwise procedure that typifies all scientific practice. This notion is erroneous: there is no single 'Scientific Method'... Scientists do observe, compare, measure, test, speculate, hypothesize, debate, create ideas and conceptual tools, and construct theories and explanations. However, there is no single sequence of (practical, conceptual, or logical) activities that will unerringly lead them to valid claims, let alone ‘certain’ knowledge." (emphasis added)
Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. P. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 835-855.
“Pre-college students, and the general public for that matter, believe in a distorted view of scientific inquiry that has resulted from schooling, the media, and the format of most scientific reports. This distorted view is called THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.” (emphasis added)
Lederman, N. G. (1999). EJSE Editorial: The State of Science Education: Subject Matter Without Context. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(2).
"Activity without understanding seems to be a regular feature of classroom life for science students in American schools...Any plans for testing new frameworks for school science investigations would be poorly conceived, however, without taking into account the influence of the current paradigm of preference for educators—the scientific method (TSM)—and its role in allowing distorted images of science to be passed down through schooling practices." (emphasis added)
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model‐based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science education, 92(5), 941-967.
"a focus on practices (in the plural) avoids the mistaken impression that there is one distinctive approach common to all science—a single “scientific method”—or that uncertainty is a universal attribute of science. In reality, practicing scientists employ a broad spectrum of methods" (emphasis added)
Schweingruber, H., Keller, T., & Quinn, H. (Eds.). (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. National Research Council’s Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
But it isn't a continuous process, it's a myth. Hypotheses concerning theories are generated by them and both tested and interpreted according to them. Theories are the frameworks that drive research. Neither hypotheses nor experiments are independent of aspects of the theories they investigate. Nor does falsification play the role it is said to in the TSM. Often, theories are never falsified, even when they are abandoned. Sometimes they aren't even tested, or emerge without empirical study. Most of the developments in modern physics at the atomic and subatomic scales were derived mathematically, to receive (or not) confirmation perhaps decades later. Even confirmation isn't what it seems. Remember the big announcement in 2012 when CERN said they'd found the Higgs?
The God Particle Discovered? Maybe not
Years of research experience and research consulting work.
Fair enough. We are all of us ignorant of infinitely many things, which is why places like this are so great (shared knowledge, experience, wisdom, etc.).
I decided not to put this in the last post because I thought it too long to be anything but a stand-alone:
Before embarking on the development of any course or unit of study designed to assist teachers or students in the acquisition of a nature of science understanding, one must have some notion of what knowledge is worth possessing for incorporation into curricula and classroom discourse. In spite of significant progress toward characterizing science, much disagreement remains. Almost thirty years ago, Herron, (1969) claimed that no sound and precise description exists concerning the nature and structure of science, and more recent voices echo that sentiment. As an example, Lauden states that “. . . we have no well-confirmed general picture of how science works, no theory of science worthy of general assent” (in Ginev, p. 64). Welch, (1984) and Duschl, (1994) also cites the lack of consensus regarding the appropriate image of scientific inquiry and the growth of scientific knowledge while Ledeman (1992) notes that the nature of science is neither universal nor stable…
At the level of description, there is significant consensus regarding the nature of science…For example, the nature of science recommendations contained in eight international science education standards documents show significant overlap (Table 1)…Moreover, the image of science emerging from the social studies of science is sufficiently robust that science educators can move forward with confidence and provide a more realistic picture of the strengths and limitations of this thing called science…here in Table I the most prevalent issues are illustrated.
END QUOTATION
(emphases added)
The above was taken from
McCOMAS, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (2002).The Role and Character of the Nature of Science in Science Education. In M. F. McCOMAS (Ed.). The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies (Science & Technology Education Library Vol. 5) (pp. 3-39). Kluwer Academic.
CONSENSUS VIEWS REGARDING THE NATURE OF SCIENCE
Before embarking on the development of any course or unit of study designed to assist teachers or students in the acquisition of a nature of science understanding, one must have some notion of what knowledge is worth possessing for incorporation into curricula and classroom discourse. In spite of significant progress toward characterizing science, much disagreement remains. Almost thirty years ago, Herron, (1969) claimed that no sound and precise description exists concerning the nature and structure of science, and more recent voices echo that sentiment. As an example, Lauden states that “. . . we have no well-confirmed general picture of how science works, no theory of science worthy of general assent” (in Ginev, p. 64). Welch, (1984) and Duschl, (1994) also cites the lack of consensus regarding the appropriate image of scientific inquiry and the growth of scientific knowledge while Ledeman (1992) notes that the nature of science is neither universal nor stable…
At the level of description, there is significant consensus regarding the nature of science…For example, the nature of science recommendations contained in eight international science education standards documents show significant overlap (Table 1)…Moreover, the image of science emerging from the social studies of science is sufficiently robust that science educators can move forward with confidence and provide a more realistic picture of the strengths and limitations of this thing called science…here in Table I the most prevalent issues are illustrated.
TABLE I
A consensus view of the nature of science objectives extracted from eight international science standards documents.
- Scientific knowledge while durable, has a tentative character.
- Scientific knowledge relies heavily, but not entirely, on observation, experimental evidence, rational arguments, and skepticism.
- There is no one way to do science (therefore, there is no universal step-by- step scientific method)
- Science is an attempt to explain natural phenomena
- Laws and theories serve different roles in science, therefore students should note that theories do not become laws even with additional evidence.
- People from all cultures contribute to science
- New knowledge must be reported clearly and openly
- Scientists require accurate record keeping, peer review and replicability
- Observations are theory-laden
- Scientists are creative
- The history of science reveals both an evolutionary and revolutionary character
- Science is part of social and cultural traditions
- Science and technology impact each other
- Scientific ideas are affected by their social & historical milieu
END QUOTATION
(emphases added)
The above was taken from
McCOMAS, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (2002).The Role and Character of the Nature of Science in Science Education. In M. F. McCOMAS (Ed.). The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies (Science & Technology Education Library Vol. 5) (pp. 3-39). Kluwer Academic.
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
In respomse to the first sentence in the OP.
No one says that concepts are conscious .We are conscious of concepts . Similarly ,we are conscious of rocks but that does not mean that rocks are conscious .
What concepts are of course is a deep mystery. Google," symbol grounding problem,wiki).
No one says that concepts are conscious .We are conscious of concepts . Similarly ,we are conscious of rocks but that does not mean that rocks are conscious .
What concepts are of course is a deep mystery. Google," symbol grounding problem,wiki).
Btw, I did enjoy your blog. I believe I understand more of your point. A process is only as good as the people and frameworks that drive it. I do believe the initial definition of TSM is the ideal process to follow. The terms independent studies come to mind to help offset bias but this could be another loaded process. Also, as we continue discoveries, we would have more models to refute the initial theory. I agree though, how the TSM is practiced can be very inconsistent and subjected with personal bias, as you've undoubtely seen yourself.
Thanks
Saint_of_Me
Member
OK, so, your very headline I find misleading. And unfair. After reading some of your previous posts I would have thought you know better.
To use the word "schizophrenic" implies a gross psychological impairment. Or disease.
This is NOT Science.
The reason for the conflicts is NOT that we constantly and capriciously change our minds, or are afflicted with any sort of schizophrenic mindset. No..rather, it is because we are constantly challenging ideas, hypotheses, and even widely-accepted theories. Hell, even Laws sometimes are put to the test.
And, in true Empirical Method form, if we discover a flaw or an outright falsity in a hypothesis, we amend it. Or debunk it and dismiss it outright. This is why science always seems to be in a state of flux.. Of change. But also, and more importantly--and more Commonly: we are in Growth.
Without advances Science has mad ein the past 200 years we would be pretty much in the Stone Age. Living like those wackjob 3rd world Islamic radicals who eat hummus with their fingers and have nothing better to do than fire their Afghan-USSR war-vintage AK-47 at anything that moves in dreams of ascending to Heaven to lay around in bed all day and watch camel races with 72 virgins.
As far as empowering concepts with irrefutable authority, nobody in science does this. You are speaking of general public vernacular, and even then, the phrase "They say that Dark Energy is really anti-matter from Black Holes" is only a figure of speech. A convenient and, yes, lazy way of expressing a newly-heard science idea. It's just shorter and easier to say than, "A recent study conducted by Caltech cosmologists, in conjunction with the JPL in Pasadena alluded to the idea that Dark Energy......."
And again, as far as "presenting what is diverse as unified"---this is NOT the case in actual scientific arenas. You claimed you are a research scientist, so you know this. What do you think we have peer-reviewed papers for? LOL. You also should know that very few things intrigue or even obsess an scientisrt than being the guy who one day disproves a commonly-held theory, or even a burgeoning hypothesis that has found "flavor of the month" status in his community. I mean, who would not like to be the one to "put way" the 11-Dimensional M-Brane/String Theory nonsense for good? LOL.
And lastly, what is the alternative to the tumult and conflicting, and constantly morphing zeitgeists of Science? You know, all those progressive findings and refutations you are denigrating as "schizophrenic?" The alternative is stasis. A stoppage in Knowledge. A world bereft of progress. Wallowing in the past. Which, if that goes on too long, is to be wallowing in ignorance.
You know, like Religion.
Metonymy not withstanding, that's because "science" is really a set of fields that can differ fairly radically and the scientists who belong to these (although the boundaries between the sciences and other fields can be a bit blurry). What I object to is the implicit or explicit conceptualization of science as this monolithic, unified "thing" that describes what is really far more diverse, whether it is by non-scientists who seem hell-bent on defending "science" or those like creationists who scoff at what they seem to regard as basically a false idol for atheists.
I am not attributing any kind of faulty reasoning or mental health issues to scientists, but to the non-existent personification of the concept. Nor am I doing this seriously but in jest.
I know. I've been doing this a little longer than you.
That is precisely what I am doing. I am trying to point out from a scientist's perspective the flaws in the nature of sciences as it is too frequently described and conceptualized by the general public. That's the point.
Again, that's my point.
Educating the public as to how scientists actually go about doing what they do instead of clinging to a pedagogical paradigm known to be flawed for a century.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
We almost certainly may be fuddled by your humblequense and solicitudeness.
Too much?
Underhill
Well-Known Member
As far as I know, we are educating the public. But their memory sucks.
Whuh?