Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Science the Search for Objective Truth in an Objective Reality
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 46 of 64 (368536)
12-08-2006 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by New Cat's Eye
12-08-2006 4:24 PM


Re: Success of science
We haven't detected dark matter at all, have we?
Many astronomers think that the smoking gun has been found: Dark Matter Exists.
Is dark matter supernatural, by definition?
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-08-2006 4:24 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by JonF, posted 12-09-2006 10:28 AM JonF has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 47 of 64 (368543)
12-08-2006 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by New Cat's Eye
12-08-2006 2:31 PM


Re: Objective Reality
It kinda sucks for science that the only reality that we, as individuals, are capable of observing is subjective.
Well yes and no. It would not be half as much fun if it were too easy!!
Theoretically, yes, but as far as applications of science go, no
Agreed. I would personally call that engineering but that is splitting hairs. All this requires is consistency of physical laws within whatever physical realm these exist. An engineer building a bridge does not care if the physical laws that he is applying work outside the matrix or not as long as they work for the bridge he is building inside the matrix (however as a thinking human being the engineer might be interested in the fact his reality is actually a matrix style creation.....but that is another question)
Can you show how you arrived at this conclusion because I still don't see why it is neccessary and inherent? Are you saying that science would be impossible without the assumption of an objective reality? Because I don't think it would be...
I think the scientific method and aims of pure science would be very different and unrecognisable from what we call science if an objective reality were not presumed by science. Independently repeatable experimentation, verification through prediction, error analysis and the search for universal laws (e.g. gravitation, 2nd law of thermodynamics etc.) are all meaningless unless there is an absolute with which to be compared (Note - It matters not whether this absolute can in practice be observed free from subjectivity - it's existence is all that is required)
When we measure the charge of an electron are we saying in the presence of my consciousness it has charge X?. In the prescence of your consciousness it has charge Y? In the presence of consciousness in general it has charge Z? Or is science concluding that the charge of an electron is E and that this value is fixed irrespective of who is conscious of it, indeed whether or not anyone is conscious of it and regardless of where in the universe it may find itself?
Electrons I accept may just be a convenient human model but as we get ever more accurate measurements of the charge of an electron what exactly is it we are getting closer to if not some property of an objective reality?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-08-2006 2:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 3:27 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 48 of 64 (368550)
12-08-2006 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
12-08-2006 2:51 PM


Models
Scientists use models. Models are simulations. If scientific models are not simulations of an objective reality what are they simulations of?
We all know in practice what we mean to improve a model and yes you can simply say that a model that leads to better predictions is a better model.
However science is not just about prediction it is about understanding.
Are you really saying that a model that provides a deeper understanding of a physical phenomenon is not superior to one that successfully makes predictions without adding a "why"?
The periodic table predicts chemical reactions. A full understanding of atomic theory explains them (and therefore the periodic table)
Is a better model not one that better explains a physical phenomenon? Is a theory that provides a better understanding not one that is closer to the "truth" of reality?
Better prediction is usually a happy side efect of a theory that better explains. I would suggest that such a theory (one that explains more deeply, that predicts more accurately and that enables us to ask even deeper questions) as more closely modelling an external objective reality.
It is the obvious explanation and there seems to be no other put forward as an alternative.
Scientific understanding does implicitly presume that there is an objective reality to be understood.
How can it be otherwise?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2006 2:51 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 12-11-2006 3:40 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 49 of 64 (368552)
12-08-2006 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by New Cat's Eye
12-08-2006 4:24 PM


Dark Matter
No dark matter is not supernatural. It is unknown. There is an important difference.
The unknown is exactly that. As yet unexplained physical phenomenon for which there is no reason to think that a scientific answer cannot be found (in the case of dark matter either the nature of the matter in question or a proper physical refutation of it's existence at all)
Supernatural phenomemnon are those that supposedly CANNOT by their very nature be investigated scientifically for whatever reason (I have never heard anyone give a valid reason).
In my view any phenomenon that has an effect on the physical world whether it be supernatural creators, ghosts, astrological prediction or whatever else can be studied scientifically even if the results lead to as yet unknown branches of science (unlikely but possible I suppose)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-08-2006 4:24 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 50 of 64 (368634)
12-09-2006 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by JonF
12-08-2006 6:09 PM


Re: Success of science
Many astronomers think that the smoking gun has been found: Dark Matter Exists.
And the MOND crew strikes back: Dark matter 'proof' called into doubt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by JonF, posted 12-08-2006 6:09 PM JonF has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 64 (369062)
12-11-2006 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Straggler
12-08-2006 6:30 PM


Re: Objective Reality
It kinda sucks for science that the only reality that we, as individuals, are capable of observing is subjective.
Well yes and no. It would not be half as much fun if it were too easy!!
Well, it’d make technological advancement a lot quicker, that could be a lot of fun.
Theoretically, yes, but as far as applications of science go, no
Agreed. I would personally call that engineering but that is splitting hairs.
Well this makes sense. I have an engineering degree and when I think of science, in general, I think of what you are calling engineering. My degree is a bachelors of science and when I think of science I think of how I was trained in science, which was engineering. Without some clarifier as to what you meant by “science”, I just resorted to instinct
All this requires is consistency of physical laws within whatever physical realm these exist.
Which was pretty much my point and why I don’t think an objective reality is necessary, even for theoretical science.
(however as a thinking human being the engineer might be interested in the fact his reality is actually a matrix style creation.....but that is another question)
But we don’t question whether this perceived objective reality is an actual objective reality now, so why would we do it in the matrix? It is just assumes that whatever physical consistencies we detect are objective, but not that they must be. All they need to be is consistant, which does not imply 'objective'.
Can you show how you arrived at this conclusion because I still don't see why it is neccessary and inherent? Are you saying that science would be impossible without the assumption of an objective reality? Because I don't think it would be...
I think the scientific method and aims of pure science would be very different and unrecognisable from what we call science if an objective reality were not presumed by science.
Can you exemplify those differences to clarify?
Independently repeatable experimentation, verification through prediction, error analysis and the search for universal laws (e.g. gravitation, 2nd law of thermodynamics etc.) are all meaningless unless there is an absolute with which to be compared (Note - It matters not whether this absolute can in practice be observed free from subjectivity - it's existence is all that is required)
I don’t see why they would be meaningless. I think they would be the exact same with or without an objective for comparison. Its all based on the collected evidence and their consistencies, whether or not they are objective. Like you said: (and I think this applies to theoretical science too)
quote:
All this requires is consistency of physical laws within whatever physical realm these exist.
Or is science concluding that the charge of an electron is E and that this value is fixed irrespective of who is conscious of it, indeed whether or not anyone is conscious of it and regardless of where in the universe it may find itself?
Yeah, that one.
I guess you are calling that the necessity of an objective reality while I am just seeing it as consistency, without the need for objectivity.
Electrons I accept may just be a convenient human model but as we get ever more accurate measurements of the charge of an electron what exactly is it we are getting closer to if not some property of an objective reality?
Oh I agree that the objective reality is out there, I just don’t think it is necessary to assume it in order for science to work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Straggler, posted 12-08-2006 6:30 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Straggler, posted 12-23-2006 9:43 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 52 of 64 (369070)
12-11-2006 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Straggler
12-08-2006 7:05 PM


Re: Models
If scientific models are not simulations of an objective reality what are they simulations of?
They don't need to be simulations of anything. A simulation, as defined by Baudrillard, is a copy of something with no original.
When I play Dungeons and Dragons, I simulate the interactions between (for instance) a party of adventurers and some orcs or whatever. Neither wizards, nor halflings, nor orcs exist. The game is a simulation, but it's not a simulation of anything real. Video games are the same phenomenon.
Are you really saying that a model that provides a deeper understanding of a physical phenomenon is not superior to one that successfully makes predictions without adding a "why"?
It's surperior if the understanding is testable. Otherwise, an untestable "understanding" is something to cut away with Occam's Razor. The testable, tested understanding leads to new avenues of research, usually, so it has some value there. But I'm not convinced that there's any difference between "understanding" and "being able to make accurate predictions." If you're making accurate predictions, in what sense do you not "understand" something?
Is a theory that provides a better understanding not one that is closer to the "truth" of reality?
How would we know if it was or not? That's the issue.
I would suggest that such a theory (one that explains more deeply, that predicts more accurately and that enables us to ask even deeper questions) as more closely modelling an external objective reality.
You can suggest it, but I don't see any reason to believe you. How would we know if it's the better predictive theory that most matches reality or not? Even if we had a model that perfectly matched reality, how would we know that it did? Couldn't a wrong model make accurate predictions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Straggler, posted 12-08-2006 7:05 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Straggler, posted 12-23-2006 9:24 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 53 of 64 (371803)
12-23-2006 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
12-11-2006 3:40 PM


Re: Models
But I'm not convinced that there's any difference between "understanding" and "being able to make accurate predictions." If you're making accurate predictions, in what sense do you not "understand" something?
Evolution by natural selection is considered one of the most accomplished, elegant and far reaching scientific theories ever formulated.
Testable predictions have been made but the success of the theory is based far more on it's explanatory powers and the deep understanding that these provide.
In your opinion is this theory considered so successful because it allows us to make ever more accurate predictions or because we feel that it has given us deep insight into a fundamental truth of nature and our own origins?
In your opinion is evolution by natural selection a simulation/model or an objective scientific and historical truth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 12-11-2006 3:40 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 54 of 64 (371806)
12-23-2006 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by New Cat's Eye
12-11-2006 3:27 PM


Re: Objective Reality
Oh I agree that the objective reality is out there, I just don’t think it is necessary to assume it in order for science to work.
Well that very much depends on what you think the aims of science are and therefore what is considered science "working". If it is merely to derive laws that consistently predict physical phenomenon then it sounds like we would both agree that consistency of "reality" objective or otherwise is all that is required. But is the ultimate aim of science prediction and control? See post above in response to Crashfrog regarding natural selection as an example of a theory that has limited useful predictive power but which is valued greatly for the insight it provideds.
If the aim of science is to provide a deeper understanding of nature then the aims of science, and therefore I would argue it's methods, would be very different if a non objective reality were to be assumed.
The ultimate questions of science would not ralate to the origin of life, the universe, matter etc. as they do now. Instead the ultimate questions of science would relate to the nature of the consciousness in whose subjective grasp we exist.
Don't get me wrong - I am not claiming that we can scientifically know whether this is the case or not. Or even that it matters from a purely technological advancement point of view.
I am just saying that implicit in the aims and methods of science is an assumption that we are operating in an objective reality and that this implicit assumption is necessary for science to operate as we understand it.
I would argue it as a sort of "axiom of science" if you like. An embedded assumption that there is an objective reality and that this is necessary for the nature of scientific investigation as we know it to follow.
So is science the search for objective truth in an objective reality?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 3:27 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Casey Powell 
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 64 (374127)
01-03-2007 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
12-08-2006 9:01 AM


Thats Philosophy, not Science
Thats Philosophy, not Science. Try Epistemology, Metaphysics, Linguistics and etc. to determine that one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 12-08-2006 9:01 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Straggler, posted 01-04-2007 8:06 AM Casey Powell has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 56 of 64 (374332)
01-04-2007 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 6:19 PM


Re: Thats Philosophy, not Science
Well it is philosophy of science.
As much of this forum is dedictaed to debating what is, and what is not, science it seemed a worthwhile topic and one that I am interested in knowing the views of others on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 6:19 PM Casey Powell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 10:49 AM Straggler has replied

  
Casey Powell 
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 64 (374349)
01-04-2007 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Straggler
01-04-2007 8:06 AM


Re: Thats Philosophy, not Science
Philosophy of Science? Thats nonsense, they're mutually exclusive.
Philosophy covers A Priori knowledge, while Science covered A Posteriori knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Straggler, posted 01-04-2007 8:06 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Straggler, posted 01-04-2007 11:32 AM Casey Powell has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 58 of 64 (374364)
01-04-2007 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Casey Powell
01-04-2007 10:49 AM


Re: Thats Philosophy, not Science
You seem to use the term "mutually exclusive" a lot when it is not necessarily warranted.
There is a whole branch of philosophy dedicated to the exact nature of scientific investigation. It is called the philosophy of science.
I would disagree fundamentally with your division of science and philosophy but even if, for the sake of argument, we assume that you are correct in asserting -
Philosophy covers A Priori knowledge, while Science covered A Posteriori knowledge
This in no way results in the conclusion that the nature of scientific investigation can not be considered philosophically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 10:49 AM Casey Powell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 12:13 PM Straggler has replied

  
Casey Powell 
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 64 (374375)
01-04-2007 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Straggler
01-04-2007 11:32 AM


Re: Thats Philosophy, not Science
This in no way results in the conclusion that the nature of scientific investigation can not be considered philosophically.
Thats apples and oranges here.
I use mutually exclusive where its necessary to use it. A Priori and A Posteriori are two completely different things. If you put them together, you've got a self contradiction on your hands.
Causes to Effects, and Effects to Causes can not coincide in the same sense at the same time. Thus, they would be considered to be mutually exclusive.
Now, a Logical Analysis of Inductive Reasoning is necessitated de facto of the Principles of Logic being both A Posteriori and A Priori.
Logic however is necessarily different than Philosophy however. So the Logic of Science is available to review, but the Philosophy of Science would be nonsense in the making.
Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Straggler, posted 01-04-2007 11:32 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Straggler, posted 01-04-2007 12:40 PM Casey Powell has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 60 of 64 (374394)
01-04-2007 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Casey Powell
01-04-2007 12:13 PM


Re: Thats Philosophy, not Science
The question - What is science?
Can be considered philosophically in the same way that the question
What is art? can be considered philosophically.
The nature of the subject in question is irrelevent to the philosophical questions that relate to the nature and meaning of the human pursuit under consideration.
The very question as to whether science (or any other endevour) is A Priori or A Posteriori (or a combination of the two) is a philosophical one.
Whatever the resulting conclusion of this philosophical investigation may be
There is nothing mutually exclusive about it.
If not philosophy what do you consider the question -
What is the nature of scientific investigation?
to be?
"Do we discover or invent mathematics"? - Is a philosphical question regardless of the answer. But the answer will suggest mathematics to have an A Priori or A Posteriori nature depending which point of view is taken.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 12:13 PM Casey Powell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 12:58 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 62 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 1:00 PM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024