Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 6:50 AM
43 online now:
(43 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,541 Year: 3,578/19,786 Month: 573/1,087 Week: 163/212 Day: 5/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What are acceptable sources of "scientific knowledge"?
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1698 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


(1)
Message 1 of 3 (724831)
04-21-2014 12:11 PM


A lil' help from admins in generating a topic (or series of topics) centered around the general question: what are our (science-types) ideals and expectations on how we want people to participate in this debate and, more generally, in democracy and life as a community?

I don't think that discussion, directly, would lead to anything fruitful--too wide open, too opinion-oriented. Instead, I want to break things down into fairly narrow topics.

First step: understanding better what exactly science-types think of as "knowledge"--what is it and where does it come from? This includes questions like:


  • When we request each other to provide evidence in an argument, should we be referring to source papers that contain original data, or is referring to authorities good enough?

  • If it's good enough, when and why is that the case?

  • Is scientific knowledge the set of all source data in the literature, or is it the set of inferences and conclusions that have been generally agreed upon by the scientific community, based on those data?

If and when I get concrete answers about that, I can ask more concrete questions like: if I'm not a nerdy book-worm whose primary interest is learning about the natural world, how do I participate in your democracy? Or more generally, how do you expect a general public who is not necessarily compelled by knowledge to interact with you? Does it have to be on your terms? If so, why?

Any help in clarifying these thoughts, and ultimately spawning a simple, narrow topic to start would be appreciated!

Edited by Ben!, : Edited to change the message mood.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 04-22-2014 8:58 AM Ben! has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2 of 3 (724899)
04-22-2014 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ben!
04-21-2014 12:11 PM


I'll promote this and suggest narrowing the focus to your first step:

Ben! writes:

First step: understanding better what exactly science-types think of as "knowledge"--what is it and where does it come from? This includes questions like:


  • When we request each other to provide evidence in an argument, should we be referring to source papers that contain original data, or is referring to authorities good enough?

  • If it's good enough, when and why is that the case?

  • Is scientific knowledge the set of all source data in the literature, or is it the set of inferences and conclusions that have been generally agreed upon by the scientific community, based on those data?


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ben!, posted 04-21-2014 12:11 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 3 of 3 (724902)
04-22-2014 8:58 AM


Thread Copied to Is It Science? Forum
Thread copied to the What are acceptable sources of "scientific knowledge"? thread in the Is It Science? forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019