Is science a belief?

[Pebble]

Made the mistake of reading some philosophy and ended with a question - silly me.

Deductive reasoning is accepted as truly rational: progression from provable premises to inescapable conclusions. This is however rare in science.

Inductive reasoning is common in science: Generalisation from provable premises to similar situations. Much of physics, cannot tell what the rest of the universe is doing.

Inference to best explanation, is even more common: Use of a combination of provable but not necessarily related, provable premises to conclude cause and effect on the basis of probability. Sometimes 'provable' with experiment, sometimes not (evolution)

The bulk of reliance on scientific methodology is dependent on proving that probability is logical rather than subjective, and this cannot be proven!

Finally: Data aquisition is theory dependent - you only look for what you believe is possible!

Conclusion: Science is not rational, we are all believers!

I know this is wrong, but how to prove it, suggestions welcomed:'(

[Tim the Mage]

I don't know about proof but if we apply deductive reasoning to the premise you posit it doesn't hold up. Induction gives us better answers (or rather answers that accord better with what we perceive to be the case). After all deductive reasining can answer questions science can't answer (is there a god, what noise does a tree falling in a forest make, etc.) but we would rather engineering was empirically based. Deduction is need to pose the questions but we answer many of those through inquiry and test rather than through reasoning.

Interestingly most academic sociology has given up on the scientific approach in favour of conversation followed by 'reasoning' - it makes me want to scream!

[Pebble]

Induction gives us better answers (or rather answers that accord better with what we perceive to be the case).

There-in lies the conundrum

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Deductive reasoning is accepted as truly rational: progression from provable premises to inescapable conclusions. This is however rare in science.

Reminds me of the old joke about traditional logic textbooks, which deal first with deduction and then with induction. First they explain the fallacy, then they commit it...;D

Seriously, though— what have you been reading?

[Pebble]

Seriously, though— what have you been reading?

Philosophy of science: a very short introduction. By Samir Okasha


ISBN 978-0-19-280283-5

Not impressive overall, as fails to really commit to the questions raised, but they are there.

[tolman]

Finally: Data aquisition is theory dependent - you only look for what you believe is possible!
On that point, even if it were correct, it still hasn't prevented numerous old incorrect theories being doubted and then abandoned because they didn't fit later observations, and countless other potential theories being strangled at birth because they didn't fit with reality when experiments were done.

Someone may only look for what they think is possible, but that doesn't mean they must find what they expect, or that they can't find other quite unexpected things. If they're any good as a scientist, they won't ignore such results, but will try to understand them.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Philosophy of science: a very short introduction. By Samir Okasha


ISBN 978-0-19-280283-5

Not impressive overall, as fails to really commit to the questions raised, but they are there.

Righto. Obviously, I haven't read the book, but I'm guessing that it has something to do with this:
http://www.cavehill.uwi.edu/bnccde/ph29a/okasha.html

[Pebble]

Righto. Obviously, I haven't read the book, but I'm guessing that it has something to do with this:
http://www.cavehill.uwi.edu/bnccde/ph29a/okasha.html

Correct, and while as previously observed, one can later observe anomalies that arise in experiments once one's theory changes, or even that outcomes do not fit your current theory.

The concept that one is far more likely to design and carry out experiments that fit with current paradigms is an entirely defencible argument.

[Matt]

The problem of induction was addressed by Karl Popper. The findings of science aren't proven. That doens't mean that they're not arrived at rationally. We accept them as provisional truths until they're falsified.

Scientist often claim to reject faith, however at the heart of the scientific method is the unfalsifiable assumption that the universe opperates according to fixed rules whihc may be determined by observation. This I call my article of faith. It serves me well.

[Dr B]

Inductive reasoning got us out of caves.......something philosophers always forget.......:smiley:

[Mulder]

Science works - look at the computer you're using to read this! That's because it is self correcting based on evidence. Above all, science is practical, unlike most, if not all, formal philosophical systems which tend to be rigid and unchanging.

[farmersboy]

I never could see the point in philosophy...

[Tim the Mage]

I never could see the point in philosophy...

You would be an engineer then?

[farmersboy]

Funnily enough, yes.

[Pebble]

Scientist often claim to reject faith, however at the heart of the scientific method is the unfalsifiable assumption that the universe opperates according to fixed rules whihc may be determined by observation. This I call my article of faith. It serves me well.


I like that. Better still, it may not be unfalsifiable, simply that we would not know how to design the required studies given our current understanding.

I suppose where I really disagreed with this guy, was firstly the notion that pobability is subjective, it can be truly objective, and is continually improving. Second that scientists, rarely challange their fundamental paradigms, I think we do that quite often.

While I agree with the general theme that philosophy is largely a waste of time, most of what is posted on UK Skeptics is really philosophy rather than science. So I indulge in this nasty habit too.

[tolman]

Well, there are philosophers, and then there are once-half-read-an-article-on-QM "You merely learned things, whereas I learned how to think" philosophers (or philosophy students).

For all that they may go on about the subjectivity of reality, the latter kind of philosopher still seem to act as if reality does exist and is highly stable and predictable.
In fact, if they didn't act as if their philosophy was pointless, they'd probably be dead.

[Tim the Mage]

Well, there are philosophers, and then there are once-half-read-an-article-on-QM "You merely learned things, whereas I learned how to think" philosophers (or philosophy students).

For all that they may go on about the subjectivity of reality, the latter kind of philosopher still seem to act as if reality does exist and is highly stable and predictable.
In fact, if they didn't act as if their philosophy was pointless, they'd probably be dead.

The problem with philosophy is its accessibility (despite the best endeavours of philosophers). It takes skills and knowledge to design and build a bridge that doesn't fall down but any idiot can create a philosophy (and plenty have) claiming to reveal the eternal verities. However, there is a real point to philosophy that does lie somewhere in the 'learning how to reason' area - people with some appreciation of moral philosophy do appear to handle debate better. Maybe they just know better words?

[Pebble]

Inductive reasoning got us out of caves.......something philosophers always forget.......:smiley:

Science is more rational than philosophy, becasue it has on average consistently outperformed the latter! I suppose enviornmentalists and the victims of total war, might transiently (at least) beg to diffir.

The problem with science is that it is relatively indifferent to human motivation, probably because we have rather poor tools to evaluate the nature of conciousness etc. This leaves the field open to the fruit bat elements of society. Perhaps if psychology were a rigorous science, philosophy would be relegated to the fringes, like astronomy has done with astrology?

[tolman]

Studying philosophy can certainly teach some people how to think more clearly, but then studying lots of other things can also teach lots of other people how to think more clearly.

I do sometimes wonder if philosophy is maybe something that people shouldn't be allowed to study until after they've really come to grips with some other field.

[Tim the Mage]

Science is more rational than philosophy, becasue it has on average consistently outperformed the latter! I suppose enviornmentalists and the victims of total war, might transiently (at least) beg to diffir.

The problem with science is that it is relatively indifferent to human motivation, probably because we have rather poor tools to evaluate the nature of conciousness etc. This leaves the field open to the fruit bat elements of society. Perhaps if psychology were a rigorous science, philosophy would be relegated to the fringes, like astronomy has done with astrology?

My head hurts small stone... Rationality is, in itself a matter of philosophical discourse - after all (and please don't take this as too much of a challenge) I can't be sure that what you mean by rational and what I mean by rational are the same.

Pure science bumps into philosophy all the time (which is a good thing) and the idea of empiricism is but a philosophical construct. But then I'm not a scientist so what would I know? But economists do:

http://www.stanford.edu/~hammond/ratEcon.pdf

For me, you confidence in science is, surely, more of a confidence in engineering. And I prefer the engineer's response: "I don't care what your precious theory says, will the damn thing fly?"

[Pebble]

For me, you confidence in science is, surely, more of a confidence in engineering. And I prefer the engineer's response: "I don't care what your precious theory says, will the damn thing fly?"

Pharmaceuticals: will the drug work
Toxicology: what is the LD 50 of this agent
Chemistry: Will these compounds react, to form what etc.
Physics: will Mars be there when the craft arrives
Medicine: will relieving this obstruction to blood flow improve organ function


etc. etc

[Matt]

You know I've always thought of science as a branch of philosophy just as biology is a branch of science or caclulus is a branch of mathematics. And since I mention mathematics I think of that too as a branch of philosophy.

Philosophy is simply love of knowledge after all. At least that's what the etymology tells me.

[Pebble]

You know I've always thought of science as a branch of philosophy just as biology is a branch of science or caclulus is a branch of mathematics. And since I mention mathematics I think of that too as a branch of philosophy.

Philosophy is simply love of knowledge after all. At least that's what the etymology tells me.

Red rag to bulls surely: Going from Plato thinking experimenting should be shunned in favour of thinking a problem through, to the current vogue for thought experiment, and comparing this to the rigors of empiricism, seems a stretch. It is a bit like saying that science is a subset of human activity, technically true, but misses the point.:-[

[farmersboy]

You know I've always thought of science as a branch of philosophy just as biology is a branch of science or caclulus is a branch of mathematics. And since I mention mathematics I think of that too as a branch of philosophy.

Philosophy is simply love of knowledge after all. At least that's what the etymology tells me.

Well I never knew that - it had nothing to do with pointless conjecture on such drivel as the meaning of life.

[Matt]

Well I never knew that - it had nothing to do with pointless conjecture on such drivel as the meaning of life.

That I would file under metaphysics - another branch of philosophy. However other branches of philosophy seem more relavent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy#Branches_of_philosophy