Ask a philosophy-sceptical "scientist"!

[Buck Birdseed]

Not having really read through all the relevant threads I thought I'd just post a counter-thread to Jon Miller's seemingly pointless one where he asked philosophers to answer science questions, totally unrelated to their own discipline. I'll instead try to ask a series of questions about science.

What is science?

What processes are involved in the scientific method, and in what order do they take place? What forms the basis of the formation of hypotheses?

Are causal events always in temporal sequence? Always with a physical connection? If we could go back in time and replay a causation again with exactly the same environmental factors, would it come out exaclty the same?

What factors about a scientist's mind before an observation will cause a change in how he observes it? Can a scientist ever "objectively" observe anything without slotting it into a pattern of observation or expectence?

What makes one Hypothesis better than another?

Why is Astrology considered a "pseudoscience" rather than a real science?

Not using scientific standards, can you explain what makes science prefferable to any other method of supposedly acquiring knowledge?

Can science explain the cause of the universe?

Can science explain those particular features about the universe that make it inhabitable by human life?

If you don't feel like answering any of these questions, could you at least acknowledge that they might be interesting or even important?

[yaroslav]

Re: Ask a philosophy-sceptical "scientist"!

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Not having really read through all the relevant threads I thought I'd just post a counter-thread to Jon Miller's seemingly pointless one where he asked philosophers to answer science questions, totally unrelated to their own discipline. I'll instead try to ask a series of questions about science.

What is science?

What processes are involved in the scientific method, and in what order do they take place? What forms the basis of the formation of hypotheses?

Are causal events always in temporal sequence? Always with a physical connection? If we could go back in time and replay a causation again with exactly the same environmental factors, would it come out exaclty the same?

What factors about a scientist's mind before an observation will cause a change in how he observes it? Can a scientist ever "objectively" observe anything without slotting it into a pattern of observation or expectence?

What makes one Hypothesis better than another?

Why is Astrology considered a "pseudoscience" rather than a real science?

Not using scientific standards, can you explain what makes science prefferable to any other method of supposedly acquiring knowledge?

Can science explain the cause of the universe?

Can science explain those particular features about the universe that make it inhabitable by human life?

If you don't feel like answering any of these questions, could you at least acknowledge that they might be interesting or even important?

I feel that these question are very important. I get mad when people start to talk seriously about astrology, UFOs and so on. I feel that science, its limits and its fundaments are a very important topic

BTW, I think science is the best kind of knowlegde we have

Edit: Two edits

1) To correct a very embarassing error (OVNI instead of UFO)

2) To point out that even if I want to know the limits of science, I want also to point out that I think it's our better kind of knowlegde

[Asher]

Re: Ask a philosophy-sceptical "scientist"!

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Not having really read through all the relevant threads I thought I'd just post a counter-thread to Jon Miller's seemingly pointless one where he asked philosophers to answer science questions, totally unrelated to their own discipline.

You've completely missed the point of Jon's thread, and it was intended to be a joke based on the assertions some philosphers made in that big Philosophy thread: mainly that Philosophers are needed because we need them to tell us the value of all of the stuff in the world, including science.

Which is why the thread exists -- to ask philosophers the values of things, since we need them and only them to do so.

*whoosh*

[KrazyHorse]

What is science?

Any study involving the scientific method.

What processes are involved in the scientific method, and in what order do they take place? What forms the basis of the formation of hypotheses?

Hypothesis, the fleshing out of a theory based on these hypotheses, predictions based on the theory obtained, design of experiments to test these predictions (especially where they differ from other proposed theories), implementation of these experiments, comparison to predicted results.

Are causal events always in temporal sequence?

Yes.

Always with a physical connection?

It depends on your definition of causality.

If we could go back in time and replay a causation again with exactly the same environmental factors, would it come out exaclty the same?

No. This is basic quantum mechanics, independent of your interpretation (copenhagen or many-worlds)

What factors about a scientist's mind before an observation will cause a change in how he observes it?

Please clarify the question.

Can a scientist ever "objectively" observe anything without slotting it into a pattern of observation or expectence?

Human beings are pattern sensors. The wonderful thing about the human mind is to be able to retain doubt and formulate new patterns to fit both old and new experiences into.

What makes one Hypothesis better than another?

Predictive power and accuracy. Some people include "esthetics" into it, usually meaning that the best hypotheses will be those with the fewest assumptions. The reason for this is that a theory with more specified variables is easier to create, but is easier to disprove upon further testing. Say a second order polynomial will describe the results adequately. There are an infinite number of third order polynomials that will also do the job, but further results will generally disprove all but (at most) one of them. Stick to what's necessary. All else being equal, proceed upon less assumptions.

Why is Astrology considered a "pseudoscience" rather than a real science?

Because I know of no studies carried out according to the scientific method which show a large correlation between the physical positioning of stars and the course of people's lives in seemingly unrelated ways.

Not using scientific standards, can you explain what makes science prefferable to any other method of supposedly acquiring knowledge?

Please propose another method which generates the same wealth of accurate predictions that science has provided us with.

Can science explain the cause of the universe?

Depends on your definition of "universe". According to the definition I use (everything is existence), no.

Can science explain those particular features about the universe that make it inhabitable by human life?

Every last physical law of the Universe. The tolerance of human life to, say, a change in the fine-structure constant is ridiculously low. The tolerance for an existence of some sort of intelligent life is obviously much higher.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Re: Ask a philosophy-sceptical "scientist"!

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed

Why is Astrology considered a "pseudoscience" rather than a real science?

Because it's bollocks.

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by Frogger

Are causal events always in temporal sequence?

Yes.

Always with a physical connection?

It depends on your definition of causality.

Well, I'm not sure about the causality (Hume), but I can't understand the world without it

Why is Astrology considered a "pseudoscience" rather than a real science?

Because I know of no studies carried out according to the scientific method which show a large correlation between the physical positioning of stars and the course of people's lives in seemingly unrelated ways.

In fact, we even could say that there are a lot of experiences that prove that astrology is not correct (twins)

Can science explain the cause of the universe?

Depends on your definition of "universe". According to the definition I use (everything is existence), no.

I think that there are question (how happen before the Big Bang) we can not answer: nor with science neither with any other kind of knowlegde

Can science explain those particular features about the universe that make it inhabitable by human life?

Every last physical law of the Universe. The tolerance of human life to, say, a change in the fine-structure constant is ridiculously low. The tolerance for an existence of some sort of intelligent life is obviously much higher.

Antropomorphic principle: If the universe were different, there will be no humans

[Ben Kenobi]

Laz:

Concise.

I have questions for the scientists.

Who made the Universe, and what can we infer from this hypothesis?

Can science have bias?

Superstrings vs. cosmological constants. Which seems more plausible?

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
I have questions for the scientists.

Who made the Universe, and what can we infer from this hypothesis?

No one can answer that, philosopher or scientist.

[yaroslav]

My humble opinions (I'm studing to be an engineer, nor a physic)

Originally posted by obiwan18
Laz:

Concise.

I have questions for the scientists.

Who made the Universe, and what can we infer from this hypothesis?

We've no evidence, no answer for this question, and I don't know if we are going to have one in the future

Can science have bias?

Can you explain me that question?

Superstrings vs. cosmological constants. Which seems more plausible?

Suprestrings seems very promising, but I'm not a physic

[KrazyHorse]

Superstrings vs. cosmological constants. Which seems more plausible?

a) The Standard Model is broken. Everybody knows it. It does not generate intelligible results at ultra-high energies

b) IIRC superstrings do, but: there is such a wealth of superstring theories out there that almost all of them will be proven wrong as soon as we have the wherewithal to test them

I'm left with the conclusion that we don't have enough to judge right now.

[Buck Birdseed]

Congratulations, KittyHorse, you're now a philosopher! (All the questions except the last two are nicked wholesale from my Philosophy of Science class last term. The last two are from my Philosophy of Religion class this term.)

Because I know of no studies carried out according to the scientific method which show a large correlation between the physical positioning of stars and the course of people's lives in seemingly unrelated ways.

But could not such tests be carried out (in fact, they have, and have found no significant correlation, except in limited and controversial ways)? It may make it less of a good theory right now than many other theories, but is it therefore also unscientific?

Predictive power and accuracy. Some people include "esthetics" into it, usually meaning that the best hypotheses will be those with the fewest assumptions. The reason for this is that a theory with more specified variables is easier to create, but is easier to disprove upon further testing. Say a second order polynomial will describe the results adequately. There are an infinite number of third order polynomials that will also do the job, but further results will generally disprove all but (at most) one of them. Stick to what's necessary. All else being equal, proceed upon less assumptions.

Why aesthetic simplicity and not just degree of testability?

Please propose another method which generates the same wealth of accurate predictions that science has provided us with.

No other method has been given the chance since around the enlightenment, has it? The ideology of science so dominates society that no other method is given the chance to produce similarly good results. (I'm playing devil's advocate here, btw.)

Every last physical law of the Universe. The tolerance of human life to, say, a change in the fine-structure constant is ridiculously low. The tolerance for an existence of some sort of intelligent life is obviously much higher.

But why, of all the set-ups of the universe that could have been, does this particular one exist?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Congratulations, KittyHorse, you're now a philosopher! (All the questions except the last two are nicked wholesale from my Philosophy of Science class last term. The last two are from my Philosophy of Religion class this term.)

Maybe you should have read the other threads before trying to make a point.

No one was contending that we never use philosophy in every day life, just that a discipline on it in university is quite pointless. And as you've just demonstrated, a physics student is a philosopher as well, without wasting public money on philosophy courses.

[Ben Kenobi]

Can you explain me that question?

yaroslav:

Another way to word the question is:

Can science be impartial?

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
yaroslav:

Another way to word the question is:

Can science be impartial?

I'm still not sure of the question. Did you hear the definition of science?

Any study involving the scientific method.

So of course Science can be impartial...

[KrazyHorse]

Congratulations, KittyHorse, you're now a philosopher! (All the questions except the last two are nicked wholesale from my Philosophy of Science class last term. The last two are from my Philosophy of Religion class this term.)

Exactly my point, Snap.

But could not such tests be carried out (in fact, they have, and have found no significant correlation, except in limited and controversial ways)? It may make it less of a good theory right now than many other theories, but is it therefore also unscientific?

If it has been tested then those who adhere to the method of testing it and accepting results are scientists. If they can't come up with any good theories then they're just bad scientists.

Why aesthetic simplicity and not just degree of testability?

I've already explained this. It's easy to create a thory which would describe on certain known experimental results which is based on, say, a million fundamental constants. The current Standard Model is based on 23 fundamental constants.

The one with 23 constants is going to do a better job of accurately predicting further results, generally. I already gave an analogy.

No other method has been given the chance since around the enlightenment, has it? The ideology of science so dominates society that no other method is given the chance to produce similarly good results. (I'm playing devil's advocate here, btw.)

Do you have an alternate proposition? For now we've got one that works pretty well...

But why, of all the set-ups of the universe that could have been, does this particular one exist?

Only if the possibility for intelligent life was low and heavily dependant on fundamental properties of the Universe would this question need to be asked. Human life specifically is not fundamental to the question. I don't know how high the tolerance of intelligent life in general is. I posit that our imagination would fail to account for all the forms that intelligence can take, and that given our limited experience with forms of intelligence it's doubtful we can set meaningful bounds on necessary environmental conditions.