Octopus Overlords

Grifman wrote:But that's not the entirely of the field of philosophical inquiry, not even close. Yet Tyson dismisses it all. See my post above.

Perhaps anything that actually crosses from philosophy into science becomes science and stops being philosophy? We won't get him here to answer, but I doubt he'd throw away a good scientific observation derived from science performed by a philosopher. He'd probably simply expect that it took the philosopher exponentially longer to arrive at the conclusion as he inspected all the "why's" along the way.

Paingod wrote:Perhaps anything that actually crosses from philosophy into science becomes science and stops being philosophy? We won't get him here to answer, but I doubt he'd throw away a good scientific observation derived from science performed by a philosopher. He'd probably simply expect that it took the philosopher exponentially longer to arrive at the conclusion as he inspected all the "why's" along the way.

I take NDT's statement to be much bigger than this. He seems to be saying philosophy had its place. Then the physical sciences took over. Now all of philosophy is useless because it no longer advances the physical sciences.

Grifman wrote:It's as if you didn't read the second article.

It is, isn't it.

The specialization of scientists into one or two fields is a relatively recent phenomenon. Newton wrote extensively on religion and alchemy. Most of the giants on whose shoulders the next generation stands were polymaths.

The main objective of philosophy of science is to understand how science works and, when it fails to work (which it does, occasionally), why this was the case. It is epistemology applied to the scientific enterprise.

How science works is a scientific question. Why does the question, when it doesn't, shift from How to Why? I want scientists focused on things like epidemiology rather than epistemology.

From the epistemology page:

Epistemologists argue over whether belief is the proper truth-bearer. Some would rather describe knowledge as a system of justified true propositions, and others as a system of justified true sentences.
...
Gettier argued that there are situations in which one's belief may be justified and true, yet fail to count as knowledge.

And philosophy of science

Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions concern what counts as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth.

How does this sort of mental exercise further scientific discovery or application? I'm not saying that those that have furthered the philosophy of science haven't had an impact, but at the core definitions, they add nothing to the knowledge base of scientific inquiry by wasting time debating what is science and what is knowledge.

This is why most people hate philosophers.

Wouldn't the scientific method remove the need for philosophy of science?

My experiment failed. "Why did it fail?" I ask. After doing some more research, I come up with a hypothesis as to why my experiment failed. I test to see if my hypothesis is right. I analyze the data, and by George I got it! Release a paper, and watch the monies and the ladiez throw themselves at me.

That's how the scientific method works, right?

Paingod wrote:To him, as Isgrimnur says, the "How" is what matters and not the "Why" - and it makes perfect sense for a scientist to feel that way.

That's not even the correct way of phrasing things. You don't believe that if I ask why Jupiter has a giant red spot that there's not a scientific explanation for that? You're already getting into philosophical issues by trying to define science and how it works.

Word definitions do matter. I made the distinction earlier that these were my own opinions regarding How vs. Why

And for many people, asking Why on a scientific question is perfectly legitimate, but the answers are more of a How.

Why does Jupiter have a red spot? To me, that is a question of purpose and motivation. It lends itself to more of a personification or creationist argument. The storm is there because it, the planet, or some other power wants it to be.

How did it come to be, how does it work, how has it lasted this long, what processes sustain it? These, again, to me, are the more scientific versions of the question.

And how is it shrinking?

Isgrimnur wrote:Why does Jupiter have a red spot? To me, that is a question of purpose and motivation. It lends itself to more of a personification or creationist argument. The storm is there because it, the planet, or some other power wants it to be.

Weird. I don't carry anothromorphism baggage into Why? Why asks for a cause. Where Why fails scientifically is that it's a vague open ended question.

Why does Jupiter have a red spot?

Because the spectrum is reelecting and absorbing in such a way that you only see that much of the band.

Fuck you.

LordMortis wrote:Fuck you.

Isgrimnur wrote:The specialization of scientists into one or two fields is a relatively recent phenomenon. Newton wrote extensively on religion and alchemy. Most of the giants on whose shoulders the next generation stands were polymaths.

Yep, totally agree.

How science works is a scientific question.

And which branch of science tells you this? And which branch of science tells you how science works?

I want scientists focused on things like epidemiology rather than epistemology.

Who says they shouldn't? But saying scientists should focus on epidemiology is not the same as saying the philosophical inquiries into the nature of science are worthless. One does not logically follow the other, so I'm not sure what you are arguing here.

Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions concern what counts as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth.

How does this sort of mental exercise further scientific discovery or application?

You don't think being able to define what you are doing is important? You don't think understanding the reliability of science is important? (After all, if I don't think it's reliable, why should I listen to you? - see Republicans and global warming as a real life example ). You don't think understanding failures in science is important? Isn't understanding the process of science important?

I'm not saying that those that have furthered the philosophy of science haven't had an impact, but at the core definitions, they add nothing to the knowledge base of scientific inquiry by wasting time debating what is science and what is knowledge.

Knowledge is great but if you can't get the public to accept it (global warming) because they don't trust the reliability of science or understand how it works (which you see a lot in many of the arguments against global warming), then you have a problem that pure science cannot solve.

Isgrimnur wrote:

LordMortis wrote:Fuck you.

That is Fuck You is directed at the answers to Why that don't seem to say much of anything.

msteelers wrote:Wouldn't the scientific method remove the need for philosophy of science?

My experiment failed. "Why did it fail?" I ask. After doing some more research, I come up with a hypothesis as to why my experiment failed. I test to see if my hypothesis is right. I analyze the data, and by George I got it! Release a paper, and watch the monies and the ladiez throw themselves at me.

That's how the scientific method works, right?

Can you recreate the Big Bang to test the theory? Can you recreate the evolution of the dinosaurs to test that? Scientific method does not equal "science". Again, how do you define science?

LordMortis wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:

LordMortis wrote:Fuck you.

That is Fuck You is directed at the answers to Why that don't seem to say much of anything.

The "Fuck You" didn't seem to say much of anything

Thank you for the clarification.

Grifman wrote:You don't think being able to define what you are doing is important? You don't think understanding the reliability of science is important? (After all, if I don' think it's reliable, why should I listen to you? - see Republicans and global warming as a real life example ). You don't think understanding failures in science is important? Isn't understanding the process of science important?

I absolutely think that these things are important. But I believe them to be best determined by the interactions of scientists and the public when funded by the public. The scientific community builds a consensus over what is acceptable science. Arguing whether something counts as science as a philosophical exercise is not the same as measuring it against confidence intervals, etc. Measuring the reliability of scientific hypotheses (not theories, we've already had that argument in another thread) is a scientific pursuit. Philosophizing about it doesn't address the causes of why it's only 75% reliable. Further scientific inquiry and experiments do. And "exploring the relationship between science and truth" is irrelevant.

At the end of the day, the answers to most of these questions are decided on by the practitioners of the science and those funding it. When the government funds it, the argument becomes broader, and more evidently political. Having a philosopher weigh in on whether DNA sampling of bears is "sciencey" enough or leads to a greater "truth" is a waste of time for those funding it and those doing the work.

Grifman wrote:Knowledge is great but if you can't get the public to accept it (global warming) because they don't trust the reliability of science or understand how it works (which you see a lot in many of the arguments against global warming), then you have a problem that pure science cannot solve.

That's as much a education and PR problem as anything else. It's certainly not going to be solved through philosophical inquiry. If anything, it will muddy the waters even more.

Grifman wrote: Can you recreate the Big Bang to test the theory? Can you recreate the evolution of the dinosaurs to test that? Scientific method does not equal "science". Again, how do you define science?

You don't have to recreate it. You can make predictions about evidence that will be discovered and models that must stand up to future evidence.

noxiousdog wrote:

Grifman wrote: Can you recreate the Big Bang to test the theory? Can you recreate the evolution of the dinosaurs to test that? Scientific method does not equal "science". Again, how do you define science?

You don't have to recreate it. You can make predictions about evidence that will be discovered and models that must stand up to future evidence.

I totally understand that but the prior poster implied experimentation was required. You're making my point for me.

Grifman wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

Grifman wrote: Can you recreate the Big Bang to test the theory? Can you recreate the evolution of the dinosaurs to test that? Scientific method does not equal "science". Again, how do you define science?

You don't have to recreate it. You can make predictions about evidence that will be discovered and models that must stand up to future evidence.

I totally understand that but the prior poster implied experimentation was required. You're making my point for me.

That IS a type of experimentation.

Grifman wrote:

msteelers wrote:Wouldn't the scientific method remove the need for philosophy of science?

My experiment failed. "Why did it fail?" I ask. After doing some more research, I come up with a hypothesis as to why my experiment failed. I test to see if my hypothesis is right. I analyze the data, and by George I got it! Release a paper, and watch the monies and the ladiez throw themselves at me.

That's how the scientific method works, right?

Can you recreate the Big Bang to test the theory? Can you recreate the evolution of the dinosaurs to test that? Scientific method does not equal "science". Again, how do you define science?

1) just because I don't know how to test something, doesn't mean it's impossible. Someone some day might find a way to test it. Until that time, it will continue to be a theory.

1a) also, Google tells me the large hadron collider was made in part to test the Big Bang theory. I'll let the smart people jump in on that.

2) Oxford defines science as "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment". The scientific method might not equal science, but it governs how we observe and experiment and is an integral part.

Grifman's Link wrote:While the early-modern religious persecution certainly can’t be denied, Bruno was killed because he flamboyantly denied basic tenets of the Catholic faith, not because religious authorities were out to suppress all “freedom of thought.”

I don't know why this particular sentence seems so comical to me.

Holy crap! Neil Tyson was buff and covered in funk back in the day.

I don't think I had ever heard the theory of interplanetary life being moved around via blown off asteroids. I understand the idea but that is quite a change from what Sagan talked about in the original.

If we can do it, why can't nature?

I've wondered for a long time when it would be confirmed that we'd contaminated Mars. Now we're going to have to hurl it into the Sun and get a new one before the contamination spreads. This is why we can't have nice things. Soon, Monsanto will claim that they have patents on all 377 lifeforms and that any other life brought to Mars will need to pay them or risk the wrath of IP legal proceedings.

Scuzz wrote:I don't think I had ever heard the theory of interplanetary life being moved around via blown off asteroids. I understand the idea but that is quite a change from what Sagan talked about in the original.

Variations on panspermia have been around for a long time.

Moliere wrote:Cosmos on weed

I LOL'd.

Moliere wrote:Cosmos on weed

I'd be surprised if Carl Sagan's use of marijuana was not a significant element in the creation of the original Cosmos series.

Sagan's Cosmos available to stream for a limited time.

Time for a thread re-titling!