What Is Philosophy?

[pood]

I recently read The Great Paradox of Science, by Mano Singham (nuclear physicist, retired). Singham argues that descriptions of science and the scientific method all fail for one reason or another, including Popper’s falsifiability. He claims that:

Scientists are always seeking what works and thus tend to be philosophical and methodological opportunists, quite willing to abandon one approach and shift to an alternative if they think that it will produce better results.

This is exactly Feyerabend’s view, and the reason why there is no such thing as THE scientific method. I’d wager Singham has read Against Method.

 

[pood]

I recently read The Great Paradox of Science, by Mano Singham (nuclear physicist, retired). Singham argues that descriptions of science and the scientific method all fail for one reason or another, including Popper’s falsifiability. He claims that:

Scientists are always seeking what works and thus tend to be philosophical and methodological opportunists, quite willing to abandon one approach and shift to an alternative if they think that it will produce better results.

But:

…there do exist necessary conditions that any scientific theory and law must satisfy, and that is they must be both naturalistic and testable.

Even this is contestable. What about string theory? It can’t be tested and it looks to be that it can’t be tested in principle. Yet what if an entire mathematical string theory is fully worked out that provides the long-sought Theory of Everything, the scientific grail, yet can never be tested? What do we do with something like that?

As to supernaturalism, there is no reason in can’t be incorporated into science, if only there were evidence for it. But there isn’t. Of course one could argue that anything for which evidence can be found is automatically naturalistic by definition, but I don’t think that is right. In this essay, the philosopher Bradley Monton, an atheist, argues that supernaturalism could be part of science, and he dissects the Kitzmiller decision, arguing that the ruling was wrong because it purported to solve the demarcation problem by judicial fiat.

 

[pood]

Moreover, the pessimistic induction counsels that we have warrant to believe that most or all of our current theories are strictly false.

 

[Tharmas]

I'm more of a Francis Bacon guy, when it comes to the philosophy of learning

As long as you're not Panglossian

 

[DBT]

The scientific method​

At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:

1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5. Test the prediction.
6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

The scientific method is used in all sciences—including chemistry, physics, geology, and psychology. The scientists in these fields ask different questions and perform different tests. However, they use the same core approach to find answers that are logical and supported by evidence.

Wow, it's elementary school!!!

Khan Academy

www.khanacademy.org

That’s nice. There is still no such thing as THE scientific method. Regardless of what the Khan academy, or whatever, says.

Well, set them straight, explain where they go wrong. If 'doing science' is not a systematic way of learning about the world, physics, chemistry,
etc, how does it work?

 

[DBT]

I do not understand how one could do anything without thinking, and reasonably call that science.

True, but there's also a lot of thinking and doing that is neither science or philosophy. Some of it not even rational. Just look at politics or religion. ...theology, studying the nature of God no less.

You could do with a brief course on Aristotelian logic, my friend! Yes, it is true, but trivially so, that not all thinking is science.

Trivially? How trivially?

Because observing that a is a type of b does not imply that all b are a.

Yet observation, acquiring and testing of evidence is the very foundation of science.

 

[pood]

​

Well, set them straight, explain where they go wrong. If 'doing science' is not a systematic way of learning about the world, physics, chemistry,
etc, how does it work?

See my folllow-up posts. Also, I did not say that “doing science” is not a systematic way of learning about the world, physics, chemistry. I denied that there is one system or method of science. See, for example, the counterexamples to testability and falsifiability that I cited.

 

[pood]

Technical, fundamental, and epistemological limits of science. Note the discussion of testability vis-a-vis string theory and the inflationary multiverse, for example.

 

[DBT]

​

Well, set them straight, explain where they go wrong. If 'doing science' is not a systematic way of learning about the world, physics, chemistry,
etc, how does it work?

See my folllow-up posts. Also, I did not say that “doing science” is not a systematic way of learning about the world, physics, chemistry. I denied that there is one system or method of science. See, for example, the counterexamples to testability and falsifiability that I cited.

What about the fundamentals? Observation, acquiring and testing information, hypothesis, theory?

 

[The AntiChris]

All of science is nothing more than the refinement of everyday thinking.

 

[DBT]

All of science is nothing more than the refinement of everyday thinking.

Yet at no other time in all of human history has everyday thinking put landers on the moon, mars, venus, titan....

 

[The AntiChris]

All of science is nothing more than the refinement of everyday thinking.

Yet at no other time in all of human history has everyday thinking put landers on the moon, mars, venus, titan....

I'm not sure what your point is.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but you seem to be implying that science is not "the refinement of everyday thinking" although I'm not following your implied logic.

 

[DBT]

All of science is nothing more than the refinement of everyday thinking.

Yet at no other time in all of human history has everyday thinking put landers on the moon, mars, venus, titan....

I'm not sure what your point is.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but you seem to be implying that science is not "the refinement of everyday thinking" although I'm not following your implied logic.

The nature of the 'refinement' of thought that turns everyday thinking into scientific endeavour capable of conducting space exploration, building computers, AI, etc, may need to be explained in some detail.

 

[The AntiChris]

The nature of the 'refinement' of thought that turns everyday thinking into scientific endeavour capable of conducting space exploration, building computers, AI, etc, may need to be explained in some detail.

To me, the truth of the quote is self-evident. However, if you're sceptical then this article explains it perfectly:

The Einstein Quote Explained

 

[DBT]

The nature of the 'refinement' of thought that turns everyday thinking into scientific endeavour capable of conducting space exploration, building computers, AI, etc, may need to be explained in some detail.

To me, the truth of the quote is self-evident. However, if you're sceptical then this article explains it perfectly:

The Einstein Quote Explained

You probably should provided the link with the original quote.

My question was; what exactly turns everyday thinking into science?

The article basically says;

''Furthermore, science serves to refine and enhance our everyday thinking by providing us with tools, concepts, and frameworks to better understand the world. Through scientific education and literacy, we learn to critically evaluate information, distinguish between fact and fiction, and cultivate a deeper appreciation for the complexities of nature. In this sense, science acts as a lens through which we can gain new insights into familiar phenomena and uncover hidden truths beneath the surface.''

Which doesn't really go into much detail on the difference between everyday thought and science.

 

[The AntiChris]

My question was; what exactly turns everyday thinking into science?

The article basically says;

''Furthermore, science serves to refine and enhance our everyday thinking by providing us with tools, concepts, and frameworks to better understand the world. Through scientific education and literacy, we learn to critically evaluate information, distinguish between fact and fiction, and cultivate a deeper appreciation for the complexities of nature. In this sense, science acts as a lens through which we can gain new insights into familiar phenomena and uncover hidden truths beneath the surface.''

Which doesn't really go into much detail on the difference between everyday thought and science.

I think the preceding 2 paragraphs contain the essence of what's being argued:

However, despite their apparent differences, science and everyday thinking are deeply interconnected. Science does not exist in a vacuum; rather, it emerges from and is shaped by our everyday experiences, observations, and inquiries. Every scientific discovery begins with a question or a curiosity inspired by something observed or experienced in the world. Whether it's the falling of an apple or the patterns of stars in the night sky, everyday phenomena often serve as the catalyst for scientific investigation.

Moreover, the methods and principles of science are not foreign to our everyday thinking; they are, in fact, extensions of it. Consider the process of problem-solving, which is a fundamental aspect of both scientific inquiry and everyday life. When faced with a challenge or a question, we instinctively draw upon our observations, past experiences, and logical reasoning to find a solution. This intuitive problem-solving approach mirrors the systematic methodology employed in scientific research, albeit in a less formalized manner.

As I've said, I find this all to be quite self-evident. If you're unpersuaded then we're simply in disagreement.

 

[bilby]

All of science is nothing more than the refinement of everyday thinking.

Yet at no other time in all of human history has everyday thinking put landers on the moon, mars, venus, titan....

That's not so much science as it is engineering.

Science is just as much the foundation for making fire or stone tools, as it is the foundation for building space probes.

 

[DBT]

All of science is nothing more than the refinement of everyday thinking.

Yet at no other time in all of human history has everyday thinking put landers on the moon, mars, venus, titan....

That's not so much science as it is engineering.

Science is just as much the foundation for making fire or stone tools, as it is the foundation for building space probes.

It appears to take a significant refinement in everyday thought to put someone on the moon. What form does the refinement in everyday thought take to put someone on the moon, that is the question. Could it be in the form of a scientific method? Systematic observation, acquiring and testing evidence, forming a hypothesis or theory? Is this the refinement in everyday thinking that Einstein was referring to, or am I barking up the wrong tree?