ontological_realist
Member
What is the scientific worldview? In other words, what is the worldview of science and how does it differ from non-scientific worldview?
The basis of the scientific world-view is the scientific method.
Of course, there is far too much of everything for any individual to step through the scientific method for every idea and at every level on his own; so to some extent, things must be taken on trust - I have not measured the charge on the electron, but I trust those who have - but this is not blind trust; it is informed trust, because trust is withheld for any claim that is not open to investigation by anyone - and in particular by people who have a direct interest in publicly proving that claim to be false (so called 'peer review').
So the big difference between a scientific and a non-scientific worldview is who you trust, and why. In a scientific worldview, you only trust people who have a track-record of not being deceitful, and who present not just the 'facts', but also the method by which others can test those 'facts', both against competing hypotheses, and against the existing body of established work (a finding that conflicts with a wide body of established work needs a higher level of evidence in order to be accepted than a finding that conforms to what is already understood).
In a non-scientific worldview, you trust people who do not meet this criterion, and/or accept hypotheses that have not been tested, or that have failed the tests to which they have been put.
The basis of the scientific world-view is the scientific method.
Of course, there is far too much of everything for any individual to step through the scientific method for every idea and at every level on his own; so to some extent, things must be taken on trust - I have not measured the charge on the electron, but I trust those who have - but this is not blind trust; it is informed trust, because trust is withheld for any claim that is not open to investigation by anyone - and in particular by people who have a direct interest in publicly proving that claim to be false (so called 'peer review').
So the big difference between a scientific and a non-scientific worldview is who you trust, and why. In a scientific worldview, you only trust people who have a track-record of not being deceitful, and who present not just the 'facts', but also the method by which others can test those 'facts', both against competing hypotheses, and against the existing body of established work (a finding that conflicts with a wide body of established work needs a higher level of evidence in order to be accepted than a finding that conforms to what is already understood).
In a non-scientific worldview, you trust people who do not meet this criterion, and/or accept hypotheses that have not been tested, or that have failed the tests to which they have been put.
I would move away from trusting people to trusting information produced by people.
Sorry. I posted before my thought was compete. Having read that do you still trust people?
Was your point about incomplete research?Sorry. I posted before my thought was compete. Having read that do you still trust people?
Good points, bilby and fromderinside. To yours I would add: is there an element missing, namely the explanatory element? In other words, there can be trustworthy information/people and untrustworthy information/people, but as far as the scientific worldview goes, there seems to be an underlying assumption (or observation?) that observable phenomena can be explained according to some model or mechanism--even if it's not a perfectly predictable one in the end. This appears to be a staple of scientific thinking, along with the rigor of review and transparency about methods. Pseudo-science peddlers often downplay the significance of mechanism in favor of the outcome they are pushing. They are more interested in convincing people that wearing a magnet around one's wrist improves the wearer's mood, rather than trying to understand why or how that might be the case.
The scientific worldview has its place.
But it isn't the worldview that gives us art or music or literature.
The scientific worldview has its place.
But it isn't the worldview that gives us art or music or literature.
There is no 'the' worldview that gives us art or music or literature. These things can, have, and will continue to come from any worldview. Including the scientific.
There is no 'the' worldview that gives us art or music or literature. These things can, have, and will continue to come from any worldview. Including the scientific.
Are you saying it is the worldview of science to give us art?
Are you saying it is the worldview of science to give us art?
Art reflects nature, science describes nature. There is a considerable overlap.
Perhaps you have never heard of science fiction?
Art reflects nature, science describes nature. There is a considerable overlap.
Perhaps you have never heard of science fiction?
Science fiction is purely art.
It may contain science but it is not a part of science.
The scientific worldview has its place.
But it isn't the worldview that gives us art or music or literature.
The scientific worldview has its place.
But it isn't the worldview that gives us art or music or literature.
Nah. It may be rather true about music, but not really art as a whole.The scientific worldview has its place.
But it isn't the worldview that gives us art or music or literature.
Once you start to analyze art and music, you quickly realize that it's all mathematics. All art and music follows mathematical rules t.
Nah. It may be rather true about music, but not really art as a whole.Once you start to analyze art and music, you quickly realize that it's all mathematics. All art and music follows mathematical rules t.
Nah. It may be rather true about music, but not really art as a whole.
You couldn't be more wrong. The things humans find aesthetically/artistically pleasing follow mathematical rules. It is no coincidence that the golden ratio is commonly found in paintings, for example. Other examples include tesselation, which has been used in art since antiquity. Math is also integral in determining proper perspective for any art that incorporates it; and of course sacred geometry is also common throughout the history of art. Fractals have been considered art as well.
All art is math. Even abstract and seemingly random splotches of paint on a canvas will; if we consider these canvases to be artistically pleasing; follow distributions and ratios that can be understood mathematically. Art that we consider to be bad, is art that does not follow one of the various mathematical rulesets governing aesthetics.
Art is just as subject to math as music is; but because the way we describe music already incorporates obvious math (in its notation), whereas art does not, we tend to think of one as mathematical but not the other.