What is scientific worldview?

[ontological_realist]

What is the scientific worldview? In other words, what is the worldview of science and how does it differ from non-scientific worldview?

 

[bilby]

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.

 

[fromderinside]

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. If it has withstood falsification attempts it is more to be trusted than if it hasn't withstood falsification attempts or if it isn't falsifiable (subject to physical test). The problem with trusting people is that people have looks other judgement interferring mechanisms.

 

[bilby]

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.

It's the same thing. If you didn't do the work yourself, then the information cannot be trusted without trusting the people from whom it comes.

 

[fromderinside]

Sorry. I posted before my thought was compete. Having read that do you still trust people?

 

[bilby]

Sorry. I posted before my thought was compete. Having read that do you still trust people?

It makes no difference at all to my level of trust in anyone.

 

[PyramidHead]

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.

 

[Kharakov]

Sorry. I posted before my thought was compete. Having read that do you still trust people?

Was your point about incomplete research?

On a side note-

If people were liable for the cost/damage false scientific claims did to another entity's progress in the case that the other entity invested specifically with the intent on building on the first party's published discoveries, there would be a bit less public publication of pseudoscience.

Imagine how many people would publish homeopathic studies as scientific, if they were required by law to provide financial compensation to those who attempt to build upon their false claims? Be a lot less bullshit if people had to back up their claims financially, in the case that the claims were made spuriously.

 

[bilby]

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.

Yes, a model is an emergent property of the scientific method; it turns out that if you seek the hypothesis that most accurately fits your observations, the hypotheses become more global as they become more accurate at predicting the next observation. Local hypotheses (eg what goes up must come down) give way to more general hypotheses (eg Newton's universal gravitation), which in turn give way to even more general hypotheses (Einstein's relativity); each improved hypothesis explains more observations than the last.

We have reached a point where just two theoretical frameworks can explain everything (that is, everything conforms to one of the two to the limit of our current ability to measure). This means that everything 'hangs together' - we can eliminate a huge swathe of hypotheses as incompatible with either Quantum Mechanics or Relativity or both, because there are huge domains in which we have tested these so thoroughly that for them to turn out to be wildly wrong is simply not going to happen - they break down only at the edges. This phenomenon is common throughout science - Newton is proven 'wrong' by Einstein, but the basics of Newtonian Gravity are still sound for all but the edge conditions; Newton's theory is a very good approximation, but Einstein's is even better. Neither is 'wrong' in the sense of being valueless, and neither is 'right' in the sense of being completely flawless - indeed it is quite possible that a completely flawless and universal physical law may never be formulated (but if QFT is flawed, we haven't found the flaw anywhere yet, despite an enormous effort to do so).

That's the best you can ever say for any hypothesis. And it is a LOT more than most non-scientists think it can be; non-scientists tend to deal in 'absolute truth' and when something is unknown, they feel the need to invent an entity that does know, because the idea of a total mystery is terrifying. But it is only through an acceptance that things are not known that we can ever hope to know anything. If 'God did it' is the answer to every question, then there is no value in questions.

At it's most basic, a scientific worldview is one that, when confronted with a mystery, chooses to say "I don't know - let's find out"; instead of deferring to a fictional authority and saying "That is a matter for the Gods, and man was not meant to meddle in such things" (which is a rationalisation of "Stop asking difficult questions and accept that I am better than you").

The former gets us to the Moon; Feeds the hungry; and allows us to instantly communicate across the entire planet.

The latter gets us a feudal society stagnating in famine and strife, but it keeps the people in charge on top - which people in charge tend to think is a very good thing.

 

[untermensche]

The scientific worldview has its place.

But it isn't the worldview that gives us art or music or literature.

 

[bilby]

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.

 

[untermensche]

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.

Are you saying it is the worldview of science to give us art?

 

[bilby]

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?

Art reflects nature, science describes nature. There is a considerable overlap.

Perhaps you have never heard of science fiction? Or seen the 'pale blue dot' picture, or an electron micrograph, or the illustrations in Gray's Anatomy, or Banks' drawings of Australian flora and fauna?

 

[untermensche]

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?

Science fiction is purely art.

It may contain science but it is not a part of science.

 

[bilby]

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.

That's debatable; but even if true, so what?

Science is not all art; art is not all science. But there's plenty of overlap. And there is absolutely nothing in a scientific worldview that prohibits the enjoyment of fiction; although such a worldview does exclude the deliberate conflation of fiction with fact.

I don't need to think that Hamlet is an historical account of events in Denmark, nor that Westeros is a real place, in order to enjoy those stories, while maintaining a scientific worldview.

Knowing what causes a beautiful sunset doesn't detract from its beauty; nor does it preclude my waxing poetic about that beauty.

You appear to be seeking a conflict that simply need not exist.

Science is the study of reality, and art is part of reality. There is nothing that is out of bounds to science (or to art for that matter).

 

[Underseer]

The scientific worldview has its place.

But it isn't the worldview that gives us art or music or literature.

Good point.

The Nazis inspired art (and movies and music and...).

The communists inspired art (and movies and music and...).

Therefore, fascism and communism are more valid worldviews than science, at least in certain areas.

 

[dystopian]

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 that we may or may not be consciously aware of, but which can be understood and manipulated through the scientific process.

Furthermore, the scientific process can and *has* created new forms of art and music; just think of electronic music as an example, the first scientific experiments with that took place in the 1950's and led to the development of new music styles, sounds, and instruments.

 

[Juma]

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.

 

[dystopian]

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.

 

[Juma]

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.

The golden ratio is a myth.