| Forum Home | | Log in | | Signup | | My Page  | |
Rules | | FAQ | | Boards | | Members | | Search |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The above list shows replies to the following message: |
|
Msg. 17190 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 17189 by Cactus Flower) |
|
A lot of territory was covered in your response even though the subject is “what is science”. Your statement that science in the middle ages has come to mean something different than the term today is one I also subscribe to and is the source of my inquiry. What is science today and also how to engage those who are unable to let go of a distant meaning of the term, so much so, that they are now encumbered by it - “the ability to change is necessary in seeking to approach truth” I purposely did not define ‘science’ for good reasons. The old way of understanding science was in its method – the scientific method. This was fine when dealing with falling apples and useless in much of current scientific studies where the object cannot be seen or measured and the model cannot be validated by direct observation. Being immersed in science today it appears to me that the proof of usefulness of a concept is in its ability to predict, not in divining a plausible explanation of the underlying mechanism. In practice, explaining the underlying mechanism is something that emerges lagging well behind the leading edge, not at the leading edge. One of my discoveries occurred in 1996 and was put to good use due to effective development of predictability. Late in 2013 one of my scientist finally figured out the underlying mechanism and could also explain away a few defects in my model. BTW – there is no way to directly observe his model. Its strength is in an improved (broadened in this case) ability to predict outcomes in new territories where my model failed to make useful predictions. I employ people with keen observational skills to discover the leading edge, to keep pushing the boundary. These people are never PhDs and some are high school graduates. Then the PhDs follow behind with an explanation that sometimes is immediate and at other times takes many years. The success of the PhDs (called scientists) allows my engineers to better apply and refine applying the results thereby leading to new technology. This is not an exercise in semantics, it is in understanding the meaning of words used to describe activities and in understanding the utility of the various types of specialist. My initial reason for engaging you in dialogue is to help me sort out my own confusion in this area. I am frequently exposed to people who insists on adherence to ancient and apparently primitive beliefs regarding science and then mindlessly ignore the contradiction that most of science does not fit their presumptions. I’m already benefitting from your replies and earlier thoughts. I’m tending to think that science, the modern stuff, should be defined as a systematic study of anything that has resulted in an improved ability to be predictive. Some old guy predicting the weather from pain in his joints is not science even if predictive. Until the studies results in an improved ability to predict it is simply a study. The method of study does not make it a science. I’ve seen too many great models / explanations and experienced too many battles over these models. What I often saw had more to do with ego than with clarifying results. I’m anxious to get on to the original topic “theology as science” and we can go there if our use of the term 'science' is somewhat similar. Otherwise, we are talking past one another and wasting time. But, perhaps it is better to first spend a few words on Galileo and the concept of how science liberated us from the tyranny of religious dogmatism.
Three options – what is next? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
© Webpage Design Copyright 2003-2011 http://www.atomicbobs.com/
|