Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Science - what is it?

By: Cactus Flower in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Fri, 24 Jul 15 6:30 AM | 174 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix 		Msg. 17193 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 17190 by Armp)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Is it possible that the reason you seem to be having a hard time convincing some people that their understanding of the scientific method is outdated is because they actually think they are observing its elements in your business model?

Some quotes from your post appear to suggest a more traditional approach than you otherwise suggest:

"I employ people with keen observational skills to discover the leading edge, to keep pushing the boundary."

"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."

"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."

From these lines of your description, it looks to me that observation, prediction, hypothesis, disproof, adaptation and explanation are parts of your improvement process. And I am not sure how you capture improved outcomes from predictions without measuring them.

For another perspective, here's how the UK science council defines science:

"Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

Scientific methodology includes the following:

Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)

Evidence

Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses

Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples

Repetition

Critical analysis

Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment"

Having observed all of this, the initial process of creativity, scientific and otherwise, is as close to magical as we come. Where do ideas emerge from?

For me, that part of the process is probably impervious to a general explanation for the moment. How did Einstein think all the way up to his equations? How did Michelangelo know David was inside that block of marble? I dunno. Science tests creative thinking of certain types. But the scientific method doesn't explain the origin of ideas.


 - - - - -
View Replies (2) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Science - what is it?
By: Armp in ALEA
Thu, 23 Jul 15 11:24 PM 		Msg. 17190 of 54959

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?

« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next