I think some people view scientists like this:
When, inactuality, they are this:
The Philosophy of Science
by Oubliette 60 Replies latest members private
-
-
jgnat
I say introduce the scientific method earlier in the curriculum.
-
cofty
Great link jgnat.
Getting 8 year olds to do real science is brilliant.
-
Frazzled UBM
cofty - I like Kuhn's paradigm thesis (while also recognising that his theory also has some inherent inconsistencies and that it is not a complete explanation of sceintific development - its usefulness varies depending on which brach fo science you are tlaking about) that says that Science is constrained by the current paradigm and that scientific research (and funding for scientific research) tends to be limited to the theoretical constructs of the dominant paradigm and the questions derived from those theoretical constructs. Scientists can become wedded to the thinking within the paradigm and may suffer from cognitive dissonance from experimental results that don't fit with the dominant paradigm and will often discount them.
So to some extent their can be an element of group think within the scientific community. Real scientific breakthroughs occur when scientists focus on anomalous results rather than results that are consistent with expectations but it is only the greats who have been able to do this. In some other fields of science you get conflicting paradigms in which different schools of scientists dispute each others theoretical contstructs. Science tends to be at its most useful when applied in a way that promotes technological or medical progress - truth then relates to utility - the scientific law is proven through application but this proof is only ever provisional.
The paradigm effect may also result in throwing out the baby with the bath water. That is, in adopting the new paradigm, the old paradigm may be totally discredited and so the residual value of the old paradigm may be lost. It works best when the new paradigm takes what is valuable from the old but develops in a way that was constrained by the assumptions of the old.
But do not misunderstand me - I am fully on board with the usefulness of the scientific method as the best tool we have to improve and develop our understanding of the physical world. It shows the great strength of human intelligence to discover and learn and adapt but its limitations is that it is the tool of humans and we are limited in many ways including the fact that we have ego and emotion and a lot of others things that interfere with our rationality and objectivity and this is even the case with great scientists. Sorry I don't have more time to go into this. Fraz
-
cofty
Thanks Fraz.
In some other fields of science you get conflicting paradigms in which different schools of scientists dispute each others theoretical contstructs.
I'm reading about an example of this at the moment in Matt Ridley's book "Nature via Nurture".
He shows how a combination of factors favoured one side or the other and the role of genetics in solving it.
Unsurprisingly the evidence actually supports a balance of both views.
-
Oubliette
Frazzled: What I challenge is the belief that you are totally rational and therefore superior.
Where'd you get that idea? I never said anything remotely suggesting either of those ideas.
I did not intend to be patronizing in my responses and I did answer your questions.
For example, you asked: "Do you know what Popperian falsification theory is?"
I answered, "Of course! Why do you ask?"
You did not answer that question.
You just seem like you want to argue about whose understanding of science is better. I'm not interested.
If you want to talk about personalities, I'm also not interested. I started this thread to discuss ideas. If you want to address that, then fine, but if not, then please respect those of us that do.
Thank you.
Oubliette.
-
Oubliette
Viviane, those are great pics!
You should post that in the Rock Star Scientist thread.
-
Oubliette
jgnat, that's a great article. Thanks for posting.
There is a push in the school district where I teach to do just that, introduce the scientific way of thinking much earlier in the curriculum.
I'm excited to be involved in this.
PM me for details.
Oubliette
-
Oubliette
FUBM: Science is constrained by the current paradigm
That is an interesting point.
Of course, "science" cannot be constrained by a paradigm because it is not human. Only us humans can be so limited. This really underscores the importance of the role of creativityin science. Most, if not all, great discoveries or leaps in understanding came about as a result of scientists "thinking outside the box" and being willing to consider alternate theories and explanations.
In the early 1900s, when Alfred Wegener first proposed his theories of continental drift, they were largely rejected because his hypothesis lacked a geological mechanism to explain how the continents could drift across the earths surface as he proposed. Now the theory of plate tectonics is included in every high school Earth science textbook.
It took determination and creative, unconventional thinking balanced by a disciplined mind and a strict application of the scientific way of thinking to solve this riddle.
FUBM: Real scientific breakthroughs occur when scientists focus on anomalous results rather than results that are consistent with expectations
Exactly! Well said.
-
Frazzled UBM
The other thing about science is that it works best when dealing with physical phenomenom that can be observed and measured and so are readily subjected to experimentation and it is easier for human beings to look at objectively. The more the phenomenom being investigated has a human element, the less reliable the 'science' around it because it becomes harder to be objective and to isolate and unpick cause and effect and to experiment reliably. For example, medical science struggles with the interaction of the mind and the body. They know about the placebo effect and that people with a positive outlook often have a better rate of recovery than those who don't but they have still not developed a coherent scientific theory about the interaction of the body and the mind with respect to illness because it is so difficult to devise experiments that will address this and to isolate other factors that may have a bearing. Dealing with the physical aspects of illness is more straight forward.