the ideal processes of the sciences are good. The reality of it? eh, tainted like every human endeavor ever about anything.

the ideal processes of the sciences are good. The reality of it? eh, tainted like every human endeavor ever about anything.

Still though, it’s useful stuff. Pragmatic. You can be a lone-wolf philosopher, but you can’t be a lone-wolf scientist as they operate in community.

==

afaik, he runs a planetarium. But he loves science. His grasp on history is cringe-worthy… I really wish he had fact checkers show up BEFORE they stick his stuff up on the Science channel and National Geographic and wherever he shows up… but then again, I don’t expect too much good history to come out of the Sciences. That’s not their deal.

==

Well, depends on the scientist. They’re human. I’m friends with a bunch in a few different fields. Some are rigorous about their methodologies, some not so much. Some fine tune their hypothesis and conclusion, some value surprise results. It all depends where they are in their careers and how idealistic they are and such.

==

Engineering predates Science by thousands of years. Engineering relies on heuristics primarily. Science is a strong part of their heuristics, as is mathematics.

==

There’s science without mathematics. They *happen to* work well together in physics, but not in all of the sciences.

==

The thing is, Engineering was considered superior to the “pure sciences” (theory) until the late 1940s. It was part of an effort to keep the pure sciences alive at a time when engineering was getting all of the funding and there was a danger of the pure sciences losing funding to the needs of industry.

==

They’re similar. Truth discovery processes are all quite similar to each other when they have a pragmatic basis, as both science and engineering does. Mathematics a little less so but still leaning towards pragmatism, or at least internal consistency.

==

In modern times [I tend to see history not as thin threads going backwards through history, although that can be interesting as well, but rather as social movements over larger periods of times, with peoples and cultures and interactions and such]….

…I tend to see modern Science as a bit of an outcropping of Scottish Common Sense Realism more than any other.

==

But does science bring you to that conclusion, Michael, or philosophy? It sounds like philosophy to me rather than science. My point is, each have their place.

==

Well, it becomes scientism when the tool becomes a philosophy in itself (or a dominant worldview).

That’s where it steps over the line away from being Science and becomes a belief system. This doesn’t make scientism bad, just that it’s something that isn’t science, but science advocacy.

==

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


two + 3 =

Leave a Reply