[ab initio]

Hi all,
 
I was pondering several of the links that live at the top of the sound science forum. For one, the quote at the top is by some guy named Edward de Bono and I had no clue who that was until I looked him up. It seems to me that at worst, he is a controversial figure, and even at best, his field of philosophy is not a field of science, which is the topic of this forum.
 
Let me clarify my position. I'm graduate student in engineering, so I certainly am biased towards the engineering science and physics aspects of sound. That places my interests squarely in the computer science, electronics, acoustics, and mechanics of various sound systems (including biomechanical). The other aspect of sound science is the biological and psychological aspects of perception.
 
I guess I just don't see how Edward de Bono is relevant to sound science discussions? His lateral thinking sounds like an affront to the scientific method, in that his ideas are by definition unscientific. I'm not sure a Philosopher qualifies as a scientific expert.
 
Should the quote at the top of the sound scientist be changed to actually be from a scientist? It could be any inspirational quote on the topic of science by anybody from one of the branches of science.
 
Anyways, just my own philosophical musings

 
Cheers!
 
EDIT: Wouldn't a better quote to head the sound science forum be something like
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein

 

[bigshot]

I don't see anything wrong with that quote. We're trying to use science to make our stereos sound better. Without a real world application, science is just philosophy.

 

[ab initio]

Quote:

I don't see anything wrong with that quote. We're trying to use science to make our stereos sound better. Without a real world application, science is just philosophy.

I guess my problem is that the quote is very dismissive of the act of asking the question "why?". I'm here because I'm equally interested in understanding why our stereos sound they way then do as I am in trying to understand how to improve them. Often, knowing why something is the way it is helps you change it.
 
The first part: The purpose of science is not to analyse or describe but to make useful models of the world.
This sounds like it discourages asking questions for the sake of curiosity, nor to systematically describe underlying processes. It seems to suggest that the only valid motivation for anything is the practical application to common needs.
 
Why did we go to the moon? It wasn't exactly useful as far as we could have known beforehand. But, we were curious and went anyways and look what we got out of it---velcro! How would your kids' shoes stay on if it werent for some curious scientists that wanted to see of the moon was made of cheese? \sarcasm
 
The second part: A model is useful if it allows us to get use out of it.
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean!? why don't we just shorten it to "A model is useful if it is useful"?
 
Am i just not getting the gist of the quote?
 
Anyways, I think there are much better quotes out there that are attributed to actual scientists and still (sarcastically?) dismiss the validity of our subforum (like the Einstein quote above)
 
 
Cheers

 

[edstrelow]

As far as de Bono's quote is concerned I think it is rubbish. There are plenty of Nobel laureates whose work has no particular applied use. There is such a thing as pure science where people simply try to develop explanations of phenomena without being concerned about whether it has any real world applications.
 
I quote the notice of last years Nobel in physics:
 
"The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was divided, one half awarded to Saul Perlmutter, the other half jointly to Brian P. Schmidt and Adam G. Riess "for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant supernovae".
 
Now this is all very interesting but its a long way from earth or being applied to earth's problems. I don't think we will be getting much use out of this knowledge in the foreseeable future.
 
Odd that  de Bono purports to be a philosopher, because that is the one area he is not trained in. His bio shows that  he has degerees in medicine, physiology and psychology but not philosophy.   
 
Philosophy deals with many matters but at is core it is a study of logic.  Mathematics is also closely related to philosophy and many prominent philosophers have also been noted mathematicians. Science is empirical in nature, i.e. it uses observations/data to test explanations. However the explanations must be logical and logically related to the observations. So you can't do science without philosophy and there is in fact a subdiscipline called the Philosophy of Science.  .
 
De Bono's quote seems more like a engineer's way of thinking which given your background ab initio I would have though would have been in line with your way of thinking.  

 

[ab initio]

These are pretty good points. Thanks for the nicely thought-through response!

De Bono's quote seems more like a engineer's way of thinking which given your background ab initio I would have though would have been in line with your way of thinking.  

Here you've hit the nail on the head. Applying science to solve real wold problems is the definition of engineering. I'd be more inclined to accept the quote if this were the sound engineering forum. Even then i would have still prefer a quote from a famous engineer.

If i had stopped after undergrad, i might be satisfied with practical science oriented quote, but at this point I've had years of scientific training crammed down my throat that i find myself asking questions for the sake of curiosity rather than purely by motivation to solve some problem at hand.

Cheers

 

[limpidglitch]

Edward de Bono is a personal favourite of Currawong, I think that's why that quote is there.

 

[customcoco]

Quote:

Philosophy deals with many matters but at is core it is a study of logic.

What do you mean by "a study of logic"?

 

[ab initio]

Quote:

Edward de Bono is a personal favourite of Currawong, I think that's why that quote is there.

 
Well, you certainly can't fault a moderator for posting one of his favorite intellectual's quotes! I always enjoy seeing the quotes people choose, whether it's in a forum signature, email footer, book dedication, etc...
 
 
Quote:

What do you mean by "a study of logic"?

I think edstrelow is talking about logic as one of the major subfields of philosophy.
 
I think it's also important to remember that these fields (and other ones like philosophy of science) are not actually a field in science because they do not follow the scientific method. It's the same thing as political science---the word "science" is in there, but it's not a science by definition. It doesn't invalidate the importance of the field, but it is off topic when this is a sound science forum.
 
Cheers!

 

[edstrelow]

Quote:

What do you mean by "a study of logic"?

 
Try this for starters.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

 

[edstrelow]

Quote:

 
 
I think it's also important to remember that these fields (and other ones like philosophy of science) are not actually a field in science because they do not follow the scientific method. It's the same thing as political science---the word "science" is in there, but it's not a science by definition. It doesn't invalidate the importance of the field, but it is off topic when this is a sound science forum.
 
Cheers!

 
To the extent that Poly Sci  collects data , eg.surveys measurements it would indeed be a scientific discipline. At the heart of science is the collection of undisputable observations.
 
 
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.^{[size=medium][1][/size]} To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.^{[size=medium][2[/size]}
 
 
The above is from Wikepedia. 
 
Note however being subject to the "principles of reasoning" issue.  And anyone can dispute anything and phenomena are subjective exoeriences.  Thus you can't  get the philosophy out of science.
 
The subjectivists  point out that all you know in life is your own personal perceptions and experience and thus there are no such things as "objective" phenomena. This is a hugely important claim, largely attributed to Berkeley but the issue shows up in eastern philosophies as well.   In line with Berkeley, you would have to say there can be no science  since there are no objective phenomena. If you are a solipsist you take this further to claim  that the world is just a figment of your imagination. 
 
Berkeley, being an Anglican bishop, got around this problem by claiming that there is an objective real world because we and it are part of God's experience.
 
 Here is a famous parody of his views as to whether an object such as a tree  exists if there is no-one around to perceive it..
 
There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."

Reply:
"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God."
 

 

[ferday]

Quote:

 
 
I think it's also important to remember that these fields (and other ones like philosophy of science) are not actually a field in science because they do not follow the scientific method. It's the same thing as political science---the word "science" is in there, but it's not a science by definition. It doesn't invalidate the importance of the field, but it is off topic when this is a sound science forum.
 
Cheers!

 
political science is indeed a science, as with all of the social sciences.  while they are less strict than the maths, they do attempt to apply the general scientific method to their own hypothesis. 
 
philosophy is THE VERY DEFINITION of science (wikipedia: Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.)   rational argument and logic invented maths, not the other way around, and is in fact the seed from which all modern science sprung.
 
leave it to an engineer to attempt to define science, when in fact engineering is dedicated to the APPLICATION of science, and not the pursuit thereof.  

  

 

[ab initio]

I am happy to address your points in detail when I have some time, but for now let me briefly disagree.
 
Philosophy is not a science. That doesn't preclude science from having its origins in philosophy. Please read my previous posts. Please read the articles on Philosophy and on science. They explain what each entails. Scientific fields follow the scientific method. Philosophy does not follow the scientific method. Please read the whole article.
 
A Scientific field must be rigorous. If it doesn't meet all the necessary conditions required of science, then it is not a science. Here is an article on necessity and sufficiency. Here is an article on differentiating science from non-science.
 
Don't make the mistake that because Logic is a subset of Philosophy and a subset of Science that philosophy is also a subset of Science. (this is called a fallacy)
 
Cheers
 
 
P.S.
Quote:

 
leave it to an engineer to attempt to define science, when in fact engineering is dedicated to the APPLICATION of science, and not the pursuit thereof.  

  

 
This is a DH1 (ad hominem) and is irrelevant to the topic being discussed. This is only one step away from the lowest form of argumentation and I find it offensive. It does not further your stance that philosophy is a science. Please try and keep the points made to the top half of the argument hierarchy

 

[JadeEast]

As far as the relation of science and philosophy. It's pretty hard to look at the history of Science and Philosophy and not see how inter-dependant the two have been. Personally, I don't think Philosophy is a science; however, science is a human activity and simply can't place itself outside of History, Politics, and Philosophy.  

 

[Currawong]

I put the quote there not because Edward De Bono is a favourite but because I was trying to find a suitable quote about science. I haven't found a good one yet, but then I haven't searched hard enough. Maybe we should get a quote from Tyll Hertsens? He is, for all intents and purposes, a scientist.
 
 

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein

 
This is not a good quote. I am trying to move everyone away from the habit of insulting people who don't agree with a strictly "scientific" belief, because, in all honesty, that ain't science. 

 

[xnor]

These imo are fitting here:
 
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
― Richard P. Feynman
 
“... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
 
“When scientifically investigating the natural world, the only thing worse than a blind believer is a seeing denier.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
 
“Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”
― Albert Einstein
 
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
― Carl Sagan
 
“The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov