pdupiano
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
- Posts
- 1,480
- Likes
- 22
*****Warning Rant below with some flowery stuff*****
Quote:
So long as as scientific conclusions are not self evident in the objectively gathered data, I'm afraid science is riddled with subjectivity. Take my example of Copernicus. What exactly was different between the data presented to copernicus and the scientists before him? Were they not all Kepler's objective data of the trajectories of planets? Ultimately it is the interjection of Copernicus's ideas and beliefs into the objective data that created the scientific views we have today.. MIND you he interjected what makes science beautiful and powerful -HIS SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION.
Now take Einstein or Maxwell. Werent there countless scientists working with the SAME exact data? Yet no one could provide answers until they came along with THEIR SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION? You forget that the objective aspect of science ends with gathering data. The subjective part comes from theory.
Now from nattonrice we have:
" 'science is really just the process of gathering data, hypothesizing, experimentation, theorizing'
...more or less how science progresses.
The physical universe (or universe of study) is observed.
Someone theorizes a mathematical model that fits said observation.
Now for part (a). If by genius you mean someone like Einstein or Maxwell (your suggestions) coming up with a model or idea explaining what was, at that time, unexplainable in a satisfactory way then no, you are incorrect. This is just a combo of steps 2 and 4 you listed.
As for part (b). This is more or less what happens in a very general sense. Eventual one of these "bodies" has a conceptual break through."
I'm not sure what you're arguing in your statement regarding part a.
Are you stating that they are geniuses or not? And are you stating that science is linear or not? and are you agreeing that the scientific method is linear or if it works.
As for the cable making/believer thing. I do believe that cables make a difference and I do have scientific evidence supporting that they in fact should make a difference. Including what type of solder you should use (eutectic) to reduce shot noise. Science even tells us that the dialectric material matters, the thickness, how its shielded etc... so yeah science tells you that cables matter. Additionally I've seen my university buy 2k cables (1 foot long for 2k) for sensitive equipment.
Now if you work as a researcher let me ask you. Do your conclusions come from the evidence itself? And are your theories the same as everyone else based on the initial data gathering process (before experimentation)? And if your theories are different, do you end up with the same conclusions (based on the same evidence)?
Signs point to no. If scientists began with the same theories, then we would never get anywhere. We all have different theories brought about by our subjective minds, which we interject into the scientific process. I'm afraid the objectivity part of science is the boring aspect where they make undergrad students their slaves, collecting and painstakingly organizing data. The real aspect of what makes science worthwhile is in the hypothesis, the theory, and the conclusion. ALL of which are subjective due to a person's interpretation. As I mentioned earlier, there were countless scientists before Newton who had the same objective data, yet he emerged a head of the group due to his theories.
The reason I say science is not linear is because of the hypothesis/theory part. While organizing data is linear (and common sense) the creation of an hypothesis or theory is not only subjective but non-linear. Unless you can tell me that the data gathered incites a particular theory, then the scientific method cannot be linear. And if the data gathered does in fact incite a particular theory -then why do different scientists have different theories?
The scientific method, as stated before, is at best a starting point. To believe that the scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century were all credited to a linear progression of data gathering and theorizing is ludicrous, you just need to look at einstein or even Faraday. These geniuses saw something beyond what others could only touch and feel. Their ideas did not arise from what they saw in the objective data, it arose from their experiences, their own imaginative minds, and their struggle with Truth. To think and believe science is perfect and objective is to raise it to the height of religion, because then it cannot be wrong, it cannot be replaced, and we cannot question it. As mentioned earlier it is the subjectivity of science that gives it culture, history, and meaning. Science is only so bold as the men and women who uphold it, shape it, and mold it by their will. As future scientists we all stand on their shoulders because we realize that we are not taking part in a discipline that occurred despite of them, but rather because of them.
So yeah I guess my views are (should they not be clear -because they are rarely ever clear, even to myself)
1. There are geniuses
2. Science is not objective
3. Science is not linear
4. Science is not the be all and end all of knowledge
5. Professors need to treat their undergrads better... we can analyze info too so stop making us do stupid computer simulations or mindless automaton work...
Quote:
| Originally Posted by anetode /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sorry, but once you got to "science is a linear process" you began to remind me of the timecube guy. Please try to understand that the whole point of science is to attempt to eliminate any intrusion of human biases and points of view. The scientific method is a sort of guide to the abstraction of meaning from reality, though at this point we are stumbling into epistemology. Despite the popular concept of "scientism", scientific study is not a personal cognitive bias. |
So long as as scientific conclusions are not self evident in the objectively gathered data, I'm afraid science is riddled with subjectivity. Take my example of Copernicus. What exactly was different between the data presented to copernicus and the scientists before him? Were they not all Kepler's objective data of the trajectories of planets? Ultimately it is the interjection of Copernicus's ideas and beliefs into the objective data that created the scientific views we have today.. MIND you he interjected what makes science beautiful and powerful -HIS SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION.
Now take Einstein or Maxwell. Werent there countless scientists working with the SAME exact data? Yet no one could provide answers until they came along with THEIR SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION? You forget that the objective aspect of science ends with gathering data. The subjective part comes from theory.
Now from nattonrice we have:
" 'science is really just the process of gathering data, hypothesizing, experimentation, theorizing'
...more or less how science progresses.
The physical universe (or universe of study) is observed.
Someone theorizes a mathematical model that fits said observation.
Now for part (a). If by genius you mean someone like Einstein or Maxwell (your suggestions) coming up with a model or idea explaining what was, at that time, unexplainable in a satisfactory way then no, you are incorrect. This is just a combo of steps 2 and 4 you listed.
As for part (b). This is more or less what happens in a very general sense. Eventual one of these "bodies" has a conceptual break through."
I'm not sure what you're arguing in your statement regarding part a.
Are you stating that they are geniuses or not? And are you stating that science is linear or not? and are you agreeing that the scientific method is linear or if it works.
As for the cable making/believer thing. I do believe that cables make a difference and I do have scientific evidence supporting that they in fact should make a difference. Including what type of solder you should use (eutectic) to reduce shot noise. Science even tells us that the dialectric material matters, the thickness, how its shielded etc... so yeah science tells you that cables matter. Additionally I've seen my university buy 2k cables (1 foot long for 2k) for sensitive equipment.
Now if you work as a researcher let me ask you. Do your conclusions come from the evidence itself? And are your theories the same as everyone else based on the initial data gathering process (before experimentation)? And if your theories are different, do you end up with the same conclusions (based on the same evidence)?
Signs point to no. If scientists began with the same theories, then we would never get anywhere. We all have different theories brought about by our subjective minds, which we interject into the scientific process. I'm afraid the objectivity part of science is the boring aspect where they make undergrad students their slaves, collecting and painstakingly organizing data. The real aspect of what makes science worthwhile is in the hypothesis, the theory, and the conclusion. ALL of which are subjective due to a person's interpretation. As I mentioned earlier, there were countless scientists before Newton who had the same objective data, yet he emerged a head of the group due to his theories.
The reason I say science is not linear is because of the hypothesis/theory part. While organizing data is linear (and common sense) the creation of an hypothesis or theory is not only subjective but non-linear. Unless you can tell me that the data gathered incites a particular theory, then the scientific method cannot be linear. And if the data gathered does in fact incite a particular theory -then why do different scientists have different theories?
The scientific method, as stated before, is at best a starting point. To believe that the scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century were all credited to a linear progression of data gathering and theorizing is ludicrous, you just need to look at einstein or even Faraday. These geniuses saw something beyond what others could only touch and feel. Their ideas did not arise from what they saw in the objective data, it arose from their experiences, their own imaginative minds, and their struggle with Truth. To think and believe science is perfect and objective is to raise it to the height of religion, because then it cannot be wrong, it cannot be replaced, and we cannot question it. As mentioned earlier it is the subjectivity of science that gives it culture, history, and meaning. Science is only so bold as the men and women who uphold it, shape it, and mold it by their will. As future scientists we all stand on their shoulders because we realize that we are not taking part in a discipline that occurred despite of them, but rather because of them.
So yeah I guess my views are (should they not be clear -because they are rarely ever clear, even to myself)
1. There are geniuses
2. Science is not objective
3. Science is not linear
4. Science is not the be all and end all of knowledge
5. Professors need to treat their undergrads better... we can analyze info too so stop making us do stupid computer simulations or mindless automaton work...
