effie,
I think your work on correct methods of thinking is admirable, but I'm not sure that I agree with this as the only road, or even the shortest road to scientifically valid knowledge.
You've read Khun. Personally, I don't wholeheatrtedly agree with his claim of incomensurability in the course of scientific discovery - for two continuities; reality, and human understanding remain constant factors. It is only the number of perceptions reconciled in the same terms that moves forward - usually quite gradually, and only occasionally in great incomensurable leaps. But even a soft version of Khun's incomensurability theory suggests that Phase 1: gathering and perusing all the pre-existing data will naturally mitigate aginst testing a new approach.
For me, what's missing from your analysis is that knowledge of the subject is knowledge of what is, and is not yet adequatley explained. Research is generally directed toward the latter area - and findings then sometimes reflect on the former area, showing previous explanations to be inadequate.
Rather than the linear progression you infer, scientific knowledge progresses by making discoveries that show why previous explanations are inadequate given certain new perceptions. Then comes theorization - often a revision of the existing theory incorporating these new perceptions.
What say you?
mb.
How are scintific theories produced?
I never claimed (and I do not believe) that this is the only or even the shortest road to produce scientific knowledge. I just said that it is the most analytical and the most crowded, since it is used subconciously by the majority of scientists. Furthermore, it can be more effective, since it gives us the opportunity to continuously improve the factors that participate in the theoretical procedure and consequently improve the effectiveness of theoretical sector.mark black wrote:effie,
but I'm not sure that I agree with this as the only road, or even the shortest road to scientifically valid knowledge.
.
You wrote: "scientific knowledge progresses by making discoveries..."
This is remark that describes reality, but does not contain an answer to the question: how are scientific discoveries made?
"gathering and perusing all the pre-existing data will naturally mitigate aginst testing a new approach. "
Have you ever wondered if it is not data which impede the testing of new approaches, but the misinterpretations of this data? In my opinion, if a scientific perception is compatible with natural reality, then it is compatible with all the elements that compose natural reality (data, observations etc),no matter when they have been produced.
The main goal of science is to create an adequate scientific perception with which it will interpret correctly, comprehense and utilize ALL the existing data, without omitting or misinterpreting even a single one of them.
-
mark black
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:28 am
effie,
You say:
This is because, as you say, Newton's Laws do not map the reality precisely - and what's interesting is that, perhaps scientific knowledge never can. But that's another question.
What I'm trying to say is exemplified by the fact that explaining this anomaly led Einstien to formulate the theory of relativity. And so it is, specifically, what existing theory fails to explain that directs scientific research.
Another, more recent example on this theme, is of some fossils found in Kenya that show homo habilis living alongside homo sapiens for 500,000 years, rather than, as existing theory had it, homo sapiens evolving from homo habilis.
Here the evidence falsifies pre-existing theory, paradoxically moving knowledge forward by undermining what we thought we knew, and this is the more usual method of discovery.
Anyhow, I think you're on the right lines, and only hope these thoughts help clarify the question with which you are concerned.
mb.
You say:
My explanation of this statement is in the previous paragraph where I say:You wrote: "scientific knowledge progresses by making discoveries..."
This is remark that describes reality, but does not contain an answer to the question: how are scientific discoveries made?
Perhaps that is accounted for, by you, where you say:knowledge of the subject is knowledge of what is, and is not yet adequatley explained. Research is generally directed toward the latter area - and findings then sometimes reflect on the former area, showing previous explanations to be inadequate.
But these are subtle matters - and I write not to criticise, but ciriticize in the cause of explicating these subtlties. I agree that:During the first phase of the procedure, the scientists shapes a general mental picture of the phenomena that he studies. In other words, he conceives a general approach of his subject, he begins to represent the unknown with known terms.
For example, Newton's Laws of Motion gave adequate predictions for the positions of most of the planets - for most of the time, however, Mercury at perihelion did not conform to the theoretical predictions based on Newton's figures.if a scientific perception is compatible with natural reality, then it is compatible with all the elements that compose natural reality (data, observations etc),no matter when they have been produced.
This is because, as you say, Newton's Laws do not map the reality precisely - and what's interesting is that, perhaps scientific knowledge never can. But that's another question.
What I'm trying to say is exemplified by the fact that explaining this anomaly led Einstien to formulate the theory of relativity. And so it is, specifically, what existing theory fails to explain that directs scientific research.
Another, more recent example on this theme, is of some fossils found in Kenya that show homo habilis living alongside homo sapiens for 500,000 years, rather than, as existing theory had it, homo sapiens evolving from homo habilis.
Here the evidence falsifies pre-existing theory, paradoxically moving knowledge forward by undermining what we thought we knew, and this is the more usual method of discovery.
Anyhow, I think you're on the right lines, and only hope these thoughts help clarify the question with which you are concerned.
mb.
This looks interesting, that it may be relevant to the subject: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/lee_ ... cracy.html
MB I feel a little... unable to keep the conversation going. You seei, I am used to affronting disagreements, conflicts etc. and I have developped innumerous arguments to support my point of view. Imagine that there re many people who deny that a scientific method to produce theories exists...Now that we agree, at least on the basic points of our approaches, I am speechless 
Philofra, very interesting link! My only objection is that we still aren't capable to "ïncorporate" God into universe or explain how and why life was created. I think that we must find out how life "functions" (how physical phenomena are completed, how living organisms adjust to their environment and so much more). Don't you agree?
Philofra, very interesting link! My only objection is that we still aren't capable to "ïncorporate" God into universe or explain how and why life was created. I think that we must find out how life "functions" (how physical phenomena are completed, how living organisms adjust to their environment and so much more). Don't you agree?
-
mark black
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:28 am
effie,
I've been concerned with the relationship between reality and understanding for some time now - and while I think we agree on the shape and nature of scientific knowledge, I do not find myself in agreement with your idea of a method of producing scientific theories - insofar as I understand it. I find it quantitative and linear - as if you feel that because the (macroscopic) universe is deterministic, all we have to do to understand it is amass data.
I'll give you one salient quote to think about, and if you do not feel able to reply, so be it:
‘It is fundamental that there is no empirical knowledge that is not in some sense, and to some degree conceptually formed. All talk of ‘pure sense data’ or ‘the unformed stream of consciousness’ is not descriptive of actual experience but rather a matter of methodological abstraction…In other words, in Professor Henderson’s phrase, all empirical observation is ‘in terms of a conceptual scheme.’ (Talcott Parsons - A Theory of Social Action. p.28)
The significance of this to your argument of course, is that data is never pre-conceptual, not even sensory perception. We cannot but help viewing and imbuing data with meanings and implications, because we only experience data once reconciled in terms of a narrative, theory, or conceptual scheme - call it what you will. Thus it is only by reflecting on the inadquacies of our pre-conceptions - in light of new data, that we can revise them.
mb.
I've been concerned with the relationship between reality and understanding for some time now - and while I think we agree on the shape and nature of scientific knowledge, I do not find myself in agreement with your idea of a method of producing scientific theories - insofar as I understand it. I find it quantitative and linear - as if you feel that because the (macroscopic) universe is deterministic, all we have to do to understand it is amass data.
I'll give you one salient quote to think about, and if you do not feel able to reply, so be it:
‘It is fundamental that there is no empirical knowledge that is not in some sense, and to some degree conceptually formed. All talk of ‘pure sense data’ or ‘the unformed stream of consciousness’ is not descriptive of actual experience but rather a matter of methodological abstraction…In other words, in Professor Henderson’s phrase, all empirical observation is ‘in terms of a conceptual scheme.’ (Talcott Parsons - A Theory of Social Action. p.28)
The significance of this to your argument of course, is that data is never pre-conceptual, not even sensory perception. We cannot but help viewing and imbuing data with meanings and implications, because we only experience data once reconciled in terms of a narrative, theory, or conceptual scheme - call it what you will. Thus it is only by reflecting on the inadquacies of our pre-conceptions - in light of new data, that we can revise them.
mb.
Maybe I haven't been very clear (I blame my Englishmark black wrote:effie,
as if you feel that because the (macroscopic) universe is deterministic, all we have to do to understand it is amass data.
I'll give you one salient quote to think about, and if you do not feel able to reply, so be it:
‘It is fundamental that there is no empirical knowledge that is not in some sense, and to some degree conceptually formed. All talk of ‘pure sense data’ or ‘the unformed stream of consciousness’ is not descriptive of actual experience but rather a matter of methodological abstraction…In other words, in Professor Henderson’s phrase, all empirical observation is ‘in terms of a conceptual scheme.’ (Talcott Parsons - A Theory of Social Action. p.28)
mb.
)Naturally, data are essential in the scientific procedure, but the constant accumulation of data for the time being has not been transubstantiated into comprehension, meaning that the production of data does not suffice! In my opinion, the approach of the unknown (in order to be scientific and not metaphysical or subjective) must be based on the utilization of existing data and knowledge. The concentration of data is only a part of the successive theoretical activities (and not the most important one) that we can use in order to produce theories and hypotheses which will help us to interpret and comprehend the phenomena we study .
In the procedure I have briefly suggested, data are the raw material that are inserted in the theoretical procedure, while the final product of this procedure are hypotheses and theories.
I totally agree that data are conceived in a more or less subjective way and are interpreted. The conceptual scheme you referred to, in my approach, is called scientific perception. It is a constituted and concrete entity, with specific structure and function. As far as structure is concerned, scientific perception consists of the specialized knowledge and opinions that a scientist accepts. Functionally, it is the theoretical or intellectual means which a scientist uses in order to execute ALL of the theoretical activities. It is the "tool" we use to utilize data and knowledge in order to create opinions (theories, hypotheses) so that we "discover" what we do not know (or approach the un known.
Succinctly, sientific perception is the "tool"with which we use what we already know in order to find what we do not know.
The effectiveness in every theoretical activity is directly proportional to the quality of the scientific perception we have.
-
mark black
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:28 am
effie,
I think you have mis-sold your idea somewhat. You say:
Involvement in a scientific area of study naturally involves knowledge of what is, and therefore what is not yet explained. The scientific hypothesis is directed tooward explanation of a specific pre-defined problem, and the scientist knows what range of possibile explanations are. Research is naturally directed toward the latter area, and findings then reflect on previous theories. Thus, science is a process of unfolding reality in relation to what's already known - not something started from scratch.
Rather than looking at this as a procedure you recommend others follow, you might re-write your work as a study of how scientists form ideas, but with all due respect, I think you are barking up the wrong tree.
mb.
I think you have mis-sold your idea somewhat. You say:
Therefore, your first step is 'become a scientist.' There's a direct contradiction between this hidden first step and your suggestion that we think of your procedure as:The conceptual scheme you referred to, in my approach, is called scientific perception. It is a constituted and concrete entity, with specific structure and function. As far as structure is concerned, scientific perception consists of the specialized knowledge and opinions that a scientist accepts.
By the time one has developed the specialized knowledge that constitutes scientific perception, the training wheels have been left far behind. As a consequence, I just don't know what this idea is for.the procedure you followed until you learnt how to drive: you were forced to follow specific steps, guided by your instructor, but now that you are experienced drivers, you can take your car and move to the other side of the earth.
Involvement in a scientific area of study naturally involves knowledge of what is, and therefore what is not yet explained. The scientific hypothesis is directed tooward explanation of a specific pre-defined problem, and the scientist knows what range of possibile explanations are. Research is naturally directed toward the latter area, and findings then reflect on previous theories. Thus, science is a process of unfolding reality in relation to what's already known - not something started from scratch.
Rather than looking at this as a procedure you recommend others follow, you might re-write your work as a study of how scientists form ideas, but with all due respect, I think you are barking up the wrong tree.
mb.
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12259
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
-
Richard Baron
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:55 am
- Contact:
I provisionally hypothesize that it is the hypothetico-deductive method, but my guess could be falsified at any moment. Taking "HDM = hypothetico-deductive method" to be a postulate of meaning won't help, because the question is "What is the meaning of 'HDM' intended by the contributors to this thread?".Arising_uk wrote:Whats HDM?
That's because there isn't an accurate, precise mechanism!philosophers have tried to answer this question, but the answers that they have given have left me unsatisfied. Production of theories has been attributed to immagination, logics, accumulation of evidence, etc., but no one has EVER provided the scientific community with an accurate, precise mechanism.
Mb, I agree with your ascertainments regarding science and scientists. These problems that you have noticed are the majot obstacle science has to overcome. Indeed, all those who "become scientists" end up posing the same questions and using the same methods in order to solve these (given)problems. Substantially, the otain the "same langage"and tend to in generally think and act in the same manner. One of the basic questions we have to answer is: why is tis happening and what can we do in order to overcome it?
In my approach, this phenomenon is neither coincidental nor occasional: it has been observed in all sciences in all eras. According to this approach(from which i haven't yet presented even the slightest part) the phenomenon is due to the presence and action of the predominant basic truth. Basic truth is a general opinion regarding the most basic structural elements that compose the object of a science and the role that each of them has. E.g. the basic truth of psychiatry is: Brain is the mid and therefore performs all intellectual faculties. The basic truth of molecular biology is: molecules are the only active biological factor of which the cells are consisted and the only factor with which living cells complete all their activities.
The major mistake of people who wish to serve a normal science, "due to the way in which they are educated"(as posed by Kuhn), is that they uncritically accept the basic truth that is dominant in their science, without knowing its context and without rying to test and improve it. This subconscious acceptance (not choice) leads science to immobility and standardizes scientific activities.
In our book, we have analyzed i) the role that basic truths plays a) in mind, since it is a mental "tool" (or filter) as well as b) in science, where it is the factor which guides all scientific activities and determines the frameworks ithn which science will "move",its goals and its borderlines,
ii) the methods with which it is located, tested and improved, etc.
In general, as far as basic truth is concerned, what we propose is the replacement of uncritical general acceptance by conscious, individual selection. In order for this to happen, each of the individuals that becomes a scientist must be able to locate the basic truth of their science and have the knowledge that is essential in order to test it objectively and improve it.
This idea is not new. Has been concisely expressed by Aristotle many thousand years ago:
"WE must, with a view to the science which we are seeking, first
recount the subjects that should be first discussed. These include
both the other opinions that some have held on the first principles,
and any point besides these that happens to have been overlooked.
For those who wish to get clear of difficulties it is advantageous
to discuss the difficulties well; for the subsequent free play of
thought implies the solution of the previous difficulties, and it is
not possible to untie a knot of which one does not know. But the
difficulty of our thinking points to a 'knot' in the object; for in so
far as our thought is in difficulties, it is in like case with those
who are bound; for in either case it is impossible to go forward.
Hence one should have surveyed all the difficulties beforehand, both
for the purposes we have stated and because people who inquire without
first stating the difficulties are like those who do not know where
they have to go; besides, a man does not otherwise know even whether
he has at any given time found what he is looking for or not; for
the end is not clear to such a man, while to him who has first
discussed the difficulties it is clear. Further, he who has heard
all the contending arguments, as if they were the parties to a case,
must be in a better position for judging."
In my approach, this phenomenon is neither coincidental nor occasional: it has been observed in all sciences in all eras. According to this approach(from which i haven't yet presented even the slightest part) the phenomenon is due to the presence and action of the predominant basic truth. Basic truth is a general opinion regarding the most basic structural elements that compose the object of a science and the role that each of them has. E.g. the basic truth of psychiatry is: Brain is the mid and therefore performs all intellectual faculties. The basic truth of molecular biology is: molecules are the only active biological factor of which the cells are consisted and the only factor with which living cells complete all their activities.
The major mistake of people who wish to serve a normal science, "due to the way in which they are educated"(as posed by Kuhn), is that they uncritically accept the basic truth that is dominant in their science, without knowing its context and without rying to test and improve it. This subconscious acceptance (not choice) leads science to immobility and standardizes scientific activities.
In our book, we have analyzed i) the role that basic truths plays a) in mind, since it is a mental "tool" (or filter) as well as b) in science, where it is the factor which guides all scientific activities and determines the frameworks ithn which science will "move",its goals and its borderlines,
ii) the methods with which it is located, tested and improved, etc.
In general, as far as basic truth is concerned, what we propose is the replacement of uncritical general acceptance by conscious, individual selection. In order for this to happen, each of the individuals that becomes a scientist must be able to locate the basic truth of their science and have the knowledge that is essential in order to test it objectively and improve it.
This idea is not new. Has been concisely expressed by Aristotle many thousand years ago:
"WE must, with a view to the science which we are seeking, first
recount the subjects that should be first discussed. These include
both the other opinions that some have held on the first principles,
and any point besides these that happens to have been overlooked.
For those who wish to get clear of difficulties it is advantageous
to discuss the difficulties well; for the subsequent free play of
thought implies the solution of the previous difficulties, and it is
not possible to untie a knot of which one does not know. But the
difficulty of our thinking points to a 'knot' in the object; for in so
far as our thought is in difficulties, it is in like case with those
who are bound; for in either case it is impossible to go forward.
Hence one should have surveyed all the difficulties beforehand, both
for the purposes we have stated and because people who inquire without
first stating the difficulties are like those who do not know where
they have to go; besides, a man does not otherwise know even whether
he has at any given time found what he is looking for or not; for
the end is not clear to such a man, while to him who has first
discussed the difficulties it is clear. Further, he who has heard
all the contending arguments, as if they were the parties to a case,
must be in a better position for judging."
-
mark black
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:28 am
But Imentioned that this quote was taken by Aristotle!!! I failed to mention the book (btw, it's "Metaphysics", translated in english by W.D. Ross), bu is it immoral to use abstracts of other books in order to support my approach, since I present the abstract unaltered and refer to is author???? For your information, the knowledge regarding basic truth and its role in mind, it goes back to mythology, to the era of Thiseus and Hercules, long before it was mentioned by Aristotle! It is a very ancient knowledge and had been taught through allegorical myths, such as the myth of Polipimon -Damastis or Procrustes.
This knowledge nowadays seems long forgotten. Is it immoral to bring it back and analyze it? This knowledge is lost, as well as the theoretical sector. Furthermore, I analyze it because basic truth is the most important scientific factor. Unfortunately, currently we do not know how basic truths, the factor on which sciences are founded, is located, tested and improved!
Since you seem very experienced, I would be grateful if you answered the following question: Am I allowed or not to use and analyze forgotten knowledge,ideas and opinions that have been expressed in the past in order to form my own opinions?
Ps. The myth of Procrustes reveals (in an allegorial way) the role of basic truth in mind- it is not "complete", since it does not reveal its role in science, which is the object of our search.
This knowledge nowadays seems long forgotten. Is it immoral to bring it back and analyze it? This knowledge is lost, as well as the theoretical sector. Furthermore, I analyze it because basic truth is the most important scientific factor. Unfortunately, currently we do not know how basic truths, the factor on which sciences are founded, is located, tested and improved!
Since you seem very experienced, I would be grateful if you answered the following question: Am I allowed or not to use and analyze forgotten knowledge,ideas and opinions that have been expressed in the past in order to form my own opinions?
Ps. The myth of Procrustes reveals (in an allegorial way) the role of basic truth in mind- it is not "complete", since it does not reveal its role in science, which is the object of our search.