Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Vin Maratty wrote:LBird wrote:Does this sound feasible, to everyone?
I have no intention of entering intto a discussion with an individual who becomes nasty, sarcastic and derogatory when he feels he is cornered. Besides you havent got a fucking clue
Bye-Bye, then, Vin.
Hi LBirdIt might be a good idea to get to grips with what is meant when we say "science". Again I'm gonna suggest keeping it simple for now.The word, as with many others, is from Latin, and refers to "knowledge". To put it simply science is the human quest for knowledge. However knowledge covers a couple of important areas. One area is knowledge of our physical surroundings and this is what most people see as science. Experiment, observation, recording stuff etc. The other is human thought or ideas about things, simply put philosophy. Both impart knowledge.This to me is were it gets sticky. Knowledge and truth are not one and the same. Whereas most people see science as discovering and learning new stuff from and about our environment, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is the truth about our world, because as humans we are part of that world and we can't help imprint inging ourselves onto that world wether deliberately or unintentionaly. It's like trying to observe the world at the quantum level. The very act of observation has an effect on what is being observed.I could be totally full of shit here LBird but I think this is what you are getting at and wether or not it is possible to overcome our tendency to imprint or if we can somehow make the inevitable imprint less biassed or perhaps useful to our world view.
SocialistPunk wrote:Hi LBirdIt might be a good idea to get to grips with what is meant when we say "science". Again I'm gonna suggest keeping it simple for now.Hi, SP! Well, if you're willing, so am I.I was thinking of even simpler steps than you've suggested.The first question is a simple one: is there a problem with what science tells us, since Einstein wrote.Science in the 19th century said it produced the truth, that scientific knowledge was 'true'.But Einstein overturned that thinking. This is all uncontroversial, so far, I think.This is the first step: to answer the question: 'Is there a problem with scientific knowledge, or is it true?'It seems to me there are two answers: 'Yes, there is a problem' or 'No, there isn't a problem'.As long as, for now, we proceed with some consensus that 'Yes, there is a problem', I'll try to go on and illustrate that 'problem'.But there has to be agreement that there is a 'problem' to be had, first of all. If anyone's happy that 'science produces true knowledge', then say so, and I'll have to resort to evidential backup, to prove that this is disputed by philosophers of science. Or they can just read the Rovelli quote that I gave earlier, again.
Define what you mean by "true".But why start with Einstein? This stuff goes back to the ancient Greeks if not before.Yes I don't think anyone, especially working scientists, claims that science produces the "Truth" in the complete and final for all eternity sense of the term.
Lots of the issues are touched on here in bite sized pieces:https://explorable.com/foundations-of-science
DJP wrote:Yes I don't think anyone, especially working scientists, claims that science produces the "Truth" in the complete and final for all eternity sense of the term.Well, that's one 'Yes' vote, I think, that we now know that there is a problem with scientific knowledge, which makes us more aware than those scientists working in the 19th century, that 'scientific knowledge' is problematic.I'll wait for a while to see if there are any comrades who don't vote 'Yes', and if we're all aboard, I'll try and explain with simple everyday objects why this problem exists, and the consequences for us if we do accept this problem.If I've taken your 'Yes' vote too far with what I've just written, DJP, please say so.
I still think you need to give a couple of sentences explaining what you mean by "true" though.Yes nothing can give us the Truth of the capital T kind, but that does not mean that all scientific knowledge is therefore false.
DJP wrote:I still think you need to give a couple of sentences explaining what you mean by "true" though.Yes nothing can give us the Truth of the capital T kind, but that does not mean that all scientific knowledge is therefore false.Glad to see you're still with us, DJP.I'll give it a bit more time before I take things forward, but just one thought to be going on with, since you've raised it:Since you accept 'truth' of the capital T kind doesn't exist, what about 'false' of the capital F kind? I'm not trying to 'catch you out', but perhaps one stance implies the other?Oh yes, and once again, as an overarching point, no-one is arguing that 'all scientific knowledge is therefore false' (with a capital F).
Wooops
LBird wrote:Since you accept 'truth' of the capital T kind doesn't exist, what about 'false' of the capital F kind? I'm not trying to 'catch you out', but perhaps one stance implies the other?Actually you can have something like the capital T kind of truth when it comes to A priori truths, things that are true by definition. Eg the truth of the phrase "All bachelors are unmarried" is determined by the meaning of the word "bachelor" not by going out in the world and checking that there are no bachelors with wives.A posteriori truths are the ones that are I guess more related to scientifc knowledge…No you don't need a capital F false because if something is false it is true that it is false. I suppose….
But to say that that "Scientific knowledge does not give us capital T truth therefore there is a problem with science" is an incomplete argument. You either need another premise before the "therefore" or to explain what that problem is..
Reminder: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
Mod are you LBird-blind or turning a blind eye to attacks on that maratty bloke nee body likes so nee body will mind.
Reminder: 15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.
Reminder 99 fairness and objectivity
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.