3 ms·

The original paper, rife with statistics and quotes, is here: http://journals.academicstudiespress.com/index.php/ESIC/article/view/96/101 http://journals.academ

The original paper, rife with statistics and quotes, is here: http://journals.academicstudiespress.com/index.php/ESIC/article/view/96/101 http://journals.academicstudiespress.com/index.php/ESIC/arti...

romwell 9y ago
Thanks; the relevant page in the paper is 25, and very clearly, the people in the group do not doubt the scientific method. Specifically, the negatively-correlated Scientific Explanation factor is defined on page 6: "The second factor, accounting for 12.6% of the total variance, was defined by the four items stating that science can explain nature, human behavior, imaginative artifacts, and subjective human experience. We labeled this factor Scientific Explanation." That is, "Scientific Explanation" is a combination of the following factors on page 8 (it's the 2nd eigenvector in the PCA of the survey results): -- Nature forms a unified structure that can be objectively known by science. -- Human behavior can be objectively explained by science. -- Subjective human experience can be explained scientifically. -- Imaginative artifacts like music, painting, and literature can be objectively understood using scientific knowledge I don't doubt the scientific method in the slightest, and yet even with the most optimistic hopes for science, my answers would be: -- NO, as science (and the scientific method) aren't about that (e.g. the "shut up and calculate" approach to quantum mechanics). We can study the structures and their effects, but understanding them is more philosophy than science, and any knowledge or understanding is always going to be incomplete as the boundary of our knowledge becomes more vast. -- MAYBE, leaning towards LIKELY NOT, because I think this is equivalent to building a strong AI -- NO, by definition of subjectivity this falls outside of the domain of science -- NO, for the same reason. Nuances like this are absent from the article. This is some very shoddy journalism.

romwell 9y ago

Thanks; the relevant page in the paper is 25, and very clearly, the people in the group do not doubt the scientific method. Specifically, the negatively-correlated Scientific Explanation factor is defined on page 6: "The second factor, accounting for 12.6% of the total variance, was defined by the four items stating that science can explain nature, human behavior, imaginative artifacts, and subjective human experience. We labeled this factor Scientific Explanation." That is, "Scientific Explanation" is a combination of the following factors on page 8 (it's the 2nd eigenvector in the PCA of the survey results): -- Nature forms a unified structure that can be objectively known by science. -- Human behavior can be objectively explained by science. -- Subjective human experience can be explained scientifically. -- Imaginative artifacts like music, painting, and literature can be objectively understood using scientific knowledge I don't doubt the scientific method in the slightest, and yet even with the most optimistic hopes for science, my answers would be: -- NO, as science (and the scientific method) aren't about that (e.g. the "shut up and calculate" approach to quantum mechanics). We can study the structures and their effects, but understanding them is more philosophy than science, and any knowledge or understanding is always going to be incomplete as the boundary of our knowledge becomes more vast. -- MAYBE, leaning towards LIKELY NOT, because I think this is equivalent to building a strong AI -- NO, by definition of subjectivity this falls outside of the domain of science -- NO, for the same reason. Nuances like this are absent from the article. This is some very shoddy journalism.