4 ms·

Science isn’t interested in what you “know” it’s interesed in what can be demonstrated, and independently replicated. Edit: Although plenty of scientists do st

Science isn’t interested in what you “know” it’s interesed in what can be demonstrated, and independently replicated. Edit: Although plenty of scientists do study cultural knowledge as a place to formulate potentially useful hypotheses to be tested. Ethnopharmacology is a whole field dedicated to the prospect, just for one example.

stonogo 9y ago
Don't anthropomorphize science. It hates that.
qsymmachus 9y ago
As an epistemology science is extremely rigorous – if something can't be measured (and thereby tested), science can't claim to "know" anything about it. This is an excellent standard for particle physics, but can be extremely limiting in other contexts. You probably claim to "know" a great number of things, despite the fact that you have never "measured" any of these things (or could ever hope to measure them). Whether or not we can consider this knowledge is an old debate[1]. When taken to extremes, the scientific world view just devolves into "scientism", which denies the possibility that we can know _anything_ outside the strictures of the scientific method. [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
- haZard_OS 9y ago
  I have never actually met a scientist who espouses the dreaded "scientism". It is, I have come to believe, a bogeyman used to silence rigorous thinkers when they attempt to speak in a social/political setting. Also, virtually every branch of science utilizes both quantitative and qualitative tools. I'm not sure if you meant to be dismissive of the often subtle methods for reconciling these different scientific tools, but it seemed to me that you did.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  In what context can something real not be measured? Putting aside the strawman of “scientism” I’m curious what “other contexts” you have in mind in which cause and effect aren’t linked? Something as ephemeral as emotion is well studied, right? Even if you believe in an interventionist god, those interventions would be measurable.
  - wefj82321a 9y ago
    Yeah it's all been debated over the years too. I some how doubt an HN poster that appears to have a chippy attitude is going to be revealing anything new. What a waste this board is. Such generic, banal arguments for $pet_platform
  - tialaramex 9y ago
    For the superstitious there's a useful epistemological dodge here. The Roman Catholic Church says that Transubstantiation is a real phenomenon. When a priest says the magic words, ordinary wine and bread are transformed into the blood and flesh of Jesus Christ. It's not a metaphor, it really happens, it's a miracle. BUT although they are flesh and blood, they continue to have all the same detectable properties they had before, there is no way to distinguish them from ordinary bread and wine. This is a rock solid, but completely useless epistemological argument. You can do it (to similar lack of actual effect) for anything, maybe I believe that this rock is actually the entire planet Jupiter except that it has all the same properties as an ordinary rock.
wefj82321a 9y ago
Thanks, Webster. But it says "Scientists...". Humans do indeed care about what others "know" as a method of discovery. IMO it's a bad headline in typical "western" fashion where the reality of reality is forgotten in order to stroke our ego. Everyone is, by the nature of reality, a scientist. "What will I discover tomorrow through my own agency?" So when indigenous people discovered it, they may not have been conscious of it, but they were abiding the model that was later explicitly defined.

stonogo 9y ago

Don't anthropomorphize science. It hates that.

qsymmachus 9y ago

As an epistemology science is extremely rigorous – if something can't be measured (and thereby tested), science can't claim to "know" anything about it. This is an excellent standard for particle physics, but can be extremely limiting in other contexts. You probably claim to "know" a great number of things, despite the fact that you have never "measured" any of these things (or could ever hope to measure them). Whether or not we can consider this knowledge is an old debate[1]. When taken to extremes, the scientific world view just devolves into "scientism", which denies the possibility that we can know _anything_ outside the strictures of the scientific method. [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

haZard_OS 9y ago
I have never actually met a scientist who espouses the dreaded "scientism". It is, I have come to believe, a bogeyman used to silence rigorous thinkers when they attempt to speak in a social/political setting. Also, virtually every branch of science utilizes both quantitative and qualitative tools. I'm not sure if you meant to be dismissive of the often subtle methods for reconciling these different scientific tools, but it seemed to me that you did.
IntronExon 9y ago
In what context can something real not be measured? Putting aside the strawman of “scientism” I’m curious what “other contexts” you have in mind in which cause and effect aren’t linked? Something as ephemeral as emotion is well studied, right? Even if you believe in an interventionist god, those interventions would be measurable.
- wefj82321a 9y ago
  Yeah it's all been debated over the years too. I some how doubt an HN poster that appears to have a chippy attitude is going to be revealing anything new. What a waste this board is. Such generic, banal arguments for $pet_platform
- tialaramex 9y ago
  For the superstitious there's a useful epistemological dodge here. The Roman Catholic Church says that Transubstantiation is a real phenomenon. When a priest says the magic words, ordinary wine and bread are transformed into the blood and flesh of Jesus Christ. It's not a metaphor, it really happens, it's a miracle. BUT although they are flesh and blood, they continue to have all the same detectable properties they had before, there is no way to distinguish them from ordinary bread and wine. This is a rock solid, but completely useless epistemological argument. You can do it (to similar lack of actual effect) for anything, maybe I believe that this rock is actually the entire planet Jupiter except that it has all the same properties as an ordinary rock.

wefj82321a 9y ago

Thanks, Webster. But it says "Scientists...". Humans do indeed care about what others "know" as a method of discovery. IMO it's a bad headline in typical "western" fashion where the reality of reality is forgotten in order to stroke our ego. Everyone is, by the nature of reality, a scientist. "What will I discover tomorrow through my own agency?" So when indigenous people discovered it, they may not have been conscious of it, but they were abiding the model that was later explicitly defined.