4 ms·

Can you point to something good and useful in the Philosophie of Science? I mean let's say physics is as good as it gets (laws in mathematical language, strong

Can you point to something good and useful in the Philosophie of Science? I mean let's say physics is as good as it gets (laws in mathematical language, strong experimental evidence, solid results); from my perspective a success. But it has nothing to do with how like popper imagines science. So insisting on like a popper process would also not be benificial for physics in my opinion. But probably there is better stuff, I just couldn't find it. (with a popper mindset nobody would understand why we still study 'falsified' theories like electrodynamics)

bsder 5y ago
> Can you point to something good and useful in the Philosophie of Science? Every scientist should be able to answer the particular tenets that they take on faith. Scientists do take on faith that the universe is causal and that the rules today are the same as the rules yesterday. Yes, scientists double check these assumptions over and over, but they can never "prove" them. This kind of introspection is important for science to set itself apart from religion, for example.
- andi999 5y ago
  I meant more like book, or a philosopher.
nicoburns 5y ago
Some key things for me would be the ideas that: 1. There is no such thing as objectivity in inquiry. There is always a scientist interpreting things, and they are always looking at things through the lens of their own biases and cultural norms. The best you can hope to do is to be aware of your limitations. 1. Statistical evidence on its own is not always a good basis for believing something to be true. Typically you also want a good theoretical model, and an understanding of the mechanism that underlies the observed phenomena (physics is good at this, psychology not so much). 3. That there is more knowledge than is detectable through statistical methods (currently at least). And that lack of evidence from statistical studies does not necessarily constitute good evidence that a theory is false.
- LudwigNagasena 5y ago
  1. This is pretty trivial. Why do you think most scientists aren’t aware of their limitations? 2. This is studied in statistics classes. It is impossible to analyze data without a statistical model, so of course your conclusions rely on it. So this is also quite trivial. 3. Again, are scientists oblivious to this simple notion? I doubt it.
  - sprafa 5y ago
    A lot of this stuff applies more to bad scientists, of which there are many.
  - dennis_jeeves 5y ago
    LudwigNagasena, to you it may be obvious ( as it was to me). However I discovered ( much to my disappointment) that it is not obvious to career 'scientists'. A fool with a phd is still a fool. What used to the domain of primarily religions (rituals, superstitions etc.) is now the domain of several offshoots, one of which is mainstream science.
    - austhrow743 5y ago
      Is this coming from judging peoples actions or discussion with acquaintances and colleagues, or in discussion with trusted friends who are career scientists? My understanding is that a lot of problems in science are incentive based, and that would look very similar to someone just not knowing things from the outside.
      - dennis_jeeves 5y ago
        Mostly based on the 'science' out there. I probably know about 3 career scientists, I think, which is probably not a good sample. >My understanding is that a lot of problems in science are incentive based, and that would look very similar to someone just not knowing things from the outside. I can agree that a lot of it may be probably incentive based vs 'scientists' just not being smart enough. But is is hard to glean what the proportions are. I still suspect ( based on a general assessment of people both known and on the internet) that it is the latter.

bsder 5y ago

> Can you point to something good and useful in the Philosophie of Science? Every scientist should be able to answer the particular tenets that they take on faith. Scientists do take on faith that the universe is causal and that the rules today are the same as the rules yesterday. Yes, scientists double check these assumptions over and over, but they can never "prove" them. This kind of introspection is important for science to set itself apart from religion, for example.

andi999 5y ago
I meant more like book, or a philosopher.

nicoburns 5y ago

Some key things for me would be the ideas that: 1. There is no such thing as objectivity in inquiry. There is always a scientist interpreting things, and they are always looking at things through the lens of their own biases and cultural norms. The best you can hope to do is to be aware of your limitations. 1. Statistical evidence on its own is not always a good basis for believing something to be true. Typically you also want a good theoretical model, and an understanding of the mechanism that underlies the observed phenomena (physics is good at this, psychology not so much). 3. That there is more knowledge than is detectable through statistical methods (currently at least). And that lack of evidence from statistical studies does not necessarily constitute good evidence that a theory is false.

LudwigNagasena 5y ago
1. This is pretty trivial. Why do you think most scientists aren’t aware of their limitations? 2. This is studied in statistics classes. It is impossible to analyze data without a statistical model, so of course your conclusions rely on it. So this is also quite trivial. 3. Again, are scientists oblivious to this simple notion? I doubt it.
- sprafa 5y ago
  A lot of this stuff applies more to bad scientists, of which there are many.
- dennis_jeeves 5y ago
  LudwigNagasena, to you it may be obvious ( as it was to me). However I discovered ( much to my disappointment) that it is not obvious to career 'scientists'. A fool with a phd is still a fool. What used to the domain of primarily religions (rituals, superstitions etc.) is now the domain of several offshoots, one of which is mainstream science.
  - austhrow743 5y ago
    Is this coming from judging peoples actions or discussion with acquaintances and colleagues, or in discussion with trusted friends who are career scientists? My understanding is that a lot of problems in science are incentive based, and that would look very similar to someone just not knowing things from the outside.
    - dennis_jeeves 5y ago
      Mostly based on the 'science' out there. I probably know about 3 career scientists, I think, which is probably not a good sample. >My understanding is that a lot of problems in science are incentive based, and that would look very similar to someone just not knowing things from the outside. I can agree that a lot of it may be probably incentive based vs 'scientists' just not being smart enough. But is is hard to glean what the proportions are. I still suspect ( based on a general assessment of people both known and on the internet) that it is the latter.