Science and Value Judgements

Post Reply New Topic

Would it be science to hypothesise that a certain brand name of washing powder was more effective than another and try using both a few times to see?

Does it have to be an original hypothesis/theory to count as science? Would going on a diet to see if one lost weight be science?

Is experimenting with different methods of cooking rice science?

If a lab assistant is being scientific in simply carrying out orders from the head of project, because the purpose of the project is the pursuit of knowledge and they are participating in that, what about the lab assistant working on a project which is not actually in pursuit of knowledge, but funding, status, or justification for a couple of people/an organisation/a product launch?

Where exactly is science located?

.

This was Popper's demarcation between science and metaphysics. He strongly argued that different elements of science had differing levels of corroboration (testability), general relativity vs marxism differing hugely in their corroboration but they were both science and not metaphysics because their claims were empirical and potentially falsifiable.

He was, unfortunately, completely wrong about this. Take quantum theory for example. Most theories of quantum are testable, but only from particular standpoints, if you accept particular assumptions. Unfortunately, these assumptions themselves are not testable. They are metaphysical frame works (metaphysics being not what exists (an empirical question) but how things exist (a non-empirical question)) which scientists consciously or unconsciously assume to get science off the ground. His criteria of falsifiability failed.

Simplest answer is science is located wherever there are scientists

Given that scientists have changed their practises throughout history, precise definitions seem to defy the historical account (although not a problem if you desire an a-historical definition).

For an historical definition, there has been two fundamental trends throughout the history of science, the analytic and the synthetic. The analytic is the mathematical and the logical, whereby scientists have taken empirical evidence and then built complicated mathematical and logical structures upon this, presuming these structures revealed the underlying unobservable world of scientific entities. The analytic is the classificatory systemisation of empirical evidence to further the precision of our understanding of the observable world. Science has swung back between these two factors, sometimes favouring the analytic substantially but still doing the synthetic, sometimes favouring the synthetic but still doing the analytic, sometimes favouring both but not combining them well and sometimes favouring them both and heavily combining the two. I guess I'd call something scientific if it combines the analytic and the synthetic, the rational and the empirical. So simply classifying objects in my room is not scientific as not analytic, meanwhile doing hardcore metaphysics is not because its not synthetic. Physics favours both, psychiatry favours analytic but still has synthetic, observational biology favours synthetic but still has analytic.

Unfortunately, my scheme doesn't stand a chance as Quine disproved the analytic synthetic divide fifty years ago and philosophy has been reeling ever since.

Last edited by oppositedirection on 13 May 2009, 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well, that would be examples of people that wanted to do science, but never really get around to it. Of course, one could also say that such development of hypothesis is one critical step of science, and that it is possible to specialize and have people work only on hypotheses ... some people do science in teams, and not everyone does every step. But for the most part, buying fancy athletic shoes and developing lots of exercise plans is not enough - without actually working out, one is not usually considered an athlete.





Sure. In fact, the people that have marketing down to a science do lots of "A-B" testing ... they take the current copy (or ad graphics, or whatever) and change something, and then alternate the ads until they have enough data to accept or disprove the theory that the ads are equally effective ... then they run with the 'better' add until they come up with another variant that they think might do better, test A against B, etc. Of course, they aren't getting at any profound truths this way, simply developing ads that get them more money. But not many people are interested in the science of my backyard, either.

This sort of proves my point, that statements are value judgements, something has to be unjust, the word unjust itself is merely a concept that plays a role in statements. I accept though that science consists of statements and not words, something I overlooked earlier, so this particular issue is merely a technicality.

I personally don't accept that language has to be value based (unless we use different notions of value. I'm thinking of value in so far as something being valued or not as good or bad, subconsciously or not). It's part of our evolution to categories things around us, animals also do this. That we also then verbally posit these categorisations is not fundamentally value laden. Unless you posit that upon language first being developed and someone said (the equivalent of) "there is a Lion", I can't see that itself being value laden. Granted, it has certain connotations, such as fear and run away, but the statement "there is a lion" differs from "run from the lion". These choice came not frombut our evolution, how the human mind fundamentally operates and we can never escape that. Unless you claim things stemming directly from our evolution are value based (which would means we use different notions of value), this means that statements can exist which are value free. Granted, most words within our language did arise do to sociological pressures but my point is not minor. If it is possible to exist any statement which is value free then I submit that our language can be rendered by a metalanguage into a value free system. I secondly submit that this is precisely what science is doing, rendering our sociologically developed language into a value free metalanguage. The simple fact that we are aware of what we are doing (attempting to understand empirical reality) makes the language factual, from this I can then make value judgements about it.

I'm tired and need to develop this, alas will be busy the next few nights. I guess I'm saying languages can be value free, our choice of which to employ is not. Existing languages are manifestations of near infinite possible structual extensions of human psychology. Given sociological influences on languages, you could argue they are value laden, I still hold hope for metalanguages. Given that we have choices which languages to use, you could call that value laden. What I'm emphasising (possibly missing your point) is that the languages themselves are value free, therefore when we make a value choice which language to use the choice has not already been predetermined by values prexisting within the language. It's just a theory

While some of the hypotheses may not be directly testable what is required is that predictions based on the hypotheses are testable. Quantum theory with this criterion of testability (which includes falsifiability) passes grandly. Quantum electrodynamics predicts phenomena in its domain of applicability to 12 decimal places of precision. Quantum Electrodynamics applies to phenomena outside the atomic nucleus but does not include gravitational effects. Quantum Electrodynamics does not touch gravitation. For stuff going on in the nucleus one must use the Standard Model of Fields and Particles.

Popper's Demarcation between science and non-science is pretty sound. For a theory to be scientific it has to make testable quantitative predictions about the world.

ruveyn

As far as I am concerned science means "something done in labs with test tubes, and maybe microscopes, probably by people wearing white coats". All the rest is just the "mystique" surrounding it, which is useful for impressing people, and for getting funding. But ... !

Exactly. As in my example of lab assistants, who follows orders from head of project. They neither create hypotheses, nor examine the results to see if they prove/disprove anything. Is what they do, science? Why?

Who in fact carries out all the steps in the industry called science?

If engaging in science, ( as a "hypothesis creator" for instance ), requires that one be at least part of a team in the complete package of "hypothesis-testing pursuit of some knowledge" or other, then it seems to me that paid employment is an intrinsic part of science. If you can't find someone to pay you to create hypotheses for example then you're not a scientist. And your hypotheses are not science.

In fact science is a product, which is only deemed to exist if a group/person manages to complete all the stages/steps. If you and your team manage to complete all the steps, according to standards decreed by the guild, then your piece of knowledge will be called "science"/qualify as "scientific", ... ... and you and your team and your activities will seem to have been engaged in science.

.

In fact science is a label, ( a highly sought after one too, as "religion" used to be ).

It is not even a product, because the same piece of information/"knowledge" can exist without being considered science.

"This is a Chanel handbag". "This is not a Chanel handbag". It could be identical in every respect, but if it has not been produced by the "right" people, in the "right" place, it is not a Chanel handbag.

"Science" is the brand name given to a product which meets guild specifications.

It is a value judgement. The word "science" says that something has a certain/particular value.

The costs of producing this "label" have gone through the roof in recent times. It is very difficult indeed for the small entrepreneur to start up in the business of producing science.

.

some of us seems to forget that the definition of science is constantly changing
it maybe that this changes have some relevancy to the AS and Autistic phenomena as many AS are intuitive scientists
many of us behave "erratically" because we can feel forces and qualities that for NT's exists only in the domain of textbooks
the AS sensitivity to sound,light and many other phenomena of the electromagnetism spectrum is well known and well documented
on this site and on many other sites like this
many AS are even sensitive to the gravitational/inertial forces and their interplay with light
the science of yesterday is the intuition of today
and scientific terms are constantly merging into the social sphere through art and literature in a proccess that is probably part of our evolution

when i see my niece contemplating a flower or a an acorn i feel that's science
many AS are doing science full time,
everywhere,
outside and inside the lab
many scientific discoveries where happened outside the system
some time in a dream or by accident

i feel that whatever was discussed here is important and some of it sound very true to me but i also like to think of science as a very happy and beautiful and even a bit crazy thing

In the middle ages in Europe "religion", for most people, meant what the Catholic church said it meant. The Catholic church determined/controlled what was considered "religion" and what wasn't. It spent a lot of money on retaining control over the label, and severely punished people who tried to apply the label without their authorisation.

For an experience, or a teaching, to be considered "religious" it had to meet the specifications set out by the Catholic church, ( or seek authentification with a less powerful, and/or "foreign", guild of religion, eg; judaism or islam ), until Luther etc set up in competition as the Protestant church, which was considered "heresy", "non-religion", like a counterfeit Chanel handbag, for quite some time.

Despite certain challenges, and slight adjustments, to the rules determining which items of information/knowledge achieve the label of science in the last 50-60 years, there has been no fundamental alteration in the specifications, ( outlined in brief by ZEGH, monty, ruveyn, and oppositedirection in this thread ), since the late 1600's/early 1700's, ( I think. ).

But some highly respected thinkers have been exposing the weaknesses, ( subjective/socially constructed biases, etc ), inherent in the current specifications for the label science.

So perhaps we will soon see some sort of reform after which there will be several different kinds of science, a wider range of "science" products, until the label loses most of its credibility, as the central tenets/values on which the value-judgement "science" is based, are eroded, ( as has happened with the label religion ).

.

Is that what you meant, monty, when you said how annoyed you feel about how people/businesses justify/qualify their use of products of the pharmaceutical and related industries as scientific? In the same way as people selling "indulgences" in the middle-ages received authority for their trade from the church.

The pharmaceutical and related industries having a similar control over what is labelled science/scientific as the Catholic church had over what constituted religion/religious activities, and using their control over the label to increase their profits/power. There is definitely a movement against this stranglehold grip on the label "science".

What is interesting is that if it follows the same course as religion, ( attracting increasingly virulent criticism for its corruption/power-mongering, pointless ritual, over-elaborate ceremony and heirarchy ), there will probably be very little left of what we currently call science afterwards! Which "bit" of what we now consider "scientific" will stand the test of that erosion?

Objectivity has already taken a hammering, ( and "truth" ).

.

Sure, that is one way to look at it. If a brick building is built to the standards of the mason's guild, or a bridge is built to the standards of an engineering board, that says something (but not everything). On the whole, such products are less likely to fail than if the average Joe decided to go out and build the same structure, because the guild has taken years of experience and formulated general principles or rules that are applied to each case. There is institutional review that is useful, though not perfect.

In the case of science, the peer review process and other mechanisms determine if a study is judged to be well-designed (or not), rigorous (or not), and the conclusions drawn from the research are reasonable (or not). The study needs to be replicable, and when various group do replicate a study, then it starts to become accepted as scientifically proven.




That is consistent with my statement. For example, some pharmaceutical companies have gone as far as setting up fake journals to get their marketing material published and stamped as "science" ... this makes it possible to 'prove' to doctors that fosamax and vioxx really really are good to prescribe to patients. Of course, scientific truth and spiritual graces are not controlled by any human organization, IMO... the actual merits of a drug are quite independent of what a marketing department chooses to say.







Of course, science can only be done by humans, and is inherently subject to the faults of the human mind. It is also subject to various economic and political winds, especially in the short term. Good science minimizes these influences, while sloppy science and pseudoscience do not, and they are far more likely to draw bad conclusions about the world.

One of the biggest distortions comes from funding and selective publication - money determines what questions are investigated, and sometimes suppresses answers it doesn't like (denying the right to publish, gagging researchers with confidentiality clauses, etc). But this doesn't negate the scientific method in any way ... it only shows that some vested interests want the science stamp of approval on their product, even if that means the selective use of science combined with violating the scientific method and deception when needed to make it appear that a product is safe/effective.

good point


no? ........surely you jest?



Obviously not [genuine] science. As you said Monty--it is, in fact, violating the scientific method....which method is in part--willingness to admit research has proven one's theory wrong....and certainly steadfastly refraining from falsification or omission of key research results that would tend to invalidate one's theory/prove one's product unsafe/ineffective, or show that an entire class of psychoactive drugs actually exacerbate the very symptoms they are purported to relieve. "Selective use of science" violates the basic premise of science, which is supposedly: to arrive at the facts through empirical investigation. To intentionally falsify the facts is to DESTROY those facts.

On the other hand, you have nicely proven Ouinon's point [was that your intent?]---science is the monopoly of a brand, analagous to the way the Catholic Church had monopoly of the religion brand.

Inasmuch as the Catholic Church cared nothing for spiritual truth, which it --the Church-- actually sought to destroy.....In precisely the same way, contemporary "science" shows little concern for truth in research, which would invalidate/eliminate fraudulent marketing..... Social control/manipulation-- in the name of science.........just as the Catholic church had spiritual control/manipulation-- in the name of religion.

The science stamp of approval = the science brand.

"Vested interests that want the science stamp of approval on their product"-- don't give a damn about science....just as the Church didn't give a damn about spiritual truth. Syndicated gangsters needing to crush whatever stands in their way..

Last edited by alba on 14 May 2009, 10:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.

The total confusion here of science with the commercial application of science is obvious. That business corrupts everything it touches is a plain fact of technology, politics, religion, finance, education, etc. The only basic driving force of business is to make money and it destroys everything in its path to do so. Do not confuse science with the corruption of science.

This despite the fact that many products labelled science over the last 400 years have turned out to be complete junk. But people keep scrambling to win this brand name. It's still a big one, with a lot of power.


They judge whether it is "scientific" or not. If it is not deemed to be, then the work done by everyone on the project is not science, ( or it is "bad science" ).

In fact until the peer-review the work done is not science either. It is proto-science, waiting for the Fairy Godmother to transform it into science with a wave of her wand.

The difference between "not science" and "science" is not the standard of the work involved, but whether a few people/the "guild" think it is or not. Science is a label. And as you say the label is sometimes applied to inferior products. And withheld from ... how many projects which a scientific Luther might argue should have it?


Here you seem to be suggesting that the word science on its own is too vague; that the term/label on its own does not in fact guarantee a particular product. Like the Catholic church and religion; to the Catholic church good religion was catholic, all others were bad. To Luther the Catholic church was bad religion.

And if it is necessary, for accuracy, to qualify the label, what about "ignored or unnoticed or totally invisible science"? I shall start applying that label ... ! as you do "bad science", "sloppy science"!
.

Last edited by ouinon on 15 May 2009, 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Labeled by whom? Scientist? Or by charlatans seeking to cash in the the values that valid science has created. Generally speaking, the physical and chemical theories that mainline science has adhered to a promoted the past one hundred and fifty years are sound and well supported by experimental evidence. The record is not so good in medicine and biology, but this is understandable. Living systems are much more complicated than inanimate physical systems.

ruveyn