Science is real?

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty33v7UYYbw[/youtube]

Is science real?

What makes science real? Or why isn't science "real" as far as we know the term?

What do changes in scientific perspective, such as the removal of the aether, or the introduction of indeterminacy or relatively say about the "realness" of scientific claims? What does the predictiveness say on the realism?

As far as I know, modern science is based on a premise of realism.

It's all observation and drawing conclusions, isn't it?

It is hard to say what science is based upon. Some would even speculate that science isn't "based upon" any specific thing at all.

That being said, there are both realist and anti-realist ideas in science. One of the anti-realist ideas that everybody knows about, and that is very popular is falsificationism. Falsificationism is a doctrine that exists because of the notion that induction can't really work/be accepted and we can't really verify if a theory is true, so all we are left to do is disprove ideas.

But it still works on the presumption that the truth we can't verify does exist outside of our understanding. Though my mind is fuzzy on the matter. I should have gone to sleep.
I'm not quite sure what is meant by "science is real", but I do think it's mostly realistic.

Sure, but the issue is what we think of the conclusions. I mean, if you observe something and draw a conclusion, do you take that as a statement that is likely correct? Or do you just take it as an interesting guess that will hopefully be predictive in a number of future cases?

You mean that reality is real rather than socially constructed? Sure, I'll agree with this being required for science. But science that isn't real doesn't require reality that isn't real. It just requires that scientific conclusions have reasons not to consider them reflective of underlying realities.

For instance, let's say that we think scientific theories are only useful and correct in as far as they predict outcomes. We don't care about the implied causality. We don't care about the realism of our assumptions. None of that matters, only the prediction. Is this science realistic? Well, no, this science has given up all pretenses of being realistic, and instead is wholly instrumental.

This is all I originally meant by "is science real?" After all, I think most people are going to admit that the term "science" has a conventional definition, even if it (or other things it relies upon) lack essential definitions. Also matters on the reality of reality are separate but related. So, the issue is whether "science is real" as the They Might be Giants video suggests, or whether it is less real for some reason.

I think you just nailed it though - as in it needs to be 'instrumental' to keep its objectivity, in that sense real or non-real it can't pretend to be anything more than it is; our best attempt at getting a firm/steady grip on our reality for the sake of things like computer technology, chemistry, engineering, medicine, we may see other things like philosophy join into them when the right kinds of anomalies come up but such forward interpretations are best represented as just that - interpretations of the data - nothing more. The ability to explore odd or alternative questions and collect data is working with hypotheses and trying to expand the realm of what science accepts based on proper due diligence (ie. isolating the variables, finding ways to isolate variables that hadn't been previously considered, etc.),testing, and seeing if the results of the test are legitimately proving or proving the hypothesis, then repeating over and over until a new theory is formed or at least that the test material is able to be taken as credible data.

I think things get wonky though when people try to make science to be more than what it is. Its an art based on precision and because of that is forced to remain in certain areas/domains where it can exercise precision within the confidence of those in the scientific community. That's not to say that it couldn't take in much more ground in the future, just that right now it has certain areas that it can't realistically cover.

Of course science is real, as in extant, as is every thought in your complex little head. What science is not, however, is necessarily true nor accurate. Historically, it has proved itself wrong more often than not. I strongly suspect this trend will continue long into the future.

Physical science gives us the most objective a precise understanding of what the world is. One of the consequences of physical science is the technology derived from physical laws and principles. You might say physics is as real as your computer or your GPS device.

ruveyn

Perception of so-called reality depends upon proposing an architecture of data arrangements that coheres and indicates other unexplored structures. Science is the process of confirming those structures which is an ongoing and unending process. When new data suggests original conceptions must be revised then science does so. The idea that there is an absolute basic structure that need not be revised is an ideal that probably will not be reached.

Let me illustrate graphically. In exploring graphics I frequently create random patterns of color and form and then derive images from them. Like this.

[img][650:800]http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/3565/prepattern5developed2.jpg[/img]




The same random pattern resulted in two distinctly different images. The patten is what may be called reality. The image is what may be called science. Science continually resolves the underlying pattern into useful and coherent and consistent images. These images function to give us a sensible picture of the world so that we may act rationally to make predictions of it. But the random pattern is the world and different viewpoints will resolve it into different images.

Good.

Sand nails it, I believe.

Cute song! Controversial, but still cute, lol TMBG rocks!! I dunno if I'd totally agree with the Big Bang being "real", but it is the most scientifically accurate explanation we've come to so far for how the universe began. There is also a "Big Crunch" theory for how it might end, but luckily that's about a billion or so years from now As for evolution, yes, I do think that's real, but all the same, if someone came up to me and said he/she thought the origin of life didn't matter as much as "living in the here and now" does, I'd probably agree with him/her I find the abstainers are often the best for these kinda "big issues". But nevertheless, congrats to TMBG - the most successful rock group to make awesome songs for both younger and older audiences!!

Unfortunately for creationists the theory and working procedures behind Darwin's concept are extremely useful pragmatic biological tools and prayer is not much used in experimental laboratories unless a scientist spots an exceedingly pretty lab assistant.

And if they're 'real' men its her praying under the table.

It's likely there are cases to fit that but in general I have found women are not helpless victims.