science

[snarfmaster C]

ok i'm having issues. mental trouble with my life's path? maybe i'm just uncertain, but i'd like to get some feedback....

i don't like science. i don't like that our society places such strong importance on the results of scientific research. i don't like that people get away with sh-t that they know is wrong until there's enough scientific evidence out there to say 'yes, indeed, what you are doing is wrong.... let's get some kind of bill passed to stop you from doing that'. i trust instinct and common sense, and i hate that our world seems to only put importance into that which can be observed, measured and enforced.

sure we're learning stuff - i just don't know that it's anything we couldn't have thought out (in less specific, perhaps, but still valid) without the dissection required by the scientific method. i also don't think we would require science so much to clean up after ourselves if we hadn't messed it all up with our scientific technology to begin with. ( i wanna break out of this science dependency - deal with the mess, hopefully survive, and never go back) i'm an earthfreak. i believe native philosophy is some of the most appropriate as far as way of life is concerned.

and yet, here i am, beginning a masters of science. why? because they're paying me, and i feel like i should learn more about science to either accept it as a reasonable approach, or to rule it out from a more enlightened perspective. but today i attended a lecture in which some philosophy of science was discussed. after reading a quotation that fit very closely with my feelings (pretty well as stated above) the prof said 'if you subscribe to that, you're in the wrong place' or something to that effect.

any insight?!?!?!?! please! good/bad feelings about science? i really want some opinions from people outside this department.

much appreciated.

[CyberHippie]

I get your philosophy...

However you will be able to use your powers in science for good instead of evil. Try to effect some sort of positive change, no matter how miniscule. Knowing the way you feel now could help put you on a postive path, as opposed to doing something evil, then realizing the mistake.

Sure a lot of science is bad and not needed. But some of it is very helpfull and necessary. Besides I think every industry should have it's own cynics.

[hamilton]

At least scientists admit that sometimes they've been wrong - religion never does that, or at least not for a really long time. Didn't the Church only just admit a few years ago that the Spanish Inquisition, and the unjust persecution of Galileo for stating that the Earth was round were wrong?

The Vatican can bite me.

So can every other organized, hierarchical, rule-based religion, actually.

[bradm]

First, I think what you're having problems with is not science per se, but its application (often in the form of technology). Both science and technology are, first and foremost, human endeavours.

Humans, in general, do not think in a long-term manner. Even those who follow "native philosophy" can be (and often are) victims of short-term thinking. (Q: Why are there no trees on Easter Island?)

Science exists as a process to disover how the world around us works, and it develops, as with art and other aspects of human society, in a non-linear and sometimes haphazard way. (Read, for example, "The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn for a view on the development of science that may be very different from what you were taught in school. Also see the works of James Burke, particularly "Connections" and "The Day The Universe Changed".) Yes, mistakes can result, both in incorrect views, and in real-world effects, but the (more visible) latter are often the result of non-science societal aspects (e.g., politics, megalomania, economics, stupidity) mis-applying science.

If you're concerned about science and its role in society, frankly, I want you to continue in the sciences! If science is (directly or indirectly) causing problems in society, we don't need less science, we need more understanding of it in society, and that's where you can help. If you think science isn't being used properly in society, don't reject it; learn it, and learn what else is out there, and how to figure out what should be used when, and then do the right thing.

We live in a world which has essentially made a no-turning-back decision to be based on science. Prior to about 200 years ago, people spent pretty much every waking moment doing what they had to do to survive, and even then, only for a few decades. (Watch "The Pioneers" on The History Channel: take a couple of modern city-dwellers and drop 'em back into the farm life of Canadian pioneers and watch 'em struggle. It's enlightening to those who think "going back to the land" is the solution to all our problems.) Now, we have longer lives, and enough spare time within them to enjoy ourselves and exercise our full potential.

Aloha,

Brad

[canadianphan]

I think your example confuses pure science as an exploration of the systems around us; and its perversion by "the law" or "the government" as a means of justifying behaviour or action.

If you’re truly passionate about the earth then continue to study it. Don't lose your interest because someone doesn't think your belief or approach is commercially viable.

Above all else be true to your own self...

[Thorgnor]

Hunter Gatherers in South Africa until recently spent an average of 14 hours per week on maintaining sustenance through hunting, feeding and clothing themselves.

200 years ago people died of bacterial infections due to the lack of penicilin.

I'm in Anthropology at York U. and one of the most interesting things that I've learned is that all human endeavor comes from humans. Even science is someone's perception and communication of an observed phenomenon which becomes popularly accepted due to mathematical proof.

In other words, math is a language that we use to communicate scientific knowledge. We invented math as a tool. We then adapted math to science, another tool. Science is the act of observation and the ability to share that knowledge in a commonly understood manner... but it is done BY someone. So just as the language of science is brutally logical, so is the ethic of science. Science is a new religion for a logical, quantitative culture. But science is also motivated by people, who often make decisions in the short term to feed their families, making the logical choice in their opinion. People protect their personal numbers.

Numbers control our national agendas, our economic agendas, and even our social agendas. If you have beef with science discredit the mathematics behind it.

If you want to learn more about the world, travel and read a lot, and then talk about what you've learned with people who make you learn more.

If you want to save the world be a writer.

[M]

I've always kept my distance from science although I can definitely appreciate the love that others have for it. After grade 11, although I did well in science, when I didn't have to take it anymore, I stopped. And it was a conscious decision on my part. I took my OACs, focusing more on maths, english, etc.

When I got to university, I took Commerce and was only allowed 1 or 2 electives a year. I saved these for my true loves: literature and music. I do remember one year though taking a science, simply due to the fact that I was, shall we say "enticed" by the course title: "Pharmacology: the study of drugs and their actions". And that's been it for me ever since.

My aversion to science stems from the fact that to me, it breaks down and explains logically the elements of life, love and nature. Thus, the beauty of it all disintegrates for me amidst this process of explanation and rationalization.

My best friend is a physicist and the two of us share equal passions for the outdoors. We've both worked for months as canoe trippers and, due to our outlooks on science, have two very disctinct styles of tripping. When we're in Algonquin, surrounded by nature, we take away two totally different experiences. She sees a sunset, a wave, a rainbow and processes the wonder of the scientific reasons of why and how they occur. I see the same things yet prefer to acknowledge the beauty on a different level and revel in the wonder of the emotive effects each have on my person, rather than trying to define them. I like to keep it that way... helps me maintain a mystic quality in life.

I do, however, acknowledge the necessity for both approaches to science to exist. Most importantly, we rely on science to explain diseases, heal the people we care about and prolong this beautiful thing that is life.

You mentioned "i feel like i should learn more about science to either accept it as a reasonable approach, or to rule it out from a more enlightened perspective". I think that is an excellent attitude and in that statement you have completely coined what true learning is. Don't let some idiot prof impose his beliefs on you and sway you from your calling. You've come this far. Ultimately, the job of a true professor should be to expose you to different philosophies... and not preach which is "right" or "wrong" but allow you to learn from them all and, in turn, form and create your own....you never know, kids might be studying your philosophies one day! Stick with it as long as you are not compromising your beliefs and ideals and losing yourself in the process... define your own approach and allow upsetting incidents like this to be mere moments in the big picture of your academic career and life path.

[dancingbear]

I say continue on. I agree with all of what has been said above...and just to comment, the responses are well articulated and really great to read. Science has given people new limbs. It has presented freedom and mobility to people in the form electric wheelchairs. It has fed hungry people, and sheltered and protected us. It has also stole limbs, paralysed people, and has left people starving and dying. So I agree it is not science per se, but the application of our knowledge that must be the focus. And of course, we must bide by the philosophy in our aquisition of fact, first do no harm.

Just a side note, m, commented on how science breaks down and explains logically, elements that really must be seen with a gestalt approach. I agree and dont think science can or ever will explain love etc., however for some science enhances the extraordinary by fractioning it. a good example follows.... (

.... Nor ever yet

The melting rainbow's vernal-tinctur'd hues

To me have shone so pleasing, as when first

The hand of Science pointed out the path

In which the sun-beams gleaming from the west

Fall on the watery cloud, whose darksome veil

Involves the orient; and that trickling shower

Piercing through every crystalline convex

Of clustering dew-drops to their flight oppos'd,

Recoil at length where concave all behind

The internal surface on each glassy orb

Repeals their forward passage into air;

That thence direct they seek the radiant goal

From which their course began; and, as they strike

In different lines the gazer's obvious eye,

Assume a different lustre, through the brede

Of colours changing from the splendid rose

To the pale violet's dejected hue."

-Mark Akenside

[bradm]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thorgnor:

Even science is someone's perception and communication of an observed phenomenon which becomes popularly accepted due to mathematical proof.

---

I disagree with this: science is a process for developing tools to help understand and manipulate natural phenomena. A new scientific paradigm (to use Kuhn's term; see my reference, above) isn't accepted "due to mathematical proof", it's accepted when it explains more and predicts better than its predecessor. (And even that isn't absolutely accurate; new paradigms often raise more questions than they answer.)

quote:

---

Numbers control our national agendas, our economic agendas, and even our social agendas. If you have beef with science discredit the mathematics behind it.

---

Dead wrong. "Numbers" are abstractions used to represent quantities. People often use numbers to control national agendas, etc., but it's still the people who are in control, and the people often use things 'way outside just numbers (e.g., religion, hatred, bigotry, idealism, altruism, ignorance, ambition, stupidity) to control them, as well.

Also, there are no numbers "behind" science. Particular areas of science use particular areas of mathematics (e.g., relativity's use of tensors, or quantum mechanics' use of differential equations), and they use them for the simple reason that they produce correct answers (or correct to within their known limitations).

If you have a problem with someone's use of numbers for some reason, use the correct mathematics correctly to get the correct answers, and use them to discredit those who would misapply incorrect answers.

If you have a beef with science, remember that science is a process; got a beef with a process? Come up with something better.

Aloha,

Brad

[shainhouse]

Art is a science. The science of beauty. think about that.

[SaggyBalls]

shainhouse - quit trying to be poignant. save it for your articles. art is no science. when you apply science to art you get misguided(sorry, guided) creation. sure it seems great to sound smooth and flashy, but you've missed the mark. nice thought though...i'm sure it made someone think.about something other than music for a few seconds. it was refreshing.

and as for you, earthfreak Here's my option to you.

quit school and getting paid for it and spend all your life wondering if you've made the right choice. spend all your time pining over what could have been and go work in your local grocery store as a cashier for the rest of your life or work in market research for large corporations and call people and ask them about stuff at dinnertime in an office building somewhere.

you won' t be fulfilled, you'll stop learning and growing, and you'll have an even worse time than you're having.

i think you know what you should do.

[hamilton]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Canned Beats:

shainhouse - quit trying to be poignant. save it for your articles. art is no science.

---

Yeah. Hear, hear.

Art is definitely not a science, and it is certainly not the science of beauty. Beauty is not measurable, nor is art.

Frankly, art and science are completely contradictory - art is very subjective, but science is the exact opposite - an attempt to make things as objective as possible.

Two plus two is always four, but what makes a great painting?

So there - I've thought about it, and I find you to be very wrong.

[B & Z]

This is facinating reading. My 2C is that science and logical thinking can be applied to the arts but there is always a magical element to great art.

Some examples of science and magic are "the rules for perspective" and "paintings by Van Gogh". Also, "penatonic scales" and "Jimi playing Red House at the Isle of Wight".

Steve

[Thorgnor]

I guess I was wrong. Just living and using your eyes to experience the world is apparently science... no backup, no basis, just the church of the Process...

I loved Skinny Puppy too but I'm not buyin'it.

Somebody came up with the process, and then they coined the word process and then in order to make it repeatable they explained it using quantitative techniques. People did it. Just like quantity, which is barely related to numbers at all. So I suppose science began with "There is..." and then we counted it and then we came up with numers to help communicate the results... How is science not related to numerical linguistics and symbolic logic? Is math still an art or is it cold hard reality now? If we didn't agree that scientific principles worked for our society would science still hold reign of the truths of our society?

I think science absolutely depends on the numbers or, rather to be more specific, the mathematics that support the theories. I think science is a new religion for the way we examine the world and understand our place in it. I think the validity of science is determined by people. I think truth is subjective and so is culture. I think math is a language invented to quantify things, and that numbers are the symbols of mathematics. I think numbers are no more or less real than H.R.Puff'n'stuff. Same for quantity. I believe in the misapplication of correct findings as well as incorrect and I believe in the correct application of incorrect findings, but the fact is that there ain't no facts until we agree.

enhh... call me crazy

[MarcO]

whoa!

[bONES]

quote:

---

and as for you, earthfreak Here's my option to you.

quit school and getting paid for it and spend all your life wondering if you've made the right choice. spend all your time pining over what could have been and go work in your local grocery store as a cashier for the rest of your life or work in market research for large corporations and call people and ask them about stuff at dinnertime in an office building somewhere.

you won' t be fulfilled, you'll stop learning and growing, and you'll have an even worse time than you're having.

---

...obviously this person has NO idea who you are!!!

I don't think you're having a bad time at school as canned beats suggests (are you)? You are just smart and passionate about life! Do stop for a moment and reflect on where your life is taking you!

Do what you love earthfreak....play your guitar, walk in the woods, sing, and remember that the only constant in life is change!

Don't be afraid to change your mind, your direction, or your undies! hehe

[SaggyBalls]

just for the record...when i give incredibly bad advice on the internet i don't feel it necessary to interject a defined air of sarcasm.

so earthfreak - find a way to enjoy school without your profs getting you down...they might be smart but they're not always RIGHT...they're just logical and make sense for the most part. people have a tendency to be wrong. maybe I'm wrong - you COULD wander the woods with your guitar or travel the world looking for enlightenment, but you can always do that after school too. If you still enjoy going to school then do it. if you don't take a break. you're a smarty pants. don't forget about it.

[snarfmaster C]

thanks for your time and thoughts, folks.

i think canned beats does have a point.... if i don't try this i MAY regret it (i guess i may realise this wasn't right for me all along too --- who can say)

thanks for the suggested reading too brad - i thought later i shoulda asked for some references - i'm reading as much as i can on the topic these days.

as much as i don't feel the quantification of a process is usually worth all the time, money, effort etc. that goes into it, i do think we have developed a kind of dependency on the scientific method and on the development of technology so i guess the best i can do is learn as much as possible and do what i can to make changes --- or at least make my teeny tiny imperceptible contribution to the bottomless pit that is scientific research a relevant and focussed contribution. cause you can't change the world, you can only change yourself, right?

i've gotta say, though, the hypocrisy of some of these profs - or maybe not always hypocrisy, but misguided action from usually good if not incredibly biased intention - is making me crazy! these experienced PhDs should be able to use language accurately and be able to communicate without letting their own perceptions fog what they are trying to say. that's a foundation of science - objectivity.!! i'm seeing too many assumptions and am being impressed upon very subtley (is that a word?) that i should adopt these profs methods of thinking and reasoning. this is supposed to be higher education - i'm supposed to be thinking for myself and creating original ideas not following the pack.

and bones,

what undies?!