Why do people think that Science is rational?

[Tostig]

It's nine at night. I have seventeen hours to hand in a paper and I need something to distract me occasionally that isn't 4chan or cigarettes. Time for a proper disagreement. On a forum. With posting and .

I'm guessing that the vast majority of people here are either 'Humanity - Yeah!' science-worshipping technophiles, or pseudo-philosophical intellectuals of a Continental bent who are more interested in de-constructing language than the myopia of Anglo-Saxon science. So yeah, I'm going to throw this one out and see if anyone bites:

When asked to defend their cultural position as holders of obscure knowledge, Scientists prefer to invoke the rational nature of scientific progress. However when actually examining normal science as done in the laboratory, scientists prefer to leave the really rational work to engineers. Rather, they work within conceptual frameworks, hoping for rewards from their colleagues for articulating phenomena in the terms that that community bases its methodology on.

Changes between these frameworks, scientists jumping ship from one way of doing things to another, is based on psychological factors and the promise of future reward rather than any rational enquiry into the merits of competing theories.

This seem accurate, let alone reasonable? Does it need to be elaborated on? Do scientists, or 'Science' deserve a special status?

And yes, for those in the know this is essentially Kuhn vs. Popper. Bite me.

[Helm]

It's more rational than a supernatural explanations not supported with observable evidence. It shouldn't be as the basis of some kind of moral or religious belief though it's really just for finding out how stuff works. If you leave out the supernatural explanations you won't interfere with the process of gathering evidence.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Popper was a windbag. His writing constitutes a nice piece of self-righteous mythology, though.

... And yes, the irrational makeup of the Scientist is decisive in his own work. Not to mention the fact that the boundary between pseudo-science and science is blurry sometimes, and pure falsifications are brought to light because they are politically and ideologically convenient. See for instance Lysenkoism, Scientific Racism, "Global Warming", rejections of the Theory of Relativity or Atomic Theory due to its "Jewishness" and so on, etc...

[Claudius Gothicus]

It's rational, to rational beings who agree with what it says.

[GuineaPig]

Popper was a windbag. His writing constitutes a nice piece of self-righteous mythology, though.

... And yes, the irrational makeup of the Scientist is decisive in his own work. Not to mention the fact that the boundary between pseudo-science and science is blurry sometimes, and pure falsifications are brought to light because they are politically and ideologically convenient. See for instance Lysenkoism, Scientific Racism, "Global Warming", rejections of the Theory of Relativity or Atomic Theory due to its "Jewishness" and so on, etc...

One of these things is not like the other.

[Helm]

It's worth bearing in mind that science doesn't and probably won't be able to explain everything. We don't even know what 96% of our universe is made from at this moment in time.

[Claudius Gothicus]

It's worth bearing in mind that science doesn't and probably won't be able to explain everything. We don't even know what 96% of our universe is made from at this moment in time.

As long as we keep ourselves alive and technological we will eventually be able to know a lot more. Problem is: for every question science in general answers to a hundred more appear on the horizon.

[Tostig]

So the direction of science is directed by the material tools available?
Or does science direct its enquiries to problems that need resolving in new technological endeavours?

By that I mean is it a case of physicists going 'Lasers have been invented. Let's see what happens when we fire them at semi-conductors?' or is it a case of Scientists going 'How can account for what happens in a processor?'

I guess I'm just chucking out questions to do with the relationship between scientific tools/methodologies and material culture. To get historical, both accounts have been used to try and explain past scientific enquiries - the steam engine and it's interplay with Thermodynamics, or between nautical navigation and astronomy...

[Claudius Gothicus]

So the direction of science is directed by the material tools available?
Or does science direct its enquiries to problems that need resolving in new technological endeavours?

By that I mean is it a case of physicists going 'Lasers have been invented. Let's see what happens when we fire them at semi-conductors?' or is it a case of Scientists going 'How can account for what happens in a processor?'

I guess I'm just chucking out questions to do with the relationship between scientific tools/methodologies and material culture. To get historical, both accounts have been used to try and explain past scientific enquiries - the steam engine and it's interplay with Thermodynamics, or between nautical navigation and astronomy...

Material conditions will undoubtedly influence the tools and methods avaible to ''make science''.

That doesn't mean that there'll always be exceptional minds that come up with things that none else ever though before. That's why we need to encourage as a society the sucess of those ''minds''

[The Dude]

It's nine at night. I have seventeen hours to hand in a paper and I need something to distract me occasionally that isn't 4chan or cigarettes. Time for a proper disagreement. On a forum. With posting and .

I'm guessing that the vast majority of people here are either 'Humanity - Yeah!' science-worshipping technophiles, or pseudo-philosophical intellectuals of a Continental bent who are more interested in de-constructing language than the myopia of Anglo-Saxon science. So yeah, I'm going to throw this one out and see if anyone bites:

When asked to defend their cultural position as holders of obscure knowledge, Scientists prefer to invoke the rational nature of scientific progress. However when actually examining normal science as done in the laboratory, scientists prefer to leave the really rational work to engineers. Rather, they work within conceptual frameworks, hoping for rewards from their colleagues for articulating phenomena in the terms that that community bases its methodology on.

Changes between these frameworks, scientists jumping ship from one way of doing things to another, is based on psychological factors and the promise of future reward rather than any rational enquiry into the merits of competing theories.

This seem accurate, let alone reasonable? Does it need to be elaborated on? Do scientists, or 'Science' deserve a special status?

And yes, for those in the know this is essentially Kuhn vs. Popper. Bite me.

Gee, I've never seen such a tremendous amount of insecurity about starting a thread forced into a single post. No need to get all hostile and defensive before even receiving your first reply, we'll respond regardless.

Here's my two cents:

Why do people think that science is rational? Because most people have no idea what the word rational means, or science for that matter. What does science have to do with human reason? Nothing. It has everything to do with empirical observation. There's nothing that can be said or concluded, scientifically, with reason alone. Not a single scientific theory has been constructed by means of human reason alone. So is it rational? No. Is it logical? Well, that's something else entirely but perhaps it is, yes. Is it empirical? Obviously.

Empiricism and rationalism are not mutually inclusive.

Does science deserve a special status? Yes, as one of the few trades that depends on criticism and knows how to process it. That sets it apart from the dogmatism of many other fields of inquiry (religion, philosophy, etc). But it's certainly not infallible, and the insistence of some atheists that it is actually does the nature of science a great injustice.

[Tostig]

Gee, I've never seen such a tremendous amount of insecurity about starting a thread forced into a single post. No need to get all hostile and defensive before even receiving your first reply, we'll respond regardless.

It's been a couple of years since I entered into a proper discussion here. I just thought I'd establish the perspective I made the thread from to begin with. Perhaps it's just that I've grown unused to forum discussions, but I intended the pre-amble to be humorous, which perhaps fell a bit flat in text. Besides, is it even possible to be both hostile and defensive at the same time?

On the other hand though, isn't it also true that science has everything to do with reason/logic? No scientific theory can ever been made on the basis of experience along - without thinking reasonably, or understanding experiences within already existing conceptual frameworks, wouldn't we just be awash in a sea of phenomena, images flicking past that we can't understand?

Also, don't other academic fields pursue the same epistemological virtues that scientists do? Sharing results, receiving criticism, collaborating and making data available, being willing to change their beliefs when they are countered by new evidence? A historian who hoarded manuscripts, ignored criticisms, refused to publish his findings or ignored inconvenient evidence would be pretty widely derided. The same could be said of a Theologian...

[The Dude]

It's been a couple of years since I entered into a proper discussion here. I just thought I'd establish the perspective I made the thread from to begin with. Perhaps it's just that I've grown unused to forum discussions, but I intended the pre-amble to be humorous, which perhaps fell a bit flat in text. Besides, is it even possible to be both hostile and defensive at the same time?

It did fall a bit flat, since from the outset my challenge was essentially to prove that I am neither a "science worshipping technophile" or a "pseudo philosophical intellectual of a continental bent". If there was fun to be had it was hidden behind a very thick premature accussation

As for the second question: sure, look at hedgehogs!

On the other hand though, isn't it also true that science has everything to do with reason/logic? No scientific theory can ever been made on the basis of experience along - without thinking reasonably, or understanding experiences within already existing conceptual frameworks, wouldn't we just be awash in a sea of phenomena, images flicking past that we can't understand?

Well, obviously we're talking about a variety of human faculties coming together to produce what we know as "science". But science is as much rational as it is logical, and it is certainly more empirical than either. If you want to take a look at a purely rational science, then that would be metaphysics. And metaphysics has failed utterly at establishing anything resembling a progressive body of knowledge, or even a basic canon from which to work.

A purely logical science would be maths, so I guess that works. A purely empirical science does not exist either, since as you said mere observation alone doesn't give us any information, we need to let the faculties of our mind go over what we see.

But then the question is still: why do people think that science is rational? And the answer is still: it's not. Not exclusively, at least. Without empirical observation we can't speak of what is popularly understood as "science", except apparently in the case of maths. But even maths in itself does not prove anything, all it offers is a guideline to physics. And the purpose of physics most definitely IS to prove something, and that something is always external to us and therefore nothing rational.

Also, don't other academic fields pursue the same epistemological virtues that scientists do? Sharing results, receiving criticism, collaborating and making data available, being willing to change their beliefs when they are countered by new evidence? A historian who hoarded manuscripts, ignored criticisms, refused to publish his findings or ignored inconvenient evidence would be pretty widely derided. The same could be said of a Theologian...

A historian, sure. A theologian I wouldn't be so certain of, especially medieval theologians who were mostly just philosophers with a theistic edge (some moreso than others, obviously). But a spiritual leader also deals with inquiry into human nature and the world around us. And he thinks he has found his answers in religion, and as such is a lot less likely to be willing to change the status quo. The same can be said for dogmatic philosophy, of which there is a lot. And even within the circles of history there is debate as to whether or not the official account of something should be changed, because most of the times those discussing it were not there to live it and so get stuck in arguments and disagreements, and then conflicts of interest arise.

Conflicts of interest in science are prone to occur a lot less, mostly of course due to the fact that the interest of science is to establish a factually accurate body of knowledge. The same could be said for religion, but there is a secondary purpose here and that is to tell the history in a way that suits the teller. That's a human urge that you can't escape.

[Blau&Gruen]

Why do people think that Science is rational?

Rational means in Science that you describe the conditions, the methods and procedures and at some point the results of your investigation properly following the standards and regulations that are demanded in your field. People know that not following these requirements can produce misunderstandings and corrupt the integrity of an investigation.

[Helm]

Theology isn't subject to the scientific method it's more a matter of faith. You can't have faith in science it has to be verified by the collected observed data beyond resonable doubt before it becomes fact. There is philosophy as well where ideas are rationally thought out, these can be scientific ideas, theological ideas, political ideas or just about anything else. It' better to try and keep the three fields in their own separate domains though they can cause some friction where they overlap. If theology ever overlaps with science it's better to go with the scientific explanation.

[Tostig]

But what is the scientific method? Is there one? Do you mind outlining it for me?

I just meant to get across that if, say, a theologian makes a synthetic a posteriori claim (that is to say, a claim about something in the world made by conjoining two things that can be verified by experience, such as 'Saint Thomas Aquinas was Protestant'), and someone turns up and shows lots of evidence to the contrary (Aquinas was part of the established Papal hierarchy) then they are significantly undermined. You might want to say that science doesn't make metaphysical claims like theologians might, but that's a different matter.

Equally, historical theories have to be verified by the collected data, otherwise they are just speculation. Is there a reason to hold scientific claims in higher regard than historical ones? What about theological ones then?

Edit to address Blau - how is it decided what type or level of description to make in order for an enquiry to be rational or scientific? How are the standards and regulations agreed upon?
For example, let us say that the ornithological community decided that investigations into bird populations had to adhere to certain formats. To what extent are the formats that they choose the result of reason, and to what extent is it a product of politics and personality?
For that matter, what happens when the bird-loving group of people move from one standard to another? One set of methods to another? Is it rational progress, or was the move from stuffing corpses to photographing wild specimens a result of other factors?

[Blau&Gruen]

But what is the scientific method? Is there one? Do you mind outlining it for me?

If you investigate a hypothesis like in your example, you would want to know what the conditioning propositions of the hypothesis are to understand the problem properly and then you would like to know, whether these propositions are true or false. If your hypothesis or theory contains propositions or is conditioned by propositions whose state is not verifiable nor falsifiable, your hypothesis or theory does not provide a valid explanation for the problem, for which it has been created. If you can conclude that your hypothesis or theory is valid partially or entirely, then you can move on and find a new problem that you can expose to an hypothesis or a theory and find out whether they work or not.

Edit to address Blau - how is it decided what type or level of description to make in order for an enquiry to be rational or scientific? How are the standards and regulations agreed upon?
For example, let us say that the ornithological community decided that investigations into bird populations had to adhere to certain formats. To what extent are the formats that they choose the result of reason, and to what extent is it a product of politics and personality?
For that matter, what happens when the bird-loving group of people move from one standard to another? One set of methods to another? Is it rational progress, or was the move from stuffing corpses to photographing wild specimens a result of other factors?

The level of description depends on how deep you want to go in an enquiry. Standards and regulations are always something in the making. You start with what you have learnt or with what you can find in manuals and look for preciser formulations as your work progresses. Politics and personality? I am a bit lost with what you could mean. The way you approach and develop a material depends on the material and the questions you have in relation to the material. These questions can change, expand or narrow over time of course. Birds can be interesting in zoological respect as well as in other respects.

[Claudius Gothicus]

I just meant to get across that if, say, a theologian makes a synthetic a posteriori claim (that is to say, a claim about something in the world made by conjoining two things that can be verified by experience, such as 'Saint Thomas Aquinas was Protestant'), and someone turns up and shows lots of evidence to the contrary (Aquinas was part of the established Papal hierarchy) then they are significantly undermined. You might want to say that science doesn't make metaphysical claims like theologians might, but that's a different matter.

That's not theology that's history.

[Tostig]

That's not theology that's history.

Use your imagination and extend the structure of the argument to something in the present.
Or knit-pick.
Your choice, but only one displays the Principle of Charity

[Claudius Gothicus]

Use your imagination and extend the structure of the argument to something in the present.
Or knit-pick.
Your choice, but only one displays the Principle of Charity

What kind of rhetoric is this?

[humvee2800]

To clarify things a bit, one of the most important aspects of science is the lack of certainty. We can be fairly certain of something but not conclusively. This is important to answer Tostigs question, as something is accepted as science if a theory is made and used to adequately predict something such as a event or result of a experiment, that could not have been other wise known. Sometimes false theories will still come up with the same or very nearly the same answer as a real one. Sometimes you will not even know your theory amounts to anything. Such was the case with Newton, whos theory of gravity seemed impossible for 200 years (as it was assumed space was static and infinite) meaning the universe would collapse.

The point is science is considered rational because it is a method based off modeling the real world not dealing with certainties. That is not to say that aspects of it are highly illogical, for example Kepler learnt a massive amount about the universe solely because he had hoped it would all have a very geometric nature, solely because it fit his view of the universe and god. Ironically I think he came before the scientific method was formalised, but he followed it rather well. When he realised the math just did not add up, he tried other models untill he learnt how the solar system operated.