God or Not?

Does Objective Science Actually Exist

Posted on September 8th, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.

On Sep 8, 7:36 am, dfnj2006 wrote:
> Does the language we use to represent nature create a filter through
> which we experience what we consider to be objective reality. Could
> nature be so mushy as to be without any definitive form. What we
> consider objective is nothing more than a momentary representation.
> Yes, as with all layers of physics, we have the laws like Newtonian
> physics neatly package and written with words. If our words represent
> objects the question then becomes do objects actually exist or are
> they just a construct of our imaginations. Given enough time every
> piece of nature we consider to be an object becomes nothing we can
> identify. So what in language can we actually say about nature that
> has any lasting meaning? Is nature discrete or continuous? I find it
> interesting that people who demands respect for the scientific way of
> thinking always believe nature is discrete. It is as if they think
> they have evidence proving hard determinism.

I don’t understand what determinism has to do with it.

> What I find amusing
> about nature is it always turns out to be much more different than
> anything we could have ever imagined. It’s almost as if the true
> physics of nature cannot be represented with human words and
> language. And even when you think you have a good set of mathematics
> accurately and completely representing nature’s behavior, the amount
> of information require to process a predictive model is beyond any
> amount of time making it practical.

On some things, we found ways to calculate and predict events in an
amazing accuracy. On more chaotic systems, while we still can’t reach
the same accuracy, we do get predictions that can both confirm the
theories and give us practical results.

> So in the end, on the cosmic
> scale, our words and language really do not have anything meaningful
> to say about nature.

On the cosmic scale, nothing is meaningful.
But on the practical scale, words and language helps us define the
things we can confirm and use to improve our lives. That’s good enough
for me.

>We experience nature, we wonder, we talk about
> it, and in the end, we know nothing. All we are left with is the
> uncomfortable feeling that the questions will always lead to more
> questions.

Unlike ancient times, the scale of things that are unknown today allow
most people to live comfortably without even thinking about it.
As for scientists, they get an orgasm just thinking about things that
can still be explored…

> And the real problem is the asking of the question in the
> first place. No one can escape from the fact that all objectivity is
> subjectively determined. What is objective cannot not be determined
> objectively. You cannot write a computer program to publish
> scientific papers on science. Or can you….again, the real problem,
> is in the asking of the question in the first place. If you analyze
> people pretending to be scientists it is no different than any other
> human activity. It is just like a fashion show because all
> objectivity is subjectively determined. You know what “good” science
> is? “Good” science is what a select group of people say it is.

Science is not just a collection of theories, observations and
discoveries, science is a methodology.
A methodology that is designed specifically to the task of being
different from other human activities, by removing the subjective data
or at least reducing it as much as humanly possible. The methodology
helps us to reach closer to a point where it doesn’t matter WHO says
something as much as WHAT he says, and what arguments he uses to
confirm his statements.
For example, any kid learns that in a math test, he needs to present
not just the final result but also the way of how he reached that
result. Apart from being a good way to discover cheaters, it is also a
way to present a basic method: Don’t show just the result of the
experiment, show all the process, in a way that can be later retested
and confirmed.
Of course, this is not the only tool that is used to reach as close as
we can to objectivity. I can think of a few other, but I guess someone
here who is closer to the field can give much better examples.

> Talking about science is not good science I can assure you.

0 comments.