We need to revert to "Natural Philosophy" not "Science"

General philosophy discussions. If you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here. Share favorite quotes, discuss philosophers, and other topics.

Re: We need to revert to "Natural Philosophy" not "Science"

Postby wolfhnd on November 10th, 2016, 1:38 am 

Isn't it possible that the problems being discussed in relationship to science are just another example of moral decay. I'm using moral in the Roman practical sense. I don't think people are less moral today in the complex philosophical sense. It is possible however to see morality in terms of social unity.

Society is coming apart on a variety of levels. Religious values are far less uniform than they once were. It would be hard to argue that politics are more divisive but there is no longer a dominant identity to argue over. Perhaps the greatest divide is IQ. IQ is closely associated with success not only financially but in relationships. The division IQ leaves is not amenable to traditional social policies or notions of mobility. It the past IQ only separated people into economic class but they continued to live in close contact. Today we live in segregate communities virtually, socially and physically. The old divisions of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, and origin are breaking down but new ones are being erected.

Ethical standards are hard to apply across the new tribal lines. It becomes easy to label whole classes of people not by there individual character but by their group identity. Scientists are not immune to the pitfalls of identity bias. It doesn't stop there however because moral decay effects all aspects of our relationship to society as a whole. A large range of issues emerge when moral superiority by tribal identity is assumed. The standards for objectivity are weakened for example when the ends justify the means and the other is viewed as an obstacle to those ends.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4288
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: We need to revert to "Natural Philosophy" not "Science"

Postby Serpent on November 10th, 2016, 1:50 am 

Scott Mayers » November 9th, 2016, 9:30 pm wrote:Serpent,
You're question is related to you not understanding what I'm making a distinction about between "Natural Philosophy" versus "Science", or why, if such exists, it is a problem. You are asking WHO I am addressing to alter a change in classification to what you already believe is sufficiently in place under the banner, "Science" already.

I didn't say 'banner,' because I don't envision the forces of science as an army - but yeah, pretty much.

I want forums of science (not just literal online meeting places but educational places of science in general) to be more provisional to respect the lay audience's questions without assuming they are asking the wrong questions or lack intellectual credibility when the very forums act to enable those WITH supposed credibility to actively participate in the learning process.

Okay. How?

I want respect returned to the way the Age of Enlightenment that derived the original concepts of governments by the people as with for the people,

Why isn't there a goggle-eyed smilie? You're not a big history buff, right?

to allow the process of science to include skepticism from where people are at

Which people? Where are they? On which map?
Skepticism is ever with us, is a valued and reliable companion. We have never, not since the Reformation, forsaken him for more than a breathless hour.

to develop according to the more native bottom-up thinking

This is another stumbling-block. You keep saying it, and I keep not knowing what it means.
Thinking is thinking. Does it have a bottom? How do you know you're at the bottom and not half-way down? Do you need to begin every investigation from absolute ignorance, or absolute rejection of all previous knowledge, or with no preconceptions, assumptions or learned information? Because, then, wouldn't you be, like, 75 before you got to fire and flint arrowheads? When do we teleport?

versus the selective way education now fosters favor to those who 'follow' FIRST to be permitted to question thinking in sincerity.

I recognize the words. As a sentence, it doesn't scan.

"Natural Philosophy", as a class name, used to cover this

Cover this what? You are confusing the hell out of me - and I was the obnoxious kid who interpreted the garbled questions of my peers for my high-school science teachers. ("But, Sir, if there's a stack of air molecules on top of the house a mile high, how come it doesn't fall over?)

but has been narrowed to a very specific set of constitutional rules that are restricted to those who abide more strictly to today's process FOR professionals getting jobs or careers only. As such, those who posit doubt are read by their 'cover' and not by their content.

Cover? It's possible their content is difficult to follow.

The process of publishing should also MOVE to these type of forums and NOT the refereed ones because they lack a need anymore.

I hate to be redundant, but ... Huh? ....
No, I just don't get it.
Sorry; I did try.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2531
Joined: 24 Dec 2011
Forest_Dump liked this post


Re: We need to revert to "Natural Philosophy" not "Science"

Postby BadgerJelly on November 10th, 2016, 5:28 am 

Dumbing down is dumbing down.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4487
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: We need to revert to "Natural Philosophy" not "Science"

Postby Forest_Dump on November 10th, 2016, 7:35 am 

To at least some degree, I think this does exist in some fields so lets see if we can work with that (and this was partly inspired by the butterfly shot). I have long been able to work outside and, as a result of that, I started getting interested in identifying birds I was increasingly noticing at work. Within a couple of years I became one of those nuts who would spend a lot of my free time driving hours to check off some bird I had never seen before but heard about in a local newspaper (these columns still exist) or on-line, occasionally vacation where there were birding tours, buy many books and magazines on how to identify birds or go where local rarities could be found, etc. As a "lister" (one who kept lists of what I had seen on any given day which sometimes can top 100 species of birds a day) I know this can become competitive and even obsessive, I know you can contribute these on-line to "citizen science" web sites (e.g. Cornell or numerous naturalist groups) and you can even make money with boat or bus/van tours for tourists in hot areas plus probably writing and posting photos if you are good enough - and people will eat that up and you don't have to compete with big corporations. You can even find ways to take your data and/or use on-line data from naturalists and do some high-end science writing on environmental change or evolutionary biology, etc., or the politics, etc., thereof and publish that in magazines (they are still out there) on line or in peer-reviewed science journals.

How does this not fit your manifesto or why would this not be good enough for you?
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8718
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: We need to revert to "Natural Philosophy" not "Science"

Postby BadgerJelly on November 10th, 2016, 10:07 am 

Forest/Scott -

I am guessing a big part is to do with "technical jargon"? In certain areas of expressing a complex theory often a rather banal analogy or metaphor is put to use and can deceive the intent and true "scientific" meaning.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4487
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: We need to revert to "Natural Philosophy" not "Science"

Postby JohnD on February 1st, 2017, 7:41 pm 

Some quick thoughts from someone who hasn't been through formal education.
Philosophy comes before, during and after science. It's necessary.
A philosopher needs to think outside the box, thinking along traditional science lines would be too restrictive. However, philosophical arguments MUST meet science scrutiny, therefore the same level of research must be conducted before theories are submitted.
The problem with those who aren't educated in the scientific method, as has been pointed out, is the lack of investigation associated with their theories.
A philosopher doesn't need to be a scientist though he needs to understand the scientific method, however, studying philosophy helps a scientist do a better job.
Regarding educated people needing to justify the amount of time and money spent in obtaining their qualifications, I present the following analogy.
John is having problems with his kitchen sink leaking and his wife is frantic. He decides to take a walk in the park and on his way meets one of his neighbors. He explains the problem to **** who suggests John replaces the washer. John can do one of two things, he can ignore the advice and call a plumber, in which case he will revere the more qualified or he can try what **** suggested.
When John calls the plumber, the plumber changes his language to make it sound more complex and feeling his education was justified charges double.
Of course, we can go deeper into science and philosophy and look at many different scenarios but the point is made. The reason we study is so we can have an education. When we achieve our goal and are certified we want to justify our effort by telling everyone else that they should do the same.
However, life presents more than one form of education and what some learn in a classroom others learn practically. It can be confusing when meeting someone, whom you believe hasn't had the same education, having similar knowledge.
Unfortunately, over time we have had many people speaking with authority and being believed when they actually had no knowledge of the subject at hand. This makes all of us suspicious and demanding to see qualifications. We place those so qualified on a pedestal, justly or unjustly. If we questioned scientists more thoroughly rather than blindly accepting, we would have a better understanding and possibly more humble scientists.
Getting an education isn't about knowing why 1+1 =2 and not 4, it's about knowing the basics as they are taught in the classroom. A teacher can only keep control of a class if he/she controls the subject being taught. How would a teacher be able to judge what you write if you write the perfect argument for the existence of God when the assignment was atomic fusion?
JohnD
Member
 
Posts: 654
Joined: 31 May 2012
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (2)


Previous

Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests