"Empathy and understanding of a person's mindset and actions, while noble pursuits, do not provide an ability in relegating responsibility of such mindsets and actions to a certain party. Placing of blame and responsibility requires a…"
I Power
Scientific Research & Self-Development Activism
Will the scientific method ever change?
I had a discussion with a friend the other day, he told me that the scientific method will be the same 500 years from now. Then I saw an interview with theoretical physicist Machio Kaku, who said 50 years from now we are going to have to rewrite the science we know today. The same friend also said that consciousness isn't a factor in science, which I didn't agree. He kept using the words "true science" and explained 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom will always make a water molecule and how the law(s) of gravity/motion have always been but had to be discovered which he used to refer to "true science". He said scientists seek for the truth, I told him that science is constantly proving everything it thought was true to be false, so he asked me, "You're telling me that if i throw this apple in the air, will it not fall right back down" I of course said indeed it will fall down, which was his example to explain "true science". Then I thought of quantum mechanics where it differs significantly from classical mechanics in its predictions when the scale of observations becomes comparable to the atomic and sub-atomic scale. Does this mean "true science" is only laws, or anything from the standard approach? And theories that contribute to science (theory of evolution, theory of relativity, quantum theory, etc.) is not "true science"? He seemed to refuse to acknowledge the quantum realm and discredit theories as being a part of "true science". What do you guys think?
Tags: True, mechanics, opinion, perspective, quantum, science
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by The Shiznit on -
"The one constant in life is change." -- Heraclitus of Ephesus (c.535 BC - 475 BC)
-
Permalink Reply by Luke Nelson on -
Jim: He said scientists seek for the truth, I told him that science is constantly proving everything it thought was true to be false
Luke: We've only discovered that certain laws are subsets to other laws, not that what was previously thought to be true is false. It's more that what we thought was true for all things is only true for some things.
Jim: Does this mean "true science" is only laws, or anything from the standard approach?
Luke: Not necessarily. Science can performed and not come up with a law. Laws are mathematical, and not all studies and experiments can be converted to laws. Psychology and sociology are good examples, they can only achieve the status of theories when there's a lot of supporting evidence. "True science" isn't a term, and there's no distinction between "science" and "true science". It's science or it isn't.
For your "will the scientific method every change?" question, I say no. If you don't have controls and repeatability then you can't learn anything. Everything then becomes uncertain.
-
Permalink Reply by Jarod Phillip Benowitz on -
The scientific method has been changing since it was born. Different fields use different methods all containing the fundamental steps however. Some scientists use a more rigorous method containing more steps while others don't. The core concept will remain the same but more detailed steps will be added to adjust to new science.
-
Permalink Reply by Luke Nelson on
-
"...all containing the fundamental steps however."
"The core concept will remain the same..."
So how's the scientific method change then? I think what you're saying is changing are experimental methods.
-
Permalink Reply by The Shiznit on
-
This TED-talk might be a bit enlightening for you:
"Biochemist Kary Mullis talks about the basis of modern science: The Experiment. Sharing tales from the 17th century and from his own backyard-rocketry days, Mullis celebrates the curiosity, inspiration and rigor of good science in all its forms."
-
Permalink Reply by the.tiny.dreameater on -
what you are discussing is a very old debate about realism and anti-realism. Some scientist think that science describes how the world is truly working, being realists they can accept theories of being true or actually existing as a fact.
While anti-realists believe that science can never describe the nature of the world as it truly is since science and theories are just human interpretations of natural events. To the anti-realist, a theory can never be factual, and a theory can never really exist.
Personally I like the anti-realist idea, since it has more perspective towards ourselves as humans, it accepts that we may be wrong but that theories can still be used to predict natural events. I think it's in general useful to be skeptical to allow for new and maybe better theories to arise before the natural need for a new theory as the main theory gets disproven and calls for a new theory. Anyways there is no answer to this question, it's sort of a stand every scientist take.
"Will the scientific method change?"
Hopefully, since that would mean we found a better way to describe our surroundings :D
-
Permalink Reply by Capicuaman on -
Does science describe nature it or is it maths? Maybe with more advanced forms of maths that we cannot yet fathom; the scientific method could radically change I suspect becoming more streamlined in its proceses. There are however aspects, such as replicability, which I cant imagine science without.
-
Permalink Reply by Sanjeevan Jahagirdar on -
I doubt, if the scientific method, of peer review, and bombarding a theory with all types of situations, to see if it withstands etc.. will never change!! and I'm 99% sure about that!!
apart from that, defining what is Science(or "true Science") and what is not, is a big mistake, because just look at the last 100 years, and the areas that were unknown, and are now very well explained!!, we should not predict or falsify what we yet do not fully understand!!(Consciousness)
Forum
Condemning others to validate ourselves.
Started by Lore in I Power: Self-Development Activism. Last reply by Aya 2 hours ago. 10 Replies 0 Likes
The ethical implications of "Temporal Isolation"
Started by Aya in Off-Topic. Last reply by Aya yesterday. 34 Replies 1 Like
Lexical argumentation and its merit
Started by Anthony D in Off-Topic. Last reply by Anthony D May 16. 21 Replies 0 Likes
Latest Activity
Nathaniel Mortazavi replied to Lore's discussion Condemning others to validate ourselves."Cognitive dissonance. One of the most irritating human traits."
Nathaniel Mortazavi replied to Lore's discussion Condemning others to validate ourselves."Absolutely, I completely agree. The only way to solve the problem is to eliminate the cause.
Exactly, the shooter gains worldwide fame over night. Why would a resentful, friendless, lonely, insane young man who wanted to leave an impression on the…"
Aya replied to Aya's discussion The ethical implications of "Temporal Isolation""From the last three lines of your post, I'm assuming you are applying the "better safe than sorry" mentality to life-rights over all of time. This addresses points 3) and 5) of my post on Wed 5/15, but does not address points 1),…"
Isaac Renshaw joined The Shiznit's group
Creating Your Own "Crew"
This is a Group for people who are interested in the idea of expanding I-Power by encouraging our members to create I-Power/SDA related cell groups, or "Crews" in their own communities.See More
Isaac Renshaw joined The Shiznit's group
The Transition Movement
The Transition Movement is a grassroots Network of communities that are working to build resilience in response to peak oil, climate change, and economic instability. Utilizing various concepts such as Permaculture and Local Currency systems, the…See More
Anthony D replied to Lore's discussion Condemning others to validate ourselves."An issue in the context of your reply is the so-called "mad/bad debate". And it very much plays into the perception of these rather extreme forms of criminal behavior.
From a legal and forensic psychological standpoint a…"
Lore replied to Lore's discussion Condemning others to validate ourselves."Interesting. I think that just being aware that our behavior is not always justified and taking on some personal responsibility can go a long way."
Lore replied to Lore's discussion Condemning others to validate ourselves."Maybe I take empathy and attempting to understand such actions by people to the extreme, but I think it is important to understand the causes of such behavior. You do bring up a good point about school shootings Nathaniel, in that the media makes…"
Nathaniel Mortazavi replied to Lore's discussion Condemning others to validate ourselves."I agree with the principle to an extent. However, in the case of school shooters, I don't think it can be justified. Same with rape. There's definitely a line, but like you said, those are the most extreme cases.
On the topic of mass…"
© 2013 Created by Reese Leysen.
