rainbow walking

rw: I always thought science was about the business of pursuing the "unknown", when did they move into the field of the unknowable?

What lies in the realm of the unknowable, lies outside the realm of science. But then, that also depends on how you define "know". That which possesses the greatest degree of probability, probably has the highest potential of leading us towards the right questions. One who wanders off into the unknowable has already asked the wrong questions...what's the point?

I think post modernism has some validity but many of its adherents appear to have an ax to grind rather than a contribution to make.

exnihilo

LOL nailed it clutch, yeah awesome dude...
Nice to see you ended as vacuously as you began.

Obviously ou have no ability to see science in a way other than that of your own creation. Your remarks in regards to the reference to Kuhn is the same type of attacks that Christians use when confronted with Darwin and the myriad of other bits of scientific evidence that contradicts the bible.
The thing I am trying to point out, and I am not denying that science is far superior to religion as method of explanation, is that science also has many limits.
It is utterly pointless to argue this with those dogmatically dedicated to the veracity of scientific truth. The history of science shows that theories that were previously accepted as "truth" later were falsified--this is common. It seems, however, as Kuhn pointed out, that this fact is repeatedly glossed over in accounts of scientific progression in order to portray a smooth evolution of theories.
The very nature of science itself stands in contrast to what objectivity is suppossed to entail. Supporters of science contnually harp on the logic of the method while never paying mind to social social/ cultural contexts that produce scientific knowledge.
Robert Merton pointed out just how much scientific inquiry is influenced by economic and military preoccupations. Even the most superficial investigation into the fuding of science today shows this relationship to be even more entrenched today. When science is preoccupied to such an extent and powered by corporations and perfecting the art of murder it is ridiculous to say that science operates in an objective or logical manner. There are simply too many vested interests that prevent investigation into areas not condusive to corporate interests (global warming is one example) to legitimately claim science as a pursuit detached from these powerful influences. Of course, it is the Scientific ideal that is dogmatically posited instead because some people seem to NEED a replacement for religion that they can believe in. This need is precisely the problem and the cause of some of the reactionary responses posted here.

contracycle

No, the desperate need is felt by Theists, to assert that all beliefe is indisitnguishable. It is not.

I take on board a lot of your remarks about the propensity for sintitutions to mold the outputs given even by science. But that's the whole great thing about science - my acceptance of their argument is NO based merely on their say so and reputation. I will look for corroborating support from other scientists, and if able to will perform tests to verify it myself. Science is in no sense analogous to theism.

Leviathan

An excellent question, exnihilo. In my studies I have found, more and more, that science is simply another "faith," directly in contrast, (or so people wish it to seem), to that of religion.

I personally prescribe to the post-modernist, relativist view, and find science cannot give us any "answers," and thus, the scientist complaining about the "fallacies" of creationism is doing the same damn thing he is condemning the creationist for: he is operating on an assumption of faith.

leyline

leviathan

i too find postmodernism and relativism convincing.

i would use slightly different wording to yourself however, in that i include science and religion within the multicultural paradigm, and thus it does have answers to offer us, just like religion. But i assume that by 'answers' you mean such as 'redemptive truths' as written about by Rorty and the like, which i agree with. That and the rejection of absolute grand narratives generally.

exnihilo

Levithan and Leyline, thanks for the comments.

Although very unpopular and virulently attacked by positivists, the postmodern critique has yet to be confronted in philosophical terms. The tactic that is most common, by contrast, is the type of hollow and irrelevant responses employed here. The fact is that the positivists arguments, such those of John Searle, have already been thoroughly and systematically invalidated�see Limited Inc., by J. Derrida. Michel Foucault�s work has also been instrumental in pointing out the limits of medical science and the implicit ideologies that underlie its assumptions. That said the main problem is not with science, or scientific method, but with the ways that the product of research is utilized. Many would like us to think that the project of scientific research is a value-free enterprise and that the resulting theories produced are simply indifferent truths, independent of social, cultural or historical factors. To affirm these outside factors usually leads to similar knee-jerk reactions against socialism and such, still a popular method of red herring defense.
Another infidel tried to claim that such an argument was unintelligible and I am sure it is to someone who has an infinite and unquestioning faith in the products and aims of scientific inquiry. I would also agree�and stated such from the beginning--with the comment by Contracycle that there are very distinct differences between science and religion, not only of kind but also of quality, but what I am concerned with is the belief in science. However, I would also clarify that the primary problematic is not in the �molding� of �outputs� via institutionalization, but that the institutions of military and economics molds the very nature of scientific inquiry itself and is primarily a tool for the maintenance of the status quo than it is an objective means to �truth�.
Postmodernists often attribute the uncritical acceptance of scientific theory as indisputable �truth�is seen as a necessary symptom of the �death of god� first heralded by Nietzsche. Consequently, when examined more closely it soon becomes apparent that the traditional role of the priest has been replaced by that of the scientist, although both serve the same master on the whole. Nonetheless, this shift has resulted in unprecedented improvements in the human condition, but it has also brought unprecedented destruction and suffering. Be that as it may the products of science/technology are not what we are questioning here. Instead it is the nature of the belief in science as a means of access to �truth�. Dogmatism is dogmatism whether one is dogmatic in the belief of creationism or evolution. I have heard many atheists and other free-thinkers condemn creationism for the myth that it is, while at the same time invoking a theory of evolution that they obviously know little about, which is precisely the behavior that Leviathan seemed tio be referring to. Compared to quantum physics, however, the leap of faith required to accept the theory of evolution is slight by compare. And yet day in and day out I see people testifying to the veracity of theories that are so complex and multifaceted that only a hand full of scientists completely understand�I�ll leave the question of observation out for now. Given the propositions set forth by Kuhn and Feyerabend, regardless of any appeal to fact or falsification, the uncritical acceptance of such theories is analogous to the christian�s acceptance of church doctrine, the only difference is the methods of the priests involved.

leyline

exnihilo

while i recognise a great deal of what you say, and at times feel as a relativist frustration and incredulity at the single mindedness of religious and scientific adherents, i would not criticise generally their need for a grand narrative, or their intelligence for choosing one.

It is easy for us in the capitalist paradigm to feel that we have 'broken free' of such 'outmoded' ways of thinking and feeling about the world, but in actual fact we are no more or less culturally influenced than they are.

Capitalism and postmodernism are at least cousins, if not bed fellows. 'We' as postmodernist's are in bed with our culture as much as anyone else. Its just that capitalism is historically unique in its extreme use of multiculturalism. Every 'high priest' is a potential performer/producer, every congregation a potential target audience/consumer. Capitalism may have liberated us from the one track mind, but for many it looks like an orgy.

When it comes to the 'truth', who would criticise someone for valueing a purist paradigm and covering their ears to the clammer of conflicting voices?

In trying to meet those of the scientific paradigm half way, i point out that many fear relativism for its lack of consistency. But that didn't happen for time, so why should it happen for truth? Needless to say this doesn't always impress. Truth is a very emotional subject that goes right down to our personal identity.

methodologyx

Can science provide ALL the answers that we seek?

Of course, it cannot. Science cannot provide all the answers; it cannot even attempt to analyze all the data and approach all the questions. Nor does science have any hope of making sense of single-instance reality. If the goal of science is to make accurate, repeatable predictions of phenomena under like circumstances, we will never have any hope of fleshing out the deeper structures of reality (if deep reality has structure�and what practical benefits accrue from believing it does), since most phenomena grace us with their existence only once, and then flitter away as quickly as they come, in a wake of numinous awe.

In order to flesh out what I mean, allow to give an example involving what scholars of Attic Greek call the hopoxlegomenon (�only happening once�). A hopoxlegomenon is a word that only appears once in the entire corpus of Greek literature. Without context from which to gauge their meaning, such words have no known translation, no meaning. Therefore, coming across a hopoxlegomenon is like spotting an ontological black hole in print�it sucks away all meaning save that which might inferred from the context it mars.

Although we have no such word for, and often pay little attention to, the myriad mundane, non-repetitive experiences that mark the fabric of our daily lives; nevertheless we must admit that in the last analysis life is in fact full of such experiences. Like hopoxlegomenon, they appear only once and are heard no more. They are the flittering, unpredictable, unique moments that make any hope we might ever entertain of fully understanding reality hopeless.

And yet I am not ready to admit nothing can be known. Indeed, if I had the skill and time, I�d write a book arguing that many of the most perplexing problems, unexpected phenomena and insignificant events of modern life are directly caused and sustained by scientific endeavor in the first place. Mental health issues, toxic contamination, loss of spiritual connection with nature, degradation of the body have all been nurtured by the though that the universe is a Newtonian clock unwinding in some comic joke called entropy. Supporting our racism with scientific �facts� (scientific racism) is another example of how absolute faith in �truth� and �reason��the whole and final, objective truth�is a pernicious fallacy.

As per Kuhn, Exnihil has touched upon the nub of a problem that, far from setting aside as unessential due to the fact that science is self-correcting procedure, must be explored further�perhaps perennially�and never forgotten. And although I personally have not read The Structures of Scientific Revolution, we all know exactly what that problem is: namely, the problem of having the basis of our entire understand ripped right out from underneath our feet like the proverbial rug. This fundamental epistemological flaw has been spotted, documented, and lamented by poets, philosophers and the most common of folk long before Kuhn attempted to give it systematic expression in The Structures, but we often forget. As soon we attempt to rest on the laurels of reason, habitual patterns of thought and accumulated �facts,� this problem surfaces again as folly--the folly of believing one knows something about reality.

This is exactly the fallacy Socrates (via Plato) attempted to warn Western Civilization about. Unfortunately, Western Civilization has never been good at heading warnings, from old gadflies or calm, objective historians of scientists.

andy_d

Personally, I think that one of the big limitations of science is with data.

Scientists must take discrete samples in order to conduct their analysis. Reality, however, is continuous.

Jimmy Davies

Philosophy gets no respect from many of the science friendly, which is irritating considering it is the ONLY tool critical thinking people have to address certain matters of thought.

Let's say men advance beyond the point where the cage of words limits their ability to deal freely with philosophical concepts. Even pure thought has a source. That source is a biochemical prompting in the brain. The problem always becomes what part of me is me and what part of me is a biochemical program selected for in the ancestral environment to get the phenotype to interact in his environment---to get my genes into another generation. Is there really a me, or a biochemical ruse that services as me, and is there an additional biochemical prompting to prevent me from dwelling overly on this possible fact?

And if this is the case, what does this say about science and human perception? Will reality always be just what humans, limited by this biochemical prompted thinking process, can perceive, or is it possible to step beyond these organic gulags and experience reality cleanly?

Every thought ever reasoned by any human mind that ever was cannot escape the biochemical origin of human consciousness. This ain't no theism board, so we won't argue spiritual consciousness or any other fairy tale speculation.

The day will come, when we can recreate human personality through biochemical manipulation, and the aversion to such a possibility, will be one of the biochemical promptings we manipulate.