I’ll put down some of my contentions leading to this question. I will enumerate them for everyone’s convenience so that they don’t have to quote to refer to a specific point.
There currently is not a genuine philosophy of science. There’s a scientific method and that’s pretty much it.
Science is an endeavor made by human beings with cultural “baggage” and even if the methodology is somehow neutral, what is chosen to be studied is not.
Scientific study is too often controlled by large corporations and the military.
Scientific study is currently too splintered by the “divide and conquer” methodology. While it yeilds new knowledge, I often wonder whether the time and resources could have been better spent.
Some sort of guiding philosophy or at least a “science of science” should be developed to rectify the previous 2 points.
“My first observation on this head is, That it is impossible for the arts and sciences to arise, at first, among any people unless that people enjoy the blessing of a free government.” — Of the Rise and Progress of the Arts and Sciences 1742
I put the numbers in so you could just write “1. I disagree because blab,blah,blah” but if you really like to quote I won’t complain.
Maybe I should start another thread “Should people refer you to volumes of information instead of directly engaging them in a debate?” BTW I followed a number of the links and they were highly specialized and not too informative.
If you feel that I wasn’t aware there was a discipline called the philosophy of science don’t worry about that. I just think the discipline is really a subset of philosophy and not regarded by many scientists as consequential.
This thread largely comes from what I felt were the inadaquecies of my own science education. Maybe if I’d studied PHILOSOPHY instead of science I would be more familiar with Hume. The fact is, many science students couldn’t tell David Hume from Judy Blume and this largely has to do with #4. Science students are too competitively focused on the one discipline of study. How many philosophy credits do you need to be a physics major? Probably not many at most universities.
Yes, there may be 350 cancer treatments waiting for FDA approval, but how many of them are actually affordable? I’m sure that research is funded by pharmaceutical companies that stand to make a killing when all is said and done. I wonder how much money (in comparison) actually goes into cancer prevention? Cures for cancer are great but overall we need to live healthier lifestyles to begin with instead coming up with expensive answers to specific problems.
Many people including myself. But even if I’d minored in philosophy, I would be in the minority of science students.
My point isn’t “my education sucked” it’s “the education of most scientist is myopic and hyperspecialized.”
Many scientist wrinkle their noses at the mention of philosophy. Some scientists still think opinions like those of Kuhn’s are radical. That’s changing, but at a pace that seems rather dismal given the intelligence of those involved.
Ok, take the cures for cancer example. Do I need to point out evidence that various cancer rates have been increasing throughout the 20th century? I won’t debate each type of cancer in particular, but I think it is a fair generalization to say a large proportion of it has been a result of various chemical and mechanical “solutions” to problems. If you have other explanations for the rise of cancer in the last century, please elaborate.
These “solutions” were pioneered by scientists working for large corporations out to make a buck. Their solutions were indicative of the “divide and conquer” methodology which didn’t consider that maybe a pesticide (like DDT) is actually going to lead to more problems. Now, after our atmosphere, water, and food have been deluged with chemicals and our ozone layer is suffering depletion, the petrochemical companies are paying the scientists to research solutions to problems that they have been exacerbating themselves. Of course, they plan to make a huge profit from these cures I’m sure.
Wouldn’t it be better if we didn’t get cancer in the first place?
Is it me, or am I being personally attacked here instead being engaged in a debate?
I thought my response adequately illustrated points 3 and 4 which I made earlier. Hence my argument is relevent. If you disagree, you could point out directly why it was irrelevent instead of being a smart ass.
If you want to resort to taunts and jeers instead of addressing my points why don’t you make a thread “lets make fun of m3” in BBQ pit?
A very wise high school physics teacher once mentioned two universal truths about science.
There are always side-effects.
There is no such thing as a side-effect.
I’ll leave it to the rest of you to guess at what he meant.
As for a philosophy of science, what you seem to be aiming at is a common set of values to guide all scientific endeavour. I would submit that it would be counterproductive to hold all science to achieving results within an arbitrarily imposed set of values. In science, as with all human action, the greatest progress has generally been made under conditions of greatest freedom.
I just don’t think that anyone is being a smart ass, intentionally. I believe they are objecting to your use of “Do I need to point out evidence that”, “I think it is a fair generalization to say”, and “If you have other explanations for.”
To which the answers/responses are: Yes, you do; No, it isn’t; and Not our job (without some evidence backing up your statements, anyway).
:rolleyes: oh please, just asking that my points be addressed directly. I don’t want any meanness. If you really took offense then I’m sorry I called you a smart ass, but ignoratio elenchi ain’t a kind phrase to bandy about.
Thank you, waterj2, for actually addressing the argument.
Yes, ethics are part of what I’m getting at, but I don’t think they can be addressed without a framework of philosophy. And all of the philosophizing in the world isn’t going to do a bit of good until scientists start paying attention to it.
Ethics are a concern of mine, but that’s not all that I’m addressing. I’m talking about a little more thought being given to the objects of study. I don’t want to see a single moral code handed down from on high, but actual scientists need to develop an understanding of what they really want to achieve from an ethical and philosophical perspective.
This perspective has to come from within. Yes, there is already a “philosophy of science” but it matters as much to the scientists as a “philosophy of baseball” would matter to athletes. That’s one of the reasons I suggested another term, a "science of science"in the OP.
This kind of thought is not encouraged by the “divide and conquer” model of specialization within the sciences. That’s why chemists didn’t consider the possible problems of future study that they would be creating for biologists when they synthesized DDT.
It should not be the scientists’ responsibility to weigh or consider the side effects. The people who marketed DDT are the ones that bear responsibility for the effects of their product. It is a pretty basic economic (and probably praxeological) rule that society is best served by enccouraging everyone to devote their efforts solely to what they are best at. Therefore, those who’s greatest talent is weighing the ramifications of different actions should be encouraged to do so, and scientists should be encouraged to devote their efforts to science.
Right, and I just did what the fuehrer was telling me to do.
We all should consider the consequences of our actions no matter what our jobs are.
Back to the cancer. I must admit that most cancer actually seems to come from people not taking care of themselves. But environmental hazards are definitely a risk and they weren’t around a century ago. The american cancer society has this to say. You folks probably also read Cecil’s latest on skin cancer which states incidents have been rising. You can blame it on the ozone layer or sunscreen, either way I don’t think it would diminish my point.
2sense,
by “divide and conquer” I’m referring to the specialization that happens in the scientific disciplines. Not only do we have Neurobiology we have Neurochemistry, Neurology,Neuropharmacology and even Neurophysics. They all have their reasons for existing but I wonder if that’s the best approach.
If all you have is a hammer everything starts to look like a nail.
I’m calling for the study of consequences and a little foresight into the consequences of actions. I wouldn’t consider that an authority. What is studied and what isn’t is already decided by the scientific community. I’m not advocating about outside restraints or clamping down on scientists.
I would like to see scientists trying to put there dispiplines in context with each others’ and with the cultures that they sprang from. I think a lot of new knowledge would result from this, and that this would be a lot more beneficial to everyone.
Let us put aside, for the moment, the cascade of gratuitous assertions like, “I think a lot of new knowledge would result from this, and that this would be a lot more beneficial to everyone,” and try to figure out what it is you’re getting at. What exactly is the point of the study you are calling for if you intend to do nothing to enforce its findings and recommendations?
The results need merely be demonstrated. Do we need to enforce the law of gravity? Scientists may or may not care to know why they do what they do, I can’t help that. But, if there were more efforts to bring fields of study together to find common problems and interconnections I don’t see why it wouldn’t be of consequence.
You can call it a gratuitous assertion if you like, but the reason I’m asserting it is bacause I’m calling for scientific evidence to back me up. If you would like to point to fruitless endeavors in this vein go ahead.
I think the DDT example was a clear case of how consideration of long term effects and the interconnections between scienctific fields are important.
BTW your use of the word “gratuitous” was no less of an assertion and you have done little to back your own views up, or make them clear. You simply attack mine. Please make some positive explanations to elaborate your view.