Science and the ideal of free inquiry

[Nemisisx]

Can science ever be or was it ever a free inquiry via observation rather than theory first and proof by observation, logic, testing, consensus. All science seems to be theory driven now, perhaps it always was. How much influence does theory as a priori have on outcomes? It does seem possible to make observations without having a theory, but this may be an illusion. What is the current thinking on this?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The question seems to contradict itself. Science has a very well-defined meaning. Validating a theory is not the first step in the scientific method. Experimenting and observing data is a crucial part of the scientific method that occurs before the creation of a theory, which is made in large part by using the evidence gained through the results of repeatable experiments. In science, theories are based on science. In science, theories must make predictions and the theory is only believable to the degree the predictions turn out to be true.

[Nemisisx]

Hi Scott, my reading of modern science is the theory or hypothesis is constructed first, in many cases, then observations and testing and replications are made on that basis. Could be wrong but that is how it appears: Theory driven, perhaps it makes no real difference, or is more so in some areas such as QM.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Thus is the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory. One you make up with limited evidence before the experiment in order to test it by way of doing an experiment. Then the data from the experiment provides scientific evidence that either falsifies or helps validate it into a theory.

[Theophane]

The ideal of free inquiry seems like a pure science that people would do in their spare time as amateurs, with no social, political or profit motives whatsoever.

Fancy that.

[A Poster He or I]

It does seem possible to make observations without having a theory, but this may be an illusion. What is the current thinking on this?

There are philosophers of science (Feyerabend comes to mind) who might argue that observation qua observation is impossible without implicit theory to define how one observes. As I would state it myself: There have to be epistemological presuppositions in place to even be able to call something an observation; otherwise it is merely an instance of apprehension, not observation.

Such epistemological presuppositions need not be scientific, of course, nor even rational. Therefore when asking, "Can science ever be ... free inquiry via observation rather than theory first and proof by observation, logic, testing, consensus," keep in mind that pseudoscience can easily result from the "freedom" to hypothesize without grounding hypothesis in accepted theory. As examples, the nonsense of Bill Gaede, or expanding earth theory lend themselves to "proof" by observation, logic, and selective testing, and certainly find consensus among their followers.

[Sy Borg]

Curiosity-driven science is increasingly being squeezed by economic rationalism and strictly targeted research. Many scientists would engage in more "blue sky" or "esoteric" research if they had the funding.

Scientists need more opportunity to pursue the reasons for negative experimental results; in industrial situations negative results are often discarded rather than investigated for their own sakes because it's considered inefficient.

[Iapetus]

I recommend Ben Goldacre's book , Bad Science. An indictment of many methods employed in scientific research and, specifically, by medical research companies. He also has a website for which I am not permitted, as a new member, to post the link.

[Sy Borg]

It's easy to judge. Most things a person will discover through free observation have already been through the process of discovery, hypothesis, peer review and been incorporated as established theory.

When an ingenue observes something they believe to be new, they may decide to embark on a deeper study without realising that they are duplicating work of decades or even centuries earlier. So we refer to theory. Human advancement came because we built on prior knowledge; each generation did not have to re-invent the wheel.

Still, no system is perfect. An analogy for the limitations science today is comparing trained musicians with those who are self-taught. From what I have seen over the years, trained players usually have more scope, skill and overall depth. Self-taught players are more likely to have unusual depth in a particular area or areas of playing, but be less competent than trained players in areas outside their "specialty".

If there are few opportunities for the slow, free inquiry of self taught musicians you will get an increasingly linear advancement that misses opportunities to broaden the scope of the art. The discoveries that constitute bodies of knowledge (on which orthodoxy is built) were frequently made by renegades.

I see a similar issue in science but I can't see how scientists can relax their disciplines to permit more free-wheeling inquiry in a competitive, economic rationalist world. That's why they need philosophers.

[HZY]

Can science ever be or was it ever a free inquiry via observation rather than theory first and proof by observation, logic, testing, consensus. All science seems to be theory driven now, perhaps it always was. How much influence does theory as a priori have on outcomes? It does seem possible to make observations without having a theory, but this may be an illusion. What is the current thinking on this?

Science is theory-observation interchange back and forth.

[LuckyR]

Can science ever be or was it ever a free inquiry via observation rather than theory first and proof by observation, logic, testing, consensus. All science seems to be theory driven now, perhaps it always was. How much influence does theory as a priori have on outcomes? It does seem possible to make observations without having a theory, but this may be an illusion. What is the current thinking on this?

Observational science existed and perhaps exists in limited areas now. But observational science is the low hanging fruit. Kind of like learning your alphabet before literature. It has it's place but is soon surpassed.

[TimBandTech]

Can science ever be or was it ever a free inquiry via observation rather than theory first and proof by observation, logic, testing, consensus. All science seems to be theory driven now, perhaps it always was. How much influence does theory as a priori have on outcomes? It does seem possible to make observations without having a theory, but this may be an illusion. What is the current thinking on this?

I believe that the experimental physicists have the upper hand rather than the theorists. With the Higgs boson I am falsified, but with regard to superconductors and cold physics I believe that I am still correct. Theory lags behind experiment.

Another issue to ponder is the complexity of the situation. Theory would like to be simple and unconditional and be of a fairly pure mathematical form, but the world is rather loaded with dynamics and we have not achieved simple theory. So long as theory is accepted to be a curve fitter's paradigm which mimics experimental results then I don't believe that pure theory is achieved. Instead we have a collage of theories, and each specialty can carry on without a unified whole. This goes against a universalist approach, which I believe pure theory must accomplish. What this means is that the problem is still open. This realization leaves the next generation alive and ready to clean up the vast accumulation of modern science. How much of that accumulation is actually science fiction remains to be exposed. Unfortunately even the most omniscient orb would have to say the same, even after pondering its own pure theory for millennia without modification. Ours goes modified in a rampant way, so we should expect some major upsets.

[Atreyu]

Observational science existed and perhaps exists in limited areas now. But observational science is the low hanging fruit. Kind of like learning your alphabet before literature. It has it's place but is soon surpassed.

Science completely divorced from experience (observation) is hardly "science". Once theory becomes completely separated from any real-world experience the end result cannot properly be called "science"....

[LuckyR]

Observational science existed and perhaps exists in limited areas now. But observational science is the low hanging fruit. Kind of like learning your alphabet before literature. It has it's place but is soon surpassed.

Science completely divorced from experience (observation) is hardly "science". Once theory becomes completely separated from any real-world experience the end result cannot properly be called "science"....

I don't disagree with what you are saying but you are using "observation" differently than Nemisisx did (and I followed in my response to him), namely, that observation (as opposed to testing etc) is but one tool among many that qualify as "experience".

[Reactor]

All science and technology, husbandry and crafts was and is initiated by amateurs.

In the beginning, no one knew anything and could teach nothing.

Observation is the source and a desire to survive better is the motivation to acquire and use knowledge.


More logic philosophy in Natural Logic of Space and Time. "Read Inside" on Amazon.