Science and the ideal of free inquiry
-
- Posts: 5
- Joined: January 20th, 2015, 8:00 am
Science and the ideal of free inquiry
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5787
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Re: Science and the ideal of free inquiry
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
-
- Posts: 5
- Joined: January 20th, 2015, 8:00 am
Re: Science and the ideal of free inquiry
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5787
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Re: Science and the ideal of free inquiry
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
- Theophane
- Posts: 2349
- Joined: May 25th, 2013, 9:03 am
- Favorite Philosopher: C.S. Lewis
- Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Science and the ideal of free inquiry
Fancy that.
-
- Posts: 1104
- Joined: March 18th, 2011, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Anaximander
Re: Science and the ideal of free inquiry
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.It does seem possible to make observations without having a theory, but this may be an illusion. What is the current thinking on this?
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
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15158
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Science and the ideal of free inquiry
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.
-
- Posts: 402
- Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
- Location: Strasbourg, France
Re: Science and the ideal of free inquiry
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15158
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Science and the ideal of free inquiry
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
- Posts: 261
- Joined: January 30th, 2013, 11:09 pm
Re: Science and the ideal of free inquiry
Science is theory-observation interchange back and forth.Nemisisx wrote: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?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7996
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Science and the ideal of free inquiry
Nemisisx wrote: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
- Posts: 78
- Joined: February 19th, 2013, 8:23 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Kant
- Location: Meredith, NH
- Contact:
Re: Science and the ideal of free inquiry
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.Nemisisx wrote: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?
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
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: Science and the ideal of free inquiry
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 wrote: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.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7996
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Science and the ideal of free inquiry
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".Atreyu wrote: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 wrote: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.
-
- Posts: 47
- Joined: September 6th, 2014, 2:44 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Wittgenstein
- Location: Montana, USA
Re: Science and the ideal of free inquiry
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.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023