November 1, 2010
There are a pretty many questions regarding the value and meaning of science, the very basic ones. Science therefore can be defined in multitude of ways. In the quest of finding an answer, which is essentially satisfying irrespective of the rationality, which may not be seen or may not even be present in scientific truth, the average but illusive approach for an inspired critic is to formulate a basis, which is directly in violation of meaning. You cannot call something meaningless to prove or disprove it as meaningful.
To link the premises of scientific studies and scientific quests to practices of religion and the likes and to call them alternative view points or even alternative ways to truth are not only a figment of dysfunctional imagination these are also a sign of malice. On the other hand science is as much experimental as its experiential at least for a basic understanding. Therefore great scientists are often not people who are seen in ecstatic sessions of sensual enjoyment such as a football game. But when they do in contrast to their own character they do enjoy with senses, which are popular and not moral or immoral by any standard. It has to do with their special (not opposed to specialized) thinking or rather a special way to be investigative about truth. That said truth is not defined here. It’s neither abstracted here nor is it left to the banalities of an average qualified intellect such as a great philosopher. A great philosopher could be an alternately conditioned tyrant thinker at least in the case of Paul Feyerabend.
What’s truth then and what are some of the very basic tenets of modern day science as its evolved over half a millennia. It has not been based on scientific methods only which is like the spine of the scientific world. But if someone opines such a spine is but a weakling he needs to be corrected on so many counts that it’s almost futile to argue that scientific methods are amenable to great deal of examination and review over centuries and by 100s of scientists all over the world who have no personal connection with each other.
But a philosophy on the other hand is often taken as a baseless exercise of unrefined thinking without a primary methodology, which can be examined. How then science at any rate be amenable to the whims of a philosopher, what that kind is notwithstanding, is something better left to the readers and reviewers. I must agree though that philosophy evokes a sense of out of the world interest in the minds of a neophyte at least everyone including great scientists are not devoid of an attraction to know or deal with some degree of philosophy.
This is not the case of science, which may not even be correctly held in perspective by such practitioners as a Professor of economy or even a scientist himself. Are scientists going to make an error of judgment in explaining the basis of science to someone who is not connected to the ways of science, possible? Are they incompetent, likely? Are they out of humor or even out of intelligence, circumstantial? Are they stupid, NO?
Is a philosopher who focuses his gun to disprove science stupid, NO? Is he a mentally derailed person, well circumstantial? Is he any competent, only if he sees reason. The training and teachings of science are not necessarily performed by folks who are competent to give you an account of truth as is necessary by a philosopher. But they may lead you to a source, which is competent, if its available. Science is not devoid of competent and charming folks who can give the philosopher an answer, which is appropriate. The philosopher must restrain himself from the temptation of calling scientific methods a lie and the scientist must desist from calling the philosopher a bitch. Sometimes they can actually entertain themselves. I don’t know if in case of Feyerabend it was possible, but he may be a derailed philosopher.
What’s truth then and what are some of the very basic tenets of modern day science? Truth has to do with how meaningful is a proposition. I say the machine I have is an efficient machine. It runs on as much fuel as is designated by the methods of instrumentation and engineering. There is no two words about its efficacy, well unless a philosopher is present.
My car runs on an average 20 miles a gallon. Average because the conditions are different for the routes, there may be an uphill task the car has to perform. This is amenable to measurement and measurement is just one out of 100s of example of scientific methods. What’s so meaningless about measurement? Okay then what’s a basic tenet of science. There are multitude of basic or foundational approach and thinking towards science and they all lead to consistent truth. That’s the triumph of scientific methods and science at the same time.
A very basic tenet of science is quest for truth. Philosophy on the other hand is based on a purview of taking a note of such truth. This is where the philosophers go meaningless. Your job is to take note of what a group of people has come about, as an example say a grain or even a bagful of truth. Your job is not to tell the world the way these folks are coming up in measuring the bag or how this measurement could have been performed is a meaningless exercise. You may not even have a business here. Science is a business of practicalities. It’s not a business of philosophy. Such a philosophy would rather be termed as a refined gossip. Science on the other hand is a refined way to achieve practical results. And the gossip in the town is the milk is adulterated. What happens when the gossip of gossip is found out?