Looking for opinions on the following statements?

[DubiumInfini]

This is for a side project I'm doing, not exactly school related.

I'd just like to see your opinions on these statements. Mostly out of curiosity.

 

Just wondering what you think.


Do you think these are true or false statements?

1. Science itself cannot be studied in the same way science investigates other groups and cultures.

2. Science has always valued experimentalism and and investigations of all kinds.

3. The value of empiricism has decreased over time and this is a benefit to human society.

4. Skepticism is the key to what makes modern science work.

5. Science is just organized common sense.

6. The public understanding of how science is performed and specific discoveries are very important.Just wondering what you think.

[Bill Angel]

This is for a side project I'm doing, not exactly school related.

I'd just like to see your opinions on these statements. Mostly out of curiosity.

 

Just wondering what you think.

Do you think these are true or false statements?

1. Science itself cannot be studied in the same way science investigates other groups and cultures.

 

Yes it can. Check out "The Two Cultures" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures by C.P. Snow

 

3. The value of empiricism has decreased over time and this is a benefit to human society.

I don't think so. The development of new drugs is based on experimental work, followed up by testing on human subjects.

5. Science is just organized common sense.

Not in the case of Quantum theory, which no one would describe as "organized common sense".

Edited January 2, 2013 by Bill Angel

[imatfaal]

This is for a side project I'm doing, not exactly school related.

I'd just like to see your opinions on these statements. Mostly out of curiosity.

 

Just wondering what you think.

 

 

Do you think these are true or false statements?

 

1. Science itself cannot be studied in the same way science investigates other groups and cultures.

Science - as the methodology, actions, and rules followed by scientists can be studied scientifically (and is). Science as an ethos, an abstract concept and way of thinking suffers from problems of contextuality and subjectivity as does every other sphere of human behaviour.

 

2. Science has always valued experimentalism and and investigations of all kinds.

Not sure what experimentalism is! And I think it is wrong to attribute value judgments to a corp of personalities. modern science is based on empirical evidence - but that is what distinguishes it from pre-modern - so no it has not always valued experimentation and observation. For the bulk of the history of the investigation of the natural world logic, appeal to authority, "common sense", religion, tradition and many other confounding factors trumped observation

 

3. The value of empiricism has decreased over time and this is a benefit to human society.

Value ascribed by whom? Having facts ascertained as objectively as possible at one's disposal at the point of making a decision cannot be anything other than a benefit - so I could never agree that a lack of observation/experience of the world is a good thing. an unexamined life....

 

4. Skepticism is the key to what makes modern science work.

the one key to modern science is repeatability. repeatability and skepticism; the two keys to modern science are repeatability, skepticism and honesty. The Three keys to modern science are ... AGHH! There is no simple scientific method outside classes in the philosophy of science - so how could there possibly be a single key?

 

5. Science is just organized common sense.

No! Common sense, ie that which people have always believed with no justification, has zero (or should have zero) impact on scientific thinking. Science is quintessentially about following the observations rather than anything else - especially a groundless piece of received wisdom.

 

6. The public understanding of how science is performed and specific discoveries are very important.Just wondering what you think.

The public (including myself) need to know more about so much. The misinformation disseminated by those indentured to the oil and coal industries regarding a supposed lack of scientific consensus over anthropogenic climate change demonstrates that important policy decisions (which may constrain our choices for generations yet unborn) can be highly influenced by those determined to deliberately mislead. A better understanding of science by the public and by policy-makers would have made this misrepresentation more difficult. Individual discoveries - meh... yes and no ... if one finds it interesting. The story behind a discovery is unimportant to a great extent - the science, theory, and experimentation behind it is fascinating and crucial.