In my scientific environment only a vew scientists have the philosophical background to deal with the whole scientific problems. Therefore only a result like a glossy brochure is publicated but the kernel of the problem is lost.
I think that people do not define the facts, the terms and the idea. In this way they do not work properly and this seemed a fault. So they stopped their work unfinished and start a new one. For me it is amazing that nobody looks into the old literature and takes the old leitmotif to finish the scientific problem with the knowledge of today. In this way it may be an inovation to get an answer of some questions like the old usings of herbs in medicine, cosmetic or nutrition. Or in exploring some unexplicable chemical reactions.
Why are people/journals permanently looking for novelty, even if many problems remain unresolved?
Because the novelty should be found in the solution(s) of a given problem.
There is the scale: within-problem versus between-problem scale. People/teams often switch from problem A to problem B without problem A has been solved?
Yes, of course, sometimes you have to switch from A to B. Were you able to solve every problem you encountered in your scientific life? - I was definitely not.
Dear Marcel: Sometimes your answers/questions make me remember Enzo grand-mother (I have the same feeling). I hope/am confident that Enzo can forgive me. According to Enzo she would say: “how beautiful”, but if you ask her why, she would say “I do not know”.
For any scientific problem: Firstly the scientific problem must be valid. Secondly are necessary scientific capacity, and third hard work and perseverance.
I just observe that after more than 50-100 years of research, we are still looking for answers to basic questions, or not? If we cannot answer the so-called simple questions, how can we answer the so-called more complex questions?
In my scientific environment only a vew scientists have the philosophical background to deal with the whole scientific problems. Therefore only a result like a glossy brochure is publicated but the kernel of the problem is lost.
I think that people do not define the facts, the terms and the idea. In this way they do not work properly and this seemed a fault. So they stopped their work unfinished and start a new one. For me it is amazing that nobody looks into the old literature and takes the old leitmotif to finish the scientific problem with the knowledge of today. In this way it may be an inovation to get an answer of some questions like the old usings of herbs in medicine, cosmetic or nutrition. Or in exploring some unexplicable chemical reactions.
I heard this answered as: "If we wanted to solve all the known problems before tackling new problems, we would still be living in caves."
An added twist might be, the solutions to some problems might not even matter after a certain point. We don't need to rub two sticks together to start a fire, so we don't need to obsess so much about how to find dry sticks on a rainy day.
Dear Lukas,
At the moment, listening to Bach, I am glad not to be in the cave. However, the cave would be more proper for us, humans regarding our common future.
"Marcel: we are still looking for answers to basic questions, or not?"
Can we stop questioning?
How is it possible that the mind is able to create new questions, perhaps of which some/many are not accessible to classical science approaches?
Perhaps it is important for the brain to permanently reorganize the neuron networks, so that ideas become byproducts of a biological need fighting mental habituation?
Descartes: 'I Think Therefore I Am'.
Is it more precise to say 'I do questioning therefore I am'?
Cheers
Honestly speaking, I am not sure if the questions that Einstein was thinking about in his time are of the same type that some pseudo researchers are thinking nowadays, eg., how can I increase my metrics/score? How can I increase my popularity? How can I survive, gain or increase a politically conquered supremacy?
I agree with Ingo. The scientific quality of the older papers does not exist anymore or rarely exists currently. With the hurry of publishing and increasing the metrics, many current works are frequently superficial and of little value. The references or older scientific works are badly understood and wrongly described. So when we want effectively to develop a deep and serious scientific research of any subject we need to start by accessing and reading effectively the original references.
Some of us are Educators too. Taking the allegory of the cave, one question may be what to do for not returning back to cave.
Was Einstein a scientist or a philosopher?
Philosophers only use their brains as a tool, e.g. to do mental experiments?
But then how can philosophers have access to the truth given that they think about aspects that are disassociated from the environments in which human brains biologically evolved?
Only spirituality might allow access to aspects that are disassociated from the environments in which human brains biologically evolved?
So there is no real difference between 'theoretical' science approaches and spiritual approaches in at least some scales of analysis?
I am a simple person by conviction (or at least I try). The simpler the best. In my opinion, a scientist is a whole: spiritual, theoretical, theoretical-practical, practical and experimental. The real knowledge is a whole. Knowledge cannot be artificially separated. There is not a theoretical knowledge and a practical knowledge, for example. Simply, the reality or the knowledge of the reality that is a unique entity can be observed by different perspectives.
Perhaps the problem is that there are so many answers for the same question?!
Do you know questions that only had one answer with 100% consensus?
Perhaps Statisticians and specialists in biodiversity would claim that such a question does not exist?
… I do not want to offend anyone ……….
... And possible question may be: What is parasitism? Scientific research is about scientific problems? Correct? The solution of the scientific problems is for serving persons, the humankind, all living creatures and the environment? Correct. So why would not some persons try to make a political direct connection? It takes much less time and effort, and no scientific work, nor even understand and formulate the scientific problems?
... Two Portuguese popular proverbs:
“Anda meio mundo a enganar outro meio” … “Anda em capa de letrado muito asno disfarçado” …
http://proverbios.sabercomofazer.com/proverbios/anda-meio-mundo-a-enganar-outro-meio/
What is parasitism given that it might be considered as parasitism in context A and not as parasitism in context B, etc..... , and that the interpretation of parasitism might change with the background knowledge and the sampling protocols of the perceivers/observers .....
That is your question and your problem, Dear Marcel. I am not an expert nor am I interested in such political areas.
Dear Antonio,
This is just one of the many many many... examples dealing with questions posed in an education or science framework. Nothing to do with politics.
Discussions can potentially be 'endless'.....
What did 'modern' men start to think about all this? Even about topics that are not associated with the Earth environment? To be mentally occupied in stead of to be physically occupied?
Discussions can potentially be endless.......
Dear Talib,
much is possible and much exists without people consciously knowing this.
Exam:
Question A is asked to all people in the world, which are given opportunities to give an answer one page long. I am pretty sure that a 100% match of the answer between two people on Earth is quite low. This is because of constraints or other factors (e.g. language constraints, reasoning, mental experiences, education background, typing errors, inspiration, etc. etc...).
How to judge which of the 7 billion answers is correct in a democratic world? Perhaps the only match possible might be an empty page, i.e. no answer?
Democracy: Is 'theory' true (e.g., only one correct answer possible) or 'practice' true (e.g., 7 billion answers possible)?
I think that democracy is based on answer with highest popularity assuming that this answer is the most probable correct (pragmatically suitable) answer.
Scientists wish to explain nature and it's diversity implying that nature, and thus practice, is always true? Nature is as it is? A personal opinion is always true in a given Framework?
Scientific revolutionary answer (e.g. Newton gravity, Earth sphericity,.....) often violates the possible answers of democracy process.
Scientific revolutionary answers reflect results of mental states also reflecting nature's expression and therefore equally true as other expressions in/of nature?
I can strongly feel 'gravity' during lucid dream states. Is it reality or a result of a mental state? Both answers are true....
What would gravity be for an 'ant' or an 'extraterrestrial being'?
But, according to the Theory of General Relativity there is no Newtonian 'gravity'. There is curvature in spacetime around masses (e.g, the earth). Is it possible to expect that Einstein was feeling spacetime curvature in his lucid dream states before formulating his theory? The astonishing thing is that Einstein began his work in GR to prove a pre-hypothized result.
Cheers
Can it be 'imagination' when it is consciously perceived and memorized? The phenomenon (mentally/physically) exists, so it true in at least one scale of analysis? Who is able to determine whether one scale of analysis is more true than another one?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology