Just wanted to know the ultimate goal of science? Why should we study science?
I remember situation during my research in archive. i wrote work about Police in Duchy of Warsaw. one day i reed interesting rapport. In this document soldier described pursuit in Warsaw. Some drunk rider made dangerous situation and 6 polish soldier tried to caught . All description was very funny. Why we should study science? Everything, what we do, shut give us some pleasure. It's one of reason.
What is the truth of science?
There is no truth of science! As human beings we cannot access noumena, the things in themselves, only phenomena, the things as they appear to our senses and these are quite limited.
If truth really exists, is there only one or as the original question implies, are there different kinds of: one of science, one of religious beliefs...?
Why describes knowledge the ultimate objective of science? Is science not the at least vain attempt to find the truth by explaining phenomena with conceptual frameworks?
@Christoph Zabe-Brechtel: If there is no truth of science- why to study science? Why we try to find out truth around us?
The history of science of any of our great cultures exposes science facts than can be double checked. For example, Mayans developed interlocked calendars beginning solar years with one of five o-4 extra days, overlaying 405-moon lunar calendars defined by a seasonal almanac valid for about 800 years per http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/MayanSeasonalAlmanac.html . In this context astronomy is fairly seen as the parent of mathematics, and math as the language of science.
The truth is always relative. It is impossible to give a universal definition or goal (to the best of what we know) for science. It is the path of knowledge. From time immemorial, we have had the quest to know things. Consciousness being the measure of life or the only thing with which the advancement of life can be measured, is the sole reason for the birth and evolution of science. Science is refining ourselves, as evolution is always forward or the entropy of universe is always increasing, science helps us refining and improving our consciousness and evolving ourselves. And even the question WHY comes from science. Thus we learn science to ask question, "WHY" , to get the answer to the best of our knowledge and to grow and achieve the universal definition or goal...
Anna, there are social and physical sciences. Your point
"Consciousness being the measure of life or the only thing with which the advancement of life can be measured, is the sole reason for the birth and evolution of science" is a social science.
Mayans modeled the planets in our universe with precise numbers that anyone can double check by viewing the the sky. Venus orbits on a 584 day cycle, and Mars a 780 day cycles and so forth, facts written down in 819 AD.
Chemistry is another physical science that does not rely on consciousness ... a subtle barrier for beginning scientists ...
'
Arum, language and math languages operate differently.
Words taken every day languages are relative in a qualitative manner.
Numbers taken from physical science math theorems are intended to measure real life situations...,that can be independently reproduced.
Science meaning knowledge was classified under different headings like social science physical science etc for us to understand it better. Then came mathematics, the language of science. We started defining and explaining things with the help of this tool, then it emerged as a different branch of science... Everything is nothing but different ways of explaining different phenomena. Science is evolving to that state with which we would be able to explain everything we see and perceive in a convincing way.
This knowledge is being referred to as consciousness. Life from microbes, plants amphibians and human being the difference is the complexity and level of understanding. This is being referred to as consciousness. I am sorry if the word has given any other notion.
Thus goal of science i feel is to know to understand and realize the whole of this universe in one way or the other.
Arum, the observer can be taken out of math data, a step that seems unavailable tor theoretical physicists that consider quantum mechanics. Theoretical math is like that or math would not be called abstract.
Arum, you are using the word consciousness as an impossible problem, suggesting that the observer can never be taken out of any raw data base. I have heardl theoretical physicists make that claim related to quantum mechanics. That is an issue for physics, and to a smaller degree chemistry and biology when reported as separate disciplines.
In real life, as recent surface tension experiments have been conducted at the U of Washington, Seattle (Dr. Pollard) UV light creates a charged liquid crystal that provides the basis of life through an early form of photosynthesis.
Abstract math using prime numbers .can be created that take the observer out of the equation. I'd be happy to show you how Archimedes created the first calculus by two steps, finding a 1/4th geometric series of a parabola
1. 4A/3 = A + A/4 + A/16 + 1/64 + ...
2. and a finite series form
4A/3 = A + A/4 + A/12
Best Regards,
Milo
Science is the only one that makes progress society, otherwise we would be in the era of prehistory.
It is a must
There is nor can there be an ultimate goal of science, for there are no" ultimates" in science. Science is forever a kind of work in progress. Those who think in terms of "ultimates" are delusional.
Carlos, at this time you are correct. Semantics and rhetoric play a role in science and philosophy. Einstein and the rules of theoretical physics have not been confirmed by the five known forces re-combining into one. Theoretical math needs to be developed that double checks theoretical physics and Einstein's theory of everything (TOE. String theory may offer a path that exposes 10 or 11 dimensions in which aspects of the TOE may one day be solved.
I believe that the truth in the science is in progress. So, I consider an evolutionary perspective, that is, I think fallibilism and synechism of Peirce. The truth in science is only one major goal for the future, so the final truth is a goal.
In the words of J. G. Crowther, Science: "the system of behaviour by which man acquires mastery of his environment." That is the only truth there can be.
Enjoy the discussion.
In human diseases circumstantial evidence is applied to the cause since it cannot (should not) be proved by direct infection with the 'causal' agent.
History of science paradigms inform new students so that modern science problems can be addressed . To misstate the history pf science sadly sends students and scholars down blind alleys;
Sadly, cultural biases have often been reported to student as science. Readers may be aware that only since 1975 has the history of science community accepted archaeoastronomy as science. To study the history of any ancient culture, such the Maya, Eurocentric and other baises must be removed. One Dresden Codex seasonal almanac offers a case in point. Did planetary movements direct Mayan astronomers. or were Mayans first informed about life's rhythms by solar and lunar events?
A 2012 project reports the Mayan seasonal table ... http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/MayanSeasonalAlmanac.html as informing Mayans of Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus and Mercury before lunar 360 and earth 360, and 364 cycles were considered.
There will always be "cultural biases". All human beings get most of their knowledge through being members of a human community, as well as how they talk about the world and themselves. This kind of diversity is as rife as biological diversity.
Raymond's point was and is true for the social sciences and religion; but a major problem that retards progress in the physical sciences.
Did not the Catholic Church support the retardation of science by mandating the earth was the center of our universe?
The point can be expanded by mentioning that Mayans recorded the earth as one of several equal planets. Sadly, Bishop de Landa's burning of Mayan science books reported the worst type of cultural bias: censorship..
Science is a subscription to Nature's belief system. The truth of science is about survival. The human brain can and does believe anything it wants to often right up to the moment you realise the Universe does not share your belief and it kills you stone cold dead.
From reasoning about science we appear to have advanced (?) anthropology and social sciences.
Western civilization destroyed and supplanted the cultures of Mexico and South America.
Science would never stop growing. Therefore to define an ultimate goal of science is not possible. Suppose you arbitrarily define an ultimate goal of science. Then one day that goal may actually be achieved. Do you think, the growth of science would come to a halt after that? Is that possible?
As for studying sciences, well, how would it grow if it is not studied?
Truth of science is based on some supernatural entity as I believe....Who creates the laws through some proper reason. I think it is that reason what we people could see. And this reason we called science
Riyaz Bhat · 0.50 · Jamia Millia Islamia ...suggests ...
"Truth of science is based on some supernatural entity as I believe....Who creates the laws through some proper reason. I think it is that reason what we people could see. And this reason we called science"
Impersonal laws are the domain of science ... period ...double and triple checked from many points of view ...
Because science offers us a means of discrediting errors. One studies science in order to cast out ignorant, harmful and uncertain beliefs that are based on assumptions that are not tested or subjected to doubt and scrutiny. To know the universe is expanding due to the doppler shift is more reliable than thinking the Milky Way galaxy is the center of the cosmos. To contemplate and examine how a chloroplast converts red and blue light frequencies into food through photosynthesis is more certain than attributing the ability of plants to capture solar radiation to elves or dryads. Through science we examine our mistakes, correct our errors, and approach a more rigorous, investigative, and empirical understanding of the wonder of existence.
racial superior myths fill this post ...
Anthonie Snijders · 0.80 · Agricultural Research Council
'"reasoning about science we appear to have advanced (?) anthropology and social sciences.
Western civilization destroyed and supplanted the cultures of Mexico and South America. " ..
uneducated cathotic priests ... de landa for one ... did not use the scientific method ... hence ..Incan and Mayan math and astronomy will rise again ... by applying modern science ... code breaking ...
You are able to ask this question ''What is the truth of science? '' that is the truth of science.
Science itself is truth, it is the fundamental reasoning behind everything that is happening in nature ! It gives us some solid direction of logic and thinking. It cannot have ultimate goal because that will end the journey of science!
Objective science does not extend to anthropology per this Chumash Indian case http://www.academia.edu/2222594/Anthropology_and_the_Making_of_Chumash_Tradition . objective science would include and compare math, numeration and trade issues ... only oral tradition errors and omissions dominate this one sided debate ..
Science must cite objective data bases. To recover Mayan science its numeration system and astronomical calculations must be decoded as originally written. One door to this subject may be of interest: http://planetmath.org/mayansupernumberarithmetic
The truth of science is "a" truth. By truth, we should mean the best interpretation provided at a given time to a given topic. The history of science shows that a theory can be modified with new experimental or observational facts. Any theory has its limit and is only an image provided (constructed, Bachelard would say) by scientists. It remains "true" until there is no counter-experience (Popper).
Its about survival. Scientists are those left after the rest of us have been killed off by a stubborn refusal to give up a working hypothesis in the face of contrary empirical evidence.
Truth in science is nothing more than the current paradigm.
There are several kinds of truth, historical truth, religious truth, mathematical truth, scientific truth is the interpretation of reality obtained through scientific method. (Especially in the interpretation of the natural world)
Existen varias clases de verdad, la verdad histórica, la verdad religiosa, la verdad matemática, la verdad científica es la interpretación de la realidad obtenida por medio del método científico. ( especialmente en la interpretación del mundo natural)
Truth is the harmony and beauty of form and function as expressed by the reality we live in.
The word "Science" comes from the Latin scienta which means knowledge. When one is able to study knowledge in any discipline and come up with theories that have predictable outcomes that agree with reality then one is involved in Science. We study science to obtain an in depth understanding of the world we live in. Understanding the how and why of things around us has helped scientists develop cures for diseases, protect us from extreme whether conditions, make our lives more comfortable, put man into space, better understand the Universe we live in and so much more. All these achievements would not have been possible if we did not study science.
Their is no ultimate goal of science, for science is a never ending process; it takes science to improve science, it takes science to expand on science and it takes science to bring science to new frontiers.
I would like to end with two fascinating quotes by Albert Einstein:
"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious - the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science.” ― Albert Einstein
“The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible.”― Albert Einstein
Many mysteries have been solved by past and present generation of scientists, many more remain to be solved by future generation of scientists. The beauty is that the universe is so vast there will always be mysteries that remain to be solved. Science is a never ending process.
An important factor in the scientific search for the truth about nature is doubt encouraging us to face the mystery in nature.
The only truth in science is that truth does not exist in science. The truth is only the agreement of several or many people on a topic, with results taken with the scientific method. But the same event can be perceived differently by different people. Science is limited to "see" reality. The emergence of new methods, new instruments, produces changes in perception of science and what was true ... ceases to be
Science is based on logical truth. When we observe something to be true, a logical analysis leads to a scientific explanation. The solar system had always been heliocentric. This truth was observed from data, and a logical analysis was forwarded to establish this scientific fact. Once upon a time, it was believed that the solar system was geocentric. That was a belief, and therefore not logical, and therefore not scientific.
Hemanta
Can you please define logical truth in an area like atomic physics or in cosmology and "logical" explanations for the observations.
As for the geocentric or heliocentric view. At the time it did not matter which of the two was the "true" view; only after Newton there was a difference because his theory led to PREDICTIONS of new observations. This does not mean his theory is "true" either, as Einstein showed.
Harry,
What I meant is that postulates or axioms cannot appear just from nowhere. Axioms must be based on reality. Therefore logic must have some part to play before it can be translated into mathematical formalism.
About the example on the heliocentric model, I should like to add that the earlier model, the geocentric one, was based on belief, while the heliocentric one was based on observed facts. What I meant was that science must be based on facts, and not on blind beliefs.
As far as atomic physics and cosmology are concerned, of course the standpoint will have to be a bit different. After all, in such fields not everything can actually be 'seen'. But still, one can not state anything defying logic with reference to such fields too.
Darwin observed certain things, and that led to defining the origin of species. He made certain conclusions based on logic, and not on some beliefs.
Hemanta
With your latest addition I understand I think better what your reasoning is. There is only one thing. The geocentric system was kinematically the same as the solar however is in the establishment of dynamics by Galileo / Newton that predictions could be made for instance on other planets and comets and canon balls not to forget
this discussion is confusing forests and trees. Choose one metaphor at a time. Concerning Newton, Galileo or Archimedes .. their numbers much be reported as written ... i.e. Archmedes square root ... http://planetmath.org/squarerootof3567and29
was used by Galileo by not Newton
this discussion confuses numerical forest and trees. Archimedes used a square root method http://planetmath.org/squarerootof3567and29 shared by Galileo... but not by Newton. Archimedes and Newton both created calculus .. but written in different numerical- metaphors.
Harry,
Let me clarify a bit further.
People once upon a time 'believed' that the Earth was at the center of the Universe. Indian Astrology is in fact based on that. This was a 'belief', and therefore Indian Astrology is 'not' science.
But Astronomy is science, because it is 'not' based on the 'geocentric model' of the solar system.
I have not raised the question of kinematics. I was trying to say that anything based on 'belief' is 'not' science.
Hemanta
The motions of the planets were successfully described in Greek astronomy with a geobased system and this was used until the days of Tyho Brache and Copernicus
Clifford Miller,
In the ancient Indian scriptures, we find the following: "Initially there was nothing, no light, not even darkness. There was neither day, nor was there night. Then suddenly there came into existence the Universe." That was a belief. Now we know that modern science too says something like this.
If what you believe is actually true, it should be explainable scientifically perhaps. If a truth is unexplainable currently, it may be that it will be explainable in the future.
A truth does not depend on popular votes, while a blunder remains a blunder even if it is believed to be true for thousands of years.
Science should be based on truth, not on belief. That was what I meant. May be, I am wrong!
Harry ten Brink,
When I mentioned about Indian Astrology, I wanted to exemplify a belief that the Earth is taken to be at the center of the entire Universe, around which everything revolves. It is not just the solar system I meant. According to Indian Astronomy, there are nine planets of the Earth; the Sun, the Moon, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, Venus, etc. In fact, two 'planets' named Rahu and Ketu are nonexistent. However, science does not say that.
I never raised the question of kinematics.
Anyway, I would still like to stick to my point. Science must not be based on blind beliefs. It should be based on truth which may not be provable right now, but in course of time someone would perhaps come forward to explain what we are unable to explain currently.
Harry, may I suggest that your use of belief reads as a strawman. Astronomy was first mathematical in every advanced ancient culture. Mayans http://planetmath.org/mayanseasonalalmanac were very good creating numbers, almost as good as the Chinese. European calendars and other astronomical achievements lagged far behind China. Some European astronomy apologists use the strawman that Mayans were involved in human sacrifices , hence, Mayan astronomy is not worthy of study. Throw all strawmen into the fires of history and discuss the intellectual achievements of all advanced cultures, Greek, medieval and Europeans including Galileo, and so forth, in fair ways.
Milo
I was reacting to the entry by Clifford and he mentions belief re physical laws, which I support. I do not react to the history of astronomy but react to the stadium following the observations which is the explanation of the observations. This explanation is in the theory ("belief") of Newton. This is a break-through in physics and unprecedented.
Harry,
Thanks for forwarding an explanation of the word 'belief'. However, 'belief' about gravitational matters was not something that I meant. By 'belief', I wanted to mean 'postulates' which are not based on logic.
Clifford
I noticed that you refer to the stanford / plato site in other questions. At that site there is also quite a number of entries on the "truth" of science, under the subject scientific realism.
Going back to the original question, I would like to say that science has been the medium through which mankind has been able to uncover the laws of Nature, the truths that control everything around us.
Hemanta
The laws of nature is a human definition and the entities in the laws are undefined. There is a discussion in philosophy of science at present on the meaning of laws. Actually this restricted to the laws in physics.
As I mentioned before you can find this discussion in the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, which is free on the web.
I find the publications of prof Nancy Cartwright interesting in this respect. Some of these are also free on the web.
Provoking is her book "how the laws of physics lie"
Hemanta / (Clifford)
I was indeed not aware you meant Indian astrology.
However, as Clifford indicates, the basis of science is "belief" or rather the acceptance of postulates like the ones in the laws of Newton in which gravity is introduced. This entity is not defined at all and one has to accept it to be able to use classical mechanics and thus the explanation of the motions of the planets etc.
In this sense the basis of physics is also belief.
Clifford MiIler,
Actually by 'everything around us', I meant everything - physical, chemical, biological, geological, etc.
Clifford Miller:
Normally terms such as mathematical sciences, physical sciences, life sciences, earth sciences etc. are used to define certain clusters of sciences. That is why I wrote like that.
Of course, you are right in saying that not in every case an actual experimentation is not possible.
Clifford Miller,
Sorry, I meant to say 'not in every case an actual experimentation is possible!'
I think the truth and ultimate goal of science is to find the logical and documented answer for these principle questions:
what is the cause and effect relationship and what will be happened at the end of the chain? Who is the next and next link and . . . final link? Creator? and who created the creator?
Dear Prasanta,
I definitively think there is no goal to Science.
Human beings are one of the manifestations of life. This branch of life is not specialised or rather it is specialised in trying to control its environment instead of adapting to it. Science is one means by which humanity constructs tools allowing an always better control of the environment. What Science does is to structure our knowledge of our environment on an always deeper scale. As long as we will survive as a specie this accumulation of knowledge will have no end. We are already able to live in outer space and will most certainly expand out of our original planet. If we survive, of course.
Other questions are metaphysical and not relevant to Science.
If you want to participate to the human adventure you need to study Science, better you need to further construct Science.
Dear Anirudh
Yes, you are right. God or Creator is the final link of the cause and effect chain. The ultimate goal of philosophy and all it's children (sciences) is to understand the great God, the Supreme Existence.
Dear Charles Hirlimann
your statement "Human beings are one of the manifestations of life. This branch of life is not specialised or rather it is specialised in trying to control its environment instead of adapting to it" was so nice.
Although the realm of metaphysics becomes less day by day due to advances in physics, I do agree with you that some questions are metaphysical and not relevant to science.
This is what exactly occurs when the cause and effect relationship is the topic. Nobody knows the exact boundary between metaphysic and science because it changes almost every day.
Abdulhaved
I cannot understand your 2 latest answers. They fully contradict each other.
To understand the creator we absolutely do not need science because that is a belief
I agree with Harry. Science, at its most basic level, is a search for explanations about the natural world. Scientists seek to understand why the natural world is the way it is, as well as how the natural world works. The aim of science is to find the best possible 'natural' explanations for natural occurrences. Scientists therefore look for a naturalistic cause (and only a naturalistic cause) for a natural phenomenon. In other words, scientists cannot invoke supernatural explanations.
Invoking the supernatural is outside the domain of science. You are now in the domain of religion. Some scientists see no conflict at all between religion and science, and in fact argue that science and its laws reinforces their faith in an intelligent, divine Creator. People are free to believe what they want so long as they do not confuse the basic method of science and religion, the two are not the same.
So true, @Issam, science and religion are not the same. I actually do not want to see the deity of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarianism gaining ground, even if it's been created by scientists (right?). Do not interfere each other. Science cannot falsify god, and religion cannot falsify science.
Misunderstanding my answer!
Yes, understanding the creator is a belief, but the boundary between physics as a science and metaphysics as a religion aspect, changes almost every day. I mean there were some facts that assumed metaphysical many years ago because they had not yet been discovered by science, but after a while, all of them became some obvious facts!!!
So, What will change this boundary? Of course, Science.
This is why I think the realm of metaphysics is dominated by science.
My answer was from this point.
Abdulvahed
Please can you give the "facts" in metaphysics that have become obvious in recent times by science?
Dear Brink
Thanks for your attention
There are so many advances in physical and chemical aspects of science such as light, temperature, toxins, medicines, and even psychology that they all were unknown and assumed by previous generations to be supernatural until their causative factors discovered by science. The main topic of question and also of my answer is the truth of science. Science has a dynamic realm and this is the main problem to define it.
It's not possible to define science comprehensively until all or some unknown aspects of the universe expected to be discovered and added to science's realm in the future.
Please have a look on this page:
http://sententias.org/2013/02/11/qa10/
Thank you for bringing this to my attention, because my first reaction to you would have been that I am confused what to call science in this century.
The problem is that in this topic also questions are treated in which science is (limited to) physics or even cosmology.
By the way, my first name is Harry (the most popular baby-name in England this year)
in the Western Tradition, the oldest form of science demonstrated the writing of rational numbers into units. Units were needed in weights and measures and for other every day purposes. For example, 8/17 was scaled by 30/30 to 240/510. The divisors of 510 were chosen that summed to numerator 240 such that (170 +34 + 30 + 6)/510 = 1/3 + 1/15 + 1/17 + 1/85. The oldest way to teach this form of writing rational numbers was recorded in 26 lines of the 1900 BCE Egyptian Mathematical Leather roll (EMLR). Two large vulgar fractions were scaled in the text, the first was 17/200 (6/6) = 102/1200 = (80 + 16 + 6)/1200 = 1/15 + 1/75 + 1/200. Note the EMLR student first scaled 1/8 (25/25) = 25/200 = (8 + 17)/200 = 1/25 + 1/15 + 1/75 + 1/200, facts not read well by the British Museum in 1927. A 2014 narrative updates a few EMLR lessons per ..http://planetmath.org/mathematicsinegyptmathematicalleatherroll2014update
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Sociology