The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > What is so special about ‘science’? > Comments

What is so special about ‘science’? : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 13/3/2015

Around the word ‘science’, people called ‘scientists’ have practised what in sociology is called ‘closure’: science has become a form of territory, and strangers are warned off.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Think, Craig.

I am not engaging in actual AGW debate.
My view and comments are from real life experience involving collapse of SW Pacific Islands culture and ocean ecosystems that is in turn causing economic and political turmoil that science should be addressing.

I am endeavouring to involve science in the humanities.
Don Aitkin’s article is inspiring debate here on OLO and I am responding with a single straight forward question. That question provides practical example that shows present day science and debate apparently does not include ocean algae plant matter, and that AGW science is therefore very incomplete.

Science should be leading society toward prosperity and peace instead of higher carbon trading associated electricity, fuel and food bills.
Science should be welcoming problems that can be solved while generating resources for science and new productivity and business and employment.

Instead criticism arises, yours Craig, without any evidence as to why discussion on this thread should not include AGW and incomplete science that should be completed.

The future is not hopeful from my point of view because breaking down the barriers across science and the humanities is going nowhere, maybe backwards.
Present human behaviour objecting to AGW comment on this thread about science could prevent interaction.
To interact, why not try and answer my question and see if the answer leads to major resources for science, leading to new productivity and business and employment and a healthier environment and people as well?
Science should be helping to create success for humanity, instead making comment that may stifle debate and knowledge.

Science could be very special and very important to humanity in many ways
Posted by JF Aus, Sunday, 15 March 2015 1:06:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhosty,
I do not disagree with your ideas. It's that I am not qualified or experienced or have knowledge in the areas you speak of.

I am aware of the critically urgent need to reduce air pollution and I think clean energy is obviously a solution.

Solutions to devastation in the oceans and the impac have to involve reduction of the nutrient loading. CO2 emissions are not the problem.
Posted by JF Aus, Sunday, 15 March 2015 1:15:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JF, this is a discussion about the philosophical underpinnings of science. Whether AGW is a real problem or not is a discussion for another time and place. At best it is tangential to the discussion at hand.

Part of the reason that the discussion of AGW has become so pointless is that it is so easily turned into a political (group psychology) debate and because humans are a group species, the emotional response to such a formulation of the problem tends to gazump a genuinely scientific one.

As a result, trying to discuss the problem in any other terms is very difficult and the science gets forgotten in the rush to be "right".

Mikester, science isn't becoming politicised but the administration of funding for science, along with the replacement of journalism with advocacy has lead to the discussion of the implications of scientific findings becoming subject to a political "debate" paradigm, in which "winning" an argument is more important than advancing understanding of a topic.

We can and we will do better.
Posted by Craig Minns, Sunday, 15 March 2015 2:32:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris and others,

My question at the beginning of this thread provides a real life example seeking to understand whether 'science' or science is special.
Besides, I am not discussing whether AGW is real or not.

I think AGW 'science' is not special at present because it is incomplete and seems to be riddled with spin.
I think real science is very special and that the answer to the question I ask should lead to advancement in real science, even in technology involving remote sensing, not on other planets but within the whole world ocean. Presently, real science barely knows the basic biology of life in the oceans, and a professor has let me know science knows even less than that.

Perhaps science should show patience and have more focus on reality not yet explored and understood, instead of focussing too much on philosophy.

You, Chris, seem to have considerable experience in science whereas I am a student.

Please answer my question that could be answered yes or no.
Or at least, what do you think the answer might be?
Posted by JF Aus, Monday, 16 March 2015 10:14:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi JF, I'm going to assume that by "Chris" you mean Craig :). Buggered if I know why, but for some reason I often get called Chris by new acquaintances, although I've never had it happen in writing before, IIRC.

It's the philosophy of science that has made it special and allowed it to become so effective. It is the philosophy of science that allows that focus on things not yet explored. Without that, you don't have science!

As Don points out, to the extent that science has become politicised it has become to some extent less effective. By its nature it is about looking for ways to be wrong and so it fits very uncomfortably into a political model in which being seen to not be wrong is regarded as fundamentally important.

In other words, what we need to be doing is to promote more of the philosophy of science and try to expand it, especially to further embrace uncertainty, since it is the nature of the humanities to be uncertain that has prevented them from taking up the philosophical underpinnings of science. We need to be teaching our science and technology students more about the philosophy of science and the Theory of Knowledge, including metaphysics (no, that doesn't mean astrology and ghosts, look it up).

Don't be concerned if a scientist tells you he doesn't know much. All that he means is that he has no idea how much more there is to know, but that he can make a pretty good stab at a guess that it's a lot more than he knows already. Or at least, he hopes so, because a scientist with all the answers is not a scientist at all. In such a world view, it is only honest to admit we know very little. "The more you know, the more you know you don't know", as Aristotle put it.
Posted by Craig Minns, Monday, 16 March 2015 10:55:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Craig,

Yes, my error with your name, Chris.

I hear you but surely in all the world and among all the scientists there is someone who can answer the question that reality of devastation in the oceans has led me to be asking.

I wonder, would nutrient pollution trading inspire the answer?

Thank you for your response. But can you advise who could answer the question?
Posted by JF Aus, Monday, 16 March 2015 11:23:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy