On the purpose of science

[Equinox]

I would like you all to ask yourselves the question "What is the purpose of science?" and post your ideas here.

Some sub-questions you might also want to include an opinion about:

- Is there such thing as scientific progress, and if so, so what aim or end-goal?
- Is scientific progress merely resulting in a Hydra sort of effect?
- What is truth and how might we obtain it?

What are your thoughts on these?

[Nodens]

"What is the purpose of science?"

Power.

[Peasant]

I would like you all to ask yourselves the question "What is the purpose of science?" and post your ideas here.

Knowledge, health or how to abuse 'science' for ones own ideology and power.


Is there such thing as scientific progress, and if so, so what aim or end-goal?

Progress is every time something else is discovered, or old ideas are proven or disproven. There is no end goal, mankind will always strive for higher knowledge.

[Equinox]

Power.

Not a very convincing argument.

For example, factor in the Catholic Church. In the times of Galileo, the Catholic Church held great power. After proving that the Ptolemaic theory [that the Earth was the centre of the universe] was wrong, the Church proposed that he hold onto and embrace the Copernican theory. However he parted ways with this, knowing the consequences, and spent the remained of his life under house arrest.

What power was to be gained from such action?

[Equinox]

Knowledge, health or how to abuse 'science' for ones own ideology and power.

So you take a view where science ought to be based on utility?




Progress is every time something else is discovered, or old ideas are proven or disproven. There is no end goal, mankind will always strive for higher knowledge.

Progress denotes a progression towards an end.

You touch on another interesting subject - theories can be disproven, but can we prove theories?

[Peasant]

Not a very convincing argument.

For example, factor in the Catholic Church. In the times of Galileo, the Catholic Church held great power. After proving that the Ptolemaic theory [that the Earth was the centre of the universe] was wrong, the Church proposed that he hold onto and embrace the Copernican theory. However he parted ways with this, knowing the consequences, and spent the remained of his life under house arrest.

What power was to be gained from such action?


Maybe not in every situation. But you must be forgetting the atomic bombs and all the inventions that come about during war time?



So you take a view where science ought to be based on utility?

Science should be based on one thing. Truthful and correct knowledge.

However, some 'scientific' studies are more of abusing results in tests to prove some kind of ideology.


Progress denotes a progression towards an end.

You touch on another interesting subject - theories can be disproven, but can we prove theories?

The end would be knowing everything, but that is an impossible goal in my view. And ofcourse we can prove theories, or nothing would ever be invented.

[Psychonaut]

What is the purpose of science?


Power.

I would follow Spengler and Yockey in saying that there can be made a fundamental distinction between science and technics. To quote Yockey's Imperium on this question (pp. 238-239):


Technics has nothing to do with science, for it is not a form of pure thinking at all, but thought directed to action. Technics has one aim: power over the macrocosm. It uses the results of science as its tools, scientific theoretical generalizations as levers, but it discards them when their efficacy ceases. Technics is not concerned with what is true, but with what works: if a materialistic theory yields no results, and a theological one does, technics adopts the latter. It was thus Destiny that Pragmatism should appear in America, the land of worship of technics. This "philosophy" teaches that what is true is what works. This is simply another way of saying that one is not interested in truth, and is thus the abdication of philosophy. This could be called the elevation of technics or the degradation of philosophy, but the total difference of direction between technics and philosophy is not thereby altered; it is merely that the age placed strong emphasis on technics, and little on philosophy. Nor can the alliance, in 20th century practice almost an identity, between practitioners of Science and Technics obliterate the difference of direction between these two fields. The same man can think at one time as a scientist, seeking information, and in the next moment as a technician, applying it to get power over Nature. Science and Technics are as different from Philosophy as they are from each other: neither one seeks to give explanations, these are for philosophy and religion. If someone thinks he is founding a “scientific philosophy,” he is mistaken, and on the very first page he is bound to abandon the scientific attitude and assume the philosophic. One cannot face two directions at once. If precedence is given to Science over Philosophy, this is something else; this merely reflects the Spirit of the Age as being an externalized one. But important is that all these forms of thought and action are imbedded in the flux and rhythm of the development of a High Culture; a given direction of thought has its vogue of supremacy just so long as the Culture-stage lasts which chose it for this role.

[Equinox]

Maybe not in every situation. But you must be forgetting the atomic bombs and all the inventions that come about during war time?

Granted. There is great utility in items made during times of war.

What utility is there in the likes of the Large Hadron Collider?

[Stygian Cellarius]

What is the purpose of science?

Survival.

Science is culture. The purpose of culture? Survival.


Is there such thing as scientific progress, and if so, so what aim or end-goal?

Yes, survival.


Is scientific progress merely resulting in a Hydra sort of effect?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Hydra effect"?


What is truth and how might we obtain it?

Truth is "what is". Truth is information that accurately describes reality.

We obtain it with logic.

[Peasant]

Granted. There is great utility in items made during times of war.

What utility is there in the likes of the Large Hadron Collider?

Purely knowledge. But knowledge gained may lead to more inventions.

[Psychonaut]

Truth is "what is". Truth is information that accurately describes reality.

We obtain it with logic.

:eek:

This is a segue from Equinix's question, but would not Herr Gödel's revelation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems) prevent us from forming a complete identification between truth and logic?

[Equinox]

Survival.

Science is culture. The purpose of culture? Survival.



Yes, survival.

An interesting take on it. If that is the goal, would you say we have made much progress?



I'm not sure what you mean by "Hydra effect"?

Sorry, I should have clarified. I mean where by in solving a problem, two more problems (if not more) come by way of the solution. I thought the Hydra to be a good analogy, where by when one head is cut off, two spawn to replace it.



Truth is "what is". Truth is information that accurately describes reality.

So by this reasoning there is not truth, but truths?



We obtain it with logic.

Do we?

[Loddfafner]

Science is the practice of expanding knowledge through the aggressive deployment of doubt.

[Stygian Cellarius]

:eek:

This is a segue from Equinix's question, but would not Herr Gödel's revelation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems) prevent us from forming a complete identification between truth and logic?

Yeah that's true, but that's not the only thing in the way. The implications of "cogito ergo sum" turn everything on its head, well, except that I exist. My logic could be applied to a reality that doesn't even exist. Not only that, but my senses as well. Forever preventing logic from ever even coming in contact with information associated with truth.

EDIT: btw, you're the first person I've encountered that had knowledge of that theorem or that I knew had knowledge of it.

To Equinox:

I have a whole lot to say in response to your reply, but I haven't the time to spend. I will have to reply tomorrow.

[Svipdag]

Cogito ergo sum is a tautology. Its conclusion is implied in the very first word. The verb cogito is in the first person singular. Its use assumes the existence of the subject of the verb (an implied ego). Therefore, the reasoning is circular and nothing has been said.

[Eldritch]

Power.

Sorry, but I'll have to respectfully, but strongly disagree on that one. The purpose of science is knowledge. Knowledge can lead to power, conceivably even to wisdom, but that's another issue.

[Nodens]

In light of the idealism in this thread, it seems I need to alter my response. :p


Thus the question "Why science?" leads back to the moral problem, "For what end any morality at all" if life, nature, and history are "not moral"?... But one will have gathered what I am driving at, namely, it always remains a metaphysical faith upon which our faith in science rests - that even we devotees of knowledge today, we godless ones and anti-metaphysicians, still take our fire too from the flame which a faith thousands of years old has kindled: that Christian faith, which was also Plato's faith, that God is truth, that truth is divine...

-F.W. Nietzsche, The Gay Science

[Stygian Cellarius]

Cogito ergo sum is a tautology.

Yup


Its conclusion is implied in the very first word.

Yup


The verb cogito is in the first person singular. Its use assumes the existence of the subject of the verb (an implied ego).

It assumes the existence of the subject for others hearing (or reading) the subject refer to itself. Not for the subject itself. There are no assumptions with regard to the subject. It knows it exists a priori (in some form or another).


Therefore, the reasoning is circular and nothing has been said.

I understand why you think that. The structure of the statement can be misleading.

"I think, therefore I am" is not suppose to be understood out of its literary context. That is why so many people don't understand it. "I think, therefore I am" is to be understood within the context of Descartes discourse, viz. evil demon and dream conjectures, i.a.
In other words, "I think, therefore I am" has become nothing more than a philosophic "text-bite", or symbol as memory cue to retrieve the rest of the information required to come to its associated conclusions.

Cogito ergo sum is not a syllogism. It is just a statement. Descartes was not deducing that he exists because he thinks. Although, he appears to be because of its structure; P, therefore Q. He already knows he exists a priori.

The "I think" part of the statement is just used to illustrate that your thoughts are the only thing you can use to have knowledge of your existence. As oppose to the act of seeing or singing. "I see, so I know I exist" wont work because you may be dreaming, but mental activity is mental activity whether one is dreaming, has their brain in a vat, or exist in a holgraphic matrix. The "I think" is used to illustrate that distinction. Which is why having knowledge of "Cogito ergo sum", isolated from the rest of the text, offers nothing to the reader. One must know the rest of Descartes ideas.

I probably didn't explain myself very well. Sorry if I did not.

[Svipdag]

Pure science and applied science have entirely different purposes and motivations. Pure science exists only for the gratification of curiosity about the cosmos. How does it work and how did it come to be the way it is ? In the course of investigating these questions, facts and principles are revealed which can be useful. These are by-products of the gratification of our curiosity about the cosmos, not its purpose.

Applied science is goal-oriented.It deals with the actual and potential uses of the facts and principles which pure science discovers. In industry and technology, there is what is known as "R&D", research and development. The potential for development dictates the particular problems to be researched.

This, then, is not a search for whatever may turn up, but a goal-directed quest for solutions to specific practical problems. This is the purpose of applied science.

[Equinox]

Stygian Cellarius,

The problem I have with Descartes' Cogito ergo sum / I think, therefore I am, is with the "I".

From my point of view it is very problematic to claim any thoughts to be one's own. I personally believe that the only real truth to come from Cogito ergo sum is simply that thoughts exist.

[Cato]

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

[Stygian Cellarius]

Stygian Cellarius,

The problem I have with Descartes' Cogito ergo sum / I think, therefore I am, is with the "I".

From my point of view it is very problematic to claim any thoughts to be one's own. I personally believe that the only real truth to come from Cogito ergo sum is simply that thoughts exist.

It's irrelevant whether or not the thoughts are your own. A deity could be thinking for you, but you as an entity are still the medium that percieved the phenomena (thoughts, information). Actually, you don't even really have to think at all, static self-awareness is sufficient. To be aware that you exist is what is important. You are aware that you exist, yes? And you can't say "how do I really know that I exist?" Because you do know that you exist.

But how do you know I (Stygian) exist? Or that your best friend exists? You don't know that with absolute certainty because you cannot prove that you're brain is not in a vat hooked up to a "reality machine". You just can't.

The conclusion is that nothing in reality can be proven to exist. Their existence, in the absolute sense, are based on assumptions. The assumption that the stimuli you experience with your senses are a genuine, accurate translation of reality.
Nothing in reality, except your existence is certain. You are perceiving information, you are conscious, even if all information that your senses detect and process is false, you're still processing it, therefore you at least exist to do that. That is the only certainty.

Your consciousness may be immaterial and suspended in a black void, dreaming this reality, but it still exists. (actually, the more and more I learn about my universe and meditate on such topics, the more I believe it is not real)

Sorry for going off-topic mods. I'll jump back on. I feel guilty already heh.

[Psychonaut]

The problem I have with Descartes' Cogito ergo sum / I think, therefore I am, is with the "I".

Perhaps this problem might emanate from an Enlightenment conception of the self. Is the self necessarily some soul-like monad from which thoughts originate and which, through the medium of the body, experiences extra-mental phenomena? Might not the self be an aggregative node comprised of things like thoughts, physical sensations, etc.? Are we actually able to deduce that there is an ontological distinction between these constituents and the self, or does the self emerge through a difference of the connectedness of the constituents?