Computer Science Canada science ...is it perfect |
| Author: | ecookman [ Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | science ...is it perfect |
nuff said please state why or why not |
|
| Author: | Saad [ Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:science ...is it perfect |
What do you mean by perfect? |
|
| Author: | DemonWasp [ Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:science ...is it perfect |
The knowledge that we've discovered through science is imperfect (incomplete in addition to the fact that our understanding of what we do know is probably flawed). The scientific process is imperfect, mostly due to human nature - if followed correctly, the scientific process is perfect. Why do you ask? |
|
| Author: | md [ Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:science ...is it perfect |
Qui? you mean Oui? It helps to actually know the language you write the poll in. |
|
| Author: | jernst [ Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: science ...is it perfect |
No. Nothing we have gained from science is truely a fact. Theories have been verified or proven incorrect after repetition, but all of it is dependent on our current understanding of things. Years from now people could look back with new knowledge and say everything we know is wrong. Not to mention that science is rife with politics and egos and in many cases the work that is submitted isn't judged based on quality but by who you know. |
|
| Author: | apomb [ Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:science ...is it perfect |
science is performed by humans, humans are imperfect, therefore, science is imperfect. that is to say, however, that if science were to be done perfectly, it then would be perfect, but as it stands, no it is not. |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Tue Jun 09, 2009 11:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:science ...is it perfect |
Scientific process, as a concept, is perfect. The execution of the process, and the interpretation of the results leave room for error. Consistent results of an experiment re-enforce the theory, and add more confidence (as in statistical confidence) to the claim, but observational experiments can't prove laws, in a way that Math can establish new truths (based on assumed fundamentals) |
|
| Author: | ecookman [ Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:science ...is it perfect |
I meant the science on its own..ignoring the human aspect. |
|
| Author: | syntax_error [ Wed Jun 10, 2009 6:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:science ...is it perfect |
"science is performed by humans, humans are imperfect, therefore, science is imperfect. " @apomb: That is the worst form of logic, I've seen since the blasted ToK class. Heres something else that follows your fallacy. Musicians are fat. Lennon is a musician, therefore, Lennon is fat. |
|
| Author: | ecookman [ Wed Jun 10, 2009 6:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:science ...is it perfect |
wow syntax_error...letting some of that anger out there. but, alas...i must agree (bad logic) |
|
| Author: | syntax_error [ Wed Jun 10, 2009 6:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:science ...is it perfect |
Its not anger? Furthermore, your question has no basics to answer is, what science are you speaking of , empirical data? Or the scientific process it self? |
|
| Author: | ecookman [ Wed Jun 10, 2009 6:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:science ...is it perfect |
science in general >_> |
|
| Author: | Dusk Eagle [ Wed Jun 10, 2009 6:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:science ...is it perfect |
apomb @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:40 am wrote: science is performed by humans, humans are imperfect, therefore, science is imperfect.
This could have been better worded as "All our scientific laws are observed by humans; all humans are imperfect; therefore, there is no guarantee that any of our scientific laws are perfect." However, if the universal laws (regardless of our observation of them) are constant, then it stands to reason that the scientific method would return perfect results if humans were to be perfect. |
|
| Author: | andrew. [ Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:science ...is it perfect |
Science is definitely not perfect. If science were perfect, we would know the answer to everything. There is always some kind of obstacle or human error that prevents us from getting a 100% accurate answer, so we end up making assumptions that may or may not be correct. Hundreds of years in the future, people are going to look back at us and say, "Boy they had it all wrong", just the same as we do with ancient civilizations. If science was perfect, we wouldn't have this, we would have the correct answer each and every time. |
|
| Author: | Homer_simpson [ Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: science ...is it perfect |
we as humans perceive the world around us by the impulses that our 5 senses send to our brain. the difference between us and other animals is our ability to recognize patterns of repetition, which makes the basis for our logic. Now there is more to this world than our 5 senses can relay, however recognition of patterns is what makes up our understanding of the universe. so is science perfect? no, it is only observations and recognizing patterns and it is the best we got for now. at least that's my opinion. |
|
| Author: | Zeroth [ Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:science ...is it perfect |
andrew. @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 6:42 pm wrote: Science is definitely not perfect. If science were perfect, we would know the answer to everything. There is always some kind of obstacle or human error that prevents us from getting a 100% accurate answer, so we end up making assumptions that may or may not be correct. Hundreds of years in the future, people are going to look back at us and say, "Boy they had it all wrong", just the same as we do with ancient civilizations. If science was perfect, we wouldn't have this, we would have the correct answer each and every time. Andrew that is so wrong, I don't know where to begin. First of all, the scientific process is an incremental one. Here is how science starts:
Someone makes an observation, and wonders why it is so. They develop a conceptual model to explain the observation. But a model to explain one observation is not much of a model at all, and it cannot be tested. So the model has to make a testable prediction, of how something not yet observed should react. They devise experiments or sensors or ways to observe the predicted phenomena. If the predictions hold true, the model is considered accurate for the time being. There may be another model to explain both the original observation, and the predicted phenomena, and so there must be further predictions they make, to determine which one is more valid. For so long as the observations fit the model, the model is considered a theory. In some cases, the model only applies to a specific set of conditions, like special and general relativity vs quantum mechanics. OR Someone makes a hypothesis. They make an experiment to test the hypothesis, where the experiment is hopefully scientifically valid and has no human bias or mistakes in it. They perform the experiment. If the experiment supports their conclusion, others will do the experiment as well, to verify(positive conclusions are rarer than negative conclusions). This ensures that human bias in the experiment does not pollute the results by having two different teams perform the experiment. Of course we don't know everything. We haven't lived forever yet! We don't have the right tools yet! It was only until just before Einstein's time that they made observations which showed the limits of Newton's model, and this only happened because of improved instruments. We're improving the resolutions on instruments and sensors, and devising new equipment to test hypotheses. We didn't have all that at the start. What you saw as mistakes, are simply a stepping stone in the progress of scientific understanding. The models fit the data they had at the time. They had no way to prove any different. |
|
| Author: | apomb [ Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:science ...is it perfect |
syntax_error @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 6:20 pm wrote: "science is performed by humans, humans are imperfect, therefore, science is imperfect. "
@apomb: That is the worst form of logic, I've seen since the blasted ToK class. Heres something else that follows your fallacy. Musicians are fat. Lennon is a musician, therefore, Lennon is fat. i summed up what at least three other people before me stated. I was waiting for someone to catch that... Tony probably put it the correct way though. If the scientific process were to be performed in a perfect way, our observation of the data are still subject to human error. Some people would interpret the data correctly, others would see it differently. The process itself (we'll call this science) would still be perfect. |
|
| Author: | jernst [ Thu Jun 11, 2009 8:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: science ...is it perfect |
I think its possible to argue that science isn't perfect yet. Science means different things for many people. For example, if you have read any of Richard Feynman's books, he tells a story of a university in South America that he visited (I think it was in Brazil or something). At this university they were convinced they were teaching students proper scientific method. When Feynman came to visit he noticed that none of the students questioned anything. They had all been taught to blindly believe everything in their books. They were very good at memorization, and they knew lots about what science accomplished, but really had no understanding of how to explore ideas further. In North America, with entertainment like mythbusters and other similar shows, people watch them and think they suddenly know everything. Websites like Digg and Slashdot are full of people who think they are experts on everything and dismiss good science and prop up bad science because they don't have a clue. Even the scientific review process itself is having problems. For example, in many fields within computers, there are many many more people submitting papers to conferences than ever before. Often, there isn't enough time or people to review the papers fully so work that should be refined more makes it into publication. The more fully reviewed literature channels such as journals are becoming less popular because the turnaround is too slow. There are many articles recently in IEEE and ACM which are criticizing the whole process of review in our field. So there are still many problems with science, but I think the process of science becoming perfect is also "an incremental one" and we're not really there yet. Despite the problems, however, I don't see any other way to go about advancing knowledge. |
|
| Author: | Exordium [ Sat Aug 15, 2009 1:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: science ...is it perfect |
Some of these points have probably been stated already. Science as a method of inquiry, is probably the best method we have so far at attempting to understand reality. If this is how we define science then it's as good as it gets, which to me is pretty awesome - the very fact that this is possible i will admit excites me. Scientific theories that flow from this method (which many have already stated e.g. testable..predictions ect..) , are used to explain a collection of relavant facts, however since nothing can ever to proven to be 100% true, because new information can always come along, over time scientific theories may get tweaked ect... Because of this, many would have you believe that this is an inherent weakness of science, however this may be the very reason for it's self correcting nature. Overtime, scientific theories march steadily on towards truth. Anything unable to withstand this rigor is left behind. All this being said, and I`m not trying to be an asshole or anything but I`m not sure the question of weather it is perfect has any meaning. Bear with me and consider the following. If I were to ask ``Art ...is it perfect``, what exaclty do I mean by perfect. Art is a process of expression or design ect...and like science a continuing process of discovery. In this context, prefect looses it`s meaning. |
|
| Author: | btiffin [ Sat Aug 15, 2009 8:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: science ...is it perfect |
This is a great question to apply the scientific method to. Observation: Gee, I wonder if science is perfect? Hypothesis: Science is perfect Prediction: Sciency people will think science is perfect Experiment: Ask people on compsci.ca for an opinion Conclusion: Does not compute, need a new test Rinse and Repeat 
Cheers |
|
| Author: | CodeMonkey2000 [ Sat Aug 15, 2009 8:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: science ...is it perfect |
Most of the important points were covered Zeroth and various other people. The most important aspect of science is that it is self critical, and it is incremental. But I want to argue ways in which science is imperfect. The direction of scientific investigation in our society is dictated largely by capitalism and what is profitable. For example a lot of research is being done in find the cure for baldness because it would very profitable. Yet very little research is being done in terms of using science to end world hunger. I feel this is an imperfect aspect of science, that the direction of inquiry is guided by personal gain. This isn't necessarily a horrible thing. I'm too tired to think right now, I'll try elaborating later. |
|
| Author: | chrisbrown [ Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:science ...is it perfect |
This thread shows some parallels to philosophy. Consider Plato's theory of forms, in which the idea of some object is perfect, whereas all physical manifestations of it are imperfect copies. It could be said that while there are perfect formulas to describe everything we could observe, we will never find them due to both human error, and the sheer number of factors involved in any given experiment. It could be said that the idea of science is perfect, but our experience and implementation of it is not. |
|