The theory being tested is that when a stick is inserted into a termite mound and removed, termites will be on the stick. Now let's test the theory by inserting sticks in to termite mounds and removing them. Every time you do that you are testing that theory. — Harry Hindu
It's not an observation, but a prediction based on previous observations. Any good scientific theory makes predictions about what you will find, or what will happen, when you test it. The theory predicts there will termites on your stick when removed from a termite mound. Now test it.That's not a theory, it's an observation. Observation along isn't science. — Marchesk
Using technology is testing the theory it is based on, and therefore a scientific act. — Harry Hindu
It's not an observation, but a prediction based on previous observations. Any good scientific theory makes predictions about what you will find, or what will happen, when you test it. — Harry Hindu
Then please define "Philosophy" in a way which includes activities such as Aristotle's zoological observations? — Galuchat
Technology is a tool that science uses for testing scientific theories. — Harry Hindu
The claim is a statement of fact about the world, not technology. That's the point. Science isn't about making the next great smartphone. It's about explaining the world. — Marchesk
That was considered natural philosophy at the time, and Aristotle came up with explanations. — Marchesk
Do you see your contradiction? — Harry Hindu
Is science about explaining the world? If "Yes", then Aristotle was doing science by explaining the world. — Harry Hindu
Is science about testing theories? — Harry Hindu
If "Yes", then don't we do that every time we use technology based on some scientific theory? — Harry Hindu
Wasting time arguing over semantics on an internet forum. — Marchesk
If the scientific theories that the bike and smartphone were wrong, would you still be able to text or get some exercise using these devices?No, not at all. I'm not furthering science when I use my iPhone to text someone about an upcoming sporting event. Nor when I use my bike made of the latest lightweight alloy to get some exercise.
In those cases and many others, I'm just using tools to accomplish some non-scientific goal of mine. — Marchesk
No. It's the theories/explanations that further our understanding of the world. Testing theories further the reliability, or accuracy of those theories/explanations.Theories are tested to further our understanding of the world. — Marchesk
I didn't say that you are furthering science. I said you are doing science by testing the theory the technology was based on. — Harry Hindu
You're kidding, right? — Galuchat
The OP is concerned with the relationship between Science and Philosophy. We attach different meanings to the term "Science", so it's only logical that I try to ascertain what you mean by the term "Philosophy" — Galuchat
This is ignoring all the other goals you accomplish by accomplishing the one goal you have in mind currently. You can accomplish other goals without realizing it while focusing on your primary goal. This is like saying that you walked in order to accomplish the goal of getting home, while ignoring the fact that you are also getting exercise at the same time.But I'm not testing any theory when I use technology. I'm using the technology for every day purposes, not to test some scientific theory. — Marchesk
Well that was the point of my question. There is a difference between working, and working reliably. How do you know that it will continue to work? Test it by using it over and over.It's also quite possible to have technology that works in absence of any good scientific explanation. Humans tinker a lot and can discover working solutions where we don't know how they work.
And that's largely what we did before modern science. — Marchesk
What do you think of this and this (Chapter 11: On Misunderstanding Science) reading of Newton by Guy Robinson? — Πετροκότσυφας
From 19th century onwards, our civilization's concept of science is full of technological connotations. However, before the 19th century at least, we know that there was a different scene. Scientific disciplines are under the umberella of philosophy. — Pacem
I'm not clear what you mean here. If by "what reality is" you refer to what the concept itself means, then I'm not sure how one (i.e. what is reality) is a philosophical question while the other (i.e. what is objective) isn't. — Πετροκότσυφας
While you seem to suggest that the use of the term "real" lead scientists to deny what is "objective", Robinson, as I read him, does not say that. — Πετροκότσυφας
I'd say that objectivity can address equally as many issues (induction, evidence, measurement, confirmation etc). Objectivity is a metaphysical issue. What is actually objective isn't. Likewise, reality is a metaphysical issue, what's actually real isn't. — Πετροκότσυφας
Technology is (the) a physical manifestation of (the) science. — CosmicWanderer
What "works" pragmatically might or might not be true, but what does not work must be false. — William Ernest Hocking
Or basically you could call it simply ignorance. We don't have to know.I think the argument that we are more scientific than ever before is not well made. Mysticism and superstition have never left us and, as usual, the mythic aspects of the applications of science are still with us. — charleton
The use of technology doesn't demand the understanding of the technology and hence underlying science. — ssu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.