When Does Science Become Philosophy?

Ahnimus wrote:

I like what that physicist says in that elegant universe

"If it doesn't produce a testable hypothesis, then nobody should believe it." in regards to string theory.

It's very tempting to believe in things. But as they say "string theory is not science" because it's not testable. I choose to believe in tested theories.

I, myself, don't believe God's been tested enough (although George W. Bush is certainly trying his best to test Him, heh heh). And some scientific theories haven't been tested enough either, as you say. That's why I believe in life as I know it, in the here and now, and get along by not pinning my hopes on anything else, either way.

But -- *shrug* -- that's me.

Ahnimus wrote:

I feel the same way about Quantum Mechanics.

It just seems like they found a mathematical model that works, but doesn't necessarily describe reality exactly.

Some things, like, If you get hit by a truck, it's gonna mess you up, work without QM theories. Everyone knows that will happen, regardless of quantum events. For the most part we don't need that stuff to live our lives. But it all has it's place, and I prefer QM to nothing..

your right.

by saying that it's: e.e.cummings

And not E.E. Cummings.

No offense, surferdude, but it was a big thing to cummings to remain in non-caps. A very big thing.

Peace,
Bu

http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_60/iss_1/72_1.shtml

Byrnzie wrote:

Philosophy concerns itself with testing theories against the measurement of logic, reason.
Science concerns itself with producing theories about the world and then defending the methods by which the theory itself was created.

'...scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations. Scientific hypotheses are developed and tested through empirical methods consisting of observations and experiments. Once reproduced widely enough, the information resulting from our observations and experiments counts as the evidence upon which the scientific community develops theories that purport to explain facts about the world.

Observations involve perception, and so are themselves cognitive acts. That is, observations are themselves embedded in our understanding of the way in which the world works; as this understanding changes, the observations themselves may apparently change. More accurately, our interpretation of observations may change.'

Exactly. +1 from me here.

Some view philosophy on par with "It is my philosophy to always have fun, and the world is a doughnut", while what we are talking about in this context is precisely testing theories against logic and reason, often trying to create coherent and comprehensive logical systems fit to explain our world and existence in itself.

Surferdude:
Climate change is certainly not philosophy. It is observed and measured consistently for decades now. Temperatures are rising. Glaciers are melting. What debate there is about this does not concern these facts. There is a large consensus that humans have had in effect, the argument revolves around how much of an effect, and whether it is the critical effect. And most of the argument is really about the political implications, not as much the science in itself.

Your definition of science here invalidates pretty much all science, except perhaps law of gravity. Science have always been about observing, ordering, and then making models and theories, for later on to modify and improve the models and theories. The scientific process has come pretty far when models and comprehensive theories are suggested. In the field of climate research, they are just now coming up with models based on what they know and can infer. The ice cores help a lot as they are indicators of climate as long back as 100.000 years in some cases. It is complex and difficult, and there are many unknown variables, but it certainly is science. Meterology still can't predict weather accurately for more than 24-48 hours. Is that philosophy?

Peace
Dan

Dan wrote:

Meterology still can't predict weather accurately for more than 24-48 hours. Is that philosophy?

It's a chaotic system. The Butterfly Effect

The butterfly effect is a phrase that encapsulates the more technical notion of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in chaos theory. Small variations of the initial condition of a nonlinear dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system. So this is sometimes presented as esoteric behavior, but can be exhibited by very simple systems: for example, a ball placed at the crest of a hill might roll into any of several valleys depending on slight differences in initial position.

The phrase refers to the idea that a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that ultimately cause a tornado to appear (or prevent a tornado from appearing). The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale phenomena. Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different.

Recurrence, the approximate return of a system towards its initial conditions, together with sensitive dependence on initial conditions are the two main ingredients for chaotic motion. They have the practical consequence of making complex systems, such as the weather, difficult to predict past a certain time range (approximately a week in the case of weather).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

Ahnimus wrote:

It's a chaotic system. The Butterfly Effect

Yes, I know. My point towards surferdude was that meterology is certainly science, and in extension, climate research also is.

Peace
Dan

surferdude wrote:

I'll add to that the quote Anhimus refered to:
I like what that physicist says in that elegant universe

"If it doesn't produce a testable hypothesis, then nobody should believe it."

Show me a testable global climate change hypothesis that has been successfully tested in an accurate climate model and shows man's impact on the changing climate. That's all I want to see. As there is no accurate climate model there's been no real testing in my books. Without testing it's not science.

Man's impact on climate change is more a philosophy than science. It is just as scary to have social and economic policy being driven by this philosophy as it is to have policy driven by religious ideaology.

There was a model presented in congressional testimony in 1988. The real world results since then have been comparable.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Climate models can and have been tested on historical scenerios which also allows assessment of their reliability.

OutOfBreath wrote:

Yes, I know. My point towards surferdude was that meterology is certainly science, and in extension, climate research also is.

Peace
Dan

Fair enough. That it is.