Reply
Wed 7 Jun, 2006 04:10 am
Philosophy of Science: Science is About Solving Puzzles
I think that understanding the concept ?'paradigm' and the nature of puzzle solving are two necessary conditions for understanding the concept ?'science'.
I suspect many fail to recognize that ?'science' has the general meaning "a department of systematized knowledge as an object of knowledge". ?'Science' is generally a word used to denote the natural sciences or more likely technology in general.
Normal science?-as Thomas Kuhn labels it in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" moves forward in a "successive transition from one paradigm to another". A paradigm defines the theory, rules and standards of practice. "In the absence of a paradigm or some candidate for paradigm, all of the facts that could possible pertain to the development of a given science are likely to seem equally relevant."
Practitioners of normal science are expert puzzle-solvers. "One of the things a scientific community acquires with a paradigm is a criterion for choosing problems that, while the paradigm is taken for granted, can be assumed to have solutionsÂ…One of the reasons why normal science seems to progress so rapidly is that its practitioners concentrate on problems that only their own lack of ingenuity should keep them from solving."
Practitioners of normal science have:
1) A paradigm that defines the theory, rules and standards of practice.
2) Expertise as puzzle-solvers. Puzzles are assumed to have solutions.
3) A criterion for choosing problems for solution.
4) Concrete problems for solution i.e. problems with solutions and only lack of ingenuity causes failure.
I suspect that it is a common mistake to think that natural sciences are so successful because of the creative faculties of the scientist rather than their ingenuity at puzzle solving. Kuhn and I think the success rests on the puzzle solving skills of the practitioners.
Ingenious?-marked by especial aptitude at discovering, inventing, or contriving; marked by originality, resourcefulness, and cleverness in conception or execution
Creative?-bring into existence, to invest with a new form, office, or rank; to produce through imaginative skill; to make or bring into existence something new.
Re: Philosophy of Science: Science is About Solving Puzzles
coberst wrote:?'Science' is generally a word used to denote the natural sciences or more likely technology in general.
To what do you refer to when you say 'natural science'? Biology not Physics? Just a little curious as to what constitutes unnatural science.
I think saying science and technology are the same thing is a topic for conjecture.
Likewise calling what scientists do 'puzzle solving' doesn't make it any less creative. It's just a label. I could call improvisational musicians 'doodlers'. It may make it sound less impressive to the laymen, but anyone with an understanding at best ignores the negative connotation of the label - at worst they get insulted and throw punches at said labeller.
What is the main point you are trying to make?
Quote:I suspect that it is a common mistake to think that natural sciences are so successful because of the creative faculties of the scientist rather than their ingenuity at puzzle solving. Kuhn and I think the success rests on the puzzle solving skills of the practitioners
I don't think that the biological sciences are anymore successful today, than the physical sciences. What would we be doing tonight, had neither the internet nor the computer been invented?
Miller wrote:
I don't think that the biological sciences are anymore successful today, than the physical sciences.
Australian scientists have successfully grown beating human heart tissue from stem cells. It's believed that in the near future, heart transplants will be a thing of the past. Seems like a success to me.
Wilso wrote:Miller wrote:
I don't think that the biological sciences are anymore successful today, than the physical sciences.
Australian scientists have successfully grown beating human heart tissue from stem cells. It's believed that in the near future, heart transplants will be a thing of the past. Seems like a success to me.
It's a sucess to grown the tissue
in vivo. It is however,a long, long road from a cell that shows contractile properties to an organ such as the heart. And for my money, research efforts should be directed tpwards other areas of critical medical importance, such as cancer, AIDS, diabetes, etc.
Miller wrote:Wilso wrote:Miller wrote:
I don't think that the biological sciences are anymore successful today, than the physical sciences.
Australian scientists have successfully grown beating human heart tissue from stem cells. It's believed that in the near future, heart transplants will be a thing of the past. Seems like a success to me.
It's a sucess to grown the tissue
in vivo. It is however,a long, long road from a cell that shows contractile properties to an organ such as the heart. And for my money, research efforts should be directed tpwards other areas of critical medical importance, such as cancer, AIDS, diabetes, etc.
I don't see why we can't do all of them - maybe the US could redirect a little of the money in plunges into developing technologies to kill people into medical research - just 1% would be a startling revelation I'm sure...
Hinge
The main point I am trying to make is a clarification of the nature of science through clarifying the meaning of the words ?'science', ?'paradigm', and ?'puzzle solving'.
"I think saying science and technology are the same thing is a topic for conjecture." This also is my point. Although many do so identify. I think is wrong.
"Likewise calling what scientists do 'puzzle solving' doesn't make it any less creative." I think you are absolutely correct. I do not subscribe to the popular idea that ingenious and creativity can be judged one or the other as being of greater value.
Miller wrote:Quote:I suspect that it is a common mistake to think that natural sciences are so successful because of the creative faculties of the scientist rather than their ingenuity at puzzle solving. Kuhn and I think the success rests on the puzzle solving skills of the practitioners
I don't think that the biological sciences are anymore successful today, than the physical sciences. What would we be doing tonight, had neither the internet nor the computer been invented?
I consider biology and physics are both natural sciences. I suspect we would be reading or watching TV if we did not have the Internet.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace