The Process & Epimestology of Science
Conditioning, Science Patterning, Thinking and the Mind
Introduction
This material presented on this page comprises a series of observations/dialogue referring to the way in which the human mind processes and experiences the process we know as 'science' or scientific behaviour - an intimate exploration of what actually occurs between the ears when a human behaves 'scientifically', and how that relates to the rest of being.
The material originates from voluntary collaborative work, undertaken by a group in pursuance of the exploration of fundamental behaviours, in June 2001. A tidied up synopsis of the material explored is presented followed by a rough, colloquial transcript of the original 'as it happened'.
Although this page will quite adequately 'stand alone', the serious reader may find it useful to study it in conjunction with the closely associated pages on patterning, philosophy and knowledge - all of which are available via the links.
Synopsis
Exploration of the Process/Epimestology of the 'Scientific Method' (beginning 14th June 2001)
a) What is the 'scientific method'?
Anybody care to state it?
- "Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."… Webster's Dictionary.
b) [an aside]: [what we're doing is one-by-one examining the deep roots of the processes that condition us, processes we take for granted (without even looking) as being 'true' (whatever that is)]
c) Science is primarily an approach used by us (human species) to understand our surroundings and ourselves....even though limited by the experimental parameters....there is one important factor that breaks limitation that is questioning anything that is recorded... reductionistic and holistic…- 'inference from the particular to the general'.
d) Anybody care to comment on which bits of the Webster's definition refer to content & which to process. (and is it a circular definition?)
e) Bacon's definitions are hidden in the Webster's one. To hypothesize for instance will take one from particular to general in the right circumstances (one form of hypothesis) Formulation and testing is iteration - trial and error. The basic definition is: 'principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge'. The rest of the Webster's definition qualified 'how'.
f) Hume pointed out, quite famously that induction is based on the assumption of cause and effect, and that if there is any suspicion that the course of nature may change and therefore the past may be no rule for the future, then experience becomes useless
g) all fall in the patterns of knowledge. 'Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge' [that part of the definition could almost defines what we discussed as philosophy... but there is a significant difference - see later]. So in the paradigms/procedures we have induction, deduction, hypothesis, experiment... any more?
h) What Hume was saying in today's terms, in one sense it's all patterns of knowledge, and as such unreliable because nothing is written in stone - …mathematics, geometry… …blind studies. Yes. Nothing written in stone, BUT, its written in text books... and taught in schools. And burned in memories as patterns of behaviour (us included)
j) As far as: 'this is what we know about the known universe, and is the best understanding we have for now' goes, it's fine, but it is self-limiting.- (As an aside, just think there may be scores of undiscovered ways of scientific investigation... [using different, but entirely consistent, thinking patterns])
k) I tried taking a ballpoint pen apart to see the process of putting it back together. Realized the same basic procedure occurred as with knowledge, but was confounded when it was actually a felt pen and couldn't be dismantled. Yes, we got a good grip of the model of 'knowledging', and since science is about [the handling and structuring/patterning of] 'knowledge' maybe we can start from there?
l) 'principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge' The Webster's definition part 1 again. It obviously contains an error when we look at it closely. We don't pursue knowledge we already have: the procedures are aimed at acquiring new knowledge with which to supplement our knowledge maps. How can you have non-learned knowledge when knowledge exists as images stored as secondary sense data?
m) Science seeks to extend the boundaries of the known. Yes, the boundaries of extant knowledge. And it does so according to fixed procedures (also stored as knowledge patterns). Society seeks to exploit science - scientific knowledge - as technology/engineering, applied science…
n) It is not uncommon for really astounding leaps from the known to new realizations or discoveries to be made by someone outside a given field of knowledge, because they are not limited by what they know, what is supposed to be 'the truth', no fixed knowledge patterns to constrain them.
p) In terms of procedure, are induction, deduction, mathematics and all forms of cerebral logic something we would categorize as 'philosophy'?- The comparison , separation, and relationships among and between things. Yes, the ancients could frig about with angels and pinheads whereas in science we deal (hopefully) with fact. Facts are content - we're looking at process [but this issue of fact and verifiability is key to scientific method - see later]. Here's the definition again: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
q) By what process would one recognizes and formulates a problem? Principles in this sense = fixed procedure. By what process would one recognize and formulate a problem? Why should some 'scientist' sitting in his lab suddenly say: 'Aha, I can see a problem!' What's the process that would lead to that? See the end required and devise the method to move there?
r) What is the 'process' of science by which a so called 'scientist' sees a problem? Follow the money.... the funding. But why test anything out? What motivates you?
s) Big Mr. Corporation says: 'scientist, make me a death ray,' and scientist has a problem formulated for him, ready made. So society in large part directs scientific efforts through its institutions and Governments... right? So the profit motive, defense (Gov. and Medical disease prevention) split the atom because we need a weapon.- Power.- It seems so today: the small knowledge patterning of the scientist becomes attached or driven by the larger pattern of the corporation or academia or govt. So what will make money [or weapons or fame] is a motive... so discovery looks for 'saleable' commodities.
t) And it even goes a whole lot deeper than that since scientists and engineers (and the scientist is virtually becoming an engineer according to our previous lines) can only 'knowledge' modify on the basis of their knowledge contents AND in accordance with the paradigms they have available.- So it seems that our [scientific]culture is based on the prime principle of Supply and Demand [and the contents of the knowledge base expanded principally in those well trodden directions]
v) [this is digressing a bit, but is important...] In this way, even the lone 'pure' scientist (and one might look back to the past for this [e.g. Newton]) is tied by his extant [knowledge] base AND, even more, by the limitations of both his instruments and (more important) perceptions. If saleable discoveries are sought then those of no monetary value will be discarded…. thereby limiting our discoveries to our perception... of what is deemed to be [by those paying the piper] in the group's self interest. [In this manner the direction, perceptions, instruments and general content of supposedly 'free' science is controlled - what a laugh!]
w) With regard to money the culture of 'utility' comes to occupy the scientific method - degeneracy occurs. But this represents a very small aspect of the process. (We're looking at the process of the scientific method - or trying to)
x) [break in text re 'how and why to design experiment']
y) symbols used in science and mathematics are carefully chosen, well defined, and have properties and their limitations [and relationships with actuality] clearly expressed. Hence, when it comes to manipulating them, the most ordered behavior of knowledge manipulation available is used. Such orderly thinking put a man on the moon - this kind of thinking is orders of magnitude in advance of any barroom talk, 'beliefs', philosophies or random discussion of angels and pinheads and the like.
z) these patterns that drag us along. What occurs within as you move from fact to fact? and is the process fundamentally different than other systemic thinking?
aa) did we got it right in that 'systematic study' approximates to philosophy, but philosophy with 'hard' factual input and measurable hard output [makes it science]?
bb) If the knowledge base comprises facts, then the mind can only move amongst facts [likewise if it contains rubbish, fantasy and speculation, it will move amongst these as well]
cc) at their root, or development, science and philosophy belonged to the same group of knowledge, and said that they mainly comprised meta narratives that on the whole were useless. Perhaps approximation wold be a kinder term. Yes the philosophies, in France during the enlightenment period (1750-1800, roughly,) developed what has become science, in many ways. But the key is in the 'hard data' and fact. Never mind angels and pinheads, if we can't observe it, measure it, repeat it, then it is not 'scientific'.
dd) If it isn't proven, by definition (as we have it here) it isn't science but speculation [+, opinion, belief] (with regard to hard fact, measured and repeatable the same as the process of science?)
ee) That is the [key] process of science - or the process of scientific proof. The knowledge may be systemized 'philosophically' and is then subjected to proof in the form of observation, repeatability, experiment and measurement to see that it fits with experience. The process of proving however, MAY feed back into the systemized knowledge such as to modify it in the light of observable fact - empirical evidence guiding the systemisation process..
ff) [and this is important] Again, as in philosophy, this process will operate in everyday experience for people not of a scientific bent. This is how, e.g., a carpenter learns his 'factual' trade. 'Philosophy'/theory, experiment and feedback. (the copying of others (e.g. carpenters) will operate with a ready made knowledge base in the others' observable behavior.
gg) So 'use the metal end of the hammer to knock the nails in with' is 'learned' as a knowledge set AT A GLANCE [see 'knowledging' dialogues] & then replicated & internalized by doing and self observation [visual, aural, tactile, etc].- Notice how important observation is in all this… whatever we do, experiments, cooking, carpentry, it all begins, and can only proceed correctly through observation.
hh) in its non-academic form, there exists a scientific process that attaches people to the world of observable and remembered facts. As those facts become 'vague' [ie beliefs, speculations, notions and such which cannot be proven with hard evidence] we move onto the speculative formulations of knowledge as exist in the non academic 'philosophical' realm
jj) and it looks like we may have possibly settled an academic argument here: 'science' would seem superior to mathematics in that 'evidence' exists for the former's knowledge base that is outside of its own 'definition'realm
kk) 'how does the scientific process direct our condition(ing) and does it stand valid against K's fundamental proposition of observer = observed'
ll) Philosophy, we have discovered, plays a part in the scientific process of systemizing knowledge, but is a very poor relation to science in that the process of latter has an extremely powerful pragmatic base in our day to day existence.
mm) Fact and fantasy are the differences [between scientific knowledge and belief]. That's the fundamental difference between scientific method and faith. One is based on systematic structure, observation, experiment and verification by physical evidence: the other is imposed [authoritarian or gullibility based] belief - cuckoo land.- Why does anybody need a belief of any kind?
nn) You don't have to be a scientist to use the (natural and pragmatic) scientific method. You may not use it rigorously, but you use it.
pp) Scientific method I think may have originally imitated what happens naturally in learning, but then somehow it became planned and worked out, which the purely natural learning is not. You try something because say you need food - it fails so you try something else, by instinct, what is seen and felt through the senses, trial and error.
qq) Right: observe the process, then experiment (maybe with trial and error), observe some more as the rest of your senses 'learn' the process, then fit the observations, including the physical feedback, into your systematic knowledge base. Your knowledge has thus advanced/extended - and the method you used, the process, is the same as the strict scientific process. Assuming the senses are a factual arbiter. Not quite as rigorous with note taking and formulations etc. but still the same [basic] process.
(Note - in order to prevent confusion - that unless indicated otherwise, the observations and commentaries given above are original to the members of the group who participated in the dialogue.)
A full rough transcript of this particular dialogue is presented below.
Transcript
6/14/01 what is the scientific method?- So, what is the scientific method? Anybody care to state it? - "Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."… Webster's Dictionary.- I think what we're doing, C, is one-by-one examining the deep roots of the processes that condition us, processes we take for granted (without even looking) as being 'true' (whatever that is) …excellent David. Wow, more than I thought (I'd have got the last bits about observation /experiment /hypothesis, etc, but not the first - which are probably more important in terms of the present discussion. - The formulation and testing of hypotheses ".... may be the circular movement that leads us back to a presupposition and verifies them… it keeps us within the realm of the known.- Bacon said scientific knowledge is gained by a process of 'induction'. - Science is primarily an approach used by us (human species) to understand our surroundings and ourselves....even though limited by the experimental parameters....there is one important factor that breaks limitation that is questioning anything that is recorded... reductionistic and holistic…- 'inference from the particular to the general'.- Anybody care to comment on which bits of the Webster's definition refer to content & which to process. (and is it a circular definition?) Yes, I think Bacon's definitions are hidden in the Webster's one. To hypothesize for instance will take one from particular to general in the right circumstances (one form of hypothesis) Formulation and testing is iteration - trial and error. The basic definition is: 'principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge'. The rest of the Webster's definition qualified 'how'.
- ...well we can see where experiments may be made with no intent... then the results are fit into a number of scenarios... the scenarios are the known possibilities... not to say that something new cant be discovered though.- Hume pointed out, quite famously that induction is based on the assumption of cause and effect, and that if there is any suspicion that the course of nature may change and therefore the past may be no rule for the future, then experience becomes useless.- That deals with the experimental bit David, and raises some interesting issues (about intent, language etc). Can we get a grip of the general thing first? - ....ok.- Induction, deduction, movement through time (and we'll have a go at that bugger one day) all fall in the patterns of knowledge. Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge. So in the paradigms /procedures we have induction, deduction, hypothesis, experiment... any more?- What Hume was saying in today's terms, in one sense, is that as you say Morf, it's all patterns of knowledge, and as such unreliable because nothing is written in stone.- …mathematics, geometry… - …blind studies…- Yes. Nothing written in stone, BUT, its written in text books... and taught in schools. And burned in memories as patterns of behavior (me included)- As far as 'this is what we know about the known universe, and is the best understanding we have for now' goes, it's fine, but it is self-limiting.- (As an aside, just think there may be scores of undiscovered ways of scientific investigation...) - I tried taking a ballpoint pen apart to seethe process of putting it back together. Realized the same basic procedure occurred as with knowledge, but was confounded when it was actually a felt pen and couldn't be dismantled.- Yes, we got a good grip of the model of knowledging, and since science is about 'knowledge' maybe we can start from there?- 'principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge' The Webster's definition part 1 again. It obviously contains an error when we look at it closely. We don't pursue knowledge we already have: the procedures are aimed at acquiring new knowledge with which to supplement our knowledge maps. How can you have non-learned knowledge when knowledge exists as images stored as secondary sense data? - So science seeks to extend the boundaries of the known.- Yes, the boundaries of extant knowledge. - So the scientist seeks to own knowledge.- And it does so according to fixed procedures (also stored as knowledge patterns) Society seeks to exploit science - scientific knowledge - as technology /engineering, applied science…- It is common for really astounding leaps from the known to new realizations or discoveries to be made by someone outside the field of knowledge, because they are not limited by what they know, what is supposed to be 'the truth'.- Yes: no fixed knowledge patterns to constrain them. - What do we mean by 'outside the field of knowledge'? …unknown or unknowable?- In this case it can be simply outside the field of scientific study. Like a biochemist stumbling on something physicists hadn't noticed about physics.- We don't know by definition.
Let's get back to the principles and procedures (which are the process patterning) - Certain assumptions are needed to function (that what someone said was true and factual). The problem lies in the inexactness - yet it enables the zeitgeist to expand and flow as new scientific information is gathered. The premise is the problem. (notice the mind is already looking for 'The Problem).- In terms of procedure, are induction, deduction, mathematics and all forms of cerebral logic something we would categorize as 'philosophy'?- The comparison , separation, and relationships among and between things.- Yes, the ancients could frig about with angels and pinheads whereas in science we deal (hopefully) with fact.- Oh - the facts of science, I see. - The only problem with that is when what is presumed to be a fact and moves to another fact and the preceding fact is eventually found to be incorrect. As in the world being flat, etc… Mot people's model of the world's geography is entirely incorrect. (I'm just simplifying here).- Well, these scientific 'facts' are of course limited knowledge..- What constitutes a fact would be basic, so the rules for establishing a fact are instituted…then what?- Facts are content - we're looking at process. Here's the definition again: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.- Oh... the problem is started with the lack of something... then moves to a method for eliminating the lack. - Procedures seem to be what was covered in knowledge and philosophy - shall we try to have a go at principles?- The forming of the problem points to the solution.-
OK, let's move onto stage II. By what process would one recognizes and formulates a problem?- Principles in this sense = fixed procedure.- A perceived lack exists ... how to deal with illness, or phenomena…a threat gives rise to a problem. - Yes David - a problem is assumed - so that definition is somewhat backwards.- This is where the fun begins in terms of what is science, and what is technology.- One element that remains unexplained so far in this dialog is why the pursuit of knowledge is so prevalent? - The threat may be real... cancer for example.- The topic is the process of the scientific method, Clive - and we've been at it nearly an hour. - So, let's take a tech problem such as cancer and see the process of what underlies the scientific method.- By what process would one recognize and formulate a problem? Why should some 'scientist' sitting in his lab suddenly say: 'Aha, I can see a problem!' What's the process that would lead to that?- See the end required and devise the method to move there. - Back to my ball point pen - at what point did I realize it couldn't be dismantled and what are my procedures of attempting to go beyond that challenge which is unknown to me?- But why do you want to dismantle it in the first place?- It can be seen, one method to cure cancer in a body involves killing the cancer but -- the problem is that it may kill the patient too!- What is the 'process' of science by which a so called 'scientist' sees a problem?- Follow the money.... the funding.- That seems to be true!- But why test anything out? What motivates you? Aha - David has something. Big Mr. Corporation says: 'scientist, make me a death ray,' and scientist has a problem formulated for him, ready made.- So society in large part directs scientific efforts through its institutions and Governments ... right? So the profit motive, defense (Gov. and Medical disease prevention) …split the atom because we need a weapon.- Power.- It seems so today: the small knowledge patterning of the scientist becomes attached or driven by the pattern of the corporation or academia or govt. - So what will make money is a motive... so discovery looks for saleable commodities.- And it even goes a whole lot deeper than that since scientists and engineers (and the scientist is virtually becoming an engineer according to our previous lines) can only 'knowledge' modify on the basis of their knowledge contents AND in accordance with the paradigms they have available.- So it seems that our culture is based on the prime principle of Supply and Demand...- In this way, even the lone 'pure' scientist (and one might look back to the past for this) is tied by his extant base AND, even more, by the limitations of both his instruments and (more important) perceptions.- Yes if saleable discoveries are sought then those of no monetary value will be discarded…. thereby limiting our discoveries to our perception... of what is deemed to be in the group's self interest.- A reminder on the bubble or perception: In a passage entitled 'The biological segmentation of reality', Penny Lee in the Whorf Theory Complex quotes: 'any organism so to speak, cuts out from the multiplicity of surrounding objects [and actions!] a small number of characteristics to which it reacts and whose ensemble forms its "ambient". All the rest is non existent for that particular organism. Every animal is surrounded, as by a soap bubble, by its specific ambient, replenished by those characteristics which are amenable to it. If, reconstructing an animal's ambient, we enter the soap bubble, the world is profoundly changed. Many characteristics disappear, others arise and a completely new world is found.'- Yes, Allan said it the other day.... GREED underlies our modern existence- With regard to money David, yes, the culture of 'utility' comes to occupy the scientific method - degeneracy occurs. But this represents a very small aspect of the process. (We're looking at the process of the scientific method - or trying to) So, to continue, how does one design an experiment?- By thoroughly investigating the existing knowledge on that subject of interest?- Yes - but why in the first instance? Forget the current corporate money grubbers, think back say to Isaac Newton, or Benjamin Franklin.symbols used in science and mathematics are carefully chosen, well defined, and have properties and their limitations clearly expressed. Hence, when it comes to manipulating them, the most ordered behavior of knowledge manipulation available is used. Such orderly thinking put a man on the moon - this kind of thinking is orders of magnitude in advance of any barroom talk or random discussion of angels and pinheads and the like.- So the scientists who create the bomb and pollute the rivers would tell us!!!- It was interesting what you said I see it in myself; these patterns that drag us along. I notice if my mind is still I break from the pattern something new comes in. - What occurs within as you move from fact to fact? or can we, and is the process fundamentally different than other systemic thinking? If I pose a new question to you, in the silent mind - is the process of solving a problem, or experimenting entirely new?- It is simple to me, I think I want to do something specific, if I get caught up in the thoughts about that one thing I inevitably get stressed and feel dragged along. If I let my mind still often I will change routine and do other things, often I end up doing far more by working in parallel with hardly any stress. It is avoiding the fixation of thought. It is like being guided; but when you look back you have achieved much more with hardly any stress.- I read the history about science. It was interesting. -
Yes - but tends to tire the brain. it is interesting to look - those guys are really good for that, and keeping it focused.- Yes, we need focus as well as letting it flow, nothing should be excluded, there is a place for everything. - There is so much information that is just stored in us, without our conscious awareness… stacked like stanzas, the generation that come before, all of history proceeding and not concluding to here. Yet it is still consciousness.- Yes, It is about unifying the disparate strands, seeing the underlying themes and problems. Take science seeing that it is limited, helps see what science is and understand it better, this is what I've found. - Quite awesome really - and that is just the little part when you consider the magnitude of the intelligence that came up with a circulatory system, blood pumping through the veins…- Yes, I made a big mistake when I was younger. When I studied science I thought that top scientists actually understood concepts like infinity, this confused me. Now I realize they take an aspect a model of infinity and extrapolate from that. - Yes, unifying, not eliminating - so that they can be gone beyond, but not as a leap frog. Yes, e = mc2 is somewhat genetically encoded into us now - more so the younger generation, and they don't even have to think about it. Access I there if necessary. (but I still say they ain't come up with absolute 0, so it is as good an approximation as we are capable of, but its very foundation is incorrect by its own admission.- It is just a useful approximation Ce. It is circular in the sense that they derive it from theory… they assume a theory that heat comes from the vibration of molecules. Then they mathematically extrapolate to a point of no vibration and then read the temperature off a 'graph'...and call it absolute zero. - But there would still be a vibration to measure - so no absolute zero really occurs. The minute we attempt to define something, regardless of how refined…we come up with something, not nothing.- Yes, the big problem at the moment in the scientific world: relativity is based on cause and effect; yet quantum mechanics is based on probability, the two are incompatible, but both predict phenomenon in certain areas. Relativity in the macro world quantum mechanics in the micro world, they are trying to get a unified theory, but can't find one as yet. ...well quantum mechanics is based on spontaneous phenomena that defy cause and effect to me more exact. - As with thinking, once cause is seen as internal, instead of external, a shift can effect outcome that is spontaneous - unknown. The reference points of 'knowledge' have moved matter to a degree. Or as you stated earlier, dissolved a pattern and something new takes place. But a new pattern erupts from this material of thought thinking/ relationship. Or the polarities have lost the predictable tension and new activity takes place, altering the ambient of the whole….but that's not science, just me thinking….so don't take my word for it…but its true. :)/15/00- Maybe the topic of the process and effect of the scientific method is too much for this forum. I've actually forgotten most of what passed last night, but I feel sure it'll come back if I pick it up again. Can I ask you if we got it right in that 'systematic study' approximates to philosophy, but philosophy with 'hard' factual input and measurable hard output?- Our current topic is the process of science… If the knowledge base comprises facts, then the mind can only move amongst facts. …What were you saying about philosophy and science earlier, DaveA? (somebody last night suggested that scientific method grew out of philosophy...) - I think DaveA said that at their root, or development, science and philosophy belonged to the same group of knowledge, and said that they mainly comprised meta narratives that on the whole were useless. Perhaps approximation wold be a kinder term.- Yes Morf, the philosophies, in France during the enlightenment period (1750-1800, roughly,) developed what has become science, in many ways. - One cannot accommodate for space and time without extrapolation - hence movement from known fact to known fact is impossible without some guess work. Morf - But the key is in the 'hard data' and fact. Never mind angels and pinheads, if we can't observe it, measure it, repeat it, then it is not 'scientific'. Is that about right?- Denis Diderot brought together as many of the great minds of the period as possible to create the first encyclopedia….sounds right to me.- Nobody has ever accounted for space and time as far as I know, C. (hey, and don't set me up - ya monkey. - It isn't proven - but is that the same as the scientific process?- If it isn't proven, by definition (as we have it here) it isn't science but speculation. - (with regard to hard fact, measured and repeatable the same as the process of science?- Yes.- That is the process of science - or the process of scientific proof. The knowledge may be systemized philosophically (or semi philosophically) and is then subjected to proof in the form of observation, repeatability, experiment and measurement. The process of proving however, may feed back into the systemized knowledge such as to modify it in the light of observable fact - empirical experience.
…Again, as in philosophy, this process will operate in everyday experience for people not of a scientific bent. This is how, e.g., a carpenter learns his 'factual' trade. 'Philosophy'/theory, experiment and feedback. (the copying of others (e.g. carpenters) will operate with a ready made knowledge base in the others' observable behavior. - Cooking - it is chemistry after all.- So use the metal end of the hammer to knock the nails in with is 'learned' as a knowledge set at a glance & then replicated & internalized by doing and self observation.- Notice how important observation is in all this… whatever we do, experiments, cooking, carpentry, it all begins, and can only proceed correctly through observation. - I'm just awestruck by how much we know. There is an enormous gratitude that comes out of it, and it doesn't even touch the amazing intelligence of the organism in particular and as a whole.- A mathematical equation goes wrong because of inattention, lack of observation.- Yes, and in its non-academic form, there exists a scientific process that attaches people to the world of observable and remembered facts. As those facts become 'vague' we move onto the speculative formulations of knowledge as exist in the non academic 'philosophical' realm.- When we have 'learned' something, it begins to be a mechanical process. - Yes, you can't mix algebra and geometry and expect to come up with a coherent answer. So the addition of extraneous or outside stuff could contribute to an equation or experiment going off - operating in the proscribed field of given symbols.- (and it looks like we may have settled an academic argument here: 'science' would seem superior to mathematics in that 'evidence' exists for its knowledge base that is outside of its own realm) (that's an aside and I've just thought of something to contradict it anyway)- How, though, can we hold the observation mode, freshness, when we are in the process of doing something for the 'nth' time?- (It's irrelevant here, Ce, …digression: if you have three apples and four oranges and I take away two, how many do you have left?) Things done for nth time get taken over by the 'subconscious' - the non aware 'motor' and synthesized body functions.- I'd dispute that.- If you were consciously aware of how you stand up and how you walk - if you had to direct it consciously - you'd never walk anywhere.- 'functions' fall into that area, but there are things, like my job, which require attention, but can't be 'newly observed' continuously.- Anyway, let's take that up another time. Process of scientific method AND the effect it has on us. I'm fairly confident we have more or less got a good idea of the process of the method, and how it cross relates with knowledge and philosophy.- Everybody happy with that? (I propose leaving the next bit until tomorrow & hit it with the presupposition of observer = observed). Any bits we need to iron out?- Ok, I have to go anyway. - Works for me./16/01- Well...I was editing the scientific method discussion... and when I was removed from it I saw what you were asking but while in it for some reason I was distracted. The method involves coming up with a theory, which is then proved out through experiments etc. much like the answer is contained in the question or the result is determined in advance.- Observation first, then theory if needed, then testing. Theory might come first in a 'what if' philosophical type scenario - the hypothesis stage.- But why did we take up the discussion aside from the love of the discussion? Was it to point to the known referencing the known?- I don't want to really go into it yet - it boils down to 'how does the scientific process direct our condition and does it stand valid against K's fundamental proposition of observer = observed'.- We live in a materialistic world where science is elevated in status...- Yes, Clive, we got there yesterday in that the systematic thought is ultimately 'philosophical' like in process, but has hard fact and verification as supporting evidence.- As a matter of fact, science is our religion in this century… and one must have faith to believe in science if one is a philosopher.- (as an aside, Thor, we've looked at the PROCESSES of knowledge, philosophy and science over the past week in some depth. David is just trying to consolidate the science bit ready for the next step. Philosophy, we have discovered, plays a part in the scientific process of systemizing knowledge, but is a very poor relation to science in that the process of latter has an extremely powerful pragmatic base in our day to day existence. For some good reading on this, have a look at history for the past few days.- We see the sun comes up and have faith we will see another... but when act as if we know we will. So we have a relative value system to our beliefs too then right?- Fact and fantasy are the differences. That's the fundamental difference between scientific method and faith. One is based on systematic structure, observation, experiment and verification by physical evidence: the other is imposed belief - cuckoo land.- Why does anybody need a belief of any kind?- When an end is set and a means is designed ...some beliefs have more validity in a given situation than others. So a belief is needed to attain an end.- Facts are what is existent, real, verifiable. 'What is' is fact? What use is ANY belief? Belief is not needed to attain an end. It is verified by the senses. Look, that's the dictionary definition - that means that that is the proper usage of the word. I didn't make it up.- Most of my life is not based on my verifying and proving facts but the acceptance of assumptions about things as they may are may not be. I am not a scientist.- Life is assuming in a sense ,but not at all to do with the psychological.- You will find, if you look, that that network of assumptions is based primarily (and I'm assuming you aren't a fundamentalist Christian here - for whom things would be different) upon things you hold in your knowledge base as facts.- So then my senses are a mirror of the scientific method then?- You don't have to be a scientist to use the (natural and pragmatic) scientific method. You may not use it rigorously, but you use it. I mentioned this yesterday in the example of knocking in a nail and hitting your thumb.- Isn't that what I just said accept my term for fact is usually reserved for a belief because I can't verify many assumptions say about how people will act, etc.- How do you know how to knock in a nail, David? How did that become part of your knowledge base?- Observation, then verification and duplication.- Forget behavior and vague stuff for now. Stick to predictable, physical behaviors - things you can see and measure.- Scientific method I think may have originally imitated what happens naturally in learning, but then somehow it becomes something else - planned and worked out, which the purely natural learning is not...you try something because say you need food - it fails so you try something else, by instinct, what is seen and felt through the senses, trial and error...the more in tune with the senses the fewer errors!- Right: observe the process, then experiment (maybe with trial and error), observe some more as the rest of your senses 'learn' the process, then fit the observations, including the physical feedback, into your systematic knowledge base. Your knowledge has thus advanced/extended - and the method you used, the process, is the same as the strict scientific process.- Assuming the senses are a factual arbiter.- Not quite as rigorous with note taking and formulations etc. but still the same process. Learning is never mechanical - repetition usually is.- Yes Morf I see that... but what I am getti is that our sense data is then interpreted by our conditioned thinking so what we take as fact and verify by our senses may still be a conditioned response and ultimately not a fact or only a conditional fact based on the existing field of circumstances.- Ultimately, this is why science is so appealing to us intuitively, and why religion, faith and other such assorted fantasies and beliefs have met their doom.- I think we need to see that it isn't necessary to hold an assumption as a fact but allow it to exist in us as a limited and conditional assumption with relative validity in that given set of circumstances. That way we may face each new moment without filtering historical data in advance of each new experience. - Senses tell the truth 99.999999% of the time. The exceptions are irrelevant.- That's an assumption isn't it?- What's an assumption?- That accuracy of truth is experienced by the senses 99.9999% of the time.- My sense data I observe to be accurate and repeatable 99.99999% of the time - I observe, not assume, think, philosophize on, imagine or dream. If you don't think your senses are accurate then, a) you are a priori living in some weird fantasy world (and all this is a figment of your imagination anyway) and, b) prepare yourself for some surprises, because your senses know that you don't trust them & may show you a few conjuring tricks to regain your confidence.- Morf I admit, I live most of my life presuming presupposing the moments as they come... taking my conditioning and applying it to each situation... but to open that up is to observe... that's the key word... observe that conditioned response. In the observation the conditioned response becomes clearer and the stimuli becomes open to other assumptions. To observe it without conclusion or judgement... soon a different way of looking becomes apparent one that reveals the conditioned way of looking. …Morf maybe we have drifted away from the scientific method discussion... but it was to uncover the way that method is influenced by our conditioning and vice versa.- For the benefit of those who did not participate, the dialogue about our fundamental process of structuring our mentations has been gong on (and off) for about a week now. It's purpose is to uncover aspects of our conditioning that we take for granted - transparent behaviors. Ultimately, we shall compare our findings with K's basic tenet of the 'observer being the observed'. It's all in history if anybody cares to look, and therefore we will not repeat our (significant) findings now.
Dan Scorpio Home
Kinfo Home (Prince and Magician)
Process & Effects of Patterning
Process & Epimestology of Philosophy
Process and Epimestology of Knowledge
Practical Choiceless Awareness
Dialogues on the Nature of Language
Some Conditioning Influences
Spare
Spare
Email: Dan.Scorpio@btinternet.com
