to grok Science

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

to grok Science

Post by Advocate »

Science is rigor, or the body of knowledge thereby achieved.

You can know this to be true because starting with only the first three words, one could recreate everything else that science is today.

The ultimate grounding of science is replication - to the extent our measuring sticks are stable, we can discern patterns within those relationships.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: to grok Science

Post by Iwannaplato »

Advocate wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 11:18 pm Science is rigor, or the body of knowledge thereby achieved.

You can know this to be true because starting with only the first three words, one could recreate everything else that science is today.
If this was true then you wouldn't need to say this...
The ultimate grounding of science is replication - to the extent our measuring sticks are stable, we can discern patterns within those relationships.
But you do. You need to start being specific about methodology.

But rigor and repetition are not enough.
You need all sorts of things in methodolgy and in the nature of the scientist(s).
Reduction of variables, for example. Now you may say, Oh, but that's rigor. No, it is a specific kind of rigor. One could be rigorous and never do that. One could learn to play the violin with rigor and repetition and never produce knowledge beyond what you produce on the violin.
Curiosity, exploration. Science also produces models which then leads to lines of research that are chosen over others.
You need intuition, for all sorts of small and large steps in thinking. Sure, you check this out, in science, but you need it.
You need the ability to formulate hypotheses. You often need technological expertise. Rigor alone might lead to nothing much at all.
There's also creativity involved. How can I reduce variables? How can I text for X?
And so on.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: to grok Science

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=588932 time=1660085435 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=588922 time=1660083518 user_id=15238]
Science is rigor, or the body of knowledge thereby achieved.

You can know this to be true because starting with only the first three words, one could recreate everything else that science is today.[/quote]
If this was true then you wouldn't need to say this...
[quote]The ultimate grounding of science is replication - to the extent our measuring sticks are stable, we can discern patterns within those relationships.
[/quote]
But you do. You need to start being specific about methodology.

But rigor and repetition are not enough.
You need all sorts of things in methodolgy and in the nature of the scientist(s).
Reduction of variables, for example. Now you may say, Oh, but that's rigor. No, it is a specific kind of rigor. One could be rigorous and never do that. One could learn to play the violin with rigor and repetition and never produce knowledge beyond what you produce on the violin.
Curiosity, exploration. Science also produces models which then leads to lines of research that are chosen over others.
You need intuition, for all sorts of small and large steps in thinking. Sure, you check this out, in science, but you need it.
You need the ability to formulate hypotheses. You often need technological expertise. Rigor alone might lead to nothing much at all.
There's also creativity involved. How can I reduce variables? How can I text for X?
And so on.
[/quote]

Everything you just said is inevitable in the process of rigor. I only provide the basic framework for science because it's technically specific now. They've been rigorng for a while.

I'm not saying anything about everything science has become or all the ways it's practiced, only the kernel. It is Not possible to rigorously study the violin without discovering scales, tonality, etc. It is Not possible to rigorously study anything without rendering it technically specific in the process. That IS the process.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: to grok Science

Post by Iwannaplato »

Advocate wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 12:00 am Everything you just said is inevitable in the process of rigor
I don't think so, for reasons I gave above. I did, already, understand that you thought so, since you said it above.
I only provide the basic framework for science because it's technically specific now. They've been rigorng for a while.
They?
Further, I would call it incomplete.
I'm not saying anything about everything science has become or all the ways it's practiced, only the kernel. It is Not possible to rigorously study the violin without discovering scales, tonality, etc.
Right, which would be knowledge of one area, as I said. Though actually you could manage to, via rigor, achieve incredible dexterity on the instrument without articulating any knowledge. It could all be tacit.
It is Not possible to rigorously study anything without rendering it technically specific in the process.
Ah, we're studying!!!!! That is a complex set of activities not necessarily entailed by rigor. And technically specific might be very restricted. You need to tweak, guess, try something else, be curious about other possible types of repetition, any many other things. You need as the scientist, taken in the broadest sense a wide range of qualities...though of course I already mentioned this and it was ignored. And then you methodology needs more than rigor and repetition, but that was also said. And your first statement was all you needed was rigor.

It seems you have some kind of incredibly diverse Platonic rigor that will include all the possible qualities needed for science. And so it will be easy to say that anything anyone brings up is really tucked in the word 'rigor'.

But then you are using the word in a way that will not be understood by other people, nor would it be enough of an instruction to an AI or an alien sentient life form at a prescience stage in their development.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: to grok Science

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=588937 time=1660086840 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=588933 time=1660086055 user_id=15238]
Everything you just said is inevitable in the process of rigor[/quote]I don't think so, for reasons I gave above. I did, already, understand that you thought so, since you said it above.
[quote]
I only provide the basic framework for science because it's technically specific now. They've been rigorng for a while.[/quote]They?
Further, I would call it incomplete.

[quote]I'm not saying anything about everything science has become or all the ways it's practiced, only the kernel. It is Not possible to rigorously study the violin without discovering scales, tonality, etc. [/quote]Right, which would be knowledge of one area, as I said. Though actually you could manage to, via rigor, achieve incredible dexterity on the instrument without articulating any knowledge. It could all be tacit.

[quote]
It is Not possible to rigorously study anything without rendering it technically specific in the process.[/quote]Ah, we're studying!!!!! That is a complex set of activities not necessarily entailed by rigor. And technically specific might be very restricted. You need to tweak, guess, try something else, be curious about other possible types of repetition, any many other things. You need as the scientist, taken in the broadest sense a wide range of qualities...though of course I already mentioned this and it was ignored. And then you methodology needs more than rigor and repetition, but that was also said. And your first statement was all you needed was rigor.

It seems you have some kind of incredibly diverse Platonic rigor that will include all the possible qualities needed for science. And so it will be easy to say that anything anyone brings up is really tucked in the word 'rigor'.

But then you are using the word in a way that will not be understood by other people, nor would it be enough of an instruction to an AI or an alien sentient life form at a prescience stage in their development.
[/quote]

rigor - strict precision : EXACTNESS

If it's possible to study something in that manner, that's a scientific study.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: to grok Science

Post by Iwannaplato »

I actually think this is silly.

In the name of concision I respond, no,
Science is curiosity or the knoweldge created by this.
I actually think this is a better answer - though also silly.

OK, if you are curious, then you want to know. So, you try to find out. Sooner or later you will find out, being dissatisfied with the knowledge or lack thereof you get without it, that you end up, out of curiousity, using repetition. That you end up realizing you need rigor for certain parts of the scientific process, That you need to restrict variables. That you need to created and test hypotheses.

Sure, you'll try a lot of other stuff. And the talented yous will have good intuitions, come of with better hypotheses. Have more creative solutions. They'll take anomolies more seriously than others and slip out from under paradigms. And likely the more talented yous are more curious.

Strong because they'recurious. Dissastisfied with the lack of knowledge. They'll be curious as to why some methodologies lead to knowledge and others do not.

I can pack the entire history of human knowledge seeking into curiosity.

Rigor need NOT lead to curiosity and without it, you just have some stick in the mud measuring grains of soil with no real interest in the world, life, applications, but sure, maybe repeating him or herself forever.

But curiosity will lead to rigor. And a lot of other nice stuff. And curiosity will get you past being a stick in the mud. Expert in one area of one subject, local and limited.

So tired, I am, of this 'left brain' (taking that metaphorically or literally according to your taste) superiority, pretending it doesn't need the 'right brain'.

Rigor and repetition... could be a bumblebee.

Now I happen to love bumblbees and admire their ability to follow vectors of scent, repeat actions again and again while rubbing their limbs and more on flower genitals. But they have a very restricted knowledge of the world and have for millions of years. But rigor, oh yeah, we are all lazy, too loose workers compared to the bumblebee.

Curiosity, that's a primate trait, generally a mammalian one.

Before they do away with parts of the brain they think we all don't need, let's honor the great....
substantia nigra, ventral tegmental area and the hippocampus. Look how far down and in curiosity lives in the brain and praise.

The reductionists are coming at us with their linguistic and nanotech scalpels. The reductionsists, the automatons, the oversimplifiers not noticing their own biases in their view of 'the truth'.

Rigor...rigor mortis.

Sure not just that, but alone, yeah, the ultimate rigor.
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Wed Aug 10, 2022 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: to grok Science

Post by bobmax »

Science is above all renunciation of the possession of the Truth, in the name of the Truth!

Indeed, faith in the Truth is what animates science.

Unknown Truth, which appears as nothing, but in which every scientist, who is such, must necessarily have faith.

Such a great faith in the Truth ... that it requires you to accept that you can never possess it.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: to grok Science

Post by Iwannaplato »

See, it could only be possible that Advocate is not recognized as having solved all philosophical problems because academics AND regular people alike are too lazy and limited. They lack rigor.

Or, perhaps, his sort, somewhat vague solutions, need to be explained more and more. Rationalized. Shown to really have all the answers tucked inside them in language both academic people and regular folk both know well, but don't really.

There is no need for a philosopy of science book more than three words long.

Advocate is a victim of less rigorous minds. We are all superfluous.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: to grok Science

Post by Iwannaplato »

bobmax wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:02 am Science is above all renunciation of the possession of the Truth, in the name of the Truth!

Indeed, faith in the Truth is what animates science.

Unknown Truth, which appears as nothing, but in which every scientist, who is such, must necessarily have faith.

Such a great faith in the Truth ... that it requires you to accept that you can never possess it.
No, science is rigor.

If you think you have something valuable to add, you are incorrect.
Only the GoAT knows how the GoAT should behave.
Yes, i can easily meet those criteria, and that alone is much more than any other philosopher has ever been able to rationally claim. My
metaphysics is both internally and external consistent, but how would any of you know it? You're all bad thinkers.
Because while i've found The Truth (others have parts, but none so coherent), it wouldn't be hard to extend it or to make it prettier than i can.
Further he is also humble...
Worship is too far. And i won't be the best forever.
but not to the point of fault...
As far as grounding, that's a falsifiable claim and no one will ever disprove my points, because The Truth cannot be disproven. I'm firmly grounded in reality, both in reality-to-me/phenomenologically, and in Reality as consensus experience, especially scientific consensus.
he remains proud, while humble...
I offer a coherent set of answers to everything in metaphysics and by some insanity it's not automagically Nobel prize territory.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8534
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: to grok Science

Post by Sculptor »

Advocate wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 11:18 pm Science is rigor, or the body of knowledge thereby achieved.

You can know this to be true because starting with only the first three words, one could recreate everything else that science is today.

The ultimate grounding of science is replication - to the extent our measuring sticks are stable, we can discern patterns within those relationships.
Sadly there is a fuck-tonne of shit science out there.
Post Reply