The problems in the scientific community

#1
I’m going to start off by asking a simple question: What is science? Some might say it’s the only way to arrive at knowledge. But what questions does science answer? Science only analyzes existing concepts, and there is no scientific research before a concept is created. It is widely known that philosophy is preoccupied with concept creation, and it’s not until a concept is declared by philosophy, when a scientific field spawns to study it. What if science relies on philosophy to exist?

Science is nothing more than the gradual progress and discoveries, based on previous work, and we can describe the source of our current understanding of science, as the product of a collective mind of scientists working together, but in different timelines. Albert Einstein did not come up with relativity from scratch, the concept of time was already there. Isaac Newton based his absolute space and time theory on top of Johannes Kepler’s work, and so on. We make knowledge rather than discovering it.

Source: https://exposingtheothers.com/the-problems-with-science/
 
#2
Welcome to the forum Bogdan9310!

I suppose the point is, does the collective mind of scientists have an understanding of an external reality, or does it somehow contribute to making that reality?

I think most of us like to explore the shortcomings of science on its own terms - which is why we have explored many aspects of science failing in this thread. Those failures don't seem to reflect the deep metaphysical point which you seem to be suggesting, but the perverseness of human beings that do science. For example, the way science treats evidence for psychic phenomena.

David
 
Last edited:
#3
I think were science excels is in explaining the natural world. Primitive societies can have a huge amount of empirical knowledge examples include textiles, agriculture, ceramics, botany, hallucinogens, hunting and fishing with poisons etc, etc. A scientist would be dead in a few days if lost in the wilderness, jungle, or desert without the help of people who know how to survive there. There are various ancient architectural accomplishments that could not be achieved today. But it was not until the scientific method was written down and used deliberately that explanations of natural phenomena became predictive and therefore useful.

I have an interest in spiritual practices. When I read traditional writings I have learned that when they describe practices and their effects they can be very accurate and useful to the modern reader, but when they discuss "why" those practices work and what is happening at a theoretical level, they are often not useful.

Unfortunately I think a lot of people disregard traditional knowledge because they think it is "unscientific". They would be better off learning to recognize that there is a huge difference in the reliability of empirical vs theoretical knowledge. Empirical knowledge can be very useful and accurate even if the theoretical basis is lacking.
 
#4
I have an interest in spiritual practices. When I read traditional writings I have learned that when they describe practices and their effects they can be very accurate and useful to the modern reader, but when they discuss "why" those practices work and what is happening at a theoretical level, they are often not useful.
Exactly so! I am reminded of an occasion where Dawkins was filmed attending a healer of some sort. She opined that his DNA was the wrong shape, and she would straighten it! He smiled benignly, but poured scorn on her afterwards.

The real question was whether he had an ailment at the time of the meeting, and did she improve it. Of course, people such as her, who are pushed into explaining their diagnoses, make a complete mess of it, because they often do not know much science, and in any case, understanding how to reconcile science with psychic phenomena is a super hard problem.

David
 
Top