"Science" Does Not Matter. It's a Red Herring.

A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g. in politics), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation.

Most of the claimed victories of the scientific method were nothing of the kind. Architecture? Computers? Electricity? Medicine? And so on...

Most of what people claim is thanks to the "scientific method" is actually thanks to the zetetic method. Progress is made thanks to trial and error, usually. By engineers. Not scientists. Read the definition below, and try to understand:

The zetetic method differs from the usual scientific method in that in using it, one bases conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A scientist following the zetetic method formulates the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be before testing it out.

Some feel this is a more reasonable method than the normal scientific method because it removes any preconceived notions and biases the early formation of a hypothesis might cause, and leaves the conclusion up entirely to what is observed.

The scientific method produces:

NOTHING.

Engineers are responsible for all of the technology we enjoy.

If you wish to exclaim, "but without the scientists doing their work, the engineers would have nothing to work with!"

That is bullshit as well. Engineers, engineer. Scientists, theorize and produce...

NOTHING!

Edit: Pulled above out of a stupid thread to discuss the central issue.

Science and engineering are not the same thing and usually have different goals.

Science and engineering are not the same thing and usually have different goals.

I agree. They are not the same thing. Your diagram is meaningless and wrong. I have never met an engineer who starts from "an abstract concept". The end result is always known.

This perfectly shows how much of a red herring "science" is.

Thanks.

I have never met an engineer who starts from "an abstract concept". The end result is always known.

Firstly, all engineers will use Newton mechanics, that's an abstract scientific theory. A very important one.

Secondly,

engineers know the end result

what happened to

one bases conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved.

Knowing the end result sounds a lot like having an initial theory.

Finally, you really have no clue what science is, do you. In the zetitic method how can you design an experiment if you don't know what your going to test.

Edit: P.S. You don't even use the Zetetic method, you have an initial theory, that the earth isn't round and there is a massive conspiracy.

Quote

A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g. in politics), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation.

Most of the claimed victories of the scientific method were nothing of the kind. Architecture? Computers? Electricity? Medicine? And so on...

Most of what people claim is thanks to the "scientific method" is actually thanks to the zetetic method. Progress is made thanks to trial and error, usually. By engineers. Not scientists. Read the definition below, and try to understand:

Quote

The zetetic method differs from the usual scientific method in that in using it, one bases conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A scientist following the zetetic method formulates the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be before testing it out.

Some feel this is a more reasonable method than the normal scientific method because it removes any preconceived notions and biases the early formation of a hypothesis might cause, and leaves the conclusion up entirely to what is observed.

The scientific method produces:

NOTHING.

Engineers are responsible for all of the technology we enjoy.

If you wish to exclaim, "but without the scientists doing their work, the engineers would have nothing to work with!"

That is bullshit as well. Engineers, engineer. Scientists, theorize and produce...

NOTHING!

Engineers are part of the bourgeois class, they live off the backs of the labour class. Engineers produce nothing, its the labour class that produce everything

I feel like there's is no argument here its just people really wanting to support one side or the other because they either think zetetic goes with FET and science goes with RET.

Are they not just 2 sides of the same coin?
Zetetic method- you go for a picnic and notice the body of water your near is moving, hm curious. upon further inspection you see its all flowing in one directions. You realize the water must start somewhere and end somewhere and that you can now tell which direction is down hill. The zetetic method has just been successful in figuring something out.

Scientific method- You think I bet all water goes into the ocean. You go to several bodies of water and notice the water is flowing in one direction. you follow the water and realize its going down hill to the ocean.  scientific method has just figured something out.

There obviously will be people on both sides that use the methods wrong and give them bad names.

Engineering in my mind uses both methods at once to accomplish something.

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2016, 02:32:15 PM

Science and engineering are not the same thing and usually have different goals.

I agree. They are not the same thing. Your diagram is meaningless and wrong. I have never met an engineer who starts from "an abstract concept". The end result is always known.

This perfectly shows how much of a red herring "science" is.

Thanks.

I criss-cross this boundary every day,  have done so for 30 years,  and  every project, every product,  every engineering task starts with an abstact concept.   I've never known a project that doesn't.   And the end result is never guaranteed.   (I wish it was)  Quite often a project will take unexpected detours and spin off other projects and products unexpectedly. 

So your experience of engineers is extremely narrow,  and doesn't reflect reality.    (But considering your other illogical contributions to the forum,  I'm not surprised.)

The difference is best summarized as follows.

“In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.”


 

Quote from: legion on January 16, 2016, 02:15:28 PM

Quote

A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g. in politics), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation.

Most of the claimed victories of the scientific method were nothing of the kind. Architecture? Computers? Electricity? Medicine? And so on...

Most of what people claim is thanks to the "scientific method" is actually thanks to the zetetic method. Progress is made thanks to trial and error, usually. By engineers. Not scientists. Read the definition below, and try to understand:

Quote

The zetetic method differs from the usual scientific method in that in using it, one bases conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A scientist following the zetetic method formulates the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be before testing it out.

Some feel this is a more reasonable method than the normal scientific method because it removes any preconceived notions and biases the early formation of a hypothesis might cause, and leaves the conclusion up entirely to what is observed.

The scientific method produces:

NOTHING.

Engineers are responsible for all of the technology we enjoy.

If you wish to exclaim, "but without the scientists doing their work, the engineers would have nothing to work with!"

That is bullshit as well. Engineers, engineer. Scientists, theorize and produce...

NOTHING!

Engineers are part of the bourgeois class, they live off the backs of the labour class. Engineers produce nothing, its the labour class that produce everything

That's a fair point. But, I'm sure we can agree that without the engineers, the workers would have nothing to produce. The workers need the engineers and the engineers need the workers. Neither need the 'scientists'.

Quote from: legion on January 16, 2016, 02:53:12 PM

I have never met an engineer who starts from "an abstract concept". The end result is always known.

Firstly, all engineers will use Newton mechanics, that's an abstract scientific theory. A very important one.

Secondly,

Quote

engineers know the end result

what happened to

Quote

one bases conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved.

Knowing the end result sounds a lot like having an initial theory.

Finally, you really have no clue what science is, do you. In the zetitic method how can you design an experiment if you don't know what your going to test.

Edit: P.S. You don't even use the Zetetic method, you have an initial theory, that the earth isn't round and there is a massive conspiracy.

The desired end result:

"I need a way to cross that river."

"I need to make engines more fuel efficient."

That is what I mean by "the end result is always known." The objective. That is the end result. Just to spell it out for you (because I think you need it spelling out):

Engineers (tasked with designing something) never start out with an abstract concept. They always have an end RESULT in their mind given to them by those seeking a design.

The desired end result:

"I need a way to cross that river."

"I need to make engines more fuel efficient."

That is what I mean by "the end result is always known." The objective. That is the end result. Just to spell it out for you (because I think you need it spelling out):

Engineers (tasked with designing something) never start out with an abstract concept. They always have an end RESULT in their mind given to them by those seeking a design.

Ok, let's imagine you are an engineer,   here is your next project.   "What can we use these carbon nanotubes for? "

When you've finished that,  I want to you to design an off grid power system suitable for remote areas.

Ok, let's imagine you are I am an engineer

Fixed!

How's your magical CERN visitors pass looking today, Walter Mitty?

Has it transformed into something else entirely by now?

A floppy disc perhaps?

What a rich fantasy life you have...

its the labour class that produce everything

Unless you are in a union.  Then you produce just enough to not get fired.

It always surprises me how people rag so much on the white vs. blue collar.  The assembly and test techs that I manage are some of my favorite people.  I would do anything for them and they the same for me.  I love spending time on the shop floor with the techs, actually enjoying each other's company.  We hold no animosity for the other, and are a very successful team.  It all comes down to relationships and trust, but some can't see through the venom for the other to realize they are actually poisoning themselves.

The zetetic method differs from the usual scientific method in that in using it, one bases conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A scientist following the zetetic method formulates the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be before testing it out.

Some feel this is a more reasonable method than the normal scientific method because it removes any preconceived notions and biases the early formation of a hypothesis might cause, and leaves the conclusion up entirely to what is observed.

I find it ironic that you start of discussing a red herring then go on and give an incorrect assessment of what the scientific method is.

The scientific method is not one process. It does not require you to have an answer before you go out and do a study. That would just be one part of one method.

The reason why many studies would speculate on what possible answers could be is because it helps them make the actual observation. Scientists dont have unlimited resources, so having an idea of what their outcome could be helps them.
(very simple example) If you want to understand the habitat of the badger, would you start putting up observation points in the middle of the ocean? No, because you have enough theoretical understanding of the badger knowing it wont go there, so you wont waste your resources. but If by some miracle someone spots a badger in the middle of the ocean, then they can change their study to include the ocean (and ask "how the F*ck did that happen?"

Engineers (tasked with designing something) never start out with an abstract concept. They always have an end RESULT in their mind given to them by those seeking a design.

Having an end design in mind is different from having an end result in mind.
To get to the end result will need abstract thinking. If they are not doing that then they are not designing, just repeating.

Quote

The zetetic method differs from the usual scientific method in that in using it, one bases conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A scientist following the zetetic method formulates the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be before testing it out.

Some feel this is a more reasonable method than the normal scientific method because it removes any preconceived notions and biases the early formation of a hypothesis might cause, and leaves the conclusion up entirely to what is observed.

I find it ironic that you start of discussing a red herring then go on and give an incorrect assessment of what the scientific method is.

Its not that ironic. Its almost impossible to give an appropriate (and historically accurate) definition to method. This has lead some like Feyerabend to dismiss method altogether.

The scientific method is not one process. It does not require you to have an answer before you go out and do a study. That would just be one part of one method.

But it does require you have some answers before you do a study. And some assumed axioms.

The reason why many studies would speculate on what possible answers could be is because it helps them make the actual observation. Scientists dont have unlimited resources, so having an idea of what their outcome could be helps them.
(very simple example) If you want to understand the habitat of the badger, would you start putting up observation points in the middle of the ocean? No, because you have enough theoretical understanding of the badger knowing it wont go there, so you wont waste your resources. but If by some miracle someone spots a badger in the middle of the ocean, then they can change their study to include the ocean (and ask "how the F*ck did that happen?"

They speculate on the possible outcome so they can get funding from institutions fed by the working class which feeds their bourgeois lifestyle. They then ignore their responsibility to give this class what they paid for and instead cling to their own body of work beyond what is reasonable or could be considered validly falsifiable.

Quote

A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g. in politics), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation.

Most of the claimed victories of the scientific method were nothing of the kind. Architecture? Computers? Electricity? Medicine? And so on...

Most of what people claim is thanks to the "scientific method" is actually thanks to the zetetic method. Progress is made thanks to trial and error, usually. By engineers. Not scientists. Read the definition below, and try to understand:

Quote

The zetetic method differs from the usual scientific method in that in using it, one bases conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A scientist following the zetetic method formulates the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be before testing it out.

Some feel this is a more reasonable method than the normal scientific method because it removes any preconceived notions and biases the early formation of a hypothesis might cause, and leaves the conclusion up entirely to what is observed.

The scientific method produces:

NOTHING.

Engineers are responsible for all of the technology we enjoy.

If you wish to exclaim, "but without the scientists doing their work, the engineers would have nothing to work with!"

That is bullshit as well. Engineers, engineer. Scientists, theorize and produce...

NOTHING!

Edit: Pulled above out of a stupid thread to discuss the central issue.

A couple of points:

A conclusion in the scientific method is not based on the initial hypothesis, it is based on a synthesis of the hypothesis and experimentation.

The scientists have produced a lot of the formal knowledge that engineers have used to do their work. 

Thanks.

Quote from: legion on January 22, 2016, 02:55:04 PM

The desired end result:

"I need a way to cross that river."

"I need to make engines more fuel efficient."

That is what I mean by "the end result is always known." The objective. That is the end result. Just to spell it out for you (because I think you need it spelling out):

Engineers (tasked with designing something) never start out with an abstract concept. They always have an end RESULT in their mind given to them by those seeking a design.

Ok, let's imagine you are an engineer,  here is your next project.   "What can we use these carbon nanotubes for? "

When you've finished that,  I want to you to design an off grid power system suitable for remote areas.

That is not a project. That is a question.

Newtonian mechanics is an important tool for engineers, that's science.
If your going to say that Newtonian mechanics is wrong, special relativity was also created by a scientist.

Quote from: Rayzor on January 22, 2016, 05:22:09 PM

Quote from: legion on January 22, 2016, 02:55:04 PM

The desired end result:

"I need a way to cross that river."

"I need to make engines more fuel efficient."

That is what I mean by "the end result is always known." The objective. That is the end result. Just to spell it out for you (because I think you need it spelling out):

Engineers (tasked with designing something) never start out with an abstract concept. They always have an end RESULT in their mind given to them by those seeking a design.

Ok, let's imagine you are an engineer,  here is your next project.   "What can we use these carbon nanotubes for? "

When you've finished that,  I want to you to design an off grid power system suitable for remote areas.

That is not a project. That is a question.

The project is to find new uses for carbon nanotubes.

There are very few "real" conclusions made by what Kuhn calls "normal" science (method outside of revolution.) The majority of what you see is either engineering or curve fitting in disguise.  As he calls it - "Puzzle solving." Finding how your empirical data fits within your already existing context and theoretical framework.

Its book keeping.

 You already have your context in place, and its not likely or probable you are going to overturn it. Consider how hard it is to convince a flat Earther that the earth is round or vice versa. Consider Copernicus or Galileo.  Now thoroughly entrench this with hundreds of years of axioms and the lifetime work of every scientist dealing with your field. Its no wonder most revolutionary science isn't recognized and integrated (or reformed into a new language) until far after its discovery. Science isn't falsifiable. It waits around until it gains enough paradoxical holes in it that it requires a new language to explains these holes.

It takes a revolution and a change in language (and consequently a lowering of empirical content) to really accomplish anything meaningful as far as truth from method is concerned.

There are very few "real" conclusions made by what Kuhn calls "normal" science (method outside of revolution.) The majority of what you see is either engineering or curve fitting in disguise.  As he calls it - "Puzzle solving." Finding how your empirical data fits within your already existing context and theoretical framework.

Its book keeping.

 You already have your context in place, and its not likely or probable you are going to overturn it. Consider how hard it is to convince a flat Earther that the earth is round or vice versa. Consider Copernicus or Galileo.  Now thoroughly entrench this with hundreds of years of axioms and the lifetime work of every scientist dealing with your field. Its no wonder most revolutionary science isn't recognized and integrated (or reformed into a new language) until far after its discovery. Science isn't falsifiable. It waits around until it gains enough paradoxical holes in it that it requires a new language to explains these holes.

It takes a revolution and a change in language (and consequently a lowering of empirical content) to really accomplish anything meaningful as far as truth from method is concerned.

Physicists are usually one of two types Theoretical or Experimental. 

Suppose you wish to measure how fast things fall,   conventional wisdom says that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects,  you design an experiment and measure the results,   in this case we are talking about Galileo dropping things off the leaning tower of Pisa, did Galileo have a theory as to why heavy and light objects fell at the same rate?   ( I think it was actually an inclined plane,  but the publicity people thought the leaning tower need a boost in tourism )

It wasn't until Newton many years later that the mathematics was formulated that described the empirical results.   But Newton had no more of an idea as to what gravity was than Galileo,  then hundreds of years pass before the next clue.

Einstein explains that gravity is the effect of mass causing space-time to be curved.   Gravity doesn't exist.  Does that invalidate Galileo or Newton,  no. 

Does that mean we can't use Newtonian Gravity to calculate satellite orbits, or predict loads on bridges and buildings.   No.

Whatever the revolution that comes next,  it won't invalidate the empirical results.   

Any theory which is counter to empirical results and experiment would not survive.

 

Engineering and science are very intertwined. Any attempt to argue otherwise is futile.

Legion is right, science is pointless, for example take the scientist James Clerk Maxwell, all he created were some pointless mathematical equations (it's not like they are used in electrical generators), and the only physical thing he discovered using them were electromagnetic waves, and those aren't used for anything.
Heinrich Hertz found proof of their existence and said himself that

I do not think that the radio waves I have discovered will have any practical application.

See, science never finds anything useful.
Note: this is sarcasm.

Quote from: John Davis on January 25, 2016, 06:48:16 PM

There are very few "real" conclusions made by what Kuhn calls "normal" science (method outside of revolution.) The majority of what you see is either engineering or curve fitting in disguise.  As he calls it - "Puzzle solving." Finding how your empirical data fits within your already existing context and theoretical framework.

Its book keeping.

 You already have your context in place, and its not likely or probable you are going to overturn it. Consider how hard it is to convince a flat Earther that the earth is round or vice versa. Consider Copernicus or Galileo.  Now thoroughly entrench this with hundreds of years of axioms and the lifetime work of every scientist dealing with your field. Its no wonder most revolutionary science isn't recognized and integrated (or reformed into a new language) until far after its discovery. Science isn't falsifiable. It waits around until it gains enough paradoxical holes in it that it requires a new language to explains these holes.

It takes a revolution and a change in language (and consequently a lowering of empirical content) to really accomplish anything meaningful as far as truth from method is concerned.

Physicists are usually one of two types Theoretical or Experimental. 

Suppose you wish to measure how fast things fall,   conventional wisdom says that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects,  you design an experiment and measure the results,   in this case we are talking about Galileo dropping things off the leaning tower of Pisa,

This is widely considered a thought experiment. Galileo's work is widely recognized as not pertaining to fact, but instead like Einstein understanding of fact and the growth / change of the discourse.

It wasn't until Newton many years later that the mathematics was formulated that described the empirical results.   But Newton had no more of an idea as to what gravity was than Galileo,  then hundreds of years pass before the next clue.

Exactly, we see empiricism ignored until language is forced to change due to paradox. His inclined plane experiment did not falsify anything. It just added to the list of "shit we don't get."

Einstein explains that gravity is the effect of mass causing space-time to be curved.   Gravity doesn't exist.  Does that invalidate Galileo or Newton,  no. 

No one said it did. But it does in a way. Newton, as far as we are referencing him, applied his math to Euclidean space. It is invalid now. It needs to be applied to non-euclidean space.  Galileo's invalid empirical measurements are well documented. Simply take a look at his ridiculous depictions of the moon.

Does that mean we can't use Newtonian Gravity to calculate satellite orbits, or predict loads on bridges and buildings.   No.

Of course we can use it as a *tool*. That says nothing of its scientific validity.

Einstein's work was empirically less founded at the time than Newtonian physics. It had to grow up and live in normal science to come to the place it is today. It then invalidated it as an attempt at truth and made it a tool.

Whatever the revolution that comes next,  it won't invalidate the empirical results.   

Any theory which is counter to empirical results and experiment would not survive.

But until said revolution happens, the empirical results that don't fit will simply be ignored. Its what scientists do. Check out the works of Charles Fort for thousands of examples of this. The empirical results mean nothing without their context, and they can mean something completely different with different context.