Collecting Questions & Objections About The Limits Of Science

[Anderz]

Here is a related thing to look into: Some may claim that the crisis in cosmology and dare I say it even in physics as a whole will be corrected by a paradigm shift. That was true in the past. Today the situation is different however, not in principle perhaps but in scale.

Today science and academia form a formidable fortress of interlocked power interests. Stephen Wolfram said, I don't know if he meant it jokingly or not, but any paper about the foundations of physics outside the established field will immediately be rejected. Leo has already talked about how institutions struggle for survival but maybe not about the difference in scale today compared to science in the past.

[Someone here]

8 hours ago, electroBeam said:

What evidence do you have to support that there are methods that discover the truth? How do you know for sure that a method caused a discovery of truth to occur. Can you verify that? 

There is a truth right?  I mean whatever is is.. right? Whatever is the truth about existence.. That truth exists right? Even if there are no truths.. That would be the truth right? The truth is inescapable as Leo said. He repeats that it's possible to access the absolute truth of reality directly.. Simply because that truth is all of reality so it's actually impossible to not access it. It's really very simple and logical. But most people overlook the obvious. 

[Leo Gura]

8 hours ago, Raphael said:

If I already started to notice a certain number of the points that you made without watching the series, nor reading about metaphysics and reading the books on the book list, nor taking psychedelics, but only by myself, does it make me superhuman?

No, it just makes you not a complete idiot.

"There are two types of people: people who are complete idiots and people who are not complete idiots." — Slavoj Zizek

8 hours ago, Anderz said:

Even with theories that are falsifiable, mainstream science adds more fudge factors instead of admitting that a theory has been falsified. The standard model in physics is today a colossal frankensteinish monstrosity in the form of a patchwork of accumulated fudge factors and add hoc modifications.

This is a very powerful point.

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, Anderz said:

Even with theories that are falsifiable, mainstream science adds more fudge factors instead of admitting that a theory has been falsified. The standard model in physics is today a colossal frankensteinish monstrosity in the form of a patchwork of accumulated fudge factors and add hoc modifications.

Is this an example of the dynamics of Lakatos' methodology of scientific research programme (MSRP) or am I missing any nuances?

[Anderz]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Is this an example of the dynamics of Lakatos' methodology of scientific research programme (MSRP) or am I missing any nuances?

I'm not familiar with Lakatos but the main observation is that it's difficult for the scientific community to replace existing theories. There are millions of research papers, academic textbooks, education curricula or what it's called all the way from first grade elementary school to postdoc education. All of that based on a long history of well-established scientific models. Not only professional careers depend on the scientific theories, whole institutions and even whole industries, such as the pharma industry, depend on the scientific theories being correct. As a hypothetical example, if the virus theory is falsified and viruses are proved to be nothing more than exosomes, then there goes the credibility of the whole medical industry and of all top politicians around the world along with it. The same thing in physics if for example it's shown that Einstein's relativity is based on a mathematical fallacy. So existing theories, even when they are contradicted by empirical results, are defended as if the survival of established science depends on it, because it does.

Edited November 11, 2020 by Anderz

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Anderz said:

I'm not familiar with Lakatos but the main observation is that it's difficult for the scientific community to replace existing theories. There are millions of research papers, academic textbooks, education curricula or what it's called all the way from first grade elementary school to postdoc education. All of that based on a long history of well-established scientific models. Not only professional careers depend on the scientific theories, whole institutions and even whole industries, such as the pharma industry, depend on the scientific theories being correct. As a hypothetical example, if the virus theory is falsified and viruses are proved to be nothing more than exosomes, then there goes the credibility of the whole medical industry and of all top politicians around the world along with it. The same thing in physics if for example it's shown that Einstein's relativity is based on a mathematical fallacy. So existing theories, even when they are contradicted by empirical results, are defended as if the survival of established science depends on it, because it does.

From Wikipedia:

Quote

Lakatos's second major contribution to the philosophy of science was his model of the 'research programme',[19] which he formulated in an attempt to resolve the perceived conflict between Popper's falsificationism and the revolutionary structure of science described by Kuhn. Popper's standard of falsificationism was widely taken to imply that a theory should be abandoned as soon as any evidence appears to challenge it, while Kuhn's descriptions of scientific activity were taken to imply that science is most fruitful during periods in which popular, or 'normal', theories are supported despite known anomalies. Lakatos' model of the research programme aims to combine Popper's adherence to empirical validity with Kuhn's appreciation for conventional consistency.

A Lakatosian research programme[20] is based on a hard core of theoretical assumptions that cannot be abandoned or altered without abandoning the programme altogether. More modest and specific theories that are formulated in order to explain evidence that threatens the 'hard core' are termed auxiliary hypotheses. Auxiliary hypotheses are considered expendable by the adherents of the research programme—they may be altered or abandoned as empirical discoveries require in order to 'protect' the 'hard core'. Whereas Popper was generally read as hostile toward such ad hoc theoretical amendments, Lakatos argued that they can be progressive, i.e. productive, when they enhance the programme's explanatory and/or predictive power, and that they are at least permissible until some better system of theories is devised and the research programme is replaced entirely. The difference between a progressive and a degenerative research programme lies, for Lakatos, in whether the recent changes to its auxiliary hypotheses have achieved this greater explanatory/predictive power or whether they have been made simply out of the necessity of offering some response in the face of new and troublesome evidence. A degenerative research programme indicates that a new and more progressive system of theories should be sought to replace the currently prevailing one, but until such a system of theories can be conceived of and agreed upon, abandonment of the current one would only further weaken our explanatory power and was therefore unacceptable for Lakatos. Lakatos's primary example of a research programme that had been successful in its time and then progressively replaced is that founded by Isaac Newton, with his three laws of motion forming the 'hard core'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Research_programmes

[Anderz]

18 hours ago, electroBeam said:

You said one of the problems of science is scientists specialising into technical fields of study, and what science needs more of is holism. What evidence do you have to support that an actual distinction between specialisation and holism even exists?

Science today is incredibly compartmentalized. One scientist could write a paper about a molecule on the HIV membrane while another scientist writes a paper about neutrino mixing and the cosmological constant. Each of them has no clue about what the other scientist is talking about.

And holism is more than just a bunch of separate parts. For instance, taking apart a living cell into separate molecules destroys most of the functional aspects of the cell.

[Anderz]

@Carl-Richard What if a Lakatosian hard core is false at its foundation? Then we will end up with the same epicycle theory scenario that I mentioned earlier.

And also, the Lakatosian approach is a limited method that doesn't solve the overall problem in science. I think we need to look at science from a more holistic perspective where science is recognized as being interconnected with the whole of society, including monetary, political and other interests. 

[Raphael]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

No, it just makes you not a complete idiot.

"There are two types of people: people who are complete idiots and people who are not complete idiots." — Slavoj Zizek

That's what I... almost thought. "superhuman" and "idiot" are also relatives.

15 hours ago, Rilles said:

yes

Thank you. It makes my ego happy.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Anderz said:

@Carl-Richard What if a Lakatosian hard core is false at its foundation? Then we will end up with the same epicycle theory scenario that I mentioned earlier.

And also, the Lakatosian approach is a limited method that doesn't solve the overall problem in science. I think we need to look at science from a more holistic perspective where science is recognized as being interconnected with the whole of society, including monetary, political and other interests. 

I never said I was a pure Lakatosian ;). I just noticed the similarities of your ideas and Lakatosian research programmes. Of course the hard cores are ultimately false. Science becomes merely a pragmatic endevour for post-Kuhnians, and Lakatos takes a mid-position between that and rationalism. Feyerabend (post-Kuhnian) likewise criticized him for his attachment to rationalism. He is a better example of the Tier 2 values of relativity and holism.

[Anderz]

@Carl-Richard I'm still puzzled about falsifiability so I don't have a firm view yet. From the big picture perspective I think Leo is correct (if I interpreted it correctly) that Truth can't be falsified. Even a false theory is Truth! Everything is.

But one risk I see is that the question of falsifiability in science becomes a political special interest issue rather than a rational one.

[Carl-Richard]

31 minutes ago, Anderz said:

@Carl-Richard I'm still puzzled about falsifiability so I don't have a firm view yet. From the big picture perspective I think Leo is correct (if I interpreted it correctly) that Truth can't be falsified. Even a false theory is Truth! Everything is.

But one risk I see is that the question of falsifiability in science becomes a political special interest issue rather than a rational one.

Falsification is relative.

[electroBeam]

2 hours ago, Anderz said:

Science today is incredibly compartmentalized. One scientist could write a paper about a molecule on the HIV membrane while another scientist writes a paper about neutrino mixing and the cosmological constant. Each of them has no clue about what the other scientist is talking about.

And holism is more than just a bunch of separate parts. For instance, taking apart a living cell into separate molecules destroys most of the functional aspects of the cell.

It sure is but compartmentalized relative to what? From the POV of a bird(an animal that gets its own food, builds its own house, travels by itself, raises kids by itself) normal life for a human is extremely, ridiculously compartmentalized, we get food from others, travel on aircraft run by others, get others to build houses for us and a lot of us get others to raise our kids by others... so from the POV of a bird, the bird thinks none of us are even close to holistic, not even polymaths. At what point do you define someone as being holistic and someone being a specialist? The bird says when you do everything yourself! You and Leo say when you study more then one field... a scientists says, well I am pretty holistic because within my narrow field of study im connecting far and wide pieces of knowledge within that field of study together. When scientists get 100x more specialised in 100 years(at the rate its going) the scientists of today will look like holists.

So clearly you have no actual objective, absolute basis for defining when someone is a specialist, and when someone is a holist/generalist. Its relative to time period and even whats considered holistic(like for example the bird's POV).

Discovering what truth is(the spirit of science) goes beyond trying to objectify relative notions such as whats a specialist and a generalist, and should be aiming for the absolute which transcends such notions. And even on a relative level, science should be taking into consideration the limits of arbitrary relative notions, and keeping an open mind to multiple interpretations of such notions.

So what i was getting at in that objection was over emphasising the need to carry out work in a holistic way rather than in a specialized way ironically misses the bigger picture that there is profound wisdom in both doing things in a highly specialized way and in a holistic way and a better approach would be to take into account and include both, rather than aiming for one over the other.

[Anderz]

2 hours ago, electroBeam said:

At what point do you define someone as being holistic and someone being a specialist?

One way of looking at it is the form of holons.

Quote

"A holon (Greek: ὅλον, holon neuter form of ὅλος, holos "whole") is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part. The word was used by Arthur Koestler in his book The Ghost in the Machine (1967, p. 48) and the phrase to hólon is a Greek word preceding the Latin analogue universum, in the sense of totality, a whole.[1]" - Wikipedia

And holons form holarchies. So depending on the level of the holarchy one is looking at it from, someone becomes a specialist or holistic. For example someone studying cellular respiration in mitochondria is a specialist compared to someone who studies whole cells. And someone who studies whole cells can be seen as a specialist compared to someone studying whole multicellular organisms.

[Anderz]

2 hours ago, electroBeam said:

So what i was getting at in that objection was over emphasising the need to carry out work in a holistic way rather than in a specialized way ironically misses the bigger picture that there is profound wisdom in both doing things in a highly specialized way and in a holistic way and a better approach would be to take into account and include both, rather than aiming for one over the other.

My impression is that Leo was talking about how science today is too compartmentalized. I agree that one needs to look at both details and the bigger picture, but in science there is a lack of communication and understanding between separate silos.

[electroBeam]

@Anderz wow holons, what a beautiful concept. Perfect for describing non duality(God in human form) thanks for sharing!

Leo has a valid point about comms, but i dont see over specialization having anything to do with it, that's all.

[Anderz]

@electroBeam Okay, I will take another look at Leo's new video. I didn't catch the part about overspecialization.

[Anderz]

One example of lack of communication between silos in science is that I often hear experts who are not biologists talking about genetics and how that controls our lives. I'm not a biologist but I know that in biology it has been known for decades that epigenetics plays a crucial role. Genes are basically just blueprints for proteins. The Human Genome Project showed that humans have about the same number of genes as a worm.

[Einsteinonacid]

I've been meaning to ask you this for a long time....Will science ever be able to download and store consciousness in computers or chips like Elon Musk plans to with his brain chip company Neuralink?

[Anderz]

Leo missed the legal aspects in his videos about science. Scientists are today's high priests. Given that science and academia can fight off whistleblowers, they are immune from legal prosecution. Why? Because the experts used in court and in legal proceedings are themselves "high priests" from the same crooked gang,