> I don't think there is a problem with science, but only with some > scientist (and alas with those who are often more refer too in > popularization). > > Actually I don't believe in any scientific field. I believe only in > scientific attitude, which is almost just modesty, along with > curiosity, and some amount of willingness to share. > > Science, defined as the fruit of that curious but modest attitude, can > only go from doubt to more doubt. Despite a growing knowledge, > ignorance grows quicker. This can be illustrated with the G and G* > logic, but at this step, it would be useless technic. I will try to go > back to the roadmap ... >
Scientists are part of the natural world, like elephants. Scientific behaviour, like elephant behaviour, has invariants across the entire set of scientific disciplines (humanity) as for elephanity(!) = elephants behaving elephantly. Not many invariants, but a few. One of those is creativity, of which the aspects you speak are attributes and not all are adopted well by all scientists, as you point out.... But there are invariants to be found, even if they are not always adopted.... I have read piles of literature, talked to many scientists. I sit in the midst of scientists every day all day and see what they do. I swim in the literature. Scientific behaviour can be expressed as a natural law like any other law. I have constructed a prototype of what it may be like. The difference between this law and all others is that it is implicit in scientists in that unlike any other law of nature it has never been explicitly formulated, but is passed on by mimicry. The complete set of all J+1 currently available 'laws of nature' (any paper in any scientific journal expressing empirical results qualifies to go into this set....) is: T = {t0, t1 ..tN, .. tJ } <ooops!> cut and paste error! These are the laws of appearances, the T-aspect. The special law t0 is the one for scientific behaviour. The status of these laws is as follows: By acting 'as-if' t0 was literally driving the natural world you can predict (statistically) the behaviour of a scientist. By acting 'as-if' tx was literally driving the natural world you can predict (statistically) the behaviour of those things that were used to formulate tx. For example newton's 2nd law f = ma reformulated into the form of the set T members would be one such law - this would enable a human to predict the behaviour of mass m. All the laws in the set T can be treated as beliefs necessary to drive behaviour of a HUMAN in order that the natural world be predictable. They say NOTHING about the actual underlying causal necessities of the natural world. That claim cannot be made: there is no evidence. Novel Technology proves the laws as predictive and therefore that the causal parent = the human behaviour resulting from believing in the laws is adequate...remember the laws are formulated with evidence of behaviour as presented by qualia into the head of scientists. To the best of my ability the law t0 is as follows: tN = The natural world in < insert context> behaves as follows: <insert behaviour> t0 = The natural world in <the context of being scientific about the natural world> behaves as follows: < to formulate statements of type tN, each of which is a statementNote 1 of regularityNote 2 in a specific contextNote 3 in the natural world arrived at through the process of critical argumentNote 4 and that in principle can be refuted through the process of experiencingNote 5 evidenceNote 6 of the regularity Note 7>. Where I have embedded the notes down below. They don't matter much in what I am trying to convey. Creativity is in them. Objectivity is in them. Just like a thought about thinking is a member of the set of all possible thoughts, the law t0 is a law of type tN about the formulation of laws of type tN. The set T does not have to be consistent. Different laws in set T can contradict each other. That is they can be egregiously wrong outside their context. The set T is growing exponentially day by day. Each member of set T represents a net brain state (achieved during dynamic brain activity) comprising the holding of a belief about the natural world by a scientist. That is all that is claimed. The property of the natural world that enables t0 is intrinsic (innate) to brain material: the extraction of invariance from perceptual fields. The accuracy of t0 is proven by observation of history in that it has been used all along by scientists and can be seen to be in operation all along even though any explicit t0 at any time could be very very wrong (it was never written down until now)! t0, as a 'law of science' is NOT 'scientific method'. Scientific method is just detail inside the overall behaviour. This law t0 is novel. It is not in science literature and it is not in philosophy literature and it is not in anthropology literature. Your characterisation of scientific behaviour is very romantic but it is not scientific. It fails because it does not predict scientific behaviour in the most basic way: the formulation/verification of natural laws. Note that I have a second aspect T' ( a new set about underlying structure) and the pair T and T' form the characterisation of science called dual aspect. Set T and set T' are not claimed to 'be' the natural world, but merely be 'about' it. Qualia as scientific evidence are evidence for both T and T' equally. Natural laws in T' (future) will account for structures that generate the qualia that are used to formulate the laws T. The system is quite consistent and empirically backed throughout. Cheers Colin Hales t0 Notes: Please note that the detail included in these notes is not intended to be complete or even appropriately configured. It is merely intended to be a prototype - as starting point - for ongoing development. The details have no fundamental bearing on the outcome of establishment of a t0, its framework and delineation of inconsistency in science. Note 1. Formulation of a statement is the creative act of a cognitive agent and the statement must be well formed in that it is consistently derived from a well formed axiomatic context (see note 3). The statement is a potential truth about the universe or a prediction of same. Philosophical considerations can be used here to assist with the creative process. Note 2. This includes statistical (probabilistic/stochastic) regularities. Indeed it is arguable that all empirical theorems are describing statistical objects. Most, if not all, current theories of the natural world describe regularities in the behaviour of statistics evident in the colligative behaviour of multiple instances of similar natural structures. Ms. and Mr. Average have predictable behaviour useful in making decisions. These people do not actually exist (they are virtual). Nevertheless we can formulate theorems that can be said to describe the natural world in a useful way i.e. one that facilitates decision making. The decision being made is one of configuration of initial conditions which will subsequently lead to the natural world achieving a desired state (technology). Note 3. A well formed set of axioms (assumptions held to be self evident for the purpose) establishing the basis for the hypothesis that is the 'statement'. A theoretical system may be said to be axiomatised if a set of statements, the axioms, has been formulated which satisfies the following four fundamental requirements: (a) a system of axioms must be free from contradiction (whether self-contradiction or mutual contradiction). This is equivalent to the demand that not every arbitrarily chosen statement is deducible from it. (b) The system must be independent, i.e. it must not contain any axiom deducible from the remaining axioms. In other words, a statement is to be called an axiom only if it is not deducible within the rest of the system. (c) The axioms should be sufficient for the deduction of all statements belonging to the theory which is to be axiomatised, and (d) axioms should be necessary, for the same purpose; which means that they should contain no superfluous assumptions. Note 4. This incorporates the creative act of induction and all critical argument that stabilises on a final chosen statement. Note 5. This means that the regularity shall occur in the experiential life of an observer. This prescribes phenomenal consciousness as the source of all evidence. This may include the use of instruments which make visible otherwise unobservable aspects of the natural world. Instruments are technology and exploratory regimes resulting from previously formulated statements. Note 6. Evidence results from the act of deduction and the creative act of formulation of a statement (via the same method of critical argument) which leads to a choice of initial conditions as a causal precursor to an experiment exhibiting behaviour in relation to the chosen statement. Note 7. Statements tN are not a prescription of truth in that it is not proven by the scientific process. Scientific statements, unlike mathematical theorems, are never proven. They live life permanently in the inferior state of being 'not wrong' but of great predictive utility. This is mandated logically because no matter how predictive any one theorem may be it is always possible to configure doubt in accuracy or applicability in new context. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---