The Aim of Science

[gallego]

knowledge isn't subjective. I doubt you understand either what knowledge is or what it is for something to have the property of "subjective". In any case, you need not participate in the rest of this thread if it doesn't suit your silly skeptical posturing.

I just have a problem with your objectively calling something "wrong."

If you're interested in discussing and not just showing off your uber-expertise, I'd be interested to hear what you think happens if I just happen to have a 150-page dissertation about the distance between dust particles sitting on my desk.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Pretty much every post in this thread (except azza's ) so far has been wrong, though some more obviously so than others. Some don't seem to even understand the question I'm asking.

In any case, tonight I'll try to explain why most of ya'll's answers are wrong (drawing upon the work of Phillip Kitcher)....
!!!STAY TUNED!!!

Promises promises.

 

[Fifty]

Don't you worry Mr. Birdjag! I have a paper to do, then ima get on it!

 

[Dr Tiny]

Will science ever tell you why dusty desks are important?

Sure it can, but the answer depends on who you ask
eg
Microbiologist/ecologist will probably argue, quite correctly, that a dusty desk, of which Fifty's desk is a prime example, is an important ecological niche for various microorganisms that contribute to the biosphere. Therefore understanding the processes that make a desk dusty and how this affects the indigenous biota is an important question facing mankind. Can I have some grant money please?

An immunologist or physiologist is likely to argue, quite correctly, that a dusty desk, of which Fifty's desk is a prime example, harbours virulent microorganisms that can contribute to human disease. Therefore understanding the processes that make a desk dusty and how this affects the indigenous biota is an important question facing mankind. Can I have some grant money please?

 

[Fifty]

Sure it can, but the answer depends on who you ask
eg
Microbiologist/ecologist will probably argue, quite correctly, that a dusty desk, of which Fifty's desk is a prime example, is an important ecological niche for various microorganisms that contribute to the biosphere. Therefore understanding the processes that make a desk dusty and how this affects the indigenous biota is an important question facing mankind. Can I have some grant money please?

An immunologist or physiologist is likely to argue, quite correctly, that a dusty desk, of which Fifty's desk is a prime example, harbours virulent microorganisms that can contribute to human disease. Therefore understanding the processes that make a desk dusty and how this affects the indigenous biota is an important question facing mankind. Can I have some grant money please?

I'll have you know that in response to this thread I have cleaned my desk, thus making it no longer a prime example! TAKE THAT, SCIENCE!!!

 

[azzaman333]

I would argue that it's more interesting to see what factors influence the build up of dust, rather than the effects of it. Obviously, cleaning it as fifty has done would result in that buildup being destroyed, making it perfect for such a test!

 

[Dr Tiny]

I would argue that it's more interesting to see what factors influence the build up of dust, rather than the effects of it. Obviously, cleaning it as fifty has done would result in that buildup being destroyed, making it perfect for such a test!

Hmm, yes indeed I can see the benefits of that. Fifty, we demand to know how dust builds up on your desk. We can provide you with a magnifying glass, a ruler, notebook and pen. Please record the exact position of every dust mote and the time it appears. Such knowledge could potentially be very beneficial in understanding how dusty desks influences disease onset in humans. Just think of the benefits to mankind!!!!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The aim of science is to play "just one more turn". You figure out something, clap your hands, shout Eureka untill you are distracted by something else you don't understand. The aim of science is to satisfy curiousity, to see what behind the next turn or door number 2, 3, 4, etc. Another aim is to find solutions for practical problems that are bugging you.

I don't think there's a single aim in science. But I do think the aim of this thread is to use the word "epistemic" in a sentence.

 

[Brighteye]

I do think the aim of this thread is to use the word "epistemic" in a sentence.

What purpose does the word 'epistemic' serve? What purpose in the title of this thread, specifically?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What purpose does the word 'epistemic' serve? What purpose in the title of this thread, specifically?

I had to google the definition for it, before I answered. So one purpose might be to puzzle unsuspecting bystanders. The googling resulted in a shoddy defintion of: relating to - or involving knowledge.

So in: "What's the epistemic aim of science?" I should focus on the knowledge aspect in science, which isn't that farfetched, instead of for instance: monetary gains, or prestige.

Is that about right Mr. Brighteye? Or do I get homework again?

 

[Izmunuti]

Looking at my post, I can see what you think I was saying. I was merely saying that science cannot explain all of the unknown.

The only way in which science cannot explain something is if it does not have any effect on the uni/multi/poly/omniverse. The only way for this to be possible is if this subject does not, in fact, exist. Therefore science can explain everything. It just happens that some things are much, much harder to explain than others.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Science doesn't know what it's ultimate aim is. Individual scientists have their own goals, be they humble or lofty, but there's no agreement on the fundamental aims of science as a whole. It just stumbles along, creating practical benefits and raising abstract questions as it goes. The goal of science is in the realm of philosophy, and in philosophy there are no easy answers.

My best answer is this: we'll know when we get there.

 

[Brighteye]

I had to google the definition for it, before I answered. So one purpose might be to puzzle unsuspecting bystanders. The googling resulted in a shoddy defintion of: relating to - or involving knowledge.

So in: "What's the epistemic aim of science?" I should focus on the knowledge aspect in science, which isn't that farfetched, instead of for instance: monetary gains, or prestige.

That's about what I thought. And since science is a technique purely about knowledge, the word seemed a little superfluous to me.
So the suggestion in your first paragraph might actually be closer to the truth. We shall have to use science to get an answer using observations of Fifty's previous activity on this forum. I was agreeing with you when you suggested that the motivation for the thread was more about using the word 'epistemic' than anything else.
Science could be about monetary gains or prestige, but only indirectly: one's research brings new knowledge, the uncovering of which gains one prestige.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

That's about what I thought. And since science is a technique purely about knowledge, the word seemed a little superfluous to me.
So the suggestion in your first paragraph might actually be closer to the truth. We shall have to use science to get an answer using observations of Fifty's previous activity on this forum. I was agreeing with you when you suggested that the motivation for the thread was more about using the word 'epistemic' than anything else.

You puzzled me for a minute there.

Science could be about monetary gains or prestige, but only indirectly: one's research brings new knowledge, the uncovering of which gains one prestige.

About the same as I reasoned. For a minute I doubted (not sure to have all the bases covered in the epistemic-definition department) because the motivation for scientist might be presitge or money, but they'll still be using science to do it, and science has about as much motivation as a hammer.

Whatever the reason was, I learned a new word today, increased my knowledge, so it's all good

 

[aneeshm]

I'll have you know that in response to this thread I have cleaned my desk, thus making it no longer a prime example! TAKE THAT, SCIENCE!!!

No. But now you yourself are a prime example of how evolutionary psychology can be applied, both genetically and memetically.

 

[Zarn]

The only way in which science cannot explain something is if it does not have any effect on the uni/multi/poly/omniverse. The only way for this to be possible is if this subject does not, in fact, exist. Therefore science can explain everything. It just happens that some things are much, much harder to explain than others.

That is a rather foolish thing to think. Non-physical things could have an effect on the physical.

Also, the fact that you think the the scientific method could be applied to the metaphysical state is laughable, whether you believe there are metaphysical items or not.

 

[Kozmos]

The aim of science is to build neat guns for people who are still alive.

 

[Photi]

I would argue that it's more interesting to see what factors influence the build up of dust, rather than the effects of it. Obviously, cleaning it as fifty has done would result in that buildup being destroyed, making it perfect for such a test!

mostly dead skin. it's in the nature of skin to go airborne and land on fifty's desk.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

says who!? EXPLAIN YORUSELF MISTAH BOZO!O!!!!!!!!

1. That everything is ultimately knowable

2. That knowing everything is desirable

3. If its not knowable, it doesnt exist, and isnt important

And with a supreme effort of will, Im not closing with a wink smiley.

 

[Fifty]

What purpose does the word 'epistemic' serve? What purpose in the title of this thread, specifically?

"epitemic aim" distinguishes from aim in general, cuz aim in general allows for practical stuffs that I be preferrin' people set aside.