Scientists Study the Weather (2022) Resim Edwin Loftus tarafından

"Science" is a wonderful thing. unfortunately, few people understand what it is, even among so-called "scientists". Science is the study of a subject using the "methods of science". But it is difficult to limit the study of a subject to the methods of science. In fact, it is impossible because, while "science" seeks "objectivity", perception is entirely "subjective", (insofar as we can objectively determine). [That's a little ontological humor thrown in to keep it light.]
To provide some context for understanding this:
- "Scientific method" is a collection of procedures by which we attempt to diminish distortions of perception caused by the subjective nature of perception. We attempt to impose objectivity on our subjectivity.
- Objectivity is purely aspirational, because, as Emmanuel Kant and others have argued, all perception is perception of the self. Therefore, all we assume to know about reality is actually just the perception of ourselves hypothetically responding to an existence beyond our ability to perceive.
- Science is based on the theory that there is an "objective" existence, independent of our subjective perceptions. Kant called these, "phenomena" and "noumena". For "science" to have value, there must be a noumena that is the source of the phenomena science studies.
This is significant because there is a competing theory also derived from Kant's (and other's) theories. It is, (in highly simplified form), that what is of value in the noumena, (objective reality), is not what it may have been, but what it is perceived as being. In this view, perception shapes reality in that reality is only known through perception. Whatever reality may be, what matters is what it is perceived as being. The implication of this being that what is real matters less than what is perceived as real.
This position recognizes that one can't simply declare something like gravity is not real and suddenly it will cease to be a factor. But perception actually lines up with a range of possibilities. Somewhere between this and that is what really is. We can't know what it is, but we can recognize that we don't know and think of it as this range of possibilities.
Or ... we can select somewhere in that range and push this assumption. Insofar as that potential is perceived as the most likely or most useful potential, it becomes "reality-insofar-as it is perceived."
This is how "science" becomes a tool of politics instead of a tool for the exploration of reality. If enough people can be convinced that "science" says reality is 'this' and not ' 'that' it qualifies those that see reality as 'this' and not 'that' as "more realistic" in their views and this gives the advocates and beneficiaries of 'this' an advantage over the advocates and beneficiaries of 'that'. And that advantage can translate into social power leading to reality as we experience being dominated by their views rather than those other's views.
Of course, "science" (or the appearance of science) has not been the only way assumptions about the nature of reality have been judged. "Science" as a discipline we teach and develop, is only about 500 years old. Prior to that, systems like "Holy Word", "Learned Opinion", "Established Wisdom", and "Personal Experience" were how one possibility was given significance over another possibility. Those earlier systems are still challenging science and "science" as alternatives today and have become targets of "science" or "pseudoscience" because they interfere with various people's ability to control what is predominantly accepted as possible.
In this image I used "Anthropogenic Global Warming" (changed to "Man-made Climate Change") as an example of this sort of effort. While scientific method has been used to produce some of the evidence used to support this theory, the theory is not a product of anything that could be called scientific method. I have portrayed this with a group of lab-coated men holding various measuring devices to try to study a subject, (Earth's Atmosphere) that is still very far beyond their ability to comprehend, and therefore to predict.
So, this is an image, not about the atmosphere or science, but about the latest of a series of efforts to support one idea about the best organization of societies over another idea.
The foundational issue from which these other issues arise is - Are average human beings of adult age best suited to manage their own lives and social interactions, are they better served by having more capable or better prepared people manage significant elements of their lives for them, or is there, and what is, the best compromise between these?

İlgili temalar

OntologyEpistemologyTheoriesRealityKant