Responses 005 (2009-2010)
This is a response to the fifth question in this list of interesting questions. The reason I'm posting it is that I had a nice long discussion with a person who wanted to answer it, and I'm not sure if I have any answers myself.
The question is: "What separates science from all other human activities is its belief in the provisional nature of all conclusions. (Michael Shermer, www.edge.com). Critically evaluate this way of distinguishing the sciences from other areas of knowledge."
The first thing I noticed is that the quote is from Michael Shermer, which does provide a sort of clue as to where one might start. Shermer is the person who writes the Skeptic column in Scientific American, and you can therefore consider the quote to be somewhat equivalent to, "Science is different from all other areas of knowledge because it is skeptical (and the rest are not)."
Shermer is also known to argue (see for example the December 2008 issue of Scientific American) that humans have a tendency to see patterns in noise, and so you should be careful that what you're seeing isn't merely this patternicity at work.
I think you might approach the topic like this. Once you have defined the terms, ask these questions:
I tend to think that you can divide the areas of knowledge, based on Shermer's statement, into at least three groups. The first group would be science(s), disciplines characterised by a belief that all conclusions are provisional (i.e., that they are only true up to the present point of knowledge and may subsequently prove untrue). The second group would be things like mathematics and theology, in which conclusions are automatically true within the system used. The third group would be things like art and music, in which there are no objective conclusions.
If you said that art and music had conclusions, then it would be obvious that all such conclusions would be provisional, and thus art and music would be Shermerian sciences. I think most artists would agree that they believed that all conclusions about the arts were provisional.
After thinking all these thoughts, I've decided Shermer should be treated with extreme skepticism. Pass the salt, please.
The question is: "What separates science from all other human activities is its belief in the provisional nature of all conclusions. (Michael Shermer, www.edge.com). Critically evaluate this way of distinguishing the sciences from other areas of knowledge."
The first thing I noticed is that the quote is from Michael Shermer, which does provide a sort of clue as to where one might start. Shermer is the person who writes the Skeptic column in Scientific American, and you can therefore consider the quote to be somewhat equivalent to, "Science is different from all other areas of knowledge because it is skeptical (and the rest are not)."
Shermer is also known to argue (see for example the December 2008 issue of Scientific American) that humans have a tendency to see patterns in noise, and so you should be careful that what you're seeing isn't merely this patternicity at work.
I think you might approach the topic like this. Once you have defined the terms, ask these questions:
- Is science distinguished by skepticism? Do any other disciplines believe in the provisional nature of all conclusions? If you can find any other human activity that requires this belief, either it is also (a) science, or the statement is false.
- Is it true in the first place that science has a belief in the provisional nature of all conclusions? It strikes me as odd that this should be so, since the 'provisional' part is more likely a postmodern idea; earlier scientists believed that you could reach absolute conclusions. Either they were not scientists (and what they did was not really science), or postmodernism is what science is.
I tend to think that you can divide the areas of knowledge, based on Shermer's statement, into at least three groups. The first group would be science(s), disciplines characterised by a belief that all conclusions are provisional (i.e., that they are only true up to the present point of knowledge and may subsequently prove untrue). The second group would be things like mathematics and theology, in which conclusions are automatically true within the system used. The third group would be things like art and music, in which there are no objective conclusions.
If you said that art and music had conclusions, then it would be obvious that all such conclusions would be provisional, and thus art and music would be Shermerian sciences. I think most artists would agree that they believed that all conclusions about the arts were provisional.
After thinking all these thoughts, I've decided Shermer should be treated with extreme skepticism. Pass the salt, please.
Labels: Epistemology, Odd Questions, Reason, Science, Skepticism
etched with acid at 1:34:00 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home