What does seem to match and is a valuable trait for a scientist or philosopher is epistemic humility and/or fallibism. At the same time advancement of new ideas does take some level of intellectual arrogance.
At the institutional level in say philosophy there’s historical waves of focus. Take say ontology, normativity, science, and phenomenology. Look in the past and you’ll see when the dominate framework(s) minimize or eliminate one of these, other frameworks that bring the missing one forward emerge in revolt. Similar to the previous paragraph, narrowing focus can drive significant innovation in ideas (and applications). And sometimes we go way overboard and block idea innovation that would have emerged in out of favor focuses.
It’s a balance. Personally, I think the healthy way to look at it is to zoom out and see the history personally and institutionally. Eg I’ve adopted a core value of humility both for what I think I know for sure and to be charitable to others’ ideas. That doesn’t mean everything is nihilist, relative and chaos. And no as a late adolescent I absolutely did not have that value, but that’s a natural part of adolescent development.
Hmm, that's really interesting tbh. Taking a look at how things work in different institutional levels. It provides a lot of clarity, and helps in not interconnecting unrelated ideas.
I tend to think of different frameworks as multidisciplinary, but perhaps there's a better way to work on that kind of thinking.
Thanks, I am starting to see some flaws in the way I think sometimes I think.
Also, I was deriving nihilism before because I thought there was nothing that tied me to reality except Science. And if that was man-made, then it felt unreal because I am not sure why, but perhaps I was looking for a way to have some "flawless" methodology, and that idea was flawed in itself in the end.
There's no such thing as an "objective" stance about life. Life exists. Anything beyond a description of biochemistry is subjective.
There's no objective "right way to study science". Science is just an idea.
Obviously these things are worth discussing, and it makes sense for you to bring them up here as opposed to a science subreddit. But because the answers are subjective, you should have some ideas of your own.
How do you think science should operate? Talk about it here, or try to make it happen in the world. There's no big brain floating in the center of the galaxy that will tell you what science is.
Usually, I have always been curiosity-driven and excitable in my understanding of how the reality works. But, I have also been inconsistent and not-very-rigorous in the study methodology.
And as you said, science is a just an idea. And it is indeed not perfect, it is humane.
But, I feel a bit reluctant to accept it because I always want to have something to look forward to, particularly understanding how the universe works.
And now, I am starting to understand that process is not perfect or "wonderous" in the way the presentation sometimes is.
So, I am confused on how exactly should I approach this. Perhaps I need to keep going and see how my stance changes or settles on this matter before making a firm conclusion right away
As I said in another comment in this post, sorry, but we have specialization now.
One human mind can't really grasp how all of reality works, but maybe you can pick a specific area that interests you. If you want something to look forward to, pick a discipline and plan to study it.
If you spend your time focusing on the philosophy of science, the history of science, and the anthropology of science, you're not really learning anything about how the natural world works.
Yeah, I understand what you mean. But, what about those who want to be a polymath then? Or that there are similar patterns in different institutions?
I am not saying that specialization doesn't exist. It obviously is a key component in becoming a polymath. There needs to be quite specialization in at least a few interrelated domains to understand the reality from those stances.
It's also that, I don't usually spend my time focusing on the philosophy of science. Recently, I was just checking out this book—"A short history of nearly everything" by Bill Bryson. And when I was reading it, I went to check out more stuff about the scientists, and I realized that the way I idealize them, (because I feel really alone in my current environment by having no intellectually interested students), I kinda felt like they were this "Really awesome cerebral people who deeply prioritized the pursuit of science".
I am not sure if what I am saying is making much sense or not.
But, I do plan to do a specialization as I go ahead too
> But really though, what is the right way to study science?
In my opinion, the best way is to focus on methodology. In out modern world, far too many people see science as just a collection of facts that has been figured out by the "big brained smart people". For instance, you might find a person who, when asked "how old is the universe?" They'll respond with "13.8 billion years" without skipping a beat. But when you follow up with "how were they able to determine that", they'll have nothing for you, other than "The really smart people figured it out and they're really smart, WAY smarter than you or me, and they have a really good reason for saying it's 13.8 billion years" For me, the number 13.8 billion is completely meaningless to me. My life is in no way enhanced by dedicating brain cells to memorizing that number. If you could explain to me how that number was calculated, then my mind might be blown, and my life enhanced. The problem is that very very very few people will ever care how that number came about, which is why you're not going to have an easy time figuring out how it was calculated. This is why I have become very nihilistic towards modern science. I can't help but have the hunch that large swaths to modern "science" is just completely made up. I don't have the same feelings towards pre-20th century science.
Because science isn't about trust. At least it SHOULDN'T be about trust.
When you read pre-20th century science, it's written by people who know that their readers expect to understand whats going on. You can pretty much pick up any primary source in science pre-20th century and read it completely though and completely understand everything going on. You don't have to "trust" anyone because you can understand it for yourself. In modern times, the people who do science don't expect anyone to understand anything, so no effort is made to make it understandable, and no one cares. If you pick up a typical research paper from the 21st century, chances are you'll have no idea what it's talking about, and have no choice but to "trust" that the science is legit. That fucking sucks, and is why I hate modern science.
Sorry, but we have specialization now. If you truly want to "understand" the cutting edge of human knowledge, you need several years of study.
The people doing research in 1810 basically had the same understanding of nature as everyone else around them, so they could write from that perspective.
The thing is, we still have review papers and science journalism. The fact that you wrote "no effort is made to make it understandable," makes me think you're not looking very hard. Have you heard of Carl Sagan or Bill Nye? There are hundreds of science books written for enthusiasts. Someone I know went straight from wet lab research to producing a show for NPR. You can develop a general understanding of the big ideas in a field of research without years of study, but it still takes a lot of work.
> Sorry, but we have specialization now. If you truly want to "understand" the cutting edge of human knowledge, you need several years of study.
I disagree. There are plenty of other "cutting edge" technology that exists today that are very accessible. Take for example, car engines. If you really really really wanted to understand every aspect of how a car engine works, it is possible, and doesn't take a decade of learning.
What I've noticed about science is that there are two extremes that exist when people try to explain science. In one end of the spectrum, you have the Bill Nye types that will explain how a car engine works by saying "you press the gas pedal, and it makes the engine go. Then you press the brake pedal and it makes the car stop. Move the steering wheel left and right, and it makes the car turn". Yes, I can understand this stuff, but it's not a full explanation. Thats like a 1% explanation. Then at the other end of the spectrum, you have absolute gibberish that is not understandable by anyone. And there is nothing in between. But when you want to learn about other complex things, there are explanation that exist in the in-between space of that spectrum.
I think information about "how" those "facts" came to be is available when research more at depth tbh.
And even if this does not apply to the majority of the population, there is still a huge number of people who do care about scientific and intellectual integrity
It is a bit random in that way.
The train of thought I had while thinking through this isn't particularly logically consistent tbh, which is made it really confusing.
Well, through personal reflection, and this is really personal, I think I attached a lot of hopes onto pursuit of science or idealized scientists a bit too much, because some other important things not going well with me in life (being deeply misunderstood among people around me). And when I got to understand that scientists are fallible too, it made me fear the anchor I was holding onto wasn't very stable in itself, so that perhaps scared me quite a bit.
Well, this is very personal, so it feels weird that I posted it here now. But, well
Freuds-Mother | a day ago
I don’t see how nihilism follows from this.
What does seem to match and is a valuable trait for a scientist or philosopher is epistemic humility and/or fallibism. At the same time advancement of new ideas does take some level of intellectual arrogance.
At the institutional level in say philosophy there’s historical waves of focus. Take say ontology, normativity, science, and phenomenology. Look in the past and you’ll see when the dominate framework(s) minimize or eliminate one of these, other frameworks that bring the missing one forward emerge in revolt. Similar to the previous paragraph, narrowing focus can drive significant innovation in ideas (and applications). And sometimes we go way overboard and block idea innovation that would have emerged in out of favor focuses.
It’s a balance. Personally, I think the healthy way to look at it is to zoom out and see the history personally and institutionally. Eg I’ve adopted a core value of humility both for what I think I know for sure and to be charitable to others’ ideas. That doesn’t mean everything is nihilist, relative and chaos. And no as a late adolescent I absolutely did not have that value, but that’s a natural part of adolescent development.
[OP] Aelphase | a day ago
Hmm, that's really interesting tbh. Taking a look at how things work in different institutional levels. It provides a lot of clarity, and helps in not interconnecting unrelated ideas.
I tend to think of different frameworks as multidisciplinary, but perhaps there's a better way to work on that kind of thinking.
Thanks, I am starting to see some flaws in the way I think sometimes I think.
Also, I was deriving nihilism before because I thought there was nothing that tied me to reality except Science. And if that was man-made, then it felt unreal because I am not sure why, but perhaps I was looking for a way to have some "flawless" methodology, and that idea was flawed in itself in the end.
bwc6 | a day ago
Nihilism isn't automatically negative.
There's no such thing as an "objective" stance about life. Life exists. Anything beyond a description of biochemistry is subjective.
There's no objective "right way to study science". Science is just an idea.
Obviously these things are worth discussing, and it makes sense for you to bring them up here as opposed to a science subreddit. But because the answers are subjective, you should have some ideas of your own.
How do you think science should operate? Talk about it here, or try to make it happen in the world. There's no big brain floating in the center of the galaxy that will tell you what science is.
[OP] Aelphase | a day ago
That's understandable.
Usually, I have always been curiosity-driven and excitable in my understanding of how the reality works. But, I have also been inconsistent and not-very-rigorous in the study methodology.
And as you said, science is a just an idea. And it is indeed not perfect, it is humane.
But, I feel a bit reluctant to accept it because I always want to have something to look forward to, particularly understanding how the universe works.
And now, I am starting to understand that process is not perfect or "wonderous" in the way the presentation sometimes is.
So, I am confused on how exactly should I approach this. Perhaps I need to keep going and see how my stance changes or settles on this matter before making a firm conclusion right away
bwc6 | 17 hours ago
As I said in another comment in this post, sorry, but we have specialization now.
One human mind can't really grasp how all of reality works, but maybe you can pick a specific area that interests you. If you want something to look forward to, pick a discipline and plan to study it.
If you spend your time focusing on the philosophy of science, the history of science, and the anthropology of science, you're not really learning anything about how the natural world works.
[OP] Aelphase | 16 hours ago
Yeah, I understand what you mean. But, what about those who want to be a polymath then? Or that there are similar patterns in different institutions?
I am not saying that specialization doesn't exist. It obviously is a key component in becoming a polymath. There needs to be quite specialization in at least a few interrelated domains to understand the reality from those stances.
It's also that, I don't usually spend my time focusing on the philosophy of science. Recently, I was just checking out this book—"A short history of nearly everything" by Bill Bryson. And when I was reading it, I went to check out more stuff about the scientists, and I realized that the way I idealize them, (because I feel really alone in my current environment by having no intellectually interested students), I kinda felt like they were this "Really awesome cerebral people who deeply prioritized the pursuit of science".
I am not sure if what I am saying is making much sense or not.
But, I do plan to do a specialization as I go ahead too
freework | a day ago
> But really though, what is the right way to study science?
In my opinion, the best way is to focus on methodology. In out modern world, far too many people see science as just a collection of facts that has been figured out by the "big brained smart people". For instance, you might find a person who, when asked "how old is the universe?" They'll respond with "13.8 billion years" without skipping a beat. But when you follow up with "how were they able to determine that", they'll have nothing for you, other than "The really smart people figured it out and they're really smart, WAY smarter than you or me, and they have a really good reason for saying it's 13.8 billion years" For me, the number 13.8 billion is completely meaningless to me. My life is in no way enhanced by dedicating brain cells to memorizing that number. If you could explain to me how that number was calculated, then my mind might be blown, and my life enhanced. The problem is that very very very few people will ever care how that number came about, which is why you're not going to have an easy time figuring out how it was calculated. This is why I have become very nihilistic towards modern science. I can't help but have the hunch that large swaths to modern "science" is just completely made up. I don't have the same feelings towards pre-20th century science.
bwc6 | 22 hours ago
> I don't have the same feelings towards pre-20th century science.
LOL, what? Why would you trust the guys who thought the uterus migrated around a woman's body over the people that discovered the structure of DNA?
freework | 22 hours ago
Because science isn't about trust. At least it SHOULDN'T be about trust.
When you read pre-20th century science, it's written by people who know that their readers expect to understand whats going on. You can pretty much pick up any primary source in science pre-20th century and read it completely though and completely understand everything going on. You don't have to "trust" anyone because you can understand it for yourself. In modern times, the people who do science don't expect anyone to understand anything, so no effort is made to make it understandable, and no one cares. If you pick up a typical research paper from the 21st century, chances are you'll have no idea what it's talking about, and have no choice but to "trust" that the science is legit. That fucking sucks, and is why I hate modern science.
bwc6 | 17 hours ago
Sorry, but we have specialization now. If you truly want to "understand" the cutting edge of human knowledge, you need several years of study.
The people doing research in 1810 basically had the same understanding of nature as everyone else around them, so they could write from that perspective.
The thing is, we still have review papers and science journalism. The fact that you wrote "no effort is made to make it understandable," makes me think you're not looking very hard. Have you heard of Carl Sagan or Bill Nye? There are hundreds of science books written for enthusiasts. Someone I know went straight from wet lab research to producing a show for NPR. You can develop a general understanding of the big ideas in a field of research without years of study, but it still takes a lot of work.
freework | 6 minutes ago
> Sorry, but we have specialization now. If you truly want to "understand" the cutting edge of human knowledge, you need several years of study.
I disagree. There are plenty of other "cutting edge" technology that exists today that are very accessible. Take for example, car engines. If you really really really wanted to understand every aspect of how a car engine works, it is possible, and doesn't take a decade of learning.
What I've noticed about science is that there are two extremes that exist when people try to explain science. In one end of the spectrum, you have the Bill Nye types that will explain how a car engine works by saying "you press the gas pedal, and it makes the engine go. Then you press the brake pedal and it makes the car stop. Move the steering wheel left and right, and it makes the car turn". Yes, I can understand this stuff, but it's not a full explanation. Thats like a 1% explanation. Then at the other end of the spectrum, you have absolute gibberish that is not understandable by anyone. And there is nothing in between. But when you want to learn about other complex things, there are explanation that exist in the in-between space of that spectrum.
[OP] Aelphase | 16 hours ago
I think information about "how" those "facts" came to be is available when research more at depth tbh.
And even if this does not apply to the majority of the population, there is still a huge number of people who do care about scientific and intellectual integrity
Thelonious_Cube | 16 hours ago
People (scientists) being fallible and quirky doesn't imply that "everything is man-made."
How exactly do the Epstein files play into this?
Your post seems very random to me
[OP] Aelphase | 15 hours ago
It is a bit random in that way.
The train of thought I had while thinking through this isn't particularly logically consistent tbh, which is made it really confusing.
Well, through personal reflection, and this is really personal, I think I attached a lot of hopes onto pursuit of science or idealized scientists a bit too much, because some other important things not going well with me in life (being deeply misunderstood among people around me). And when I got to understand that scientists are fallible too, it made me fear the anchor I was holding onto wasn't very stable in itself, so that perhaps scared me quite a bit.
Well, this is very personal, so it feels weird that I posted it here now. But, well