Monday 19 March 2012

Real science must be anchored to common experience


My belief is that real science must be anchored to common experience as interpreted by common sense - otherwise it stops being science.

For example, modern medical research, which includes its own (statistical, and bogus) evaluation criteria and rules out the validity of individual experience, has long-since failed to make breakthroughs and is becoming an active menace to human health and well-being.


So, science is (ought to be) validated in terms of obvious differences it makes in the real world.

The technical, professional science needs to be linked firmly to these obvious differences.

And this applies to all sciences - even physics.

String theory has destroyed the most rigorous of sciences, theoretical physics, by its lack of any anchor to common experience - lack of even the slenderest anchor.


A rigorous science can make do with a very slender anchor - but anchor there must be.

Without such science becomes merely bureaucracy - a social organization based on arbitrary rules and practices - mere peer review...


Natural selection is linked to a few obvious differences accessible to common experience, but mainly it serves as a professional research program by unifying biology.

But the professional structure must ultimately be linked back to common sense evaluations, which isn't happening.

Instead, natural selection is being used as a a philosophy of life; but as a philosophy of life, natural selection is very bad.



The Crow said...

Particle Physics is an interesting thing.
Even a mind-blowing thing.
A bit of a blow to physicists, really, to witness basic reality being so fluid, and so arbitrary.

The conservative mind seeks order, indeed order is an obsession, to seekers of it.
And what if there actually is no order?
One may impose it, or one may accept its lack, and find a way to function, anyway.
People speak of reality, is if it was common to all.
But it is not.
Even if it existed, it would not be common to all.

And so 'common-sense' is, itself, an arbitrary thing, either agreed upon, or not.
This is why all civilizations fail:
Built on sand, since sand appears to be the only foundation available to build upon, it comes down to deciding which sand is the firmest.
And ultimately, sand will subside and depart.

Making sense of the senseless.
The thing I most love about God, is His boundless sense of humour.
The thing I love least about people, is their boundless lack of it.
Perhaps life was never about making-sense.
Perhaps only what it is, and what it always was:
A medium in which we may either thrive, or not.


Wurmbrand said...

Is there any purpose for string theory aside from (1) just the fun of the mental exercise and (2) a way to get around the increasing evidence that our universe -- the only one we know -- is amazingly fine-tuned for life on this planet Earth -- an unwelcome and unacceptable development, given the horror of implied (gasp) Intelligent Design?

Nergol said...

This is especially true in the current push to explain away/deny the existence of the soul by attempting to explain all the complexities of human behavior by reducing everything to neurons and brain chemistry.

The thing is, the neuroscientists' explanations are logical, reasonable, fact-based, backed up by reams of carefully-collected, peer-reviewed science - and are plain, utter, obvious, laughable nonsense to anyone who's spent significant time away from a university campus or a research lab dealing with actual human beings in all their weird, wonderful, horrible, illogical complexity.

But instead of saying: "All my data points to X, and yet that's *obviously* wrong", they stick with the data. Go fig.

Gyan said...

"the neuroscientists' explanations are logical, reasonable, fact-based"

No, they are not. Even atheistic scientists and philosophers have pointed out the wholesale gaps in the logic and metaphysical blunders in the neurobabble.

Bruce Charlton said...

Re Neuroscience - speaking as an ex-neuroscientist, it is one of the most wholly worthless areas of science I have encountered (not the worst - but mostly bad, especially the most prestigious types of neuroscience such as 'functional brain imaging').