Before we start this discussion, I want to make sure we are not defining science as any possible empirical or rational method from the onset. That would make it so math was science, philosophy was science, organizing and categorizing library books was science, basically anything would be science, and if that is the case there will be no reasoning in this debate since the detractors of my argument will primarily be engaged in circular reasoning from the onset.
So what is my argument? Well it is based on what we know of the philosophy and history of science:
http://ift.tt/MiqDNL
http://ift.tt/MiqDNO
http://ift.tt/1nnlRx0
We are not certain of what science is or is not one-hundred percent, but we do tend to attribute, scientists and non-scientists alike certain aspects to science:
1- It is peer reviewed
2- It is socially verifiable.
3- It is proven, ultimately, by empirical means.
Other standards, more contentious, yet tacitly accepted: 4- It is Falsifiable. 5- It has Hypothesis and Theories to suggest observations. 6- It is Naturalistic.
I am not contending this. Nor am I promoting mystical mumbo jumbo about Gods, or Divine Revelation, Mystical Visions, Magic, Prayer Healings, Scientology, etc.
I will pose some questions though that have been nagging me:
1- Would AI research be science? Say a group of AIs formed a Cloud, would that be science?
2- Is discovery by internet debate or games science?
3- Would cybernetically altered minds, linked together, be science?
4- Is figuring new discoveries out by Sixth Sense technology science?
5- What about Virtual Reality? What if we can use VR devices to discover knowledge of our universe or natural world? What if can use VR in police investigations or to predict the future?
In short- as technology progresses, where do we draw the line between what we have considered science and what we will consider a new method?
What if, in the future, we do not have one method for discovering things, like science, but a plethora based on different branches of technological development?
Genetically engineered persons, cybernetic persons, AI, Clouds, Web Life, or a combination of such, each discovering things in their own way?
To give a great example, is this science: Gamers Succeed Where Scientists Fail: Molecular Structure of Retrovirus Enzyme Solved, Doors Open to New AIDS Drug Design
By playing a video game, they made a new discovery that stumped scientists.
They did in weeks, what scientists failed to achieve for almost a decade. This is monumental. Already thus, a method, both different and more efficient then science has evolved- Virtual Gaming.
This may only be the tip of the ice-berg.
In other words- we have barely touched in AI, on genetic modification, on Sixth Sense tech, on VR and on Clouds- and that is all I can think of.
The fact that Gamers have already discovered something scientists could not in record time is simply astounding:
Gamers Decode AIDS Protein That Stumped Researchers For 15 Years In Just 3 Weeks
This is huge. It means, perhaps, technologies are enabling new methods that can make science look primitive by comparison. What about AI Clouds in a Virtual World? How much faster could they go then scientists, would they even need peer review?
Mind you, an AI might not be biased like a human. For them many of the bias checks we perform, like peer review and socially verifiable methods may be pointless to them.
Cybernetics minds are another area. Imagine humans communicating by network linked to their cerebral cortex. They could likewise make astounding discoveries and transfer the data in real-time. Would that be science?
The question of what is and is not science will change in the near future. It will not be like how we distinguish between science and pseudo-science, but between science and post-scientific methodologies.
So what is my argument? Well it is based on what we know of the philosophy and history of science:
http://ift.tt/MiqDNL
http://ift.tt/MiqDNO
Quote:
Philosophy of science asks about numerous issues. What is a theory and what is a law of science? The two are often conflated but have well defined meanings; a "law" is unbroken, such as the law that gravity causes things to fall, but might not be totally proved, such as the laws of thermodynamics which are mostly observed empirically and aren't necessarily true all of the time in all conditions. What is falsifiability? Falsifiability is often taken to be a "litmus test" of science - it means that a claim can be falsified, or shown to be not true. Atomic theory could be falsified by showing a chemical reaction that wasn't stoichiometric, for example. Supernatural explanations on the other hand cannot be falsified; as by definition proponents of supernatural explanations will put themselves outside the realms of actual testing. What is and is not "scientific"? This is known as the Demarcation problem. Many people defer to Karl Popper on this, who was a great proponent of the idea the science rests entirely on falsifiability. Within the philosophy of science community, Popper's falsificationism is widely criticized. Work in contemporary philosophy of science largely ignores the demarcation problem. What is the definition of Direct observation? For instance, how many layers of theoretical observation can be applied, before you are no longer directly observing and before the theory laden tools compromise the term "direct observation". For instance: I see a leaf. I use a single lens magnifying glass to see the leaf. I use a double lens Microscope to see the leaf. Based on theory of electrons, I look at the leaf with electron microscope. Based on other theories, I look at the light under UV scopes... this could be taken down to the atomic level, as atoms are too small to be observed by visible light, so their existence must be inferred from other regions of the electromagnetic spectrum; X-Rays for diffraction or NMR to observe the magnetic moment of the nucleus. What are, if any, the ramifications of theory laden observation? What defines the natural world? What is the limit of scientific reasoning? Where (if anywhere) does "science" cross into "non-science" when talking about things like Chaos Theory, String theory, and other non-empirical driven science. This is a special case of the demarcation problem. |
http://ift.tt/1nnlRx0
Quote:
Much of the study of the history of science has been devoted to answering questions about what science is, how it functions, and whether it exhibits large-scale patterns and trends.[116] The sociology of science in particular has focused on the ways in which scientists work, looking closely at the ways in which they "produce" and "construct" scientific knowledge. Since the 1960s, a common trend in science studies (the study of the sociology and history of science) has been to emphasize the "human component" of scientific knowledge, and to de-emphasize the view that scientific data are self-evident, value-free, and context-free.[117] The field of Science and Technology Studies, an area that overlaps and often informs historical studies of science, focuses on the social context of science in both contemporary and historical periods. A major subject of concern and controversy in the philosophy of science has been the nature of theory change in science. Karl Popper argued that scientific knowledge is progressive and cumulative; Thomas Kuhn, that scientific knowledge moves through "paradigm shifts" and is not necessarily progressive; and Paul Feyerabend, that scientific knowledge is not cumulative or progressive and that there can be no demarcation in terms of method between science and any other form of investigation.[118] |
We are not certain of what science is or is not one-hundred percent, but we do tend to attribute, scientists and non-scientists alike certain aspects to science:
1- It is peer reviewed
2- It is socially verifiable.
3- It is proven, ultimately, by empirical means.
Other standards, more contentious, yet tacitly accepted: 4- It is Falsifiable. 5- It has Hypothesis and Theories to suggest observations. 6- It is Naturalistic.
I am not contending this. Nor am I promoting mystical mumbo jumbo about Gods, or Divine Revelation, Mystical Visions, Magic, Prayer Healings, Scientology, etc.
I will pose some questions though that have been nagging me:
1- Would AI research be science? Say a group of AIs formed a Cloud, would that be science?
2- Is discovery by internet debate or games science?
3- Would cybernetically altered minds, linked together, be science?
4- Is figuring new discoveries out by Sixth Sense technology science?
5- What about Virtual Reality? What if we can use VR devices to discover knowledge of our universe or natural world? What if can use VR in police investigations or to predict the future?
In short- as technology progresses, where do we draw the line between what we have considered science and what we will consider a new method?
What if, in the future, we do not have one method for discovering things, like science, but a plethora based on different branches of technological development?
Genetically engineered persons, cybernetic persons, AI, Clouds, Web Life, or a combination of such, each discovering things in their own way?
To give a great example, is this science: Gamers Succeed Where Scientists Fail: Molecular Structure of Retrovirus Enzyme Solved, Doors Open to New AIDS Drug Design
By playing a video game, they made a new discovery that stumped scientists.
They did in weeks, what scientists failed to achieve for almost a decade. This is monumental. Already thus, a method, both different and more efficient then science has evolved- Virtual Gaming.
This may only be the tip of the ice-berg.
In other words- we have barely touched in AI, on genetic modification, on Sixth Sense tech, on VR and on Clouds- and that is all I can think of.
The fact that Gamers have already discovered something scientists could not in record time is simply astounding:
Gamers Decode AIDS Protein That Stumped Researchers For 15 Years In Just 3 Weeks
This is huge. It means, perhaps, technologies are enabling new methods that can make science look primitive by comparison. What about AI Clouds in a Virtual World? How much faster could they go then scientists, would they even need peer review?
Mind you, an AI might not be biased like a human. For them many of the bias checks we perform, like peer review and socially verifiable methods may be pointless to them.
Cybernetics minds are another area. Imagine humans communicating by network linked to their cerebral cortex. They could likewise make astounding discoveries and transfer the data in real-time. Would that be science?
The question of what is and is not science will change in the near future. It will not be like how we distinguish between science and pseudo-science, but between science and post-scientific methodologies.
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire