Reasons for seeking, Philosophy of Sciences

[Céline Richard]

Hello,

I have just a little question, although i am afraid almost nobody will answer:
Do you think, in science, we have to know what we seek, before finding it out?

It seems stupid: indeed, we discover the Universe by means of observations, or breakthrough in other sciences (optics, etc), step by step.
However, i doubt... Indeed, for example, I was told Mendel, in genetics, spent his life in making statistics, from experiences with peas, in order to demonstrate his ideas. So he would have had seeked, because he was trying to check something (sorry for English mistakes ).
What do you think about it?

Have a very nice day

Céline

[Chris Peterson]

I have just a little question, although i am afraid almost nobody will answer:
Do you think, in science, we have to know what we seek, before finding it out?

It seems stupid: indeed, we discover the Universe by means of observations, or breakthrough in other sciences (optics, etc), step by step.
However, i doubt... Indeed, for example, I was told Mendel, in genetics, spent his life in making statistics, from experiences with peas, in order to demonstrate his ideas. So he would have had seeked, because he was trying to check something (sorry for English mistakes :oops: ).
What do you think about it?

I'm don't think I understand the question, nor your observation about Mendel.

Science, as currently understood by most people, is a method of discovery. It always starts with some observation, then proposes an explanation for that observation, then seeks to test that explanation by some combination of experimentation and further observation.

If you are trying to explain something that isn't an actual observation, I'd suggest this isn't "science" in the modern sense of the word.

[neufer]

Do you think, in science, we have to know what we seek, before finding it out?

It seems stupid: indeed, we discover the Universe by means of observations, or breakthrough in other sciences (optics, etc), step by step.
However, i doubt... Indeed, for example, I was told Mendel, in genetics, spent his life in making statistics, from experiences with peas, in order to demonstrate his ideas. So he would have had seeked, because he was trying to check something (sorry for English mistakes ).
What do you think about it?

I'm don't think I understand the question, nor your observation about Mendel.

Science, as currently understood by most people, is a method of discovery.

It always starts with some observation, then proposes an explanation for that observation, then
seeks to test that explanation by some combination of experimentation and further observation.

If you are trying to explain something that isn't an actual observation, I'd suggest this isn't "science" in the modern sense of the word.

Science can occasionally start with some hypothesis based primarily upon a mathematical model.

Einstein should have predicted Hubble expansion before any observation was made... but he didn't.

George Gamow predicted cosmic microwave background radiation though it ended up
being discovered by accident before those (e.g., Dicke) looking for it had found it.

[Céline Richard]

Science, as currently understood by most people, is a method of discovery.
It always starts with some observation, then proposes an explanation for that observation, then seeks to test that explanation by some combination of experimentation and further observation.
If you are trying to explain something that isn't an actual observation, I'd suggest this isn't "science" in the modern sense of the word.

Yes, science is a method of discovery, but when we seek, we seek something. We can't seek for nothing.

[Céline Richard]

Science, as currently understood by most people, is a method of discovery.
It always starts with some observation, then proposes an explanation for that observation, then
seeks to test that explanation by some combination of experimentation and further observation.
If you are trying to explain something that isn't an actual observation, I'd suggest this isn't "science" in the modern sense of the word.

Science can occasionally start with some hypothesis based primarily upon a mathematical model.
Einstein should have predicted Hubble expansion before any observation was made... but he didn't.
George Gamow predicted cosmic microwave background radiation though it ended up
being discovered by accident before those (e.g., Dicke) looking for it had found it.

Does the development of Mathematics need observations to be sure?

Céline

[Chris Peterson]

Science can occasionally start with some hypothesis based primarily upon a mathematical model.

Einstein should have predicted Hubble expansion before any observation was made... but he didn't.

George Gamow predicted cosmic microwave background radiation though it ended up
being discovered by accident before those (e.g., Dicke) looking for it had found it.

Interesting observations, but I disagree with your interpretations. No science was being "started" in these cases. What happened was that other observations led to the formation of theories, and then those theories suggested phenomena that should be observable. The examples you give are famous ones, but this happens all the time in science, at all scales. The best test of any theory is when it predicts something previously unobserved, and then that observation is confirmed. I'd go so far as to say that this is fundamentally the way astronomy works, more so than many other scientific fields.

[Céline Richard]

But Chris, about Neufer, here science seemed to start on a mathematical model, although it was a mistake:

In physical cosmology, the cosmological constant was proposed by Albert Einstein as a modification of his original theory of general relativity to achieve a stationary universe. Einstein abandoned the concept after the observation of the Hubble redshift indicated that the universe might not be stationary, as he had based his theory on the idea that the universe is unchanging.
(...)
Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: gravity would cause a universe which was initially at dynamic equilibrium to contract. To counteract this possibility, Einstein added the cosmological constant. However, soon after Einstein developed his static theory, observations by Edwin Hubble indicated that the universe appears to be expanding; this was consistent with a cosmological solution to the original general-relativity equations that had been found by the mathematician Friedman. Einstein later referred to his failure to predict the expansion of the universe from theory, before it was proven by observation of the cosmological red shift, as the '"biggest blunder" of his life.

Céline

[Chris Peterson]

But Chris, about Neufer, here science seemed to start on a mathematical model, although it was a mistake:

In physical cosmology, the cosmological constant was proposed by Albert Einstein as a modification of his original theory of general relativity to achieve a stationary universe. Einstein abandoned the concept after the observation of the Hubble redshift indicated that the universe might not be stationary, as he had based his theory on the idea that the universe is unchanging.
(...)
Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: gravity would cause a universe which was initially at dynamic equilibrium to contract. To counteract this possibility, Einstein added the cosmological constant. However, soon after Einstein developed his static theory, observations by Edwin Hubble indicated that the universe appears to be expanding; this was consistent with a cosmological solution to the original general-relativity equations that had been found by the mathematician Friedman. Einstein later referred to his failure to predict the expansion of the universe from theory, before it was proven by observation of the cosmological red shift, as the '"biggest blunder" of his life.

What science was started? The cosmological constant was added because of an incorrect observation that the Universe wasn't expanding. Then, when better observations came along, the theory was adjusted. All the science I see here is fundamentally rooted in observation.

[neufer]

Science, as currently understood by most people, is a method of discovery.

It always starts with some observation, then proposes an explanation for that observation, then
seeks to test that explanation by some combination of experimentation and further observation.

If you are trying to explain something that isn't an actual observation, I'd suggest this isn't "science" in the modern sense of the word.

Science can occasionally start with some hypothesis based primarily upon a mathematical model.

Einstein should have predicted Hubble expansion before any observation was made... but he didn't.

George Gamow predicted cosmic microwave background radiation though it ended up
being discovered by accident before those (e.g., Dicke) looking for it had found it.

Interesting observations, but I disagree with your interpretations. No science was being "started" in these cases. What happened was that other observations led to the formation of theories, and then those theories suggested phenomena that should be observable. The examples you give are famous ones, but this happens all the time in science, at all scales. The best test of any theory is when it predicts something previously unobserved, and then that observation is confirmed. I'd go so far as to say that this is fundamentally the way astronomy works, more so than many other scientific fields.

Interesting logical digression, but we are getting caught up in semantics again.

When you state that:

"Science" always starts with some observation, then proposes an explanation for that observation, then
seeks to test that explanation by some combination of experimentation and further observation.

I'm assuming that you mean "new fields of science" with a little "s".

"The science of black holes" and "the science of neutron stars both "started" with mathematical models.

While these models were indeed based upon OTHER older sciences that is not where they "started".

These "new fields of science" all "started" with mathematical models NOT observations;
the necessary confirming observations came much later.

Certainly, one can make the argument that such "new fields of science" were never truly science
until later observations either confirmed or rejected the mathematical models
(as may be the case for the "non-science" of string theory); however, any
history of such "new fields of science" always begins with a mathematical model
(; and not with Grog hitting a pig over the head with a stone ).

[Chris Peterson]

"The science of black holes" and "the science of neutron stars both "started" with mathematical models.

I disagree, and I think there is more to it than semantics. Both of these concepts developed out of existing physical models, by which I mean that while they were discovered in "playing" with math, the math involved was descriptive of known physical systems. It was not abstract math.

It is absolutely true that "new" science may stem from the mathematical manipulation of existing theory; I haven't seen a good example (yet) of it stemming from abstract thought or mathematics that isn't already recognized as physically descriptive. If this ever happens, it must be very rare, and I would not describe it as typical of how science (as a body of knowledge) progresses.

[Céline Richard]

Certainly, one can make the argument that such "new fields of science" were never truly science until later observations either confirmed or rejected the mathematical models (as may be the case for the "non-science" of string theory); however, any history of such "new fields of science" always begins with a mathematical model.

I didn't study at all the string theory, but i was told there is a huge debate about it, within the scientific community.
Do you mean you support the string theory, while Chris is likely to reject it?

Céline

[neufer]

Certainly, one can make the argument that such "new fields of science" were never truly science until later observations either confirmed or rejected the mathematical models (as may be the case for the "non-science" of string theory); however, any history of such "new fields of science" always begins with a mathematical model.

I didn't study at all the string theory, but i was told there is a huge debate about it, within the scientific community.
Do you mean you support the string theory, while Chris is likely to reject it?

No.

There is a huge debate within the scientific community
about whether string theory constitutes science or philosophy.

Chris and I are involved in a somewhat different semantics debate.

[rstevenson]

Do you think, in science, we have to know what we seek, before finding it out?

A quote from a famous author bears on this question. Isaac Asimov said, "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny...""

In other words, science sometimes moves forward when something completely unexpected happens. But note that the scientist was engaged in looking for something, though what was found was not what was expected.

Rob

[Céline Richard]

A quote from a famous author bears on this question. Isaac Asimov said, "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny...""
In other words, science sometimes moves forward when something completely unexpected happens. But note that the scientist was engaged in looking for something, though what was found was not what was expected.

Thank you Rob It is very interesting!

"Science" always starts with some observation[/b], then proposes an explanation for that observation, then seeks to test that explanation by some combination of experimentation and further observation.

I'm assuming that you mean "new fields of science" with a little "s".

I went in Chris website, but i am not sure to understand the "semantic debate", as Neufer says.
I think observations can be interpreted, through statistics: in this case (if new fields of science start with interpreted observations), it seems to me important to separate scientific truth from cognitive truth. Cognitive truth may be linked to psychology of belief. In my opinion, “new fields of science” constitute compost, fertile in representations, where it can be hard to separate both truths.

Céline