Gandalf charts the way out of the Dark Forest.

[Nearly Sane]

Wrong again - the limitations I am talking about are inherently part of the scientific process and any conclusions drawn from studies.

So - to use an example:

I, as a scientist have a hypothesis that a particular pharmacological agent up-regulates a particular enzyme, so I perform a study and I measure (using PCR) the expression level of the gene that codes for that enzyme. If I conclude that the pharmacological agent up-regulates that particular enzyme the peer review process will put me straight back in my box as the limitations of the methodology I used are not consistent with the conclusions drawn. So I'd be told to either:

1. Temper my conclusions to indicate that the pharmacological agent upregulates the expression of the gene in question alone or
2. Perform more studies to look at whether the increased gene expression is translated into more protein and/or whether there is increases enzymatic activity.

When using the scientific method you cannot draw conclusions that go beyond the inherent limitations of the methods used.

More epistemology, not science. The philosophical base of science is about the axioms you assume that allows it to work. They are not in themselves science.

[ProfessorDavey]

More epistemology, not science. The philosophical base of science is about the axioms you assume that allows it to work. They are not in themselves science.

They are inherently part of the scientific method, which is, of course, the very underpinning of science.

Weirdly when I send a scientific research paper to a journal they send it off for scientific peer review, not epistemological peer review. Why do you think that might be NS? Perhaps because the limitations etc are an inherent and integral part of the scientific method and therefore are inherent and integral to the science itself.

Why on earth do you think us researchers spend hours diligently reporting the materials and methods in papers - including the source and catalogue numbers of every reagent we use, the make and model of every piece of equipment we use. This is, partly because it allows the study to be repeated, but also inherently our conclusions are bounded by the limitations associated with the exact materials and methods used. So we are effectively saying 'these are the results we got with this cell line using this culture medium' - which provides the caveat that you might get different results if you used a different cell line or different culture medium.

[Nearly Sane]

They are inherently part of the scientific method, which is, of course, the very underpinning of science.

Weirdly when I send a scientific research paper to a journal they send it off for scientific peer review, not epistemological peer review. Why do you think that might be NS? Perhaps because the limitations etc are an inherent and integral part of the scientific method and therefore are inherent and integral to the science itself.

Why on earth do you think us researchers spend hours diligently reporting the materials and methods in papers - including the source and catalogue numbers of every reagent we use, the make and model of every piece of equipment we use. This is, partly because it allows the study to be repeated, but also inherently our conclusions are bounded by the limitations associated with the exact materials and methods used. So we are effectively saying 'these are the results we got with this cell line using this culture medium' - which provides the caveat that you might get different results if you used a different cell line or different culture medium.

The scientific method is philosophy. When you are doing science it's the basis of how you carry it out, and what science is. Why on earth would you send scientific work to a philosophy journal?

[ProfessorDavey]

The scientific method is philosophy. When you are doing science it's the basis of how you carry it out, and what science is.

I've covered this with JP - sure you can argue that everything is philosophy, including science. But the basic discussion here is that science and philosophy are distinct (hence whether philosophers need to understand more science and vice versa).

So we can argue whether science is philosophy and that will get us nowhere in the current discussion. However, it is absolutely beyond doubt that the scientific method is absolutely central to science.

Why on earth would you send scientific work to a philosophy journal?

I don't - I send my scientific research to scientific journals that base their assessment of the research on whether or not it adheres to the scientific method. While they may once have been seen to be one and the same we now accept that science and philosophy are different disciplines. You will find those academic disciplines and their research in different faculties within most universities, for obvious reasons.

[Nearly Sane]

I've covered this with JP - sure you can argue that everything is philosophy, including science. But the basic discussion here is that science and philosophy are distinct (hence whether philosophers need to understand more science and vice versa).

So we can argue whether science is philosophy and that will get us nowhere in the current discussion. However, it is absolutely beyond doubt that the scientific method is absolutely central to science.
I don't - I send my scientific research to scientific journals that base their assessment of the research on whether or not it adheres to the scientific method. While they may once have been seen to be one and the same we now accept that science and philosophy are different disciplines. You will find those academic disciplines and their research in different faculties within most universities, for obvious reasons.

On the level of epistemology science cannot be distinct from philosophy. None of what you have been doing in this thread is science.

[ProfessorDavey]

On the level of epistemology science cannot be distinct from philosophy. None of what you have been doing in this thread is science.

Which would make the starting comments for this element of the discussion (e.g.):

'Are you suggesting thar [sic] scientists should know more about philosophy?'

Becomes pointless, or effectively:

'Are you suggesting that philiosophers should know more about philosophy?' - which basically makes no sense.

Oh by the way - that's your quote NS. Throughout this thread we have assumed that philosophy and science are distinct and that philosophers are not scientists and that scientists are not philosophers (not least you). And that is the accepted modern understanding of the different disciplines.

[Nearly Sane]

Which would make the starting comments for this element of the discussion (e.g.):

'Are you suggesting thar [sic] scientists should know more about philosophy?'

Becomes pointless, or effectively:

'Are you suggesting that philiosophers should know more about philosophy?' - which basically makes no sense.

Oh by the way - that's your quote NS. Throughout this thread we have assumed that philosophy and science are distinct and that philosophers are not scientists and that scientists are not philosophers (not least you). And that is the accepted modern understanding of the different disciplines.

That the scientific method is based on epistemology doesn't mean that all of philosophy is summed up in the scientific method. And it doesn't mean that there isn't an activity that cannot be described as doing science.

[ProfessorDavey]

That the scientific method is based on epistemology doesn't mean that all of philosophy is summed up in the scientific method. And it doesn't mean that there isn't an activity that cannot be described as doing science.

But the term epistemology wasn't even coined until the mid 19thC, while the scientific method dates back millennia - so how can it be based on a concept that wouldn't be defined for thousands of years.

[Nearly Sane]

But the term epistemology wasn't even coined until the mid 19thC, while the scientific method dates back millennia - so how can it be based on a concept that wouldn't be defined for thousands of years.

If things not being named meant that they weren't happening then the 'scientific method' doesn't date back millennia.

[ProfessorDavey]

If things not being named meant that they weren't happening then the 'scientific method' doesn't date back millennia.

It would still date back further than epistemology.

And if we are talking about being used without necessarily being named as such then still the scientific method pre-dates epistemology. There are written records reporting the scientific method that are from over 1000 years before philosophical consideration of epistemology (as it was later coined) started to emerge.

But in reality the history of the scientific method almost certainly goes way further back than this, as it is, in essence, a form of systematic trial and error to determine what works and what doesn't work. So this can be traced back to early human evolution.

So, no NS, the scientific method is not based on epistemology. Indeed without the innovations based on rudimentary scientific methods of early humans I doubt any later philosophers would have had the luxury of sitting around discussing the nature of knowledge as a philosophical discipline.

[Nearly Sane]

It would still date back further than epistemology.

And if we are talking about being used without necessarily being named as such then still the scientific method pre-dates epistemology. There are written records reporting the scientific method that are from over 1000 years before philosophical consideration of epistemology (as it was later coined) started to emerge.

But in reality the history of the scientific method almost certainly goes way further back than this, as it is, in essence, a form of systematic trial and error to determine what works and what doesn't work. So this can be traced back to early human evolution.

So, no NS, the scientific method is not based on epistemology. Indeed without the innovations based on rudimentary scientific methods of early humans I doubt any later philosophers would have had the luxury of sitting around discussing the nature of knowledge as a philosophical discipline.

  This sort of reductionism of the scientific method does down your own discipline. And if working out how to make fire is the scientific method, then thinking fire is a good thing to have is philosophy.

Again none of what you are discussing here is science. You are talking about science philosophically.

[ProfessorDavey]

This sort of reductionism of the scientific method does down your own discipline.

No it doesn't - of course our methods have become much more sophisticate over time, but the basic concepts of systematic experimentation and repeatability have been there all along.

And if working out how to make fire is the scientific method

When it involves a systematic trial and error approach that leads to a repeatable method to be able to start a fire in a manner which has utility, then yup that's the scientific method.

, then thinking fire is a good thing to have is philosophy.

See what you did there NS - you've expanded epistemology to be all of philosophy, when it is, of course merely a small branch of philosophy. Sure the early humans may have considered fire to be a good thing, although I'm not sure even then that would represent philosophy (which requires study, rather than just an opinion on something), but I doubt very much they'd have been sitting around enjoying their fire and debating the nature of knowledge.

Again none of what you are discussing here is science. You are talking about science philosophically.

Nope, wrong again - we are discussing whether early humans used an early form of the scientific method to innovate, e.g. to create fire, tools, pigments, agriculture. And sure they did - they were early scientists.

[Nearly Sane]

No it doesn't - of course our methods have become much more sophisticate over time, but the basic concepts of systematic experimentation and repeatability have been there all along.
When it involves a systematic trial and error approach that leads to a repeatable method to be able to start a fire in a manner which has utility, then yup that's the scientific method.
See what you did there NS - you've expanded epistemology to be all of philosophy, when it is, of course merely a small branch of philosophy. Sure the early humans may have considered fire to be a good thing, although I'm not sure even then that would represent philosophy (which requires study, rather than just an opinion on something), but I doubt very much they'd have been sitting around enjoying their fire and debating the nature of knowledge.
Nope, wrong again - we are discussing whether early humans used an early form of the scientific method to innovate, e.g. to create fire, tools, pigments, agriculture. And sure they did - they were early scientists.

I don't disagree that humans were doing a form of science, but as covered on that basis they were also doing philosophy. You seem emotionally invested in some need to have science as the primary form of knowledge but that you are treating it as knowledge means you are exactly doing epistemology.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't disagree that humans were doing a form of science, but as covered on that basis they were also doing philosophy. You seem emotionally invested in some need to have science as the primary form of knowledge but that you are treating it as knowledge means you are exactly doing epistemology.

Nope - epistemology is a philosophical study of the nature of knowledge - if someone derives knowledge from a basic scientific experiment and then records and uses that knowledge - that isn't epistemology as they aren't actively studying the nature of that knowledge. If I use language that doesn't mean I am engaging in linguistic study.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope - epistemology is a philosophical study of the nature of knowledge - if someone derives knowledge from a basic scientific experiment and then records and uses that knowledge - that isn't epistemology as they aren't actively studying the nature of that knowledge. If I use language that doesn't mean I am engaging in linguistic study.

Since you aren't doing science, and you are talking about knowledge and its meaning, what would you classify it as?

[ProfessorDavey]

Since you aren't doing science, and you are talking about knowledge and its meaning, what would you classify it as?

But we aren't discussing whether you and I might do epistemology - we are discussing whether early humans having worked out how to reliably start and safely maintain fire through embryonic scientific experimentation then sat down to discuss the nature of knowledge as a philosophical study. Somehow I doubt it.

[ProfessorDavey]

Since you aren't doing science, and you are talking about knowledge and its meaning, what would you classify it as?

Nope I don't think I am - if I discuss the way in which knowledge may be derived via science and how it may then be used, I am discussing science. I don't agree that I am engaging in philosophical study about the nature of knowledge.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope I don't think I am - if I discuss the way in which knowledge may be derived via science and how it may then be used, I am discussing science. I don't agree that I am engaging in philosophical study about the nature of knowledge.

I note you didn't answer the question. What is knowledge, or science, without definition?

[ProfessorDavey]

I note you didn't answer the question. What is knowledge, or science, without definition?

But using a definition isn't the same as studying the nature of that definition. You really don't seem to understand the difference.

I come back to my analogy - I can use language (and in doing so accept the definition of what language is and how it can be used) without engaging in linguistic study.

[Nearly Sane]

But we aren't discussing whether you and I might do epistemology - we are discussing whether early humans having worked out how to reliably start and safely maintain fire through embryonic scientific experimentation then sat down to discuss the nature of knowledge as a philosophical study. Somehow I doubt it.

In terms of 'doing' philosophy or 'science', they weren't doing either as we might talk about it today. The issue is that in doing embryonic experimentation, they were were making embryonic assumptions about what knowledge was and how to check it. 

[Nearly Sane]

But using a definition isn't the same as studying the nature of that definition. You really don't seem to understand the difference.

I come back to my analogy - I can use language (and in doing so accept the definition of what language is and how it can be used) without engaging in linguistic study.

I pointed out the problems with that so repeating it is not useful 

In order to talk about science you need some form of idea of knowledge, and why science is useful. It's not a random activity, and to give it value, you have to at some level understand why you are doing it.

[ProfessorDavey]

I pointed out the problems with that so repeating it is not useful 

In order to talk about science you need some form of idea of knowledge, and why science is useful. It's not a random activity, and to give it value, you have to at some level understand why you are doing it.

For crying out loud NS - having an idea of what knowledge is isn't the same as a philosophical study of its nature. The point about epistemology is that it is about studying the nature of knowledge which isn't the same as the knowledge itself. If I study how the eye works that is ophthalmology - a discipline based on study. If I accept the definition of an eye and use my eyes to gain knowledge, I am not engaging in ophthalmology.

[Nearly Sane]

For crying out loud NS - having an idea of what knowledge is isn't the same as a philosophical study of its nature. The point about epistemology is that it is about studying the nature of knowledge which isn't the same as the knowledge itself. If I study how the eye works that is ophthalmology - a discipline based on study. If I accept the definition of an eye and use my eyes to gain knowledge, I am not engaging in ophthalmology.

And where would you have the idea of 'knowledge' from?

[ProfessorDavey]

And where would you have the idea of 'knowledge' from?

What on earth do you mean the idea of knowledge NS. Obtaining and using knowledge is not the same as studying its nature. I guess if I spent my research time ruminating over the idea or nature of knowledge then I'd be an epistemologist. But I don't - I used prior knowledge to derive hypotheses and then use robust methods to test those hypotheses to generate new knowledge. That's why I'm a scientist not an epistemologist.

[jeremyp]

More epistemology, not science.

So what? How you choose to label it makes no difference to the correctness of what PD is saying.