The Early Days of a Better Nation |
Ken MacLeod's comments. “If these are the early days of a better nation, there must be hope, and a hope of peace is as good as any, and far better than a hollow hoarding greed or the dry lies of an aweless god.”—Graydon Saunders Contact: kenneth dot m dot macleod at gmail dot com Blog-related emails may be quoted unless you ask otherwise.
Emergency Links
LINKS
Self-promotion
The Human Genre Project
Comrades and friends
Colleagues
Genomics
Edinburgh
Writers Blog
Editor Blogs
Publisher Blogs
Brother Blogs
Skiffy
Brits Blog
' ... a treeless, flowerless land, formed out of the refuse of the Universe, and inhabited by the very bastards of Creation'
Amazing Things
Faith
Reason
Evolution
War and Revolution
Mutualist Militants
Democratic Socialists
Impossibilists and Ilk
Viva La Quarta
Communist Parties
Other revolutionaries
Radical Resources
Readable Reds
For the sake of the argument
|
Monday, April 30, 2012
At lunch-time I found a handful of people from the disciplines of media studies and science studies in a huddle, aghast at the naivety of the ideas the rest of us had about science and fiction. As mere practitioners of one or the other (or both) we were treating each in their different ways as quite unproblematic representations of reality, and the problem as matching them up. I saw their point, but it was somewhat blunted by an earlier coffee-break conversation I'd had with a science studies guy who assured me that all scientific knowledge was confirmed by social processes, not by further experiment (or words to that effect). When I protested that a lot of scientific discoveries had become established fact, literally solidly proven by (e.g.) the very floor we stood on, he assured me that that sort of thing (what goes into making trains, planes, and automobiles, etc) was 'engineering knowledge' and not science at all. Nevertheless I tossed a plea for some attention to critical media and science studies into the afternoon's discussion, where it sank without a ripple. My own preferred model (sketched out in late-night conversations with Iain Banks, long ago) for how scientists and SF writers should interact with movies and television is the approval-stamp from the American Humane Society that you see in the credits. A little line saying 'No elementary scientific truth or serious science-fictional speculation was harmed, distorted, or mangled beyond all recognition in the making of this motion picture' would not be much, but it would be a start. 12 Comments:
During my senior year I took two semester courses dealing with the Philosophy of Science. One thing you learn, and is fairly obvious, is that the scientific method has no hope of ever establishing beyond all doubt much of anything. However, once you get beyond that you can still rest pretty firmly on the scientific foundations. The problem, for philosophers, is that science is threatening areas that were thought to be the exclusive domain of intellectual masturbators (Epistemologists and even Metaphysicists though the later is a pretty dead area). My first philosophy prof, and advisor, became heavily involved with Evolutionary Biology, and, in fact, you see more philosophers taking this same interdisciplinary tract, and less taking the Analytical route (what used to be, at least in the US, THE acceptable approach).
Turns out philosophy can't.
I think I'm the science studies person who you were talking to; it sounds like I'd not had enough caffeine to make any sense at that point. (For the record, I can confirm I am neither a French philosopher, nor indeed a philospher of science [though I don't think my position's particularly controversial] - I'd class myself as an historian of technology. I also have an aeronautical engineering degree from Imperial, for what that's worth.) The point I was trying to make is that all scientific knowledge is ultimately social, because we don't have unmediated access to the natural world, and knowledge has to be constructed within the scientific community.
As someone who has a bit of materials science training in the last 13 years, I can assure you that more is done using scientific means than trial and error. Maybe not 20 years ago mind you. The fact that a lot of PhD's I see all seem to be on the modelling side of things rather than the getting your hands dirty side of things that I prefer, also suggests that things are quite well understood, for various tones of 'quite'. I stand corrected wrt materials science - this is the problem when most of the work you're most familiar is by definition historical! The contemporary people I knew were mostly doing more macro stuff like composites analysis; I was under the impression that though the models were more sophisticated you still couldn't reliably predict macro-properties from the microstructure, which meant that materials development was still (to a degree) informed trial and error.
thrustvector - many thanks for turning up and commenting. I realise I may be out of my depth here, but the point I was trying to make is that some scientific knowledge becomes as factual as what in everyday usage we'd not hesitate to call truth. For example, the Copernican hypothesis becomes really pretty unassailable when we land a probe on Mars, and likewise the hypothesis that the Moon is a small planet in orbit around the Earth when (as the Onion so memorably puts it) HOLY SHIT! MAN LANDS ON THE FUCKING MOON.
Thrustvector - well yes, you can't quite predict exactly where a composite will fail and the precise strength etc. But surely following that logic evolutionary biology has a few issues. And there are of course other areas of materials science other than composites.
Ken: a fair point. I suppose the supporter of strong relativism would say that the social consensus was presumably pretty firm in order to support the space missions in the first place, but yes, in everyday usage it's indistinguishable from truth.
I think I have Chalmers book somewhere in my library, I am not sure where.
guthrie: good question, and not one that I have an easy answer to. I'm not sure what the strong relativist position is; I'd have to go and dig up the books. Fair enough, get well soon. I'm sure I'll have other questions at some point but will have to get back to Chalmers.
|
I audited a philosophy of science course once which stated the problem was discovering a philosophical justification for the technological success of science.
Turns out philosophy can't.
But that doesn't make science bad, it makes philosophy incomplete.
By marc sobel, at Tuesday, May 01, 2012 2:36:00 am