Science and a limit to curiousity

[Mithrae]

I've recently been re-reading Carl Sagan's Cosmos, and it's occurred to me that a persistent theme throughout (and throughout all pop-science books I've read) is the fundamental element of curiousity about the world around us which drives investigation.

It's really not a very controversial opinion that religion itself was developed out of curiousity about such questions; and often provided just enough 'answers' as to assuage that curiousity.

The reasons for the widespread advancement of science and de-traditionalizing of religion in Western societies were manifold and complex: But it seems that the expansion of 'the world around us' might have been a key ingredient. For example heliocentrism had been a theory amongst the ancient Greeks, and even in more recent times Galileo is much more noted for supression of his views on that point than Copernicus who'd actually revived the idea. What changed in the interim? Perhaps it was the expansion of the world which people could actually 'know,' with the development of the telescope (and perhaps by analogy, even more common folks' appreciation of a growing terrestrial domain): What once might have been dismissed as mere theory had become an observational explanation to challenge the anthropocentric/mythical 'explanation.'

In that light, it seems that what (most frequently) motivates scientists is curiousity and what frequently serves to dampen enquiry is the sense that we've got enough answers to suit our needs for now.

No doubt there'll always be scientists, but is it possible that science as a field in general might someday begin to stagnate, as both the unanswered questions and (perhaps more importantly) the perceived need to answer them diminish over time?

[Divine Insight]

No doubt there'll always be scientists, but is it possible that science as a field in general might someday begin to stagnate, as both the unanswered questions and (perhaps more importantly) the perceived need to answer them diminish over time?

If we ever get to that point it will be wonderful indeed. That will mean that we have the answers to an awful lot of stuff.

In fact a science that ends up becoming "stagnated" will be a science that has indeed been extremely successful.

We are certainly nowhere near that point yet. But that would be a triumph for science should that ever become the case.

[bluethread]

What once might have been dismissed as mere theory had become an observational explanation to challenge the anthropocentric/mythical 'explanation.'

In that light, it seems that what (most frequently) motivates scientists is curiousity and what frequently serves to dampen enquiry is the sense that we've got enough answers to suit our needs for now.

No doubt there'll always be scientists, but is it possible that science as a field in general might someday begin to stagnate, as both the unanswered questions and (perhaps more importantly) the perceived need to answer them diminish over time?

Your admission that science does not have the answers is an admission that it does not challenge the anthropocentric/mythical 'explanation", but that it is just the preferred anthropocentric/mythical 'explanation". I know that does not fit the self serving purpose of the phrase. However, it is anthropocentric because it is based on information derived from human empiricism. It is mythical, because it often presents explanations based on generalization of accepted principles and calculations, not soully on direct empirical data.


Divine Insight:

If we ever get to that point it will be wonderful indeed. That will mean that we have the answers to an awful lot of stuff. Wink

In fact a science that ends up becoming "stagnated" will be a science that has indeed been extremely successful.

We are certainly nowhere near that point yet. But that would be a triumph for science should that ever become the case.

This is an interesting response, given that this is exactly the attitude of those who believe, and get criticized for believing, that their given philosophy answers all questions. In fact, it is even more interesting that certain individuals on this site insist that one's philosophy answer all questions, unless that philosophy comports with there preferred philosophy, of course.

[McCulloch]

Your admission that science does not have the answers is an admission that it does not challenge the anthropocentric/mythical 'explanation", but that it is just the preferred anthropocentric/mythical 'explanation". I know that does not fit the self serving purpose of the phrase. However, it is anthropocentric because it is based on information derived from human empiricism. It is mythical, because it often presents explanations based on generalization of accepted principles and calculations, not soully [solely?] on direct empirical data.

Is there such a thing as information not based on empiricalism? Is there a form of empiricalism other than human? Is there any intellectual pursuit that does not involve generalizing accepted principles?

[bluethread]

Your admission that science does not have the answers is an admission that it does not challenge the anthropocentric/mythical 'explanation", but that it is just the preferred anthropocentric/mythical 'explanation". I know that does not fit the self serving purpose of the phrase. However, it is anthropocentric because it is based on information derived from human empiricism. It is mythical, because it often presents explanations based on generalization of accepted principles and calculations, not soully [solely?] on direct empirical data.

Is there such a thing as information not based on empiricalism? Is there a form of empiricalism other than human? Is there any intellectual pursuit that does not involve generalizing accepted principles?

Those are precisely my points. In absolute terms, all information we have is recognized by us based on our abilities to sense it. Empiricism more commonly refers to five senses. This makes it even more anthropocentric. Human's have dissected animals and set up experiments designed to determine how those animals experience things. However, even those are limited by the examiners prospective. So, the full effect of things on animals is a matter of conjecture. This brings to mind objections to animal sacrifice as part of the practices not related to science, but I digress.

Though, in absolute terms, science is supposed to be only about facts and not conjecture, the fact that it is practiced by humans requires it to include conjecture, due to human limitations. That is the root of mythology, ie conjecture in the absence of fact. Therefore, the "observational explanation" is anthropocentric. It is just a more sophisticate form of it. Also, any extrapolations from the "observational explanation" are mythical, in that they are extrapolations and not base empirical data.

[Divine Insight]

This is an interesting response, given that this is exactly the attitude of those who believe, and get criticized for believing, that their given philosophy answers all questions.

Those who believe in what?

And who claims to have a philosophy that answers all questions?

I've never seen anyone make a credible claim of having philosophy that answers all questions. Especially not theists. Theists argue among themselves concerning the answers to their own questions. Besides, most of their so-called "answers" are based on nothing more than totally unsupportable ancient superstitions. That can hardly even be called a "philosophy". Blind belief in ancient mythology is hardly philosophy.