5 foundational assumptions of science

These are 5 foundational assumptions of science (Given by Kitty Ferguson's "the Fire in the equations) are ....

1. the universe is rational - can be determined by systems of logic
2. the universe is accessible - we have the means to interact with the universe
3. the universe is contingent - relationships of cause and effect operate within parameters
4. the universe is objective - exists independent and indifferent to sense perception
5. the universe is unified - nothing can be "separated" from the universe

as an example, empirical science focuses on the second assumption - but when science moves on to subjects beyond the senses (like theoretical physics), the first assumption is called upon

JamesR states

Provisionally,(the nature of science is to) determine that things for which there is no evidence of existence are mythical

The challenge is, what is the evidence for these 5 foundational assumptions of science.

JamesR offers

For example, the fact that your computer exists is testament to the fact that the universe is rational and acceptable.

this doesn't address the challenge because he is saying that the evidence of the first and second assumptions is addressed by the third (IOW evidencing an assumption by relying on another assumption is begging the question)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

no true evidences, all can be contradicted with lack of facts

I for one thing don't believe in a unified universe belief...but my belief cannot be proven or disproved

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it's certainly difficult to indicate anything outside of the universe
:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think your tack is improving on this issue. I'll be interested to see the debate it creates. I singled out that last one because I would almost say scientists more commonly do the opposite: they assume that they CAN separate out pieces, that pieces are separate and that separating them out does not change them or miss other levels on which they function. Reductionism, for example, is a word that often comes up in such debates. But actually your wording made me think of this more all ecompassing pattern. I think some cultures have tend to analyze things in terms of their relationships. The thing's separation is not emphasized.

I can see the way science does what you are saying also.

 

lightgigantic,

Many cultures do not even believe in something called a 'universe'.

The 'universe' is a belief we inherited from the Greeks in a world which can be dispassionately 'observed', ie, one in which feeling and empathy are extinguished and replaced by a relentless logic - the absolute bedrock of the scientific method.

During colonialism it was and still is used as a weapon to silence opposing cultures that refused to accept the world as being just the some total of everything that can be seen.

Pick out any random act of violence or cruelty in the Western world and you have an example of the 'universe' at work.

 

O deepthought, o deepthought...what is the ultimate answer to universe, life, and everything?

 

42

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

then they probably also don't have much to offer on sub-category that deals with science and society either

hence its no coincidence that it is the greeks that laid the foundation of what we currently have in the way of science

hence there are many problems that arise from within these assumptions - for instance how does number 2 deal with number 4

yup

that's number 5

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

if you dig deep enough you find that its only the scientists with either a social agenda or those that are bereft of philosophical foundations that pretend they can work in a way that is outside of the the 5th assumption.

For instance if you examine the contributions of einstein and Karl Popper, you can see they clearly worked in tow of this

 

I wasn't saying 5 was wrong. I was really suggesting a 6.

the universe is divisible

 

certainly its divisible
but such divisions always remain within the whole

 

You seem to be assuming that the five assumptions are independent - that would be another assumption, and one that seems unlikely to me.

Can you show that 1, 2, and 3 can be independently denied, for example? I doubt it.

I also think that 4 iand 5 are slippery, definition dependent, and not necessarily necessary assumptions.

So in general, the project seems to be off on the wrong foot. What is its motive?

 

JamesR

If 4 for was not valid, there would be no need for peer reviewing in science as some yard stick of validity

how do you propose that one can examine whether a computer is rational and accessible without relying on issues of contingency, ie cause and effect within parameters?

 

iceaura
“

JamesR was claiming that

,(the nature of science is to) determine that things for which there is no evidence of existence are mythical

if there is no evidence for the foundations of science (save and except for calling upon another foundation, which in turn is bereft of evidence - ie begging the question), what would that make science then?

unless there is evidence for something, it can certainly be denied

if the universe wasn't objective, there would be no need for peer reviewing (peer reviewing is an aspect of #2)
if the universe isn't unified than physics (which is mostly an aspect of #1) is out the window

all in the OP - 5 foundations of science (for which there is no evidence)

 

It can, with logic.
To say something is outside of all that exists is illogical.

 

no it is not. There are different perceptions of reality. We are following laws of universe because we are within it, we can not define that which is outside ourselves because we are limited by our own laws.

Even when we will discover all that is to learn of our universe...we will not be able to know other universes.

An analogy would be:


A pencil would not be able to _____ of a .

 

The initial post is nothing different than Cartesian skepticism. Yes, if you want to continuously say "but why? why? why? why?" you will never find an ultimate reason that a a sense-driven organism can hold besides senses to believe what comes from his senses.

In science we say; "Yup, so if you don't believe in it then don't use it. We'll keep making our medication, houses, cars, computers, air conditioners, recording devices, medical tech, etc. and if you don't believe in your senses then you're more than welcome to not use our stuff."

 

I'm not sure who Kitty Ferguson might be, but the major problem here is that these propositions are being classified as "assumptions".

This is incorrect.

The 5 foundational propositions listed are more properly identified as premisses, and as such, they require no justification of their own beyond their utility in the development of an argument.