Does science tell stories?

1. 0

   kimberlyslyricsposted 13 years ago

   Is science not facts?  I don't understand sorry given we are asked if it tells stories?  Sorry just really confused

   replyreport
   1. 0

      pburgerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Welcome back kimberlyslyrics
      
      Have you not heard of 'faction'? That is, non-fiction stories; that is a narrative account of 'factual' events.
      
      Can I quote at length from Jerome Bruner's article in Critical Inquiry 'The narrative construction of reality'
      'the human mind cannot express its nascent powers without the enablement of the symbolic systems of culture' While many of these system are relatively independent in a given culture - the skills of shamanism, of specialized trades, and the like - some relate to domains of skill that must be shared by virtually all members of of a culture...' (p. 20)
      
      In discussing narrative accrual Bruner says 'How do we cobble stories together to make them into a whole of some sort? Sciences achieve their accrual by derivation from general principals, by relating particular findings to central paradigms, buy couching empirical findings in a form that makes them subsumable under altering paradigms, and by countless other procedures for making science, as the saying goes, cumulative"' (p. 18).
      
      I also draw on articles such as James West's Art as Cognition in Russian neo-Kantianism, published in the Studies in East European Thought vol 47 No. 3/4 1995.
      
      It is not to the mysticism of the Neo-Kantians that I allude, but to the implications of West's words that 'By contrast [to Russian mysticism] Western European thought in modern times reflects "the battle of reason against sensations and the will," which is clearly a failing, since "the ideal of philosophy consists in the reconciliation of reason ,sensation and will , - of science, art, and religion." (p. 218)
      
      So, I know of numerous philosophers and scientists and theologians who hold good arguments about the limits of empirical and inductive science.

      replyreport
2. 60

   Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago

   I've been accused of being insulting on this forum, so these'll be my last posts on it.
   
   http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor … =126510251
   
   This is an excellent display of the scientific process when delving into the unknown (as science usually does). It discusses the famous "Wow! Signal", and discusses (at least briefly) the idea of jumping to conclusions and how, after millions of people searched for an explanation, there simply is no good answer.
   
   Then (not discussed in the article, but implied by it) people are left to their own devices to believe what they will - and until someone can provide a substantial amount of undeniable evidence, the story will be just that - a story. Not science.
   
   Science can't answer this one definitively yet.
   
   Did science tell the story? no, of course not, that's impossible.
   
   Did the millions of people reading it develop a story based off the incomplete information? Yes - bozos do that. I'm one of these bozos. I would love to see aliens teaching us the mysteries of life, or vice versa. But that's just a story I invent based off of incomplete data that needs to be independently verified.

   replyreport
3. 64

   ceciliabeltranposted 13 years ago

   This just goes to show that after a great animal has died, the cadaver of that animal becomes a means for lower forms of life to extend their life as well.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      pburgerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      ceciliabeltran
      
      Somehow you load the word 'This' with great significance. However, because you simply intend to hurl mud, you fail to make your point. Instead, you make an argument ad hominem. And while you produce a tight poetic symbolism, the potency lacks venom for the subject of the symbol is without focus or clarity.
      
      If you have something to refute my posts, then express your argument in language that does not convey your disdain and obvious desire to insult someone who you cannot badger into submission.
      
      If your precious scientific method has such efficacy then use it to make your argument.

      replyreport
      1. 64

         ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Your question is a great animal that died. It has lived through its entire lifespan and produced children. It died quite naturally as all threads do. After it died, lower life forms still eat the remains of the thread. It is not going to get any bigger nor will it grow into a complex life form, but it will feed on the remains of a great animal. That's what lower life forms do. They feed on the great cadavers of beautiful creatures.
         
         other than that, I have no idea what else there is to say.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            pburgerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            ceciliabeltran
            
            Shame-faced I sincerely apologize for misconstruing your post.
            
            I thought 'This' referred to my reply to (Q) oops!
            
            With your clarification in mind, I agree that lower life forms feed on the remains. Please accept my apology. I stand corrected.
            
            BTW - on first reading your post, I thought what a wonderful image and how appropriate, if only the image were directed in the opposite direction. Now that you explain your intent, I thank you for the poetics.
            
            Again, I am sorry

            replyreport
            1. 55

               (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Woo-woos of the world unite.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  pburgerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  (Q)
                  
                  Sticks and stones may break my bones
                  But names? Sheez! They'll never hurt me...
                  
                  My apology to cecilabeltran shows 1) I heed what people say, and 2) I will change my mind. On the other hand, your feeble attempt to insult me shows that you cannot reconsider your position, and that you resent any agreement between people who hold an opinion contrary to yours.
                  
                  If an apology makes me a woo woo, then your aggression and lack of reason make you a neo-fascist. And I know what label I prefer.
                  
                  In all your posts in this forum, you put no argument to counter the consensus that science tells stories.
                  
                  Ceta iko sona levu!

                  replyreport
                  1. 55

                     (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     The Woo-woo will always put forth untenable assertions that require no debate whatsoever.
                     
                     It's like asking how Santa Claus manages to get to every household in the world in one night.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        pburgerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        (Q)
                        
                        By thy own definition thou art the greatest woo-woo in this forum for thou hast done nothing but '...put forth untenable assertions that [thoust claims] require no debate...' :LOL:
                        
                        Oh great woo-woo and magnificent sona-levu will ye ever reply on-topic? Or will thy assertions remain ungrounded without reason and argument?
                        
                        Must ye o haughty fascist woo-woo decry everything that thou canst comprehend and shout from the roof-tops thy irrational faith in the story-less mode of telling science?
                        
                        In this forum ye may write the last post, o fascist woo-woo, but ye shall rest in misery for ye have done naught to quell the question 'Does science tell stories?'
                        
                        Ceta iko, o grand pooh bar of the fascist woo-woo tribe!

                        replyreport
4. 64

   ceciliabeltranposted 13 years ago

   "If your precious scientific method has such efficacy then use it to make your argument."
   
   pburger, i can employ any method you want. But this thread has reached the end of its life. In my opinion. I agreed with you, others didn't. the end.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      pburgerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      ceciliabeltran
      
      In light of my understanding your intention, please ignore my post in which I said 'If your precious scientific method has such efficacy then use it to make your argument'.
      
      I apologize that I did not read you well . Perhaps this is an example that language can never be truly objective?
      
      Is there some way to close a forum. To acknowledge the death, some passage of last rites, a way to bury the cadaver so it doesn't attract scavengers? If you know what I mean? :LOL:

      replyreport
5. 61

   uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years ago

   Scientists are not angels.
   http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~mhalb … /kuhn.html

   replyreport