|
17
|
1 <!doctype html>
|
|
|
2 <html lang="en">
|
|
|
3 <head>
|
|
|
4 <script src="/site.js"></script>
|
|
|
5 <script> head() </script>
|
|
|
6 <title>Arkian - Science</title>
|
|
|
7 </head>
|
|
|
8 <body>
|
|
|
9 <script> header() </script>
|
|
|
10 <div content>
|
|
|
11 <h1>Science</h1>
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
13 <p>Science is based on two ideas: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning">inductive reasoning</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor">Occam's razor</a>. I would divide science into two types: hard science where controlled experiments are possible, and soft science where controlled experiments are not possible. For example, theories of gravitation can be tested in a lab, making this hard science, but using theories of gravitation to explain astronomy cannot be tested with controlled experiments, making this a soft science. Both forms of science are valid. In soft science, one makes a hypothesis based on past observations and then tests the hypothesis against future observations.</p>
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
15 <p>The idea of inductive reasoning naturally follows from the belief in one consistent god, so science mostly developed in monotheistic cultures as I explained <a href="Science_Requires_Monotheism.html">here</a>. But applying Occam's razor requires a belief in common sense as opposed to mystical bullshit or ideological rationalism. In this area, Islam started off much better than Christianity.</p>
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
17 <p>Muhammad was a very down to earth common sense guy, and the first few generations of Muslims were the same. Only later did Muslims become ruined by mystical bullshit (Sufism) and ideological rationalism (Mu'tazila, Ash'arism, etc.). So science flowered in early Islam and then died as Muslims went bad. In particular, I would consider <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham">Ibn al-Haytham</a> to be the founder of real science.</p>
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
19 <p>Christianity took the opposite path. It began plagued with mystical bullshit and ideological rationalism (Platonism), so it was completely unproductive scientifically for its first 1500 years. It was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham">William of Ockham</a> who turned Christianity in the right direction. Not only is he the source of Occam's razor, but he also introduced nominalism which allowed Christians to escape from ideological rationalism. Christian science started with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei">Galileo</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon">Francis Bacon</a>. Galileo was similar to Ibn al-Haytham in his approach and used experimental data to make theories. Francis Bacon promoted inductive reasoning and empiricism as a basis for science. Christian science was fully realized with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton">Isaac Newton</a>. His laws of motion are well known. His <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica#Rules_of_Reason">four rules of reason</a> clearly express the scientific method and are based on inductive reasoning and Occam's razor.</p>
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
21 <p>What causes science to fail? Usually it is a rejection of Occam's razor. I will give a concrete example with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism">heliocentrism</a> which was discovered in the 200s BC by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos">Aristarchus of Samos</a>. This theory provided a simple explanation of astronomy, being a great example of applying Occam's razor. But it was rejected in favor of the horribly complicated <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Ptolemaic_system">Ptolemaic system</a>. Why? Because of an ideological insistence for geocentrism.</p>
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
23 <p>For any set of observations, there are an infinite number of explanations. No theory about reality can be proven in the way that a theory of logic or math can be proven. This means that there must be some method to chose which of the many explanations of observations to accept. And there are many possible such methods. One can choose based on personal feelings, based on religious dogma, based on ideological convictions, or based on Occam's razor. Science means choosing based on Occam's razor and not the alternatives. Religious fundamentalists choose based on religious dogma, so are incapable of science. Woke liberals choose based on personal feelings and ideological convictions. So does the far right. The far right has an ideological conviction that everything is a conspiracy, so rejects science to promote conspiracy theories. And in general, modern culture fundamentally hates simplicity which makes it totally incapable of using Occam's razor and doing science.</p>
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
25 <p>Note that one cannot argue with any of these anti-science people, and attempting to do so is just a waste of time. Because nothing can be proven about reality, anti-science people can always find some way to defend their overcomplicated anti-scientific views. One cannot prove the Ptolemaic system wrong. A scientifically minded culture accepts heliocentrism because it is simpler, and they value simplicity. That is all there is to it.</p>
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
27 <p>Scientific thinking supports heliocentrism, the theory of evolution, and most scientific ideas from the Enlightenment up until around 2000. By 2000, modern culture had gone insane and lost the ability to do science. But it still used the "science" label to promote its bullshit which clearly isn't science. Science is currently extinct in the modern world. To bring back science, one would need an intelligent culture that values simplicity.</p>
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
29 <script> mikraite('https://mikraite.arkian.net/Science-tp4831.html',2024) </script>
|
|
|
30 </div>
|
|
|
31 </body>
|
|
|
32 </html>
|
