My pet peeve, Science is everything

Good post Ed.

One thing that interests me is that knowledge itself is highly theoretical and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that we actually “know” anything is very difficult,... if not impossible. Science rests on certain philosophical assumptions that can’t be proven…

The broader the view we have of “reality”, the more angles and/or dimensions we can look at it from or through and incorporate into our thinking, the better the picture we can get of whatever it is we think/believe we know…

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." Socrates

However, we don‘t want to be guilty of “paralysis through analysis”.

There's a time for thinking and a time for doing...
 
Last edited:
'the unexamined life is not worth living'
 
Natural philosophy and the origins of science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science

History of scholarship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scholarship

Quote:

"The word scientist was coined by the English philosopher and historian of science William Whewell in 1833. Until then there was no differentiation between the history of science, the history of philosophy and the history of scholarship.

Before 1700 the fields of scholarship was not of a size that made academic specialisation necessary. Academic disciplines as we know them today did not exist. In general scholars were both scientists and scholars in what today is termed Arts and Humanities."
 
Last edited:
One aspect of science that continues to amaze me is that science seems to have always been subject to control of those with 'special' knowledge.
One early reference states that science was controlled by the church because the high priests were "closet to God".

Sigmund Feud had to discretely battle antisemitism to bring his science to the attention of the medical community who then decided to take it over.

My first introduction to science was a physics class, I could understand and knew many victories. A pure science that could be proven objectively was a delight to me.

Since that time from what I read I find that top level physics PhD's and those in other "professions" are on the open market, if an outfit has the cash some of the "professionals" can be encouraged to prove any theory. ie Tobacco is harmful to your health vs tobacco is harmful to your health.

Global warming is man caused vs global warming is all a part of life on planet earth.

Professionals in many realms are ready and able to prove or disprove many aspects of the world around us.

There are many more examples, the question is who do we believe when it comes to science?
 
Last edited:
Great question Ed.

I think seeing and or experiencing for one's self is probably the most trustworthy... as long as it's with an honest, open and unbiased mind. That's really sort of the spirit of science, isn't it?
 
A good example, thee engineers are working on the same problem, all are experts in their fields and the problem requires a collaborative approach for a solution. Rather than each admitting they are contributing to the problem each is more comfortable blaming the other two. Who pays for the lack of problem solving ability of the organization, the stock holders and eventually the consumers or the organization could fail due to their structured hierarchy, the looser will be the employees.

How could it happen? They hire the best minds in the science!
 
I've been half way following this thread, sometimes interested and sometimes confused. Science, art, and spirituality, are all man made. To say that science is responsible for this or that is missing the mark. People are responsible. Yay for people (sometimes)!

From a user standpoint, I really enjoy how science and art have played out in the realm of knives. I get what I want, in the form and material that meets my needs, largely because we have a good understanding of what we're working with and why it's a good idea to work with it.

Tai Goo...just to clarify:

Tai Goo said:
I think seeing and or experiencing for one's self is probably the most trustworthy... as long as it's with an honest, open and unbiased mind. That's really sort of the spirit of science, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Even in our court system now recognizes that the senses and the mind (is this somehow different than the brain?) are not particularly reliable when it comes to "seeing and or experiencing for one's self". DNA trumps eye witness account. We are not inherently objective...but are wise enough to create a framework that attempts to promotes objectivity...science. If you want to meet the spirit of science (totally man-made concept too), then question what you see, question what you experience, and take steps to minimize the inherent bias. Try to minimize the impact of the things you don't know you don't know.
 
Luke Shearer said:
There's no duality, between art and science, but a balance must be maintained. Tai, I was wondering, you said there were absolutely no absolutes? :)
Click to expand...

I don't think the concept of balance exists without the concept of duality...or what are you balancing? I'd say throw out balance and duality with the rest of the trash.
 
JCavSD said:
Tai Goo...just to clarify:



Even in our court system now recognizes that the senses and the mind (is this somehow different than the brain?) are not particularly reliable when it comes to "seeing and or experiencing for one's self". DNA trumps eye witness account. We are not inherently objective...but are wise enough to create a framework that attempts to promotes objectivity...science. If you want to meet the spirit of science (totally man-made concept too), then question what you see, question what you experience, and take steps to minimize the inherent bias. Try to minimize the impact of the things you don't know you don't know.
Click to expand...

Yep. Thanks for the clarification. I think that's why peer review is an important part of art and/or science,... but can we ever truly "know"?

However, convincing ourselves does seem to help facilitate action, progress and decision making... hopefully.

... Maybe it falls back to human intuition in the end.
 
Last edited:
This is not a new idea, but…

It could be that what we perceive as “objective reality” (or physical reality) or objective truth is really just a very good illusion, like a dream. If so, it could explain the success of science working within the framework of this illusion. However, if the “truth” lies beyond objective reality, science will eventually hit a dead end and fall short.

Spiritual reality may in fact prove to supersede physical reality in the end.

The human race is still in it's infancy... we hope.
 
Last edited:
One example of the power of observation.

Back in the days when I was working in crime prevention we developed a method of teaching people to see - for example bank tellers how to note and describe a bank robber after the event. First we told them the purpose of the exercise was, then put it to work. Any time we chose an observer would surreptitiously take a photo of a client from a tellers line. Then pull the teller and ask him or her to describe what she saw and compare it with the photo. Then ask for any other details she noted. This was expanded to cashiers at other outfits in high crime rate areas.

While the potential of generating conclusions from a limited data base is strong the following were the conclusions we noted.
Some tellers became were very good at remembering what they saw. Over a year these tellers and cashiers experienced fewer robberies than tellers who could not describe what the individuals looked like accurately.

The conclusion was that when a teller took the time to look and memorize the physical characteristics of the individual, honest folks did not feel offended, but the potential criminal felt the careful visual attention of the teller, possibly felt a little obvious and left without committing a crime (this was included in the original theories of the experiment). As a follow up there were some interviews of the clients. The observant tellers and cashiers were better liked by the clients than those who did not take the time to note what they saw - in other words personal attention, but it had to be with a smile. This correlation was low positive as not all clients cared to note the cashier.

Today cameras (and the sale of "tactical" knives - etc) have taken the place of many of the interpersonal dynamics but personally I appreciate that personal approach it does not cost anything and we who practice it learn to see just a little bit more and maybe make a friend.

This is something each one of us can practice on a daily basis, does not cost a thing and may lessen the probability that we will become a victim.

True science ?
 
Last edited:
JCavSD said:
I don't think the concept of balance exists without the concept of duality...or what are you balancing? I'd say throw out balance and duality with the rest of the trash.
Click to expand...

I already explained myself a little better...

Luke Shearer said:
Sorry, what I meant was that one shouldn't be held to be all important, while the other is mitigated to uselessness. They each have value. Not necessarily equal value, in fact, science probably has the priority, but that doesn't mean that art is worthless. Depending on your definition of art, life is pretty boring without it (art). Science really relies on creativity and seeing connections where no one else does; to me, that can count art. I love science. Its beautiful and very interesting, but I hate, is what Tai is talking about, scientism. "scientism-ists" are generally arrogant, un-scientific, dogmatic, insulting, disrespectful, and wont tolerate any form of attack on "science". Real scientists should be open minded, not just because they say so, but because they actually are. They can take a question regarding science's validity, or anything else, and have a genuine answer to it, not insults, and if they dont, they actually change their mind. Which is admittedly hard to do...
Click to expand...
 
Ed - that's interesting. I'd certainly say that could be an example of scientific reasoning/thinking. Identify an issue and make an assumption, test and collect data under controlled circumstances, apply intellectual standards, evaluate results and draw conclusions. Observation alone has little to do with science or scientific reasoning, but observation married to intellectual standards is one of the cornerstones.

Luke - sorry, I missed your followup comments.
 
Surveillance cameras came to the banks and convenience stores thanks to science, what we learned pretty well fell to the wayside other than a few authors who noted it in passing. What we learned is now known as public relations, but without the observation and memory test for the cashiers. Many individuals feel it is the job of the police to keep them safe.

I personally have been in some tight situations, self confidence, being aware of what is going on around me and eye contact were my greatest allays, and a lot handier than staying in view of a camera to witness me being a victim, or having to justify the use of lethal force when needed.

Science is a tremendous asset, this is one example that there is more to it than physical science that is both cheaper, always with us and can enrich our lives by practicing it and is not costly and will not set off a metal detector when we pass through it.

I do not mean to negate the value of concealed carry or having a weapon handy, these are also viable assets. But if we can negate the need for deadly force in our lives we all win.
 
The current issue of Wired has an interesting article about causality. The article entitled "Trials and Errors: Why Science is Failing Us" discusses causality in the context of medicine, but what it says pertains to all scientific studies. Here's the last paragraph from that article:

And yet, we must never forget that our causal beliefs are defined by their limitations. For too long, we’ve pretended that the old problem of causality can be cured by our shiny new knowledge. If only we devote more resources to research or dissect the system at a more fundamental level or search for ever more subtle correlations, we can discover how it all works. But a cause is not a fact, and it never will be; the things we can see will always be bracketed by what we cannot. And this is why, even when we know everything about everything, we’ll still be telling stories about why it happened. It’s mystery all the way down.
Click to expand...
 
Interesting article Greg. Thanks for the link.

Lots of "truth" there.

Answers just lead to more questions and,.... "the more we know, the less we seem to understand".
 
There is a lot of good information and some great ideas in this thread. Now let’s see if we can bring it all back around to knife making.

In light of all this, what can we now say about those who seem to be promoting the idea of a purely “fact” based scientific approach to knife making as being the only absolutely correct, reliable and trustworthy approach to knife making, while reducing art to “just for looks” or just basic design principles,… and dismissing any other possible aspects of the art/craft as being pure hype, mumbo jumbo, huckstery and unsubstantiated myth?

It seems they are guilty of everything they accuse all others of… are missing the bigger picture, and the boat. They can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time. :)
 
Last edited:
Like all science, it starts out simple (and the more basic the criticism) still progress is rapid, the more we learn the more complicated our experiments, and greater knowledge is required to evaluate the consequences of our process. Like all science failure is always possible, but soon we find the failures to be significant contributors to the future. The more minds we bring together to understand the events as they play out the greater our probability of success.

Critics play an important roll in the science and art of knife making, they point out failures in communicating, and future knowledge to be sought. While some critics are laughable, others contribute significantly.

There is no end, no complete understanding, just the joy of learning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top