Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum What is the ultimate aim of science?

Interestingly, our word 'technology' comes from the Greek 'teknon', for carpenter.

BTW, I have used a technique for testing the ability of individuals and groups to see to what extent they have the ability to accept, and/or reject, suggestion. Hypnotists use it all the time when they work with groups and want to select the best "subjects" to come on stage. It is, in sense, a way of measuring people's imagination, faith and trust.

Rede: I understand your criticism of my take on the reason for science. Normally I would say that science is the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, because 'it is there' and because there is a need to understand and find out, and importantly, codify and reproduce the results we find. But underlying this idea I was wondering why does science exist? It's a chicken and egg thing I think. There cannot be civilisation without science-- and there cannot be science without civilisation, because once you have these, things will never be the same.

I know it sounds woolly, it's much clearer when I just think it. I'll go back to NQS!!!

Yes, Ellis, I can see what you mean in that science promotes civilisation and civilisation promotes science, but there are two issues:

(a) the specific aims of scientists
(b) the global effects of scientific research

I see them as being seperate.

Don't let my criticism dishearten you. I'm probably wrong much more often than I care to admit, and it's always a pleasure to have a thread enhanced by your gracious presence.

Hi, Mike.

Like Ellis, you are describing an effect. Could you possibly restate your point to indicate how you see those effects as the specific, primary aim of science?

Regards

Absolutely, Mike, and that's my point: to emphasize the difference between the aims the effects.

Well Rede, I have put on my special regal hand-waving gloves and am smiling my best beatific smile to reply to your post.

Yes there is a difference to the aim of individual scientists and the global effects of their research sometimes. However take the case of the weapon maker about 3 or 4 thousand years ago. His arrow heads, brilliantly crafted from flint, shattered easily. He then discovered that by taking a hunk of rock he could turn that rock into metal and mould it into a far superior tool. In doing so he knowingly changed the rock into something else. He did more than experience the effect, he initiated the change, deliberately, in a way that was planned and solved a big problem he had. We still feel the effect of that first planned exploration of the possibilities that lie universally all around us. It is the driver of our civilisation, initiated by the actions of those first scientists. We still today seek to change our environment and advance our knowledge.

Why do we do this? Who knows--- perhaps we just can't resist the urge to try to understand everything around us. However I still think that the aims of science are still linked to the growth of civilisation.

I think we all know why. Evolution has provided us with our famous, or notorious, curiosity - some of us anyway - and having learned from our inquiries, we find ways, for various reasons, to use that knowledge. The discovery part is the science. The way of applying it is the technology. A specific goal, other than satisfying curiosity, is not required for scientific inquiry, even though most modern research is, for socio-economic reasons, probably directed toward specific applications. Take Isaac Newton for example; it could hardly have been his aim to send robots to Mars - in fact, if it hadn't been for Edmund Halley, the Principia might never have been published. He was just curious. Intensely curious. Our human curiosity begins just about as soon as we're born. Then, when we learn to say a few words, it becomes, "What's that?", and "Why?", sufficiently often to drive many a parent up the wall!


Of course.

As a scientist, I think its operational purpose describes science's aim best.

It is to make 'Perfect Predictions' where we ain't doing so yet, using objective measures of cause and effect we all can potentially see used.

Trying to reach this goal implies that we seek to discover fundamental constants, the hard objective edges of our universe like pi = Cir of Circle/Dia Circle = 3.1415, or e = mc^, or Newtons Law of Gravitation.

Thus a practicing scientist working at a fundamental level first seeks the "edge" between what we now know/do not know. Finds or asks a question that has not been answered, and steps across the edge into the unknown.

To find these questions, start by looking for logical and observational discrepancies in existing theory. I got lucky early and found a great question that someone gave the wrong answer to. Figuring out the right answer taught me how to do science.

Ultimately success at this would imply a complete and accurate picture of reality. Luckily, reaching perfect is easier said than done. Scientists are not going to run out of work any time soon.

I discuss science and how its done more fully in my forum on http://www.no1stcostlist.com/index.php and elsewhere on the site.

There you will also find a really neat Sun prediction with a real deadline.

Dan Alter

The main aim of science is to sharing all the information which is reliable and here we can share many things in this science forum, and can any one explain in detail with this topic

http://www.bizblogged.com/

The operative word is 'reliable', and a methodical approach - the scientific method - enables verification, to the limits of current knowledge, that the information is reliable. Information that is unverifiable in this way is considered to be non-scientific.

I would dispute your notion that the main aim of science is the sharing of such verifiable information. Even though contemporary science is dependent upon that sharing, especially (as Ellis indicated) in an already scientifically developed civilisation, the sharing is not an aim but rather a most effective way of achieving the aims, e.g:

RM: "...to find the set of rules by which everything operates."

TheFallible Fiend: "...to acquire natural laws to describe a natural universe."

redewenur: to enable "technological development..."

A brain storming session would no doubt produce a much longer list.

RM says the ultimate aim of science is A noble gaol, RM. You suggest that

SCIENCE includes: THE RULES BY WHICH EVERYTHING OPERATES
=========================================================
RM, IMO, science, as you imply,is simply the knowledge of everything--physical, mental and spiritual. This prompts me to ask: What category interests you?

Once we establish a category, the next question is: What are the rules? And, who makes the rules?

Rules are relegated to states of consciousness.
The world is multidimensional, so Science could be ultimately effective in communicating and operating with universal mind rather than trying to define it and control it.
This would ultimately free humanity from the pitfalls of greed and limitation that arise from ignoring the underlying principles of the manifest world.

".... would ultimately free humanity from the pitfalls of greed and limitation that arise from ignoring the underlying principles of the manifest world."

TT -- That will only be the case if you can bottle it and hum the jingle!

Ellis, very funny!

Would you like to buy a bottle of pneuma? As a pneumatologist, I will sell you a bottle of spiritual hot air, any time!!!

BTW, I accept barterBUX!!!
==============================
BTW 2, talking about hot air: Do you remember the scientists, technologists and economists who, back a few decades ago, promised us an age of leisure?

They forgot to mention the financial meltdown, unemployment and the loss of homes, etc; that they meant the leisure time would be spent on the street, in the poor house, or--for some, the few who got caught selling the hot air (or was it paper?)--in jail.

That is the unfortunate state of conscious awareness that can identify our ability to feed and heal the population of the planet while providing the means to actively destroy the planets ability to sustain life.

When you refer to the "ultimate AIM of science", you assign "science" a sentient characteristic. Science is not a character. It is not a being and it has no "Aim" any more than evolution has a goal or purpose. I read atheists referring to science and/or evolution, quite frequently, as if these concepts possessed a mind capable of having a goal. All they are doing is rejecting a god or designer and assigning that same characteristic to a concept. You can’t have it both ways. If the universe has no designer or purpose, none of the aspects of the universe can have designs or purposes either. It’s Logic 101.

Science has no aims. Scientists have aims and those aims vary drastically from simple curiosity to altruistically providing comfort to humanity to getting rich from some invention that sells well.

The question “What is the ultimate aim of science?” is not really a question. It is merely a string of words with a question mark at the end.

"natural universe"? As opposed to the Un-natural one?

But then the statement above is just a string of words with a period at the end, and doesn't really express the extent of reality. Maybe an opinion or belief or an experience...
Expansion of consciousness or the ongoing movement of reality that is absolute is reflected in our actions and our interaction with the manifest which includes strings of words even if they have little conscious meaning. How clear the intellect is or how clouded the intellect is as the mirror of the absolute, is part and parcel to the active absolute and how it is expressed and experienced in conscious awareness.
The science of conscious awareness is the discovery of consciousness as the source and the expansion of it into manifestation and the exploration of its potential regardless of the fact that it has no boundaries or limits.

Relative Sciences deal with relative ideals, opinions, beliefs and the structures within natural laws that can only exist within the manifest reality of awareness of the absolute.
It still happens to be consciousness being aware of itself, and is not an illusion, but a heartbeat of life as immortal as infinity is to the extent of ideas regarding who we are and what the world is.

You cannot stop it even if you decide its not real, or if you decide it is meaningless.
Science is a rhythmic reflection of the evolution of the intellect in the soul.
Not unlike a child wandering in life discovering what it can do and what it wants to do.
Only ego puts on the labels of what it is and what it isn't and holds it there.
Consciousness is free to express itself any way it wishes, even if it's a string of words with a period or a question mark, or even capitol letters in quotations...