The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Religion & Philosophy

Is there such a thing as the "Scientific Mind"?

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: 1 2 3 ...5 6 7 · >>
dookie On about 1 hour ago
Foolish Bombu





, United Kingdom
#1New Post! Aug 05, 2020 @ 09:15:39
Is there such a thing as the "Scientific Mind"?
dookie On about 1 hour ago
Foolish Bombu





, United Kingdom
#2New Post! Aug 05, 2020 @ 09:25:36
Just to add, my question was prompted by the following, which I found on a friend's page on Facebook:-


"There is no such thing as a Scientific Mind. Scientists are people of very dissimilar temperaments doing different things in very different ways. Among scientists are collectors, classifiers and compulsive tidiers-up; many are detectives by temperament and many are explorers; some are artists and others artisans. There are poet-scientists and philosopher-scientists and even a few mystics. What sort of mind or temperament can all these people be supposed to have in common?”

― Peter Medawar
Jennifer1984 On about 4 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#3New Post! Aug 05, 2020 @ 13:13:05
@dookie Said

Just to add, my question was prompted by the following, which I found on a friend's page on Facebook:-


"There is no such thing as a Scientific Mind. Scientists are people of very dissimilar temperaments doing different things in very different ways. Among scientists are collectors, classifiers and compulsive tidiers-up; many are detectives by temperament and many are explorers; some are artists and others artisans. There are poet-scientists and philosopher-scientists and even a few mystics. What sort of mind or temperament can all these people be supposed to have in common?” ― Peter Medawar


I'd suggest there are a number of specific qualities that might encourage individuals towards scientific activities of all kinds.

Curiosity: Wanting to learn and understand

Objectivity: Understanding that the conclusions arrived at may not be what were expected or sought, and accept those conclusions.

Persistence: Not being deterred or discouraged by setbacks.

This list is not exhaustive. Other qualities also apply but I'll sit with those three for now for examples sake.

Even with these qualities, it doesn't necessarily mean that such individuals will definitely be drawn to scientific disciplines, but in my opinion those who don't possess them are considerably less likely to.

I agree with Dookie's Facebook proposition that there is no specific "Scientific mind" and it's certainly not a question of temperament. I've worked with people who are calm, measured and collected to a level that would make them slightly less warm to be around than liquid nitrogen. LOL. (LN2 makes yummy ice cream, by the way). I've also worked with some pretty irascible individuals. Brilliant, but likely to get somewhat over-enthusiastic, quite quickly.

At the end of the day, scientists are people like everybody else, with faults and foibles and their own individual ways.

I have a reputation on here for being quite forthright on and opinionated on a number of issues (who me..? really..?), but when I worked for FSS and was focused in on my job all that mattered was what stood up to cold, hard scrutiny. That was how it had to be.

Disappointingly for Dookie, whilst most of us have an appreciation for philosophy as curious men and women, we tend not to allow it to enter our professional world. I enjoy reading his posts, but sometimes find the philosophy a bit too heavy for my personal liking. No offence intended.

In the words of an old TV detective;

Just give me the facts, ma'am.
dookie On about 1 hour ago
Foolish Bombu





, United Kingdom
#4New Post! Aug 05, 2020 @ 13:55:43
@Jennifer1984 Said



Curiosity: Wanting to learn and understand



Disappointingly for Dookie, whilst most of us have an appreciation for philosophy as curious men and women, we tend not to allow it to enter our professional world. I enjoy reading his posts, but sometimes find the philosophy a bit too heavy for my personal liking. No offence intended.

In the words of an old TV detective;

Just give me the facts, ma'am.


Well, I simply wish to learn and understand, a trait that you associate with the "scientific mind", implying admiration.

But leaving that "barbed comment" ( ) aside, I am not at all disappointed. I genuinely post to clarify my own mind. Again, personally I do not find anything I muse upon as "heavy", and it is always mixed within my life by "listening to the birdsong and smelling flowers" (as it were)

(I don't really understand "just give me the facts" as some implied alternative to reflection and a regard for truth)
dookie On about 1 hour ago
Foolish Bombu





, United Kingdom
#5New Post! Aug 05, 2020 @ 16:05:12
Musing onward, as light as air, I once read a book called "The Sleepwalkers" by Arthur Koestler, sub-titled "A History of Man's Changing Vision of the Universe". It was long ago and it was mind bending for me at the time. Before then I had this picture in my mind of scientists as virtual giants, striding through history way above the pygmies of faith, belief and superstition. Koestler certainly had no axe to grind in respect of that, but he succeeded in dispelling that picture forever. Copernicus, until then a blond Polish God swatting away the blinkered Bible readers, sunk back into the mire.

Johannes Kepler was another. His three great laws of planetary motion completed the work of Copernicus, who had still assumed circular orbits. Kepler virtually stumbled over the Laws while pursuing some sort of mystical quest for the Music of the Spheres, assuming some sort of series of the various geometric shapes determined the position and movement of the planets, an idea totally up the creek. Sleepwalkers. Reading biographies of other "scientific" worthies has completed the picture, at least for me. What did they all have in common, if anything? Keep it short.

Anyway, facts? Maybe there are only interpreted facts, and as someone else has claimed:-

"Interpretation is not an isolated act, one thing among many that we do; it is what we are, the pivot, the crux of our being"
Jennifer1984 On about 4 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#6New Post! Aug 05, 2020 @ 18:38:04
@dookie Said

Well, I simply wish to learn and understand, a trait that you associate with the "scientific mind", implying admiration.

But leaving that "barbed comment" ( ) aside, I am not at all disappointed. I genuinely post to clarify my own mind. Again, personally I do not find anything I muse upon as "heavy", and it is always mixed within my life by "listening to the birdsong and smelling flowers" (as it were)

(I don't really understand "just give me the facts" as some implied alternative to reflection and a regard for truth)


I'm not suggesting that philosophers don't seek the truth. They seek it in their own way, but tend towards the deeper, underlying truths rather than brass tacks.

And they don't really solve practical problems, do they.? For sure, philosophers can ponder the deeper spiritual reasons behind the effects of, say, a pandemic on society.

But they aint going to produce a vaccine for it.

And there is the nub of the difference.

I suspect many a philosopher may have smelled many a rose in their lifetime, but Gregor Mendel used peas to discover the fundamental laws of genetic inheritance.

I have the greatest admiration for deep thinkers. The writings of, say, Mary Woolstonecraft have been inspirational to many women in their battle to achieve equality:

Taught from infancy that beauty is woman's sceptre, the mind shapes itself to the body, and roaming round its gilt cage, only seeks to adorn its prison.

Powerful stuff and without her and others like her, women would probably still be leading their lives as the property of men rather than being able to achieve our potential.

So no... I don't scorn or despise philosphers, but rather, choose to use the qualities I have that are suited to scientific pursuit, to that end.

"Just the facts" means that I'll seek the scientific truths and leave questions about the nature of human thought, the universe, and the connections between them to the more abstract mind.
dookie On about 1 hour ago
Foolish Bombu





, United Kingdom
#7New Post! Aug 05, 2020 @ 18:52:17
@Jennifer1984 Said

I'm not suggesting that philosophers don't seek the truth. They seek it in their own way, but tend towards the deeper, underlying truths rather than brass tacks.

And they don't really solve practical problems, do they.? For sure, philosophers can ponder the deeper spiritual reasons behind the effects of, say, a pandemic on society.

But they aint going to produce a vaccine for it.

And there is the nub of the difference.

I suspect many a philosopher may have smelled many a rose in their lifetime, but Gregor Mendel used peas to discover the fundamental laws of genetic inheritance.

I have the greatest admiration for deep thinkers. The writings of, say, Mary Woolstonecraft have been inspirational to many women in their battle to achieve equality:

Taught from infancy that beauty is woman's sceptre, the mind shapes itself to the body, and roaming round its gilt cage, only seeks to adorn its prison.

Powerful stuff and without her and others like her, women would probably still be leading their lives as the property of men rather than being able to achieve our potential.

So no... I don't scorn or despise philosphers, but rather, choose to use the qualities I have that are suited to scientific pursuit, to that end.

"Just the facts" means that I'll seek the scientific truths and leave questions about the nature of human thought, the universe, and the connections between them to the more abstract mind.


We may be at cross purposes. First, I do not consider myself a "philosopher" and I do not consider myself "deep".

Personally I do not "choose" anything in particular, let alone my "qualties", and do not "pursue" anything.

Maybe if you enjoy reading my posts, read again "the journey is home" and in spite of your preference not to think much about such things, at least consider such not "mumbo jumbo" or "deep" or "heavy" or whatever, but consider it as a "centre" from which to live and "be".

And just to add, making a contrast between "philosophers" and those who actually "do things" is to me rather forced. Such dualities seem unsupported by reality. Brass tacks come in many forms.
dookie On about 1 hour ago
Foolish Bombu





, United Kingdom
#8New Post! Aug 05, 2020 @ 20:31:36
More thoughts........ .........the so called "scientific revolution" arose in the West. Is there something specific to the Western mind that caused such to arise? Given that the visible result is the advancement of technology, has the result been good or bad? It does often seem that a lot of technological innovation is directed at solving problems created by previous applications.

Come on, rack your brains!
darkman666 3 minutes ago




Saint Louis, Missouri
#9New Post! Aug 05, 2020 @ 20:44:26
@dookie Said

More thoughts........ .........the so called "scientific revolution" arose in the West. Is there something specific to the Western mind that caused such to arise? Given that the visible result is the advancement of technology, has the result been good or bad? It does often seem that a lot of technological innovation is directed at solving problems created by previous applications.

Come on, rack your brains!



after the 50's, in america, tv western shows got better watched.
mrmhead On 26 minutes ago




NE, Ohio
#10New Post! Aug 05, 2020 @ 20:52:08
@dookie Said

Is there such a thing as the "Scientific Mind"?


By nature or nurture?

I think all can be taught "scientific ways" (scientific method). Some may have a better aptitude to "stick to the grindstone" so to speak. But again, does that aptitude come from the persons background and upbringing?

And just because someone may have a "scientific mind" doesn't mean they are a scientist, and visa versa.
dookie On about 1 hour ago
Foolish Bombu





, United Kingdom
#11New Post! Aug 05, 2020 @ 21:12:01
@darkman666 Said

after the 50's, in america, tv western shows got better watched.



Technology has certainly got a lot to answer for.

darkman666 3 minutes ago




Saint Louis, Missouri
#12New Post! Aug 05, 2020 @ 21:33:27
the answer to is there is a "scientific mind ". yes, this video answer this question, will explain maybe we need a scientific mind on tv. or maybe not.

this will explain by Max Headroom is a fictional artificial intelligence character, known for his wit and stuttering, electronically altered voice. He was introduced in early 1985. The character was created by George Stone, Annabel Jankel, and Rocky Morton. Max was portrayed by Matt Frewer and was called "the first computer-generated TV personality", although the computer-generated appearance was achieved with an actor in prosthetic make-up and harsh lighting, in front of a blue screen.


Jennifer1984 On about 4 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#13New Post! Aug 06, 2020 @ 02:40:58
@dookie Said

We may be at cross purposes. First, I do not consider myself a "philosopher" and I do not consider myself "deep".

Personally I do not "choose" anything in particular, let alone my "qualties", and do not "pursue" anything.

Maybe if you enjoy reading my posts, read again "the journey is home" and in spite of your preference not to think much about such things, at least consider such not "mumbo jumbo" or "deep" or "heavy" or whatever, but consider it as a "centre" from which to live and "be".

And just to add, making a contrast between "philosophers" and those who actually "do things" is to me rather forced. Such dualities seem unsupported by reality. Brass tacks come in many forms.



You seem at pains to point out the many things you aren't looking for, but not much of what you are. You say the journey is 'home' but in my experience, to the philosopher 'home' is not a place to stay in. 'Home' is somewhere to merely get a metaphorical bit of breakfast, a shower, change of clothes, and then set off on the next 'journey'.

What is the point of it all if not to achieve enlightenment in some form or another? - at whatever level, be it personal or for the benefit of the wider mass of humanity...? I know what my goals are. Quite simply, to achieve greater understanding of what makes us tick - in an empirical sense. It really is that simple.

I will admit that I use the term "philosophers" with a broad brush. To me, philosophy is anything that isn't based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. And please don't tangle that statement up in "but what is theory?" questions.

It is one of the cunning ploys of the philosopher never to come to a conclusion. Every question is met with more questions.... every statement wrapped in a riddle, inside an enigma, etc, etc. That's what makes it so nebulous. Never any answers, only more questions, often going around and around in circles.

Please believe, I'm not hostile towards philosophical thought. Sometimes, such questioning can act as a prompt to the scientist. And if one of these questions is the trigger for a course of action that leads to a beneficial product, then all good.

You've drawn me into your little web of discussion with this (and what is the point of a discussion forum if not to discuss...??) and it's making me smile. I can see the next post coming. They used to do this at uni. We'll end up going around in the inconclusive circles that philosophers love so I'll draw a line under it here as far as my participation is concerned.

We've both had our say on this. I think my point of view is entirely clear and unambiguous.

I'll leave all you deep thinkers to your thinking. Enjoy.
darkman666 3 minutes ago




Saint Louis, Missouri
#14New Post! Aug 06, 2020 @ 03:14:48
every statement wrapped in a riddle, inside an enigma, etc, etc. That's what makes it so nebulous. Never any answers, only more questions, often going around and around in circles.

that's correct. that describe me above perfectly, when god made out me out of mold. they pick the mold broke over my head.
Jennifer1984 On about 4 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#15New Post! Aug 06, 2020 @ 04:20:12
@dookie Said

More thoughts........ .........the so called "scientific revolution" arose in the West. Is there something specific to the Western mind that caused such to arise? Given that the visible result is the advancement of technology, has the result been good or bad? It does often seem that a lot of technological innovation is directed at solving problems created by previous applications.

Come on, rack your brains!



OK.... you've sucked me back in with that one. It's very simple and it works like this:



It really is that simple.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: 1 2 3 ...5 6 7 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   TFS+ games
Sun Sep 27, 2009 @ 14:58
13 1667
New posts   Mental Health
Wed Mar 11, 2009 @ 03:25
16 2330
New posts   Movies
Sun Nov 16, 2008 @ 20:02
12 1108
New posts   US Elections
Fri Jul 24, 2020 @ 23:24
77 18809
New posts   Society & Lifestyles
Wed Oct 22, 2008 @ 13:17
31 2701