Science & Curiosity - when is curiosity "unscientific"?

Palomar · 2004-03-27 10:24:51

*Hi all. We've had some interesting discussions blossom this past week, regarding religion (the "If life really was discovered on Mars, how would people react?" thread in the "Life on Mars" folder) and two active threads in the "Intelligent Alien Life" folder.

Rik made this (terrific, IMO) comment, relative (I think) to more intense skeptical viewpoints: "...can't help myself pointing out that science *does* require quite a bit of imagination, heehee..."

At what point does curiosity become -- scientifically speaking -- "incorrect"? What is *the* dividing line between skepticism and open-mindedness?

Also, how do we define "curiosity"? I define it as "I desire to know."

I'll have to sit on these questions myself; still considering the issues involved. I do believe curiosity is vital to science (no, I'm not a scientist myself as most folks know).

--Cindy

Byron · 2004-03-27 11:04:19

Yes, I do believe curiosity is integral to science...I think this is why people become scientists in the first place.

As for attempting to draw the line between skepticism and open-mindedness...that's a tough one, to be sure. But when it comes to applying the scientific method, I think you generally have to approach things from a "skeptical" point of view, otherwise you won't have good science based on real, tangible results. The discussion of philosphy, religion, and the possiblity of intelligent extra-terrestrial life is all well and good...it certainly gives a lot of things for people to talk about, but if you're looking at this from the viewpoint of pure science, that's where the problems come in, as how can you measure (and analyze) what can't be measured in the first place? That's why scientists tend to proceed with extreme caution whenever possible...which may be boring to the rest of us...but this is how you get good science that can be depended upon by others following in their footsteps.

That's what I meant by "putting away the imagination hat" in the other thread...lol...imagination certainly does have an important role in the overall scheme of things, but I'm sure the good folks at JPL and elsewhere make a concious effort not to let their personal passions and feelings get in the way of what they're actually studying...in other words, human emotions don't make for good science...lol.

B

Edit: As usually the case with most English words, "curiosity" can mean a "desire to know", but it can also mean having interest in others' concerns (nosiness) and interest leading to inquiry in an intellectual sense (which I consider "scientific" curiosity.)

Rxke · 2004-03-27 11:27:05

Disclaimer: I was only goodheartedly teasing Josh by that statement he made. For my ears it rang strange, so i made that comment...

*wild* imagination is unscientific, but not inherently 'bad,' otherwise we would not have good fiction novels, films etc (grin)

But *wildly* 'seeing things' AND claiming it is science is wrong. That's why i despise Hoagland. He puts up things, that later get proven wrong by better data, BUT he doesn't change his claims, and dismisses newer data when it doesn't fit his 'theories'.

You need to be curious, but being curious means: having a liking to search out stuff, so if you 'find' stuff, you should be happy, not dismiss it. Hoag takes one fuzzy pic, writes tons of stuff about it (wich is fine by me) but then, when better pics come in, he screams bloody murder-conspiracy-cover-up-operations... Fruitcake. :angry:

Palomar · 2004-03-27 12:13:17

Hoag takes one fuzzy pic, writes tons of stuff about it (wich is fine by me) but then, when better pics come in, he screams bloody murder-conspiracy-cover-up-operations... Fruitcake. :angry:

*Thanks for the input, guys. Rik, you made me laugh.

I can't help recalling that anecdote about [http://www.anecdotage.com/index.php?aid=11225]Thomas Jefferson. Was this close-mindedness on his part, or simply skepticism?

I am all in favor of being skeptical, utilizing critical thinking, etc. I do sometimes, however, see skepticism veering off into rigid close-mindedness (I'm -not- implying anyone here is that way, or that I've seen many instances of it here; I think New Mars has a very excellent group of smart people "all around"). "It can't be...NO, it can't." Sometimes that's proven otherwise (obviously [thought drily]...Mr. Jefferson? Ahem?).

Just considering things...like usual...

--Cindy

::EDIT:: Rik also wrote: "You need to be curious, but being curious means: having a liking to search out stuff, so if you 'find' stuff, you should be happy, not dismiss it."

*Right. And, by the same token, if you're found to be wrong about a favored theory or whatever, you admit it and alter your viewpoints accordingly. That's what I consider as a mark of open-mindedness (and intellectual honesty).

SBird · 2004-03-27 12:43:21

Well, speaking as a scientist, I've seen the whole gamut in scientists. You have close-minded people who reject anything they didn't read in a textbook (these people make good technicians but not much else), average people and wide-eyed dreamers that spend too much time looking at the clouds.
Scientists tend to be sceptical on average because of the nature of the job. Science is one of the few professions where it is expected that most of the stuff you do will fail. A scientist that never has a failed experiment is not pushing the boundaries hard enough. As a result, scientists become very adept at throwing out information. If you can't be sceptical, you will never do well as a scientist - you'll always be spending your time chasing 'phenomenon' that are nothing more than random variations or instrument glitches. As a result, scientists tend to appy the same viewpoint to the rest fo the world.

When done in moderation, this is a very good way to approach the world, when done in excess, you tend to get close-mindedness.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-03-27 10:24:51

Re: Science & Curiosity - when is curiosity "unscientific"?

#2 2004-03-27 11:04:19

Re: Science & Curiosity - when is curiosity "unscientific"?

#3 2004-03-27 11:27:05

Re: Science & Curiosity - when is curiosity "unscientific"?

#4 2004-03-27 12:13:17

Re: Science & Curiosity - when is curiosity "unscientific"?

#5 2004-03-27 12:43:21

Re: Science & Curiosity - when is curiosity "unscientific"?

Board footer