The Perceptible World

“The belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject is the basis of all natural science.  Since, however, sense perception only gives information of this external world or of ‘physical reality’ indirectly, we can only grasp the latter by speculative means.  It follows from this that our notions of physical reality can never be final.  We must always be ready to change these notions - that is to say, the axiomatic basis of physics - in order to do justice to perceived facts in the most perfect way.”

The discussion of science is incomplete without first realizing its basis. As explained by Einstein, the nature of science - though some people might call it a dilemma or shortcoming - is an explanation of our perceptible world. Scientists must live and breathe the parameters of perception while pushing the boundaries of knowledge and their foundations are universal. While some may discuss the boundaries of consciousness, perception, and comprehension, physical scientists seek solutions to physical problems based on human perception and all instrumentation created thereof. Through our use of available tools, it seems to me that scientific claims should all have a footnote: "based on all previous science and math". Essentially, science is extremely careful to never overstep itself, only developing theories based on carefully chosen laws, newly gathered evidence and the (known) influence of human perception. Whether this should be referred to as the “weakness” or “limitation” of science is a state of mind that (in my opinion, of course) should be avoided by anyone wishing to unlock the unknown. Human perception is the tool of science in the same way a ruler is used to measure distance or a detector in a particle accelerator can observe the trajectory of a proton; these tools have their “limitations” but instead of discerning what they can’t do, scientific explorers utilize their tools in new and creative ways in their quest for solutions. Scientific reasoning can be conducted as long as we understand the possible purposes and uses of our perceptions. I leave it to you (or perhaps an entire other post) to consider that the things human perception cannot access lead to human artistic expression.

Since my amigo Andres started off with a quote, I figure I will too. This quote is definitely not as fun or flashy, but as relevant to sociology and society as his was to physics and the universe.

"Men do not usually define the troubles they endure in

terms of historical change and institutional contradiction...

They do not possess the quality of mind essential to grasp

the interplay of man and society, of biography and history,

of self and world. They cannot cope with their personal

troubles in such ways as to control the structural trans-

formations that usually lie behind them"

-C. Wright Mills

To me, this quote summarizes the point of sociology- to "translate private troubles into public issues." 

Many people, even today, don't fully understand the vital aspect of our social world- we are all connected.

C. Wright Mills, one of sociology's preeminent political philosophers, told us that you losing your job in

a recession is not random, not bad luck, not your fault, but a consequence of human social action. 

I won't talk in depth about C. Wright Mills, at least right now. However, you should understand, that as

a sociologist, ultimately, I am attempting to understand how human social interaction shapes us and society.

Don't be fooled, sociology is not limited to the social world, it literally pervades all aspects of human life, the 

"hard" sciences and theories so old and ingrained in our consciousness we call them "fact".  

 Society goes so far to literally shape our identities, our values and how we act. 

That's the beauty of sociology but also it's biggest flaw. It studies such an illusive creature with the most

complex social life of any known animal, it makes it hard to study and falsify. At times, it can be frustrating.

I mean, sociologists can hardly agree on a definition of "sociology", so how the hell can we agree 

on sociological theory? 

I have always been a sociologist, long before I knew of sociology or what it is; I loved my history classes 

but always felt that it never answered the questions about human social life I asked in my head. (For

the record and any historians reading this, I still love history). When I was attending junior college (gasp!)

I had an english class that had a heavy emphasis on race and gender, which at the time, I had no clue were

some of the basics of sociology. After the class was over, I visited the professor's office.

I asked her what discipline covered these topics and the ideas we discussed, it seemed I had finally found 

the class I had always wanted to take. She replied, "well then, you're a natural born sociologist". Which, 

now, makes me chuckle, as any sociologist would warn you to be critical of "natural". 

This blog is about the process of understanding problems, and that process is definitely not limited to sociology

or physics- but we want to show how disciplines can stand to learn something from how each tackles questions.

It is not meant to argue for one or the other, but to shed light on perhaps the two most misunderstood disciplines. 

To end the post, I'd like to re-post a part of Andres' previous post. This quote is just as relevant to the field of 

sociology, of course, only if you replace physics with sociology.  So, keep in mind, while we will talk about the

same problem in radically different ways and perhaps come up with radically different solutions, the underlying

method is exactly the same.

"To a student of physics, the first step to solving a problem is 

understanding the issues at hand and identifying what principles to apply to each part."

-ginger snap! 

A Proper Thought Process

"Physics majors are trained to be able to do everything but are not trained to do anything" - A popular joke around our physics department, the cause of much uncomfortable laughter amongst the undergraduates, and the source of much contemplation on my part. Originally I became a physics major because of my interest in astronomy but as I began taking physics courses I quickly realized there was nothing else I could possibly study. As if watching a strange movie, physics undergraduates must engage themselves in a willing suspension of disbelief in the hopes that one day the importance of ladder operators and partition functions will be revealed. From conservation of angular momentum to optical depth, the study of physics leads a pupil through the many ways of solving problems in a dynamic, physical world by applying known principles to unknown situations. Although the repetition of algorithmic processes builds our cities, runs our businesses, and provides our food and energy, the problems humans face in the twenty first century require creative solutions by people who understand the fundamentals of the physical world and the nature of the human race as a system of interacting beings. To a student of physics, the first step to solving a problem is understanding the issues at hand and identifying what principles to apply to each part.

-andres