Just now, Sohan Lalwani said:

Again, not every science has the same philosophy or methodology, one field may interpret data largely different from the other.

So provide some examples of how the same data might require different treatment or lead to different conclusions interpretation in different parts of Science.

12 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

No its precisely 3:07, all sciences share a common methodology and focus on empirical evidence, they do differ in their assumptions, values, and interpretations of data, leading to distinct philosophical perspectives. For example, physics and sociology, while both scientific fields, may have different views on the nature of objectivity and the role of values in research. 

43 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Data interpretation typically involves making meaning from data, which requires assumptions, interpretations, and judgments, which can vary significantly. I think you are getting methodology and philosophy confused, they have a common methodology which is that they "share a common methodology and focus on empirical evidence," but can still differ significantly in methodology.

36 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Again, not every science has the same philosophy or methodology, one field may interpret data largely different from the other.

So all sciences have the same methodology and focus on empirical evidence (a very questionable claim) and also not every science has the same methodology. It would be useful if you defined things more precisely and then use it in a consistent manner.

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

So all sciences have the same methodology and focus on empirical evidence (a very questionable claim) and also not every science has the same methodology. It would be useful if you defined things more precisely and then use it in a consistent manner.

They share a common and SIMILAR methodology with a common foundation, not every science has the same philosophy, that part is true.

19 minutes ago, studiot said:

So provide some examples of how the same data might require different treatment or lead to different conclusions interpretation in different parts of Science.

I already did, return to the first page please.

2 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

They share a common and SIMILAR methodology with a common foundation, not every science has the same philosophy, that part is true.

Which is?

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

Which is?

Not every science shares the same philosophy.

24 minutes ago, studiot said:

So provide some examples of how the same data might require different treatment or lead to different conclusions interpretation in different parts of Science.

Think of data regarding a time series of atmospheric CO₂ concentrations over the past 500,000 years. To a climatologist, this is a radiative forcing proxy a dynamic signal in the Earth's energy budget. It immediately invokes climate sensitivity models, feedback loops involving albedo and water vapor, and paleoclimatic reconstructions using Milankovitch cyclicity. But now hand that same dataset to a paleoecologist suddenly, it becomes an ecological driver, a keystone variable that can modulate biodiversity trophic restructuring, and biome migration across latitudinal gradients. Both interpretations are valid, but they operationalize the data toward completely different narratives.

This divergence is rooted in epistemological framing, the fundamental assumptions a field brings to what constitutes a “valid” explanation. In molecular genetics, for instance, a nucleotide sequence may be parsed through a bioinformatic pipeline to yield SNP frequencies and linkage disequilibrium profiles. But an evolutionary biologist may instead filter the same sequence through the prism of coalescent theory, phylogeographic inference, or punctuated equilibrium dynamics. The data is static, yet the inference space is non-Euclidean curved by the questions asked.

Even more strikingly, interdisciplinary conflicts often arise when the same data must answer both mechanistic and emergent-level questions. For example, climate modelers may use isotope data to refine Earth system models governed by thermodynamic constraints and nonlinear differential equations. Meanwhile, an archaeologist might use the same isotopes to infer food webs or migration behavior in the Late Pleistocene, which involves probabilistic reasoning rooted in taphonomic bias and cultural evolution. It’s a kind of epistemic pluralism multiple valid truths, shaped by disciplinary affordances and cognitive schema.

Ultimately, data are only as meaningful as the interpretive scaffolding we build around them. They are semantically inert until activated by a scientific imagination. The same numbers can be ontologically situated as a physical constant, a historical artifact, or a biological vector. In this sense, science doesn’t merely “read” data it performs an act of translation.

1 minute ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Not every science shares the same philosophy.

I meant, which is the common and similar methodology that you refer to?

I feel this is more a Microbiology topic unless you are talking about biochemical functions of the virus?

Just now, CharonY said:

I meant, which is the common and similar methodology that you refer to?

When I said not every science shares the same philosophy, I was referring to the epistemological and methodological diversity across disciplines. For example, physics leans heavily on reductionism and mathematical formalism, while evolutionary biology often embraces historical contingency and inference from incomplete data. Similarly, fields like sociology or anthropology may use interpretive or constructivist approaches that would be alien in, say, quantum field theory.

That said, the "common methodology" often cited across sciences tends to be a generalized scientific method: forming hypotheses, testing them against observations or experiments, and refining models based on evidence. But even that is more of a family resemblance than a strict template the way a chemist tests a hypothesis is fundamentally different from how a paleontologist or economist might.

In the first part you suggest that there is methodological diversity across disciplines. Yet in the second part of your answer you define methodology as the generalized scientific method that now is part of common methodology.

This usage of terms is very muddled which really does not help your argument. I suggest you think a bit about what you separate out methodology from philosophy more and also explain where, in your mind the Scientific Method falls into that.

7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

In the first part you suggest that there is methodological diversity across disciplines. Yet in the second part of your answer you define methodology as the generalized scientific method that now is part of common methodology

There is methodological diversity, I should clarify that all scientific fields share a common foundation.

Effing Science: How does it work?

Just now, Sohan Lalwani said:

Not every science shares the same philosophy.

Think of data regarding a time series of atmospheric CO₂ concentrations over the past 500,000 years. To a climatologist, this is a radiative forcing proxy a dynamic signal in the Earth's energy budget. It immediately invokes climate sensitivity models, feedback loops involving albedo and water vapor, and paleoclimatic reconstructions using Milankovitch cyclicity. But now hand that same dataset to a paleoecologist suddenly, it becomes an ecological driver, a keystone variable that can modulate biodiversity trophic restructuring, and biome migration across latitudinal gradients. Both interpretations are valid, but they operationalize the data toward completely different narratives.

This divergence is rooted in epistemological framing, the fundamental assumptions a field brings to what constitutes a “valid” explanation. In molecular genetics, for instance, a nucleotide sequence may be parsed through a bioinformatic pipeline to yield SNP frequencies and linkage disequilibrium profiles. But an evolutionary biologist may instead filter the same sequence through the prism of coalescent theory, phylogeographic inference, or punctuated equilibrium dynamics. The data is static, yet the inference space is non-Euclidean curved by the questions asked.

Even more strikingly, interdisciplinary conflicts often arise when the same data must answer both mechanistic and emergent-level questions. For example, climate modelers may use isotope data to refine Earth system models governed by thermodynamic constraints and nonlinear differential equations. Meanwhile, an archaeologist might use the same isotopes to infer food webs or migration behavior in the Late Pleistocene, which involves probabilistic reasoning rooted in taphonomic bias and cultural evolution. It’s a kind of epistemic pluralism multiple valid truths, shaped by disciplinary affordances and cognitive schema.

Ultimately, data are only as meaningful as the interpretive scaffolding we build around them. They are semantically inert until activated by a scientific imagination. The same numbers can be ontologically situated as a physical constant, a historical artifact, or a biological vector. In this sense, science doesn’t merely “read” data it performs an act of translation.

Now you are finally beginning to answer a question, though I am not comfortable with all the bif words, many of which are IMHO just journalistic fluff.

The question includes all Science, not just

I feel this is more a Microbiology topic unless you are talking about biochemical functions of the virus?

Edited May 5May 5 by studiot

1 minute ago, studiot said:

Now you are finally beginning to answer a question, though I am not comfortable with all the bif words, many of which are IMHO just journalistic fluff.

I already answered it, you just aren't reading it thoroughly, I clarified the loose terminology now. The journalist issue sounds like something you dislike, which with all due respect, I don't really care about.

Just now, Sohan Lalwani said:

I feel this is more a Microbiology topic unless you are talking about biochemical functions of the virus?

Just now, studiot said:

  28 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

I feel this is more a Microbiology topic unless you are talking about biochemical functions of the virus?

  Quote

The quotes empty dude

Just now, studiot said:

  28 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

I feel this is more a Microbiology topic unless you are talking about biochemical functions of the virus?

  Quote

This comment is about microbiology, not really biochem

Just now, Sohan Lalwani said:

The quotes empty dude

I am not going to apologise for some sloppy programmer's idea of a suitable input box, especially to one whose last reply was as rude as yours was.

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

I am not going to apologise for some sloppy programmer's idea of a suitable input box, especially to one whose last reply was as rude as yours was.

My reply wasn't rude, I just stated that unless its relative to the discussion, I could care less.

6 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

This comment is about microbiology, not really biochem

Wrong thread, ignore this

Just now, Sohan Lalwani said:

My reply wasn't rude, I just stated that unless its relative to the discussion, I could care less.

It was rude to the point of dismissive condescension.

And quite outwith the rules here.

Just now, studiot said:

It was rude to the point of dismissive condescension.

And quite outwith the rules here.

You seem to be going off topic. Unless you have a counterclaim to my statement, I could care less for these emotional statements.

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

It was rude to the point of dismissive condescension.

And quite outwith the rules here.

A wise person once told me "I am not going to apologise," I shall follow in the same pursuit. Also the programmer is pretty phenomenal, if you have ever used discourse or another info exchange platform, its relatively difficult.

2 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Again, not every science has the same philosophy or methodology, one field may interpret data largely different from the other.

Why would different fields of science be looking at the same data? Do you have an example of this (different interpretations of data) happening?

I know that somewhat kindred fields can do different things with a dataset. A wildlife biologist could count cougar scat in order to derive a species census and use that for wilderness management. Meanwhile an ecologist focused on invertebrates might use that count in understanding how a trophic cascade from cougar scat will affect dung bettles and other interacting species (insectivore avians, e.g.) It's not likely however that a quite different field would use the data - a particle physicist wouldn't do much with that.

Edited May 5May 5 by TheVat

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

I know that somewhat kindred fields can do different things with a dataset. A wildlife biologist could count cougar scat in order to derive a species census and use that for wilderness management. Meanwhile an ecologist focused on invertebrates might use that count in understanding how a trophic cascade from cougar scat will affect dung bettles and other interacting species (insectivore avians, e.g.) It's not likely however that a quite different field would use the data - a particle physicist wouldn't do much with that.

In many ways I think data can be used and contextualized in different ways. But I don't think that is a philosophical difference in the use of the data. For example, weather data can be used in a host of different disciplines. But the interpretation of the nature of the data is fairly consistent. I would think that temperature is typically seen as a measure of energy input into the system, regardless whether you are looking at chemical or biological processes, for example.

I.e. it is more a difference of use rather than interpretation.

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

In many ways I think data can be used and contextualized in different ways. But I don't think that is a philosophical difference in the use of the data. For example, weather data can be used in a host of different disciplines. But the interpretation of the nature of the data is fairly consistent. I would think that temperature is typically seen as a measure of energy input into the system, regardless whether you are looking at chemical or biological processes, for example.

I.e. it is more a difference of use rather than interpretation.

I have to support what @TheVat is saying, data interpretation itself would be a philosophy.

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

In many ways I think data can be used and contextualized in different ways. But I don't think that is a philosophical difference in the use of the data.

Take Copernicus' heliocentric model as an example. Due to his lifelong conviction that planetary orbits should be perfectly circular, the existing epicycle models had better predictive success than he could ever achieve.

Any contemporary who valued empirical data more highly than mathematical purity would naturally reject Copernican theory until Digges' modification began to shift the balance.

Do we not see some of that difference still at the forefront of science today? Those who follow the empirical data, however ugly, wherever it leads, and those who go seeking pretty mathematical models whether or not the data is pointing in that direction. May be it's not so much a dichotomy as a spectrum, but even so...

Edited May 5May 5 by sethoflagos

12 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Take Copernicus' heliocentric model as an example. Due to his lifelong conviction that planetary orbits should be perfectly circular, the existing epicycle models had better predictive success than he could ever achieve.

Any contemporary who valued empirical data more highly than mathematical purity would naturally reject Copernican theory until Digges' modification began to shift the balance.

Do we not see some of that difference still at the forefront of science today? Those who follow the empirical data, however ugly, wherever it leads, and those who go seeking pretty mathematical models whether or not the data is pointing in that direction. May be it's not so much a dichotomy as a spectrum, but even so...

I am slightly confused on what is your point

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

I have to support what @TheVat is saying, data interpretation itself would be a philosophy

Not at all what I said. I agree with @CharonY .

Just now, TheVat said:

Not at all what I said. I agree with @CharonY .

I am not saying thats what you said, I said I agree with you and inserted my own statement.