You’re defining the method here, finally. Except i would say hypotheses can build on earlier science.
- an unvarying condition in a physical process, especially as in the theory that the universe is eternal and maintained by constant creation of matter.
But that is an utter delusion. Someone steeped in Critical Thinking Skills, does NOT think like your average gullible mass media addicted person! Hurt feelings and bottomless indignation not withstanding.
That doesn’t make sense.
What do you mean by “science proper”
I mean biologists are dealing with things totally beyond our everyday living, so how can their conjectures be rooted in >everyday living".
Emotions of us animals take precedence as a factor that competes against allother factors. Note that “emotions”, while problematic are nevertheless ‘logical’ with respect to evolution, which lacks any compassion for whether one is or is not a good critical thinker. So one CAN be logical with respect to some set of real factors relative to their OWN perspective but still remain relatively illogical by others.
For general instance, it may be ‘pragmatic’ to learn by rote memory methods ‘logically’ even if they lead to some relative error in apparent reasoning elsewhere. I learned ‘foundationally’, for instance, a competing factor against rote learning, and the original ‘logical’ means to UNDERSTAND what we know. Yet, while this DOES permit me to understand, societally, it turns many away from WANTING to study things like science. So the ‘logic’ of adopting the less functional methods that lead to ‘understanding’, the pragmatic fact that it encourges more students to WANT to take a rote-memory approach have a superceding ‘logic’ with respect to the political success of getting more students into science.
My point is that the Steady State theory is ‘logical’ with respect to nature (my claim) but competes against the logic of having a society that is fuctional politically where society demands some foundation in ethics. Since the ‘truth’ of SS-theory is less welcoming to the religious when comparing the two, the BB-theory takes the preciding interest by society in an equally ‘logical’ way. However, we then require a longer route to describing nature if we expect to keep the false theory by the ‘retrofitting’ that is needed.
Even Einstein recognized that the Steady State is the likely reality but could not compete in its favor without finding an indirect means to propose his theories in a way that conserves the present political concensus. So, for instance, he found a clever way in his Special theory of Relativity to evade the controversy about whether empty space is or is not a ‘medium’. When introducing General Relativity, he treated time as a type of ‘object’ rather than its verb-like essence. So instead of saying that as we speed up relative to something else, our ‘time’ slows down (relative to the one speeding up). But time is not a ‘thing’ in the same way consciousness is not the brain but the activity of it.
As to my point about the vulnerablity to be ‘corrupt’, it too is relative but often assumed absolute to some ‘objective’ reality. The competing factors of humanity can make both sides ‘righteous’ with respect to owning the truth from their perspective. One of them is only ‘true’ relative to some objective but the objective is what is in disagreement. Since both can be ‘true’ for distinct human objectives, those using better critical thinking skills CAN and WILL be as equally ‘corrupt’.
Note ‘corruption’ is a VALUE term by my most uses. If nature has no real PREFENTIAL value though, some can succeed more by keeping the actual truth a proprietary secret and may have a better real advantage by promoting just the opposite with respect to outsiders. So, it may be just as real that one can ‘critically think’ that being ‘corrupt’ is necessary.
I’m saying that the INITIAL state of reasoning requires guessing from one’s own perspective, not something ‘objective’…but something ‘subjective’. There is no such thing as “educated guess” that is foundational if we have different routes of learning.
I used the example of setting goals that some teach as though we HAVE a ‘goal’ beyond our immediate interests because we first require experience BEFORE we can SET goals. While it may be true that heroine, for instance, is addictively desired (as a ‘goal’), one requires an experience with taking heroine BEFORE they would even require setting it AS a ‘goal’.
So it is with hypothetical guesses based upon ‘education’ prior to the education.
Sometimes, i completely lose this guy. The beginning of that sentence does not go with the end of it.
You CAN speak to me directly. It would also help if you explained yourself rather than state a generalized unqualified comment about me as a person.
Ignoring the insult, I am asserting that society’s “logic” can compete with the actual physical “logic” because society’s objective is to presume some values that we all share when this is itself a delusion RELATIVE to Nature outside of our own interests. It is still “logically valid” to argue that Big Bang theory is correct if it serves the social necessity to get along, for instance. That I am confident in its falsity can thus be correct even though society may actually define it true can be VALID reasoning when considering politics. I don’t like it and why I complain about the political factors as influencing WHY the Steady State theory is being defeated contrary to it being presumed completely wrong.
I am also NOT agaisnt the possibility THAT the Big Bang theory is not going to go away any more than religion is in respect of democracy. Yet the practical justification doesn’t make it any more rational just because it has consenting appeal.
[Note that I just made a response on that Wikipedia page for the Steady State theory with my name and took a screen shot just in case. I only responded to the “Obler’s paradox” comment that is a false argument against the Steady State theory. Let’s see if it gets removed.
Is there a way to upload images here by the way? If so, I’ll post it here. That way, if it gets deleted, I can at least prove my point here about the intentional removal of qualtifying arguments.]
oh thank you for that comment, I was feeling really stupid trying to keep up with that.
But you give nothing coherent to work with.
What about describing this “society logic” - right now it’s just an odd phrase, don’t know what to do with it one way or another. Comparing the way modern society functions, with how evolution function, isn’t realistic. Or at least it would require a lot more specifics and an explanation.
I’ve usually heard scientists making it clear that this is their best estimate based on the available data, which incidentally comes from many independent lines of evidence.
“serves the social necessity” that’s bizarre, then you aren’t doing science anymore.
Einstein’s theory wasn’t driven by the social melieu, it was driven by increasing scientific information at hand, and a genius who figured how to draw conclusions that held up to physical observation.
Guess you’ve not spent much time checking out other threads here at CFI. Take a look at the menu bar, there is a hint.
I missed this comment.
Excuse me, but besides recognizing that there HAS likely been actual real scientists who spoke on it as I HAVE mentioned before, it is not available to me. Give me some actual reference that is not hidden away behind pay walls. I also only notice the insults towards the Steady State theorists AND literally collect many textbooks that have NO MENTION of the Stead State with intentional neglect of historical precedence!
[The present arguments about “critical race theory” in politics by the way somewhat relates given many of the material in contention that is added to modern texts REPLACES relevant material that competes against the ‘cultural’ but relatively insignificant scientific acheivements. This is proof of how politics is intentionally playing a role in what gets kept. Unfortunately, those defending removing these are NOT even interested in the facts about science but want to include religious alternatives instead. So politics of the extremes is effective within the ‘institutes’ of those teaching science education.]
…yes, and Vladimere Putin says that he’s not violating Ukraine but rather ‘saving’ them too. The cue word is ‘best’. What is the qualification for what is “best estimate”. It is also true that the vast majority of society is also religious and that it is ‘best’ to recognize that.
Please refrain from responding as though you speak for someone else I was responding too. [referring to your other responses I am not responding to.] I think Lausten can defend himself and your rhetorical responses are only pandering in a ‘political’ way.
Going along with popular opinion is literally a logical fallacy.
That’s “key”, not “cue”. And “best” is fundamental to the scientific method. Science is always a probability, an approximation.
There are no rules about who can respond to whom, or talking about people. This is not a formal debate. And you not a moderator. Public internet forums require a certain thickness of skin.
[quote=“morgankane01, post:1, topic:9395”]
I have a response but have to give it in code. F. O., this is a discussion forum, as Lausten points out.
Your comment is incredibly ironic, first your moaning that no one interacts with you, then you treat simple questions asking for information as personal attacks, now you want to censor who speaks, while crying about paywalls and long seemingly senseless wiki threads.
What qualifies for the “best estimate”? Ideally consilience with the data being collected.
We navigate our days, depend on our best estimate, you’re never going to be able to collect all the information you need to make a decision - but you can collect as much as possible, make your decision and move forward.
That’s utter garbage - science is not politics - lying and deception has become part and parcel with politics!
Science has it’s undemocratic rules that demand honesty, and it’s the evidence that carries the day - not the opinions of jokers, be they scientists or just someone who’s very conceited about their own abilities.
What do you think “induction” that science uses, not to mention the prior “consensus” means? These forms of thinking ARE ONLY based upon popularity, whether it be of people or the facts used within it. Popular opinion is only a fallacy of INDUCTION, not deduction! [See Karl Popper for this given ‘induction’ was what motivated “empirical falsification”. The fallacies you learn in logic courses are mostly inductive .
I already recognize that popularity is NOT valid to justify whether one is correct or not, deductively. But science is based upon induction necessarily with priority given they are the what becomes the ingoing premises ASSUMED in a deductive argument. Scientists definitely DO vote on things ‘politically’. The choice to say, DEFINE terms in a common way, is voted on (where it is not volunteered without concern). So “planet” for instance, requires defining it in common so that others SHARE the same meaning. The induction weakness also makes politics essential.
Note that even a University’s protesting of whether to cancel a guest they don’t approve of is an excellent example. The “CRT” (critical race theory) debate is about things like those textbook entries that favor giving EQUAL treatment to people based upon ‘racialized’ backgrounds or cultures regardless of their actual value to the particular subject is another example proof of this behavior. Editors of official science magazines have POWER to select out someone they just don’t like or to FAVOR those they DO.
“Politics” is "the process of people negotiating in a ‘polite’ manner’ among others as ‘equals’ who VOTE on things like what an observation should be interpreted as or to what counts as ‘evidence’, etc. You are welcome to delude yourself. But don’t expect me to join in on the delusion that science is akin to some ‘god-like’ being that NEVER CHEATS or does anything inappropriate! ??? While the intentions are fair overall, the science WITH RESPECT TO THE “fringe” areas that cannot be placed into a lab or be repeatable, such as interpreting how far something is in space based on some standard candle. That ‘candle’ had to be voted on and is recognized that it COULD BE WRONG. So I’m not the one confused here.
I used “cue” since I was rhetorically referencing that which initiates (AND is thus, ‘key’, which by the way is related as is ‘queue’ etymologically)
I trust my OWN extensive background in science, thank you. I have a very strong and clear understanding of science.
DITO as to my response. I recognized the insult and called it out. You are ganging up against me with intent that has nothing to do with my content but to your opinion of me as a person. Talk about ‘fallacies’: Pandering or “playing to the audience or gallery” (ganging up against one when you think others around will ‘agree’ and join in with you), ad hominem (attack to the person (versus the argument), attributing false ‘accent’ to me (meaning that you presume I have some emotional issue in expression rather than speaking compassionately about the logic of the topic at hand.) I assure you my background is strong. I’m not a child here.
Please stop with the victim opera, could you just focus on explaining what you want to explain, then perhaps accepting our comments in good faith and respond to them.
It’s like every substandard scientist who gets mustered out, cries how they are victimized by the system, when more often than not, they are victimized by their own substandard work, which caused others to turn away from them.
You know, a little self-skepticism goes a long way.
And politics of science is CONSERVING the Big Bang theory at all costs given its flaws are DEDUCTIVELY INVALID, not merely trivial induction errors. It is a deliberately religious choice to permit acceptance by the general public and to the still majority of people in science who practice some form of religion or other. I could prove it but are doubtful that with your apparent disgust towards me that I’ll be respected even if I presented the best evidence.
I have justified reasons for my own complaints here. And you are treating me as though science is a PERSON that deserves respect like a god.?? Am I not allowed to dare to disagree or challenge other people’s opinions about science? You DO know that science is ‘tentative’ right? And why SHOULD anyone FEAR me or anyone for stating dissenting views? Is Science (as a person?) so WEAK as to be unable to handle what I might have to say? Why censor (or censure) those demonstrating appropriate interest in an area you yourself assert lacking sufficient background in?
Trying to get back on point. You write
All of this is a non sequitur.
If you want to understand emotion, you need to start way back in time
Professor Mark Solms- An overview of the brain mechanisms of emotion
Do you even know what a ‘non sequitur’ is?
You know what…if you want to argue against my concerns, should you not be interested in learning what my theory even is? Do you know what the Big Bang versus Steady State is? That linked discussion that I added comment to was about Oblers’ paradox which falsely gets used to argue that it disproves Steady State even though it is known to be a fallacy itself. It is ‘political’ when one uses SOCIAL behaviors to silence those who are NOT arguing unfairly about an issue that IS contentious, especially to things like the Big Bang theory! And if it is so necessary to FEAR that what I might say could INFLUENCE others as ‘misinformation’, is this not ''political"? Is not your own behavior a form of ‘policing’ me politically as though you are superior to whatever I might have to say?
And given this topic, “Memes for science”, I just gave actual relevant responses above ON TOPIC that get passed over compeletely as though it didn’t exist. THAT is the proof of YOU trolling me. I can’t get passed this.
If you guys don’t like me, stop responding. I will not stick around if I don’t get a response! (hint hint) But I WILL defend myself when attacked. And it won’t improve anything fighting like this.
I don’t think you’ve shown that.
You keep bringing it back to religion,
when it seems to me the issue of religion and God is settled, by way of the simple recognition that our Gods are were created from within our thoughts, our minds and hearts dealing with the evolutionary baggage of hundreds of millions of years worth of creature evolution. The Mindscape I speak of.
What’s disgusting is your victimization routine, buck up man. Try presenting this evidence in a rational cogent manner. If for no there reason than to give you practice at trying to explain it. (or are you beyond the need for practice & rewrites?)
Sort of, but your justification is that everyone is against you and oh woo is me.
Lighten up, have a sense of humor, I (we) aren’t against you, I’m trying to see if I can learn anything from you, or if you’ll help me improve on my arguments. That’s what I’m here for.
Science is an idea and method that proven itself the best learning tool humanity has.
God is an invention from within the human mind and spirit.
Of course you, am I not allow to explain why I think your believe is invalid?
Science is more cumulative than tentative!
What make you think anyone fears you?
seriously 
“Invalid” refers to whether specific inputs PRESUMED true output a true conclusion. I have not presented my theory, so that is not the issue. But I have been attacking the problematic dismissal of a theory that I can argue as ‘valid’. So far I’ve only referenced the contentions I have regarding theory and acceptance of them from outside the formal setting. They are very real issues given ANYONE gets censored when speaking against the Big Bang regardless of facts. The act of censoring prevents the one being censored from being heard BEFORE other ‘peers’ could even speak for or against it. If I’m being shut out prematurely, yes, I’m going to get pissed. And so if my language and attitude appears at odds by my lack of appropriate etiquette, I’m being forced myself to BE ‘political’ as it forces me to require constant attention to HOW I’m speaking and not WHAT I’m saying. Did I insult someone for not taking my shoes off when coming in? Did I improperly use the dinner fork when I was supposed to use the salad fork?
I don’t know, but I think I’m easier to follow than …
AbstractA recent analysis of supernova Ia (SN Ia) data claims a “marginal” (~ 3 σ ) evidence for a cosmic acceleration. This result has been complemented with a non-accelerating R h = ct cosmology, which was presented as a valid alternative to the ΛCDM model. In this paper we use the same analysis to show that non-marginal evidence for acceleration is truly found. We compare the standard Friedmann models to the R h = ct cosmology by complementing SN Ia data with baryon acoustic oscillations, gamma ray bursts, and observational Hubble datasets. We also study the power-law model, which is a functional generalisation of R h = ct . We find that the evidence for late-time acceleration cannot be refuted at a 4.56 σ confidence level from SN Ia data alone, and at an even stronger confidence level (5.38 σ ) from our joint analysis. In addition, the non-accelerating R h = ct model fails to statistically compare with the ΛCDM, having a Δ(AIC) ~ 30.
sorry for all the typos, day is catching up with me. Gotta run. Later.
Not what you think it means.
I didn’t read past this. Also, not going to search around for a good article. Short definitions include use words like “majority” but usually leave out the important factor that members of that majority agree on the interpretation of the data and can describe that agreement consistently. So the consensus is about the data, not the people. It’s not a consensus about serving hot dogs or hamburgers at the community picnic. It’s the same conclusions, reached by the repeated experiments performed under the rules of science, confirmed by observation. It’s the willingness to express uncertainty and to search in the direction of those who challenge the findings.