Adamsli said, Yet all this is out the door when objectively criticing US imperialism and capitalism .What does that have to do with science and technology?
Critical thinkingAdamsli said, Yet all this is out the door when objectively criticing US imperialism and capitalism .What does that have to do with science and technology?
Critical thinking Then do it in the right discussion forum. I's called Politics and Social Issues. In context of science, this type of critical thinking is just a nuisance. Please stop that!Adamsli said, Yet all this is out the door when objectively criticing US imperialism and capitalism .What does that have to do with science and technology?
faith as in how God botherers justify their beliefs.What do you know about God? Who are you to speak for Her? I reject the claim that a god gods exists. Those that claim to Know god are the god bothered. or perhaps merely the reflection of one's ultra-ego. Never hear "god bothered" what's it's background?
Speaking of critical thinking, did you get a chance to look at these?
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/24429/what-is-wrong-with-poppers-theory-of-falsification Has a few folks giving their two cents worth. @Drux Popper himself. He admitted that original falsificationism does not account for evolutionary biology, (or complex Earth systems) "Darwinian evolutionary theory failed to satisfy that criterion so it was not a scientific theory but only a metaphysical research programme". Indeed it does not work very well outside of physics, "it excludes not just evolutionary biology but also historical geology and much of astronomy". ncse.com/ncser/13/4/popper-evolution And even in physics Lakatos had to dilute falsificationism to make it minimally tenable. – Conifold Jun 12 '15 at 22:51Even better,Falsification: Was Karl Popper Wrong About Science? By Alex Berezow — August 19, 2016 American Council on Science and Health http://www.acsh.org/news/2016/08/19/falsification-was-karl-popper-wrong-about-science Popper's views are highly influential. Indeed, few scientists would dispute the importance of falsifiability. But just how realistic is Popper's spin on the scientific method? Does science actually advance in this way? In a paper nearly a decade old in the journal Foundations of Science, philosophy professor Sven Ove Hansson argues that Popper is wrong. To make his case, Dr. Hansson selected 70 papers* from the journal Nature published in the year 2000. He asked a series of questions and classified the papers accordingly. His schema is shown below. (My explanations, which are additions to the original figure, are shown in red text.)...It's worth the read for sure.
faith as in how God botherers justify their beliefs.What do you know about God? Who are you to speak for Her? I reject the claim that a god gods exists. Those that claim to Know god are the god bothered. or perhaps merely the reflection of one's ultra-ego. Never hear "god bothered" what's it's background? Stop praying leave the guy alone
Critical thinking Then do it in the right discussion forum. I's called Politics and Social Issues. In context of science, this type of critical thinking is just a nuisance. Please stop that! Logic free conversationAdamsli said, Yet all this is out the door when objectively criticing US imperialism and capitalism .What does that have to do with science and technology?
If what you say had substance Engineering would not exist !No, no. Predictability is enough for technology. 'If you make this, put that and that together, and then push the button, the light will go on' is a prediction. Prediction is the touchstone of scientific theories. If they succeed they can be used in technology.
If what you say had substance Engineering would not exist !No, no. Predictability is enough for technology. 'If you make this, put that and that together, and then push the button, the light will go on' is a prediction. Prediction is the touchstone of scientific theories. If they succeed they can be used in technology. From the clip; The Great Math Mystery The head engineer of the Discovery rover said; Mathematics must be precisely right, but for practical purposes we don't get paid to do it right, we get paid to do it just right enough". And even as they took shortcuts from the pure extended mathematics, they did it just right enough to land the Discovery successfully on Mars.
If what you say had substance Engineering would not exist !No, no. Predictability is enough for technology. 'If you make this, put that and that together, and then push the button, the light will go on' is a prediction. Prediction is the touchstone of scientific theories. If they succeed they can be used in technology. From the clip; The Great Math Mystery The head engineer of the Discovery rover said; Mathematics must be precisely right, but for practical purposes we don't get paid to do it right, we get paid to do it just right enough". And even as they took shortcuts from the pure extended mathematics, they did it just right enough to land the Discovery successfully on Mars.
Science, thus is not about absolute truths as much as it is about predictability.Pretty much. It turns out "predictability" is good enough. I'm a sucker for trick questions - the "absolute" wrapped up in the Popperian Myth, which I've seldom seen discussed on it's own merit, but instead tends to show up when people are looking for excuses to ignore the established and repeatedly reaffirmed 'truths' ;-) of climate science, made me sloppy. That's why I tossed in the Science isn't Absolutism. So, what is truth?
Definition of truth plural truthsplay play \ˈtrüthz, ˈtrüths\ 1a (1) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (2) : the state of being the case : fact (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true truths of thermodynamics c : the body of true statements and propositions 2a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : true 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard 3 a : sincerity in action, character, and utterance b archaic : fidelity, constancy 4 capitalized, Christian Science : god - in truth : in accordance with fact : actuallySeems that in the end "Truth" is another slippery word like God that we can play with and manipulate into whatever we want to make of it. Yet, yet, in the end there is a universe and Earth that operates by it's own absolutely true and consistent rules. We humans have tasked ourselves with discovering those 'truths' to the best of our ability. And we've been way the hell successful, too successful for our own good in fact. So we find ourselves in a sort of Dichotomy Paradox, half way there, half way there, yet never arriving - which of course is not how the real pragmatic world operates, proof being that we are constantly arriving at our destinations. Or consider the "Carbon Theory" and all the complex modern marvels that would not, could not, function if scientists had not arrived at the true composition of our atmosphere and a true understanding of how the physics of its various components function. That there is still more to be learned and refinements to make as our instruments improve still doesn't make what's known and useful untrue.
CCv3 said, So we find ourselves in a sort of Dichotomy Paradox, half way there, half way there, yet never arriving - which of course is not how the real pragmatic world operates, proof being that we are constantly arriving at our destinations. Or consider the “Carbon Theory" and all the complex modern marvels that would not, could not, function if scientists had not arrived at the true composition of our atmosphere and a true understanding of how the physics of its various components function. That there is still more to be learned and refinements to make as our instruments improve still doesn’t make what’s known and useful untrue.I agree, and IMO, we do know "some" things which are undeniably True, because if they were not absolute, the universe would not, could not exist. We have identified certain mathematical universal functions which are constant and by extension "absolute". The Law of Falling Bodies is but one of them. Gravity is another. EM is another. Tegmark has identified all but a few of these universally mathematical constants, which deserve the title of being True (at least in this universe).
I've never heard anyone in a serious discussion equate science with truth. That's like saying a hammer is a house. I would venture to guess most people who say science is truth are religionists who are trying to argue religion is better than science because science isn't truth but religion is. Silly of course.You didn't seem to have that problem in another thread about truth - http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19241/
I've never heard anyone in a serious discussion equate science with truth. That's like saying a hammer is a house. I would venture to guess most people who say science is truth are religionists who are trying to argue religion is better than science because science isn't truth but religion is. Silly of course.You didn't seem to have that problem in another thread about truth - http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19241/ That thread is about understanding what science is. The same problem you seem to be having here.
It seems common to equate science and truth in many discussions and to regard science as a search for truth. There are widespread challenges to "prove" that something is "true". Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery points out that in scientific terms it is impossible to confirm anything as an absolute truth. He preferred to use the expression "xxx corresponds to the facts" rather than xxx is true. The objections to Popper are more to his recommendations on how to conduct science (using falsifiability) to the exclusion of all other methods than his underlying objection to "truth". It would be acceptable to Popper to say that scientific knowledge corresponds to the facts but not that scientific knowledge is true. Scientific knowledge can thus be challenged by discovering more facts to see if it still corresponds to the new facts. A key scientific method is to use current knowledge to identify the unknown or untested and make predictions. Verifying predictions, especially if they differ between different theories help create new facts and reinforce our confidence in our knowledge (as pointed out by Popper in chapter 3 of The Logic of Scientific Discovery). Science, thus is not about absolute truths as much as it is about predictability.Welcome to the real world, too bad your stay here will likely be fleeting. Oh, by the way, the scientific method is far more applicable in the real world than say religion or even philosophy. Try building a 500,000 lb. jet airliner or a semi-conducting transistors that make modern society itself possible through prayer or thought devoid of practice. What's your next deep revelation, that water is wet or heat is hot. sl...
Water has memory 
Water has memory ;-POnly when it's frozen. But water is a truly remarkable compound chemical.
That thread is about understanding what science is. The same problem you seem to be having here.So are you saying science IS truth?
Welcome to the real world, too bad your stay here will likely be fleeting. Quite possibly if intelligent life doesn't show up soon Oh, by the way, the scientific method is far more applicable in the real world than say religion or even philosophy. Did I ever say different? Try building a 500,000 lb. jet airliner or a semi-conducting transistors that make modern society itself possible through prayer or thought devoid of practice. Where have I given the impression that I would think that is possible? Jet airliners obey the scientific Newton's laws which are, for example, sufficient to design aircraft by predicting the forces needed to move them through the air and lift them off the ground. Newton's laws predicted half of the gravitationally induced curvature of light measured by Eddington, thereby favoring Einstein's theory and demonstrating Newton incorrect (a.k.a. not true). However, Newton's laws provide "close enough" predictions that engineers continue to use them for relatively slow object like jet airliners. Prediction, not truth What's your next deep revelation, that water is wet or heat is hot. Heat arises in anything warmer than 0 degrees Kelvin which is about minus 273 degrees centigrade so I wouldn't suggest that heat is hot. I may however suggest that you are confusing somewhat unrelated terms. Heat is a measure of energy whereas hot is a subjective description of temperature.Like several others here, you seem to jump to unwarranted conclusions (that I am evangelizing or diminishing science?) and rant in derogatory terms completely out of the range of what is really being communicated.
That thread is about understanding what science is. The same problem you seem to be having here.So are you saying science IS truth? Well if you are trying to be serious, you might start by defining what kind of "truth" - absolute, provision, <.99 certain - Or what about everyday truth and honesty? There's the truth of honestly representing what scientific studies have written or claimed. There's the reality that this Earth does operate by specific knowable rules and processes - that is a "truth" that scientists strive to understand as well as possible. Isaac Asimov wrote an excellent essay that speaks directly to this question of assessing "Truth" in science - and the conceit of certain sorts that claim that because scientific knowledge is never absolutely complete, that the notion of Truth no longer holds any importance, or something like that. They never do quite explain it, but than casting doubt and derision regarding serious science is their only goal anyways so serious detailed explanations are not to be expected and none will be offered.
The Relativity of Wrong By Isaac Asimov The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, Pp. 35-44 I RECEIVED a letter the other day. It was handwritten in crabbed penmanship so that it was very difficult to read. Nevertheless, I tried to make it out just in case it might prove to be important. In the first sentence, the writer told me he was majoring in English literature, but felt he needed to teach me science. (I sighed a bit, for I knew very few English Lit majors who are equipped to teach me science, but I am very aware of the vast state of my ignorance and I am prepared to learn as much as I can from anyone, so I read on.) It seemed that in one of my innumerable essays, I had expressed a certain gladness at living in a century in which we finally got the basis of the universe straight. I didn't go into detail in the matter, but what I meant was that we now know the basic rules governing the universe, together with the gravitational interrelationships of its gross components, as shown in the theory of relativity worked out between 1905 and 1916. We also know the basic rules governing the subatomic particles and their interrelationships, since these are very neatly described by the quantum theory worked out between 1900 and 1930. What's more, we have found that the galaxies and clusters of galaxies are the basic units of the physical universe, as discovered between 1920 and 1930. These are all twentieth-century discoveries, you see. The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong. The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal. My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong. However, I don't think that's so. It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts, and I will devote this essay to an explanation of why I think so. ... http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
John did you try reading Isaac’s article, does any of that make any sense to you?