/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2920230]

Hey /sci/

I've been thinking about the scientific method.

So far the scientific method is the best tool that is at our disposal when filtering horse shit from the real deal.
But there's a catch; the scientific method is man-made. It is not infallible. Since we have started using it, some info is bound to have been overseen by us, merely because how the scientific method filters things.

For example, I find the alien-like depictions of ancient civilization to be quite interesting. Even more interesting when considering that these are not only in one place, but all around the place and at all times (see Roswell UFO incident).

Now, as a loyal follower of science, I am bound to doubt and question this merely because there is not overwhelming evidence for extraterristrial visits.
If you think about it, the scientific community doesn't even consider extraterrestrials before gigantic, overwhelming proof has been obtained... what do you want, an extraterrestrial assault on Earth?

The scientific method is by far the best BS detector, but it can be at times like blindfolding everything in your sight except the road ahead.

[Anonymous No.2920247]

My Opinion:

The scientific method is good. But its not good to worship or apply to it everything in life. It has a place and time.

[Anonymous No.2920299]

>>2920230
The scientific method isn't counter to any sort of theory, like you imply here. Is it possible that these civilizations were visited by aliens, thus the similarities? I suppose I don't have evidence to the contrary, which means it could be possible. The problem is honestly just one of practicality. What sorts of data can you gather to support the claim? Not in the sense that there's no support, but instead a simple question of what can you do? If aliens were here, and now they're not, and all the ancient peoples are dead, just how are you going to acquire supporting evidence? There's not a whole lot of activity available for someone who wants to go that route.

The scientific method came from wanting a better understanding of the world around us as to allow better predictions of the future to reduce wasted effort and to improve the chances of success for our endeavors. Such a system doesn't blind you from anything.

[Anonymous No.2920303]

>>2920247
>But its not good to [...] apply to it everything in life.
You are what's holding us back.

[Anonymous No.2920319]

>>2920303

What a horrible attitude. Like you need the consensus of everyone in order to make "progress"

Is it really progress when you will look down on people you didnt bother to understand or empathize with just for expressing a mild skepticism of your scientific crusade?

[Anonymous No.2920320]

Human minds are VERY susceptible to fallacious reasoning. The scientific method is our best attempt to model reality, and it's worked out pretty well so far.

Sure, it can require evidence to justify the acceptance of a claim, but what alternative would your propose?

[Anonymous No.2920342]

>>2920299
The evidence would be looking rigorously at alleged UFO incidents and looking rigorously at alleged ancient paintings of extraterrestrials.
That's the scientific method for history. Investigating with rigour alleged past events and figures.

Now, if you replace "alleged UFO incidents" with "documents of the Spanish Armada" and "alleged ancient paintings of extraterrestrials" with "the construction of the ancient Pyramids", my statement becomes a whole lot friendlier. The two replacements are concepts we both know well and are familiar with. The problem lies in one's capability of changing one's world view.

This is precisely the reason why most Christians are so stubborn. They have relied on God for so long, so they don't want to imagine life without him. I'm not saying every Christian is like this, many don't simply don't want to be proven wrong.

[Anonymous No.2920364]

>>2920320
The scientific method is, in its essence, a certain standard for evidence.
The scientific method has no say in whether one is right to claim something with little evidence. It just says it's better this way so we don't have any pseudoscience goin on.

[Anonymous No.2920373]

>>2920319
>Like you need the consensus of everyone in order to make "progress"
I kinda meant people like you (which there are many), not literally you all by yourself.

>Is it really progress when you will look down on people you didnt bother to understand or empathize with just for expressing a mild skepticism of your scientific crusade?
Blah. Try again without the self-serving straw man bullshit.

I sincerely believe that opposing the idea of applying evidence-based inference and deduction to all matters of life, is detrimental to just about everything, including technological (and societal) progress.

[Anonymous No.2920385]

>>2920342
>This is precisely the reason why most Christians are so stubborn.
I would contend that the stubbornness generally comes from a lack of linguistic and intellectual ability to defend their beliefs. Perhaps similar in kind to having an argument with a mute. They may very well have evidence to the contrary, but are unable to express it.

[Anonymous No.2920392]

>>2920373

I accept that my run on sentence was self serving. I just wanted to make it clear how I perceived things.

I think applying evidence based inference to everything fails to appreciate subjective reality, which is as important, and critically linked to, subjective goals which are science based.

[Anonymous No.2920413]

>>2920392
What about the scientific method implicitly rules out subjective value?

[Anonymous No.2920423]

>>2920413

Im not sure where we are going with this.

How does it "rule out" subjective value?

The fact that people have subjective preferences, subjective values, and subjective experiences should tell you right away that science isnt going to apply to a lot of very fundamental and human things.

Not to discount science. Im just dont want it over stepping its realm.

[Anonymous No.2920438]

>>2920373
So you think the scientific method applies to everything in your life?

A friend of yours tells you she went to the mall and bought new clothes.
<span class="math">You: I haven't been provided with enough evidence in order to correctly evaluate your claim and draw a probable conclusion to the hypothesis.[/spoiler]

On a more global basis like society, why do you take anyone's word for granted?
The Iraq war could be a gigantic fake war created by the government in order to steal oil. After all, all you've seen are some news reports.
You don't believe that Denmark has a government because all the data you have is witness testimony which is extremely unreliable.

[Anonymous No.2920448]

>>2920423
>The fact that people have subjective preferences, subjective values, and subjective experiences should tell you right away
..that it can be expressed in a measurably different way between peoples (wouldn't be subjective if it's the same). I believe you are using the word science in non-standard way, or you misunderstand what it means.

[Anonymous No.2920461]

>>2920448

Give me an example of something you expect that I believe is subjective that you can measure.

[Anonymous No.2920481]

>>2920461
Your preferences:
Chocolate vs. vanilla Ice cream
Red vs. Blue
How hot or cold it is outside before you consider it "too hot/cold"

[Anonymous No.2920497]

>>2920392
>I just wanted to make it clear how I perceived things.
Well, that's fine. I just think your perception of my position is a complete distortion. I'm not on a "scientific crusade", nor do I lack the ability to empathize with skeptics of scientific methodology. I do, however, consider such a mindset as a serious problem, not as something that should be embraced in any way.

>I think applying evidence based inference to everything fails to appreciate subjective reality
I honestly don't. Despite my affinity for decapitating New Agers while masturbating to "Conjectures and Refutations", I still acknowledge the fact that some aspects of life are inherently, demonstrably untestable and unfalsifiable, and therefore outside of science (I'm thinking of things like one's personal taste in movies, etc.). However, it's the scientific approach that leads me to this conclusion in the first place.

[Anonymous No.2920527]

>>2920438
That's complete gibberish. Both, science and everyday life, are about probabilities, not absolutes. When someone tells me something that I cannot directly verify, I evaluate their claim on the basis of its prior plausibility and the available evidence. Is this person prone to lying? How likely is it for the event to haven taken place exactly as described? And so on. This is all perfectly normal human behavior. I don't even have to make an effort to apply the scientific method in most cases.

[Anonymous No.2920530]

>>2920497

>I do, however, consider such a mindset as a serious problem, not as something that should be embraced in any way.

See, I dont think you can really empathize with someone and consider their mindset a problem.

This really just comes down to whether its more important to respect people, or petperuate your agenda (scientific values and policies based off those values).

"I can empathize with you, I just cant embrace you." - makes no sense

>I still acknowledge the fact that some aspects of life are inherently, demonstrably untestable and unfalsifiable, and therefore outside of science (I'm thinking of things like one's personal taste in movies, etc.).

Okay, thats kind of a shallow form of subjectivity I feel.

I dont feel like there is a subjective reality because I tried to scientifically analyze it and couldnt. I feel like there is a subjective reality, and through subjective motivations I am motivated to sometimes engage in scientific inquiry.

[Anonymous No.2920589]

>>2920527
Allright fair enough.

My point though was that sometimes you take things for granted without having any evidence for it.
If you're trying to evaluate some supposed probability from your experience of the person, you're not applying the scientific method.
Believing a friend when he tells you something because you trust him isn't enough.
Believing a friend because you haven't caught him lying isn't enough.

Just so that we don't go off track, the main subject is whether the scientific method is applicable in all areas of life and whether it blindfolds us in some way. From the paragraph above I am trying to demonstrate that applying the scientific method correctly in every situation in life is not a desirable option.

[Anonymous No.2920590]

>>2920530
If you continue to use "subjective" and "science" in this way, you are seriously going to hurt your future. Please readjust your use of these words to be more inline with what other people expect them to mean. Otherwise you're going to go through life thinking that people "just don't understand" you, and that will create intellectual and emotional barriers that WILL hamper your learning experiences.

[Anonymous No.2920597]

>>2920590

How am I using these words and how is it an inappropriate usage?

[Anonymous No.2920603]

>>2920530
>See, I dont think you can really empathize with someone and consider their mindset a problem.
I can empathize with their skeptical position. That doesn't require me to accept the conclusions they arrive at.

>This really just comes down to whether its more important to respect people, or petperuate your agenda (scientific values and policies based off those values).
I don't think respect has anything to do with this. I'm not disrespecting anyone by considering anti-science attitudes to be a detriment to society, since I believe people to be more than their views on science. I have a hard time understanding why you are so hellbent on turning this into a personal matter anyway. I'm judging the anti-science stance by practical and goal-oriented standards. This doesn't entail a judgment of you as a person, or anything like that.

>"I can empathize with you, I just cant embrace you." - makes no sense
Of course it does. Just because I can empathize with someone's stance on something doesn't automatically mean I accept their position.

>Okay, thats kind of a shallow form of subjectivity I feel.
I can't quite grasp the idea of a "shallow form of subjectivity", sorry. You might wanna elaborate on this a little.

>I feel like there is a subjective reality, and through subjective motivations I am motivated to sometimes engage in scientific inquiry.
And I think you're doing yourself a huge disservice by evaluating reality on the basis of something as catastrophically unreliable as your own, personal intuition.

[Anonymous No.2920623]

>>2920527
Continued.

The scientific method is this:

1 Enigma is defined
2 Information is gathered for enigma
3 Hypothesis is formulated
4 Experiment made to investigate hypothesis
5 Data is collected and examined
6 Results are put forward

Now I'm gonna try and figure out how in hell you apply this every single time.

1 Easy enough
2 This would be the "is my friend trustworthy?" but bear in mind that this isn't what is called gathering information for the enigma. This is your own biased opinion based on prior events. This isn't reliable data.
3 That would be "perhaps my friend is telling the truth"
4 Here is where I can guarantee you skip a step
5 Here is where you "evaluate" (you can't evaluate because this is unreliable data) your data and...
6 Put forward your result on whether you believe your friend or not.

[Anonymous No.2920646]

>>2920603

>I can empathize with their skeptical position. That doesn't require me to accept the conclusions they arrive at.

>Just because I can empathize with someone's stance on something doesn't automatically mean I accept their position.

Whats the difference between their position, their stance, and their conclusion?

>I don't think respect has anything to do with this.

I guess this is how I feel. You should never say "you are damaging society" because that individual is a part of society. I feel like there is a difference between society and the sum of the individuals of that society, and society should serve the individuals.

Saying "your values are going to hurt us in the long run" implies society is so important that it precludes the feelings of the individuals of that society.

>I can't quite grasp the idea of a "shallow form of subjectivity", sorry. You might wanna elaborate on this a little.

When I am thinking about subjective things, I think about spiritual expeirences, or loving someone, or depression, etc. I dont even watch movies I consider them so emotionally empty. Thats just my opinion.

this is tangent, but, I feel like people make movie seeing a hobby, and they like movies, and they try and rank movies, but they cant because no two moves are comparable. but they then realize that they are considering so many movies each movie itself isnt special, and was really just a distraction. Just something watched to kill time, and illicit an response.

>And I think you're doing yourself a huge disservice by evaluating reality on the basis of something as catastrophically unreliable as your own, personal intuition.

I dont use personal intuition as a tool of evaulation. But I do use subjective experiences as a basis for values, morals, and motivation. Thats just what I think. Science is a tool, and science has nothing to do with the motivation in which that tool is used. To evaluate something is a scientific approach.

[Anonymous No.2920647]

>>2920230

[Anonymous No.2920656]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xag3oOzvU68

that should explain it

[Anonymous No.2920669]

>>2920589
>Believing a friend when he tells you something because you trust him isn't enough.
Well, enough for *what* specifically? Enough for simply putting my trust in them, or enough for their claim to actually be true? Of course an anecdote will never suffice as evidence for the latter, but for the former, it's perfectly fine.

>Just so that we don't go off track...
Don't worry, I'm not losing track of the original point, but I do think your objection is somewhat of a mischaracterization of the process of evidence-based evaluation. Whenever you attempt scientific evaluation, you're forced to work with what you got, and when all you got is a person's claim and a pile of anecdotal "evidence", then the probability of your conclusion to be false is certainly comparatively high. However, you seem to interpret this as an argument against using scientific methodology in everyday life situations altogether, and with this I cannot agree at all, especially not when there's literally no alternative method of evaluation, let alone a superior, more reliable one.

[Anonymous No.2920771]

>>2920669
Please refer to my continued post here: >>2920623

You seem to misunderstand what the scientific method is. It's not just evalutaing probability. Refer to my post.

[Anonymous No.2920814]

Alright, let's see if I can maybe answer a few of OP's problems from a different perspective.

>>2920438

So in regards to this, what you're missing is that the brain uses shortcuts that do not necessarily cut logic out of the equation. We frame things in contexts and make quick judgments about the viability of those statements from our past experience in those contexts. When someone tells us they went to the mall, we believe them, because in previous contexts when they told us something menial about what they did and we actually did investigate, we discovered they were being honest.

Here's another example. Did you debate whether the chair you're sitting in would collapse when you sat down in it, using the scientific method? Doubtful. But that's because at some point, you did think logically about it and determined it would and stored that information. It's a sort of behavioral conditioning thing. So we create a shortcut and begin making assumptions about that information, i.e. "That table looks similar to things I've sat on before that didn't collapse, so it will hold me up." This isn't an absence of the scientific method, but rather a mechanism to save us time in making decisions. We wouldn't be able to accomplish anything if we were unable to rely on things we discovered in the past.

This relates strongly to the original post, because basically what you're arguing is that the scientific method is biased towards the established idea, all else held equal, but that's not really true because all else isn't equal. We hold the original theory because it is supported by evidence, and we don't just throw that preexisting evidence out in the face of small bits of evidence for new theories.

>Continued

[Anonymous No.2920836]

>>2920814

Ultimately, the scientific method is biased towards evidence, but why shouldn't it be? If more evidence supports A than B, we should pick A. That's all the scientific method is really asking, and while B may be the actual right answer, we can't just assume that it is in the face of overwhelming evidence the other way.

That may be a bit of an oversimplification, but I think it remains mostly valid. Perhaps ancient civilizations were started by aliens, but we take the simplest solution that is supported by the most evidence. We can't explain every incongruity, but some bits of missing information doesn't indicate that our method is necessarily. Especially when dealing with history, sometimes all the evidence just isn't there. We have to make our interpretations on what is objectively observable though, and not on what could possibly be.

[Anonymous No.2920846]

OP here I'm going to sleep, I'll be awake in 8 hours. Please keep this thread, if possible, bumped as I am genuinely curious about the subject.

[Anonymous No.2920862]

>>2920623

no quantification = no scientific method

you went full retard .. that pseudomethod is worthless

[Anonymous No.2920868]

>scientific method
You keep using this word but i thikn you don't even know what it means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
You could start from here next time

[Anonymous No.2920882]

Aliens are not visiting us.
Please die

[Anonymous No.2920887]

>>2920868
The article says precisely what OP states...
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

[Anonymous No.2920890]

>>2920646
>Whats the difference between their position, their stance, and their conclusion?
I already said it a couple of times; when it comes to empathizing with skeptics of scientific methodology, I cannot share/support their conclusions, but I am perfectly able to understand their lines of reasoning and feelings that led them to said conclusions.

>Saying "your values are going to hurt us in the long run" implies society is so important that it precludes the feelings of the individuals of that society.
That's a bit contrived and not really something I would want to make a definitive comment on one way or the other. When I say someone's stance is "detrimental to society", I mean "detrimental to society *including themselves*". As I said in an earlier post, I don't think people who evaluate reality based on intuition, blind faith, "mommy instincts", or whatever, are doing themselves much of a favor, so it's not just a problem for society, but also a problem for the individual.

>When I am thinking about subjective things, I think about spiritual expeirences, or loving someone, or depression, etc. I dont even watch movies I consider them so emotionally empty. Thats just my opinion.
Ah, I see. Well, you could easily replace my movie example with certain aspects of spirituality, namely the unfalsifiable ones, and it would still stand. As for love, depression and emotions in general, I think there are two sides. One is your own, personal experience of those emotions, the other is the actual understanding of them and their biological mechanisms, which we certainly can examine scientifically. Generally, I think it helps not to mystify your emotions too much. We're slaves to them to certain degrees (I don't think you can "reason" your way out of a depression, for example), but that shouldn't stop us from trying to understand them as biological processes.

The rest of your post, I have no real objections to.

[Anonymous No.2920912]

>>2920527
I think you, as well as others in this thread, gave perfectly the bias that makes scientific method potentially useless.

>prior observations -> expectations
We're so lucky to leave in a universe where the fundamental laws change rarely and slowly compared to our lifetime*. Otherwise we would never be able to use the scientific method.

*I may be wrong, but I don't know, because I used the scientific method to reach that conclusion.

[Anonymous No.2920934]

>alien-like depictions of ancient civilization
I take it you've met plenty of aliens and know what they look like. Or are you just talking out your ass?

[Anonymous No.2920936]

>>2920912

So we shouldn't use a method that does apply to our universe because somewhere out there is a universe to which our method might not apply?

That doesn't seem like a good approach.

[Anonymous No.2920949]

>>2920890

>I already said it a couple of times

I know you "already said it a couple times" I quoted you.

First of all, I am not skeptical of scientific methodology. And I dont know why you are equating me with people who do. I never said "science is bad" or "science fails"

Second of all, I dont think empathy is about understanding. Sure, you can sit down and follow a line of reason, but that isnt the equivalent of the human being you are dealing with. And thats the key to empathy.

>Ah, I see. Well, you could easily replace my movie example with certain aspects of spirituality, namely the unfalsifiable ones, and it would still stand. As for love, depression and emotions in general, I think there are two sides. One is your own, personal experience of those emotions, the other is the actual understanding of them and their biological mechanisms, which we certainly can examine scientifically. Generally, I think it helps not to mystify your emotions too much. We're slaves to them to certain degrees (I don't think you can "reason" your way out of a depression, for example), but that shouldn't stop us from trying to understand them as biological processes.

Yeah I can see the two sides to this.

I think, scientists both, over estimate their capacity to learn about biological emotions, and under estimate the potential costs of doing so.

Its good that we've been able to talk about this so smoothly. Its a nice contrast from what I expect from 4chan.

[Anonymous No.2920959]

>>2920912
>I think you, as well as others in this thread, gave perfectly the bias that makes scientific method potentially useless.
If the notion of prior plausibility were generally unreliable, then the scientific method would be *the* tool you'd wanna use to demonstrate this flaw.

>We're so lucky to leave in a universe where the fundamental laws change rarely and slowly compared to our lifetime
Yeah, we're lucky to live in a universe where the scientific approach makes sense, because otherwise... it wouldn't make sense, I guess.

Sorry, what was your point again?

[Anonymous No.2920970]

How would we test new methods? We couldn't use the scientific method to test new methods because we might get flawed results. So how will we ever come up with a reliable new method if our current methods of finding new methods are flawed?

[Anonymous No.2921001]

>>2920970
You compare the accuracy of their predictions. Astrology, for example, isn't a worthless method of evaluation, because of some axiomatic standard of value, but because it cannot be used at all to make accurate predictions.

[Anonymous No.2921013]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k

OP, watch this and realize your error.

this should be a mandatory watch for everyone on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.2921071]

>>2921013
That man is awesome.

[Anonymous No.2921496]

>>2921013
I was enlightened

[Anonymous No.2922487]

>>2920936
.>>2920959
What I'm saying we're using it to establish its validity before having established its validity. It's an axiom.

[StormTroll !GnYU8vo7lA No.2922501]

>>2921013
Tyson is an uppity nigger.
Also OP is a pro-tier troll.

[Anonymous No.2923543]

>>2921013
You haven't read my post. I'm not applying argument of ignorance, fucktwad.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.2923550]

>>2920230
>For example, I find the alien-like depictions of ancient civilization to be quite interesting. Even more interesting when considering that these are not only in one place, but all around the place and at all times (see Roswell UFO incident).

Confirmation bias. What about all of the possible descriptions of aliens in old texts that don't fit this model?

>
The scientific method is by far the best BS detector, but it can be at times like blindfolding everything in your sight except the road ahead.
[Citation please]

[Anonymous No.2923587]

Ok, about time we got this sorted.

Once again, a Philosophy of Science thread where no one knows anything at all about the Philosophy of Science.

Read Kuhn, Read Duhem's "To Save the Phenomena", Feyerabend, Lakatos and maybe some Science History to taste.

tl;tstr: Scientific progress has been achieved through a systematic evolution of its metaphysics, epistemology and methodology.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.2923590]

>>2923587
I'm not sure if you're suggesting that the periodic upheavals described by Kuhn are where most of currently known science is tossed out the window, or whether those upheavals simply result in tossing out some of finer points and newer points of frontier sciences.

In other words, are you suggesting that science is culturally relative? If you are, then I would say you are mistaken.

[Anonymous No.2923613]

>>2923590
Kuhn's favorite point was incommensurability of paradigms, which he especially went back to in his later writings.

The basic idea being that two different paradigms are in fact unlikely to be mutually intelligible to one another. Simple notions like 'force' and 'mass' were in fact necessitated by the invention of Newton's laws and would have been meaningless to prior generations (say Aristotle). This implies that there is a strong historical and cultural dependency to the terms employed and the 'worldview' that those terms represent.

Personally, I think Duhem's small book gives the best example of how sensitive to culture and history our scientific worldviews are.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.2923617]

>>2923613

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn
>Because Kuhn argued that scientific progress is in some ways constrained by cultural, technological, etc. factors, his work is often misinterpreted to mean "everything's made up and the points don't matter." In later revisions of SSR, Kuhn noted that while he believed that while science isn't completely progressive, there are ways to test paradigms against current data such that one can be verified as superior to another. If you're looking for someone who thinks there is no objective scientific truth, Paul Feyerabend is your guy.

Please stop misrepresenting Kuhn.

[Anonymous No.2923677]

>>2923617
You should probably consider reading him before accusing me of misreading him.

Incommensurability of paradigms != relativism.

What incommensurability implies is that the traditional notion of steady scientific progress being justified by the empirical superiority of new paradigms is false. This doesn't mean (as Feyerabend was a fan of implying) that 'anything goes,' but it does mean that something more than a rigid, mechanistic 'Scientific Method' is at work.

The influence of culture and history aren't arbitrary, but they add levels of uncertainty into things which I consider it worthwhile to consider. I mean, Boltzmann committed suicide more or less because no one would take his atomism seriously and his work was always considered fringe. Now, it's fundamental.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.2923683]

>>2923677
Let's break this down then.

1- I agree that science doesn't get strictly better.

2- As my quote said, evidence is an objective measure to determine which of two two paradigms is more correct (or whether they're equivalent). Thus, we can compare two different paradigms for better "truthiness".

3- I disagree that notions such as "mass" and "gravity" are unexplainable to someone from another culture. They would be.

[Anonymous No.2923709]

>>2923683
>3- I disagree that notions such as "mass" and "gravity" are unexplainable to someone from another culture. They would be.
I strongly disagree. I mean, there are aspects of science that are borderline impossible to explain to people within the *same* culture, and I'm not talking about lack of education, or intelligence on their part here. Some people simply adhere to an entirely different paradigm where scientific methodology plays only a very minor role.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.2923710]

>>2923683
>1- I agree that science doesn't get strictly better.
To clarify, I agree that it does not of necessity get better, but the evidence seems to indicate that it mostly gets better.

And yes, that might be circular. I'm not sure.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.2923712]

>>2923709
I guess our conversation's about over then. You are wrong that some ideas of science are unexplainable to someone. I have never found this to be the case.

[Anonymous No.2923727]

>>2923712
>I guess our conversation's about over then.
I wasn't the guy you were conversing with before. My only beef was with your third point.

>You are wrong that some ideas of science are unexplainable to someone. I have never found this to be the case.
Okay... well, I am right, because I have found this to be true. Try explaining the basic concept of falsifiability to someone like Dana Ullman, Mike Adams, or Alex Tsakiris, and they will simply not get it, not because they lack the intellectual means for comprehension, but because they're arguing from a point of view where the "evidence-based" paradigm is fundamentally flawed.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.2923729]

>>2923727
>Okay... well, I am right, because I have found this to be true. Try explaining the basic concept of falsifiability to someone like Dana Ullman, Mike Adams, or Alex Tsakiris, and they will simply not get it, not because they lack the intellectual means for comprehension, but because they're arguing from a point of view where the "evidence-based" paradigm is fundamentally flawed.
The fact that they can assert "fundamentally flawed" requires that they comprehend it. They merely disagree with it. That's not what was under discussion.

[Anonymous No.2923736]

>>2923729
>The fact that they can assert "fundamentally flawed" requires that they comprehend it.
That's nonsense. They reach this conclusion by non-scientific, even illogical means. Their "fundamentally flawed" is not the same as a scientifically sound "fundamentally flawed".

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.2923744]

>>2923736
So what? I never made that claim. I never made the claim that they will agree that science is correct. I made the claim that they will be able to understand the axioms of science, and at least mimic science. They may disagree that inductive reasoning based on evidence is not the way to go, but they will be able to comprehend it, and predict the outcome of others who are practicing science.

I claim this because /everyone/ practices science, whether they admit it or not. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Science is merely the practice of not being insane. In other words, one practices science when one does someone over and over again, and observes the same result each time, and then expects the same thing will happen next time he does it.

Some people just have certain mental blocks about aspects of science. Alternatively, some people have beliefs about how the observable world works that is not based in evidence, so when they make predictions, they do so based on evidence, but any of these non-scientific beliefs take priority over evidence. It's really a jumbled way to predict future phenomena, but it's coherent enough for most people.

[Anonymous No.2923747]

>>2923712
That wasn't me, but I'll agree with that person's statement up to a point. To be fair Kuhn was talking mostly about trying to examine historical paradigms and decided that the 'translation process' was basically rewriting or 'interpreting' those paradigms in modern language. He uses Aristotelian physics and phlogiston theory as examples. Also, 'mass' is probably the best example of such a term because you need it to define Newton's first law, but it doesn't mean anything without Newton's first law - since 'weight' is the truly empirical property.

as to your points 1-3, I completely agree with 1 (even after your qualification, even though I think it's circular) because the evidentiary basis for brute reality is what Science is essentially trying to 'build upon'.

2 is sort of a discussion in itself, but I'll just say that Duhem's book covers this pretty well. Incorporating evidence into a model is great because it "saves the phenomena" but the models are then tested by a kind of historical tempering process which has quite a lot to do with the tastes and preferences of the age in which it arises. Again, not totally arbitrary but influenced in some ways by subjective pressures.

Also, yeah I think I am done for now. You can have the last word if you want it.