The problems in the scientific community

[bogdan9310]

I am just sparking a discussion. You can't deny that where people are involved, you find errors. Science is not perfect. That's what I want to point out.

[Cito di Pense]

I am just sparking a discussion.

No, that is not what you are doing. What you're doing is assuming that whenever people are involved, there are errors, but that is a different conversation from the one we were having.

If it's the case that whenever people are involved, there are errors, and you are a person, then you are in error, and you cannot instruct me in any way. End of the fucking story.

You can't deny that where people are involved, you find errors.

Sometimes that is the case, and I would not deny it if it were the case. If you want to insist that it is always the case, then you are in error, and should shut the fuck up.

[surreptitious57]

any recent studies are based on the observations of others not on first hand observations

Observations that are inter subjective and peer reviewed in scientific journals
That can also be replicated and subject to potential falsification at any time

There are not a lot of scientific studies that I can verify in my living room. The problem here is that we
have to use language to describe our observations. And is at that point where everything can go sideways

The laws of physics are written in mathematical language and mathematics is a deductive discipline
It is therefore more exacting and rigorous than non mathematical language which is only descriptive

The scientific method is designed to seek out errors and is also the most rigorous methodology ever devised
It is an eternally self correcting discipline which accepts nothing as true unless it has actually been falsified

The combination of mathematical language and the scientific method make observations more accurate
Way more accurate than a non scientist describing the same phenomena using only descriptive language

Science is restricted in what it can do but what it does do is as brutal as it is possible to get given its limitations

[felltoearth]

Every individual who had a new idea struggled getting acknowledgment from the community.

This isn’t even remotely true.

I told you the reasons for why that is true, what is your argument?

If that were even remotely true it would have been impossible to from the first manned flight in 1903 to transcontinental commercial jets in 50 years. Most of science isn’t Hollywood style eureka moments. It’s small incremental steps of tested and then accepted facts. Even your example of Galileo is overly simplified. Most of the church authorities accepted his findings, they just didn’t want him blabbing about it and wanted him to approach it as some sort of weird, non overlapping majesteria. In fact his findings were accepted in many parts of the world within years.

[bogdan9310]

Every individual who had a new idea struggled getting acknowledgment from the community.

This isn’t even remotely true.

I told you the reasons for why that is true, what is your argument?

If that were even remotely true it would have been impossible to from the first manned flight in 1903 to transcontinental commercial jets in 50 years. Most of science isn’t Hollywood style eureka moments. It’s small incremental steps of tested and then accepted facts. Even your example of Galileo is overly simplified. Most of the church authorities accepted his findings, they just didn’t want him blabbing about it and wanted him to approach it as some sort of weird, non overlapping majesteria. In fact his findings were accepted in many parts of the world within years.

If you understand something well enough, you can explain it in a simple way. Can you not admit science has its flaws? Is science perfect in your view?
I thought the first thing scientists do, is to admit ignorance, and how flawed everything is.

[newolder]

Science builds models. Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from nature.

[bogdan9310]

Science builds models. Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from nature.

I know this quote. Was it not magic instead of nature?

[Macdoc]

If you understand something well enough, you can explain it in a simple way. Can you not admit science has its flaws? Is science perfect in your view?
I thought the first thing scientists do, is to admit ignorance, and how flawed everything is.

Science is not a noun ....it's a method....you are the one that is flawed and without the merest hint of understanding.
The body of work that encompasses scientific understanding of the universe we inhabit is a result applying scientific method and that body of work changes daily in a torrent you haven't the faintest glimpse of

EVERY scientist understands that on new evidence theories change.

And NO .....much about our universe cannot be explained simply especially to those like you who are too lazy to do the work to at least gain a basic understanding of the principles involved.

For you science is just as opaque as magic and as incomprehensible ...it's not the case for all of us.

[newolder]

Science builds models. Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from nature.

I know this quote. Was it not magic instead of nature?

It's an update by a random internet commentator to some quote by Arthur C. Clarke.*

* ETA

The paraphrase “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from nature” of Clarke’s famous quote was originally offered by the Canadian scifi author Karl Schroeder...

medium.com source

[Thommo]

Science is not a noun ....

I don't think that can really be what you mean to say.

[Cito di Pense]

Science is not a noun ....

I don't think that can really be what you mean to say.

The renowned anthropologist, Leslie White, is reputed to have said, once (or maybe several times) "Science is sciencing".

Don't get me started on my annual lecter about the science of the lambdas.

[Thommo]

I'm pretty sure that's what Tom Hanks meant when he famously said "science is as science does".

[felltoearth]

This isn’t even remotely true.

I told you the reasons for why that is true, what is your argument?

If that were even remotely true it would have been impossible to from the first manned flight in 1903 to transcontinental commercial jets in 50 years. Most of science isn’t Hollywood style eureka moments. It’s small incremental steps of tested and then accepted facts. Even your example of Galileo is overly simplified. Most of the church authorities accepted his findings, they just didn’t want him blabbing about it and wanted him to approach it as some sort of weird, non overlapping majesteria. In fact his findings were accepted in many parts of the world within years.

If you understand something well enough, you can explain it in a simple way. Can you not admit science has its flaws? Is science perfect in your view?
I thought the first thing scientists do, is to admit ignorance, and how flawed everything is.

How does that even relate to what I posted?

[TopCat]

I can't read this thread any more, I can feel my IQ falling in real time. And I can't spare a single point.

[SafeAsMilk]

I am just sparking a discussion JAQing off.

fify

[Ironclad]

"What if science relies on philosophy to exist?"

Uhh.. it does, it is philosophy. Isn't it?? Natural philosophy, at least. Snip off the metaphysical and you're nearly home.
I could be mistaken.

[Macdoc]

Macdoc wrote:
Science is not a noun ....

Thommo
I don't think that can really be what you mean to say.

Nice out of context ...

The word "science" often brings up all the facts, theories, laws, and principles taught in science class. In reality, those things are produced through science, but they are not science themselves.
Science is not a collection of things; it is not a noun. Science is a verb!
Science is an active process of learning, and the scientific method guides scientists as they do science (designing, carrying out, analyzing and explaining their research).

my bolding
http://www.uwyo.edu/scienceposse/scienc ... -verb.html

Our ill informed OP is confusing the outcome ...scientifically derived body of knowlege..... with the process scientific method.

[Hermit]

I can't read this thread any more, I can feel my IQ falling in real time. And I can't spare a single point.

Without engaging in your hyperbole, I don't think highly of this thread either. Bogdan9310 seems incapable of developing a train of thought. A train of thought requires some kind of locomotive. There is none. What we have here instead, is a number of random wagons, each placed in arbitrary locations on various tracks, and going nowhere. No wonder this thread resembles a train wreck. Still, most of us can't help but doing a bit of rubbernecking when we see an accident, and I am part of that majority, so I keep peeking into it. I don't expect to discover anything useful emerging from Bogdan9310 - his fractured way of thinking simply makes that impossible - but he is sort of, kind of entertaining in the aforementioned train wreck way, at least for a while.

[Hermit]

"What if science relies on philosophy to exist?"

Uhh.. it does, it is philosophy. Isn't it?? Natural philosophy, at least. Snip off the metaphysical and you're nearly home.
I could be mistaken.

More importantly, one can't science without an underlying philosophy - a philosophy of science, a.k.a. epistemology. Or, to put it more bluntly, without philosophy there would be no science.

[Macdoc]

aren't we past the Natural Philosophy bucket...tossed with alchemists et al.

Do you really think the Wright Brothers needed philosophy to undertake powered flight.
or that their method was not scientific?

Wedging philosophical arguments into the practice of scientific method and the resulting successes ( or failures at times ) opens the door to Jamest type claptrap.

and marginally valuable work for over-educated ...under experienced philo profs while working scientists in the field can barely scrape together a living