Science is the deliberate attempt to prove everything and nothing.
Not at all.
Science is a method for building models of reality. Proving things is a part of it, but not the product.
Science is amazing.
Everything works in a distinct and precise manner, in accordance with its own particularized processes. Science merely translates that into hooman speak.
Quote from: No one on April 28, 2023, 12:13:53 PMEverything works in a distinct and precise manner, in accordance with its own particularized processes. Science merely translates that into hooman speak.
Science is the exploration of nature and returning.
Science is telling your financial sponsors what they want to hear as well as kowtowing to activist mobs because of the fear of loosing your job.
Qualia is inextricably connected to the door of space time events
Quote from: Tom62 on April 30, 2023, 07:31:34 AMScience is telling your financial sponsors what they want to hear as well as kowtowing to activist mobs because of the fear of loosing your job.
:sadnod:
A fair chunk of what passes for science is exactly that. It's not so much about building the best possible model of reality and more about tailoring a
preferred model to fit(-ish) reality.
Truth suffers not for the misguided perceptions or irrational fears of persistently ignorant hoomans.
A philosopher once said; "The truth doesn't damage points of view that are legitimate"
The reverse, however... Can points of view that are less than legitimate damage the truth? Perhaps not. they can, however, twist it to fit a narrative or simply change their target audience's perception of it.
The inability to comprehend the truth, makes not any difference to said truth. Twisting facts to fill an agenda,is only effective on those who refuse to think.
I think that is only partly accurate. Yes, provided you are capable of doing some critical research, you can generally form an informed opinion. However, that requires a few things to even attempt. Incentive, for one. And that in itself... Do you care what's really true in a particular instance? Are you served by adhering to or propagating said truth?
You can fully comprehend it and still misuse it.
As for how effective twisting the truth can be, that proverbial devil is in the details. Beyond certain point, truth can be made into a matter of opinion/approach. That is, for example, how politics work. Things are true/false and/or important/insignificant and/or viewed from this or that angle. It's the good old blind man's elephant problem.
Just the facts, ladies and gentlemen.
What's nonsense? Even religion has its uses like controlling most of the idiots and their votes.
My country is crawling with science deniers. Anti vaxxers come to mind and flat earthers who really believe that the earth is a disc.
What is science but a collection of facts that legitimate theories are made of.
The opposite, really.
A theory (sc.) is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world. It is, in fact, often stronger than fact, which can be "merely" an observed phenomenon. It may not be built from facts, as such, but can explain how to construct, or, as I like to put it, "model" a fact.
Look at it this way; let us assume that we have observed apples falling. "Apples fall" is now a fact. The [Newtonian] theory of gravitation is not built from that fact - on the contrary, it acts as a model for explaining why it must be. Apples fall because they are massive objects - as is the Earth. Being far more massive than the apples or the trees, it attracts them more strongly. When this attraction is able to overcome the "binding forces" in the stem or the branch (the sum of the opposing forces, in actuality, but simplifying.) - that's when them apples meet the Earth.
Now, you may ask, "but isn't 'massive objects attract each other' a fact?" and it is. In its turn, it has a theory to explain why this must be.
Of course there are axioms in science, but one does tend to try and limit their use as much as practically possible.
So, if anything, science is a method for creating theories, from which the explanations of legitimate facts arise.
Quote from: Asmodean on May 09, 2023, 02:25:09 PMThe opposite, really.
A theory (sc.) is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world. It is, in fact, often stronger than fact, which can be "merely" an observed phenomenon. It may not be built from facts, as such, but can explain how to construct, or, as I like to put it, "model" a fact.
Look at it this way; let us assume that we have observed apples falling. "Apples fall" is now a fact. The [Newtonian] theory of gravitation is not built from that fact - on the contrary, it acts as a model for explaining why it must be. Apples fall because they are massive objects - as is the Earth. Being far more massive than the apples or the trees, it attracts them more strongly. When this attraction is able to overcome the "binding forces" in the stem or the branch (the sum of the opposing forces, in actuality, but simplifying.) - that's when them apples meet the Earth.
Now, you may ask, "but isn't 'massive objects attract each other' a fact?" and it is. In its turn, it has a theory to explain why this must be.
Of course there are axioms in science, but one does tend to try and limit their use as much as practically possible.
So, if anything, science is a method for creating theories, from which the explanations of legitimate facts arise.
I see your point, but is it not a fact that facts legitimise theories?
Not as such. Initially, observations legitimise predictions. Legitimate predictions legitimise the theory.
In our example, "Apples fall." Yes, they do, but the underlying theory says nothing of apples. You can use that model for "anything" (or, if you will, anything on Earth) such that if faced with a tyre iron, you may ask, "Do tyre irons fall?" Using the theory, you will then predict that indeed they do. With a well-enough established theory, at that point, you know that they do without ever having observed such an event, but you can do so.
One time, I knew this girl, she was so sciencetastical, she blinded me with it.
Quote from: No one on May 11, 2023, 09:12:29 AMOne time, I knew this girl, she was so sciencetastical, she blinded me with it.
I am blinded by my own brilliance half the time.
What is science but too far away to help me.
What is help but too science to me away far?
Ah yeah.
Quote from: Asmodean on May 09, 2023, 02:25:09 PMThe opposite, really.
A theory (sc.) is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world. It is, in fact, often stronger than fact, which can be "merely" an observed phenomenon. It may not be built from facts, as such, but can explain how to construct, or, as I like to put it, "model" a fact.
Look at it this way; let us assume that we have observed apples falling. "Apples fall" is now a fact. The [Newtonian] theory of gravitation is not built from that fact - on the contrary, it acts as a model for explaining why it must be. Apples fall because they are massive objects - as is the Earth. Being far more massive than the apples or the trees, it attracts them more strongly. When this attraction is able to overcome the "binding forces" in the stem or the branch (the sum of the opposing forces, in actuality, but simplifying.) - that's when them apples meet the Earth.
Now, you may ask, "but isn't 'massive objects attract each other' a fact?" and it is. In its turn, it has a theory to explain why this must be.
Of course there are axioms in science, but one does tend to try and limit their use as much as practically possible.
So, if anything, science is a method for creating theories, from which the explanations of legitimate facts arise.
Yeah, that Newton guy was pretty clever, and he got it mostly right, well close enough for most practical purposes, like sending people to the moon or spacecraft to the outer reaches of the solar system. However, our friend Einstein threw a right spanner in the works and showed that gravity is not a force, but a bending of space-time. For example, a thrown ball does not really follow a curved path, but a geodesic (straight line) in space-time. In effect, Newton's laws of motion are special cases that are good enough, so long as the velocities or masses are not too large.
Science is not a collection of facts, but a way to construct models of various aspects of the natural world that, amongst other things, can be used to make predictions about future behaviour of the system in question. The degree that reality conforms to those predictions is an indication of the strength/value of the model.
Quote from: Bluenose on May 19, 2023, 03:33:26 AMQuote from: Asmodean on May 09, 2023, 02:25:09 PMThe opposite, really.
A theory (sc.) is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world. It is, in fact, often stronger than fact, which can be "merely" an observed phenomenon. It may not be built from facts, as such, but can explain how to construct, or, as I like to put it, "model" a fact.
Look at it this way; let us assume that we have observed apples falling. "Apples fall" is now a fact. The [Newtonian] theory of gravitation is not built from that fact - on the contrary, it acts as a model for explaining why it must be. Apples fall because they are massive objects - as is the Earth. Being far more massive than the apples or the trees, it attracts them more strongly. When this attraction is able to overcome the "binding forces" in the stem or the branch (the sum of the opposing forces, in actuality, but simplifying.) - that's when them apples meet the Earth.
Now, you may ask, "but isn't 'massive objects attract each other' a fact?" and it is. In its turn, it has a theory to explain why this must be.
Of course there are axioms in science, but one does tend to try and limit their use as much as practically possible.
So, if anything, science is a method for creating theories, from which the explanations of legitimate facts arise.
Yeah, that Newton guy was pretty clever, and he got it mostly right, well close enough for most practical purposes, like sending people to the moon or spacecraft to the outer reaches of the solar system. However, our friend Einstein threw a right spanner in the works and showed that gravity is not a force, but a bending of space-time. For example, a thrown ball does not really follow a curved path, but a geodesic (straight line) in space-time. In effect, Newton's laws of motion are special cases that are good enough, so long as the velocities or masses are not too large.
Science is not a collection of facts, but a way to construct models of various aspects of the natural world that, amongst other things, can be used to make predictions about future behaviour of the system in question. The degree that reality conforms to those predictions is an indication of the strength/value of the model.
And what are these models made of but observable truths, in other words, facts.
Quote from: MarcusA on May 19, 2023, 04:32:03 AMAnd what are these models made of but observable truths, in other words, facts.
But observations may be wrong, for example due to inaccurate measurement, lack of available precision or indeed the biases of the observers. The models are not made of facts, they're attempts to explain the things observed, but as better methods of observation or indeed better explanations are made it may well turn out that those previous observations are incorrect. The concept of facts in the operation of science is not actually helpful. Things are not so clearly defined as to be able to call them facts, except colloquially, but we're having a scientific discussion, are we not? In science, we talk about margins for error and degrees of confidence. The concept of facts is of the same genera as proofs. Useful in (some) mathematics, but otherwise not generally useful or indeed applicable in science.
Quote from: Bluenose on May 19, 2023, 07:17:21 AMQuote from: MarcusA on May 19, 2023, 04:32:03 AMAnd what are these models made of but observable truths, in other words, facts.
But observations may be wrong, for example due to inaccurate measurement, lack of available precision or indeed the biases of the observers. The models are not made of facts, they're attempts to explain the things observed, but as better methods of observation or indeed better explanations are made it may well turn out that those previous observations are incorrect. The concept of facts in the operation of science is not actually helpful. Things are not so clearly defined as to be able to call them facts, except colloquially, but we're having a scientific discussion, are we not? In science, we talk about margins for error and degrees of confidence. The concept of facts is of the same genera as proofs. Useful in (some) mathematics, but otherwise not generally useful or indeed applicable in science.
It's just like when Albert Einstein had to wait for confirmation of his Theory of Relativity then, he thought his theory was so beautiful that it had to be right.
Science uses both deductive and inductive reasoning.
Quote from: Bluenose on May 19, 2023, 07:17:21 AMQuote from: MarcusA on May 19, 2023, 04:32:03 AMAnd what are these models made of but observable truths, in other words, facts.
But observations may be wrong, for example due to inaccurate measurement, lack of available precision or indeed the biases of the observers. The models are not made of facts, they're attempts to explain the things observed, but as better methods of observation or indeed better explanations are made it may well turn out that those previous observations are incorrect. The concept of facts in the operation of science is not actually helpful. Things are not so clearly defined as to be able to call them facts, except colloquially, but we're having a scientific discussion, are we not? In science, we talk about margins for error and degrees of confidence. The concept of facts is of the same genera as proofs. Useful in (some) mathematics, but otherwise not generally useful or indeed applicable in science.
Indeed. as a point of clarity, when talking about science, I use "fact" to mean broadly the same as multiple mutually-affirming observations. You see apples fall, I see apples fall... But in itself, that does not mean very much. The purpose of science is to delve into why it must be (or not), on what scale (Are apples just that special? If so, a whoole new set of whys) and how it works. Thus, we can reasonably predict the behaviour of an apple on Earth or a golf ball orbiting Jupiter using the same underlying theory because both these phenomena are the consequence of the same cause.
This is what makes an established theory in science much more powerful than a "fact" - the theory
explains your facts and if it does not, it
may be the time to adjust the model - or, as is more likely, your measurements and/or interpretation are simply wrong. There are indeed not exceptions that prove the rule. Proven exceptions
break the rule and cause adjustments to it, thus resulting in us having a model of the universe that edges ever closer to its "actual" workings.
All the information in science is filtered by our senses is all I know.
all of reality is filtered by your senses, marcus.
unless your thoughts are part of reality
Yes. In fact, that information is converted into human-relatable types through the very same senses. (As in: the theory is written by humans) Those can fail, of course, which is why we seek to agree on certain concepts. For example, how do you know that what you see as blue, I also see as blue? Well, you can rely on numbers. If "everyone" says "blue," while one person says "yellow," you may want to err on the side of blue. Or you can do a spectrum analysis, convert the colour into numbers, representing wavelengths, then see if it has sufficiently short waves to constitute something within the blue spectrum.
Whatever the case, it may be just as well to go for a "lesser" investigation most of the time. After all, you don't always need the perfect model of reality - just good enough for the purpose will do. To put it thusly; if all you want is to design a car, then Newtonian mechanics will get you there and probably quicker than the more precise/comprehensive theories. Or, in reference to the above example, if something being blue or not doesn't really matter to something else, then we may just agree that that there *point* is blue, while this here *point* is not and leave it at that.
The issue then is only what happens when you are proven wrong. My approach is to change my model of reality accordingly. Is the sky demonstrably green? Then green it is - until an even better model shows up.
yes. to the navajo the sky is green, i believe.
What is science but wasted on the religious.
Scientists are spaced-out if they think space is worth the expense of travelling there.
Quote from: MarcusA on June 11, 2023, 09:54:53 PMWhat is science but wasted on the religious.
What is science but the exploration of the unknown and not the unknowable.