Science is no more than a refinement of our everyday thinking everyone uses even to criticize it
in [Logic]
|
Prev: both valid constructive and contradiction proof methods of Infinitude of Primes (Euclid) #638 Correcting Math
Next: First Responders to Good Technical OPs on BP's cap&trade nostrum
From: Bret Cahill on 6 Jul 2010 00:41 Real science, according to Leonard aka "First Post" means duct taping a plastic bag over your head to prove "CO2 Is Good for You" in a youtube video. Leonard, how's that video coming along? Bret Cahill
From: bigfletch8 on 6 Jul 2010 05:38 On Jul 6, 12:19 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 5, 7:56 pm, "bigflet...(a)gmail.com" <bigflet...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 10:11 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Attitudes to science range all the way from uncritical admiration at > > > one extreme, through distrust, resentment, and envy, to denigration > > > and outright hostility at the other. > > > > Scientific inquiry is continuous with the most ordinary of everyday > > > empirical inquiry. There is no mode of inference, no "scientific > > > method," exclusive to the sciences and guaranteed to produce true, > > > probably true, more nearly true, or more empirically adequate, > > > results. As Percy Bridgman put it, "the scientific method, as far as > > > it is a method, is nothing more than doing one's damnedest with one's > > > mind, no holds barred." > > > And there lies the 'rub'. > > > Scientific research using 'the mind'. An entity of which, there is no > > scientific understanding . > > > As I often say of beliefs, they need two or more to form. > > > Empirical evidence also needs two or more repeatable results to become > > accepted. > > > Spiritual insight (knowing) does not, and is why there is a natural > > resistance in the world of emipricism AND beliefs. One being science, > > one religions. > > Not really, the basic reasoning we use to support any arguments is > similar, whether it is a defense of religion, evolution or gravity. Ahhh, I see. That's what 'we' use. Precisely my point. Arguments are just clashes of different viewpoints, often where one seeks to prevail over the other, which ties in with my "image-ination" thread. > All religious and scientific ideas are based upon testimony of past > events and other indirect evidence and also about theories based upon > such historical stories. All science and religion is theoretical, it > cannot be determined true or false whether there are gods or laws of > gravity, all just theories. A predictable view of a 'we' mentality. BOfL > > >
From: Acme Prognostics on 7 Jul 2010 23:52 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Immortalist wrote: > >> Attitudes to science range all the way from uncritical >> admiration at one extreme, through distrust, resentment, >> and envy, to denigration and outright hostility at the other. > >You can say that about almost anything that matters. > >> Scientific inquiry is continuous with the most ordinary of everyday empirical inquiry. > >Nope, its quite different on the rigor. I think he is talking about soft science. If you are talking about hard science, of course you are correct on all or nearly all points. <snip> >> As Percy Bridgman put it, "the scientific method, as far as >> it is a method, is nothing more than doing one's damnedest >> with one's mind, no holds barred." > >Thats even sillier. Its quite different in the rigor with which >that is done and the requirement that the explanation must >explain ALL the evidence available if a claim is made that its >the full explanation. Yes ALL! No loose ends, i.e. contradictions. But I observe that in lots of venues besides "science" when trying to find the story that adds up. <snip> >And with fault finding, some of the time we just decide >that its not worth putting too much effort into the fault >finding with the more difficult faults, its makes more >sense to just replace the entire device with a new one etc. E.g. programming workarounds. >> check how it stands up to the best evidence we can get, > >With other than science, there is always a tradeoff between >what evidence is readily available and what isnt worth getting >etc. Most hard scientists don't chase UFOs, etc. either. <snip> >> and rather than using a uniquely rational method unavailable >> to other inquirers, it is continuous with the most ordinary of >> empirical inquiry, "nothing more than a refinement of our >> everyday thinking," as Einstein once put it. > >He's just as wrong on that as with his rediculous >claim that god does not play dice with the universe. Well, it's a hell of a refinement. <g> By "our" I think he meant "reasoners," and by "everyday" I think he meant "practical." I think creator-god probably could create a game of chance if them wanted to, but I don't see how we can know for sure that it did. <snip "religion is science" etc.> I think the main test of hard science v. religion is that hard science (incl. logic) is predictive. Soft science is usually not predictive, or not very, because the systems are so chaotic, and agenda-pushing (I think you called it "barrow pushing").
From: Rod Speed on 8 Jul 2010 02:51 Acme Prognostics wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote >> Immortalist wrote >>> Attitudes to science range all the way from uncritical >>> admiration at one extreme, through distrust, resentment, >>> and envy, to denigration and outright hostility at the other. >> You can say that about almost anything that matters. >>> Scientific inquiry is continuous with the most ordinary of everyday empirical inquiry. >> Nope, its quite different on the rigor. > I think he is talking about soft science. No he isnt. > If you are talking about hard science, of course you are correct on all or nearly all points. >>> As Percy Bridgman put it, "the scientific method, >>> as far as it is a method, is nothing more than doing >>> one's damnedest with one's mind, no holds barred." >> Thats even sillier. Its quite different in the rigor with which that is >> done and the requirement that the explanation must explain ALL >> the evidence available if a claim is made that its the full explanation. > Yes ALL! No loose ends, i.e. contradictions. But I observe that in lots > of venues besides "science" when trying to find the story that adds up. Sure, its certainly true of a criminal trial etc and even political agendas. >> And with fault finding, some of the time we just decide >> that its not worth putting too much effort into the fault >> finding with the more difficult faults, its makes more >> sense to just replace the entire device with a new one etc. > E.g. programming workarounds. I was thinking more about faults in physical devices etc. >>> check how it stands up to the best evidence we can get, >> With other than science, there is always a tradeoff between what >> evidence is readily available and what isnt worth getting etc. > Most hard scientists don't chase UFOs, etc. either. True, particularly when there is another obvious explanation, that the allegeded 'observer' is just seeing what it wants to see etc. There is a reason that double blind trials were invented. >>> and rather than using a uniquely rational method unavailable >>> to other inquirers, it is continuous with the most ordinary of >>> empirical inquiry, "nothing more than a refinement of our >>> everyday thinking," as Einstein once put it. >> He's just as wrong on that as with his rediculous >> claim that god does not play dice with the universe. > Well, it's a hell of a refinement. <g> By "our" I think he meant > "reasoners," and by "everyday" I think he meant "practical." Even if he did, he 'nothing more' is just plain silly. > I think creator-god probably could create a game of chance if them > wanted to, but I don't see how we can know for sure that it did. Sure, but it is clear that something is playing dice, most obviously with radioactive decay etc. > <snip "religion is science" etc.> > I think the main test of hard science v. religion is that hard > science (incl. logic) is predictive. Soft science is usually not > predictive, or not very, because the systems are so chaotic, > and agenda-pushing (I think you called it "barrow pushing"). The soft sciences that involve say the risk of smoking etc is still predictive and there isnt any more barrow pushing than with say vaccination etc. Even the soft sciences involved with say upbringing, nature v nurture etc is still predictive.
From: tg on 8 Jul 2010 06:25
On Jul 6, 12:19 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 5, 7:56 pm, "bigflet...(a)gmail.com" <bigflet...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Jul 6, 10:11 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Attitudes to science range all the way from uncritical admiration at > > > one extreme, through distrust, resentment, and envy, to denigration > > > and outright hostility at the other. > > > > Scientific inquiry is continuous with the most ordinary of everyday > > > empirical inquiry. There is no mode of inference, no "scientific > > > method," exclusive to the sciences and guaranteed to produce true, > > > probably true, more nearly true, or more empirically adequate, > > > results. As Percy Bridgman put it, "the scientific method, as far as > > > it is a method, is nothing more than doing one's damnedest with one's > > > mind, no holds barred." > > > And there lies the 'rub'. > > > Scientific research using 'the mind'. An entity of which, there is no > > scientific understanding . > > > As I often say of beliefs, they need two or more to form. > > > Empirical evidence also needs two or more repeatable results to become > > accepted. > > > Spiritual insight (knowing) does not, and is why there is a natural > > resistance in the world of emipricism AND beliefs. One being science, > > one religions. > > Not really, the basic reasoning we use to support any arguments is > similar, whether it is a defense of religion, evolution or gravity. > All religious and scientific ideas are based upon testimony of past > events and other indirect evidence and also about theories based upon > such historical stories. All science and religion is theoretical, it > cannot be determined true or false whether there are gods or laws of > gravity, all just theories. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Just more childish games using the word "theory" to mean "conjecture", which isn't what it means in science. We *can* determine if there are 'laws of gravity' because we can make measurements to test them. So no, science is not the same as religion. -tg > > > BOfL > > > And, as far as it is a method, it is what > > > > historians or detectives or investigative journalists or the rest of > > > us do when we really want to find something out: make an informed > > > conjecture about the possible explanation of a puzzling phenomenon, > > > check how it stands up to the best evidence we can get, and then use > > > our judgment whether to accept it, more or less tentatively, or > > > modify, refine, or replace it. > > > > Science has managed to discover a great deal about the world and how > > > it works, but it is a thoroughly human enterprise, messy, fallible, > > > and fumbling; and rather than using a uniquely rational method > > > unavailable to other inquirers, it is continuous with the most > > > ordinary of empirical inquiry, "nothing more than a refinement of our > > > everyday thinking," as Einstein once put it. There is no distinctive, > > > timeless "scientific nethod," only the modes of inference and > > > procedures common to all serious inquiry, and the multifarious "helps" > > > the sciences have gradually devised to refine our natural human > > > cognitive capacities: to amplify the senses, stretch the imagination, > > > extend reasoning power, and sustain respect for evidence. > > > > The core standards of good evidence and well-conducted inquiry are not > > > internal to the sciences, but common to empirical inquiry of every > > > kind. In judging where science has succeeded and where it has failed, > > > in what areas and at what times it has done better and in what worse, > > > we are appealing to the standards by which we judge the solidity of > > > empirical beliefs, or the rigor and thoroughness of empirical inquiry, > > > generally. Often, to be sure, only a specialist can judge the weight > > > of evidence or the thoroughness of precautions against experimental > > > error, etc.; for such judgments require a broad and detailed knowledge > > > of background theory, and a familiarity with technical vocabulary, not > > > easily available to the lay person. Nevertheless, respect for > > > evidence, care in weighing it, and persistence in seeking it out, so > > > far from being exclusively scientific desiderata, arc the standards by > > > which we judge all inquirers, detectives, historians, investigative > > > journalists, etc., as well as scientists. In short, the sciences are > > > not logically privileged. > > > > Defending Science-Within Reason: Between > > > Scientism and Cynicism - Susan Haackhttp://www.amazon.com/Defending-Science-Within-Reason-Scientism-Cynic... |