Evidence, science and religion and that evidence matters.

[Magic Man]

They are rejecting the conclusions being drawn from the science. You can't understand this because you think science produces conclusions, when it does not. It formulates hypotheses based on data returned from experimentation.

Yes, they reject science. That's what I said. Science did the research and came up with conclusions based on a lot of research, experimentation and peer review. These people reject that due to biases. In other words, they reject science. Also, science does produce conclusions. Yet again it's literally one of the steps of the scientific method.

Only to the scientism cultists that cannot grasp the idea that science is not the oracle of truth and reality.

Good thing there is no such thing as scientism cultists or people who believe in that idea.

The Earth is a whole lot of things far more significant than it's geometric shape.

Every scientism cultist says this. It's how we know them when we encounter them. They are not able to recognize the difference between science and scientism, so in their minds, there is no such identifiable thing as scientism.

Another way we identify them is that they automatically defend what they believe is science without doubt or question. It absolutely never occurs to them that their idea of science might be wrong. (It's why I call them cultists.)

Real scientists don't draw conclusions. They simply keep exploring the possibilities. The scientism cultists draw conclusions because they think science is the oracle of truth.

A scientist does not conclude that global warming is being caused by humans. He simply accepts that this is a strong possibility when the data corresponds to this theory when it's tested. And then he explores that theory further, to learn more.

You claim scientists don't do one of the steps of the scientific method. It's pretty clear you're not in a good position to talk about science. Also, again, there's no such thing as scientism cultists.

 

[Magic Man]

They are rejecting the conclusions being drawn from the science. You can't understand this because you think science produces conclusions, when it does not. It formulates hypotheses based on data returned from experimentation.

Yes, they reject science. That's what I said. Science did the research and came up with conclusions based on a lot of research, experimentation and peer review. These people reject that due to biases. In other words, they reject science. Also, science does produce conclusions. Yet again it's literally one of the steps of the scientific method.

Only to the scientism cultists that cannot grasp the idea that science is not the oracle of truth and reality.

Good thing there is no such thing as scientism cultists or people who believe in that idea.

The Earth is a whole lot of things far more significant than it's geometric shape.

Every scientism cultist says this. It's how we know them when we encounter them. They are not able to recognize the difference between science and scientism, so in their minds, there is no such identifiable thing as scientism.

Another way we identify them is that they automatically defend what they believe is science without doubt or question. It absolutely never occurs to them that their idea of science might be wrong. (It's why I call them cultists.)

Real scientists don't draw conclusions. They simply keep exploring the possibilities. The scientism cultists draw conclusions because they think science is the oracle of truth.

A scientist does not conclude that global warming is being caused by humans. He simply accepts that this is a strong possibility when the data corresponds to this theory when it's tested. And then he explores that theory further, to learn more.

You claim scientists don't do one of the steps of the scientific method. It's pretty clear you're not in a good position to talk about science. Also, again, there's no such thing as scientism cultists.

 

[PureX]

Yes, they reject science.

No, they reject the conclusions they are being told that science "reveals" to us. But since science does not reveal any conclusions, they are not rejecting the science. They are rejecting the conclusions that people are drawing from the science.

Science did the research and came up with conclusions based on a lot of research, experimentation and peer review.

No YOU came up with the conclusions. Science only tests the various possibilities and presents the results.

These people reject that due to biases. In other words, they reject science.

No, they are rejecting a conclusion that they don't like probably due to bias. Why are you having so much difficulty understanding this?

Also, science does produce conclusions.

No, it doesn't. It only produces data in the form of observed results.

Yet again it's literally one of the steps of the scientific method.

No, it literally is not. Someone has sadly mislabeled the process. What you and they are calling a "conclusion" is just an assessment of possibilities based on the test results. That's not a "conclusion". That a summation.

You claim scientists don't do one of the steps of the scientific method.

No, I claim you are mislabeling it to promote your willful misunderstanding of it.

 

[Magic Man]

No, they reject the conclusions they are being told that science "reveals" to us. But since science does not reveal any conclusions, they are not rejecting the science. They are rejecting the conclusions that people are drawing from the science.

No YOU came up with the conclusions. Science only tests the various possibilities and resents the results.

No, they are eject a conclusion that they don't like probably due to bias. Why are you having so much difficulty understaning this?

No, it doesn't. It only produces data in the form of observed results.

No, it literally is not. Someone has sadly mislabeled the process. What you and they are calling a "conclusion" is just an assessment of possibilities based on the test results. That's not a "conclusion". That a summation.

No, I claim you are mislabeling it to promote your willful misunderstanding of it.

This boils down to you rejecting the fact that scientists form conclusions. It's the last step in the scientific method. This is pretty basic information. Once you accept that fact, it'll help you realize the error with the rest of this.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's not how it works. Yet again, science is the definition I provided. Not because I said it, but because it is. That doesn't mean you can make any claim you want, and it's now a fact.

With your example, that is one definition. You're right about that part. It is a fact that that is A definition. It is not a fact that God is the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.

And it is fact it is a defintion of science and not a fact, just because it is a defintion.

Here is an explanation of another understanding of sceince in 3 different forms:
"
Mennesker, samfund og natur
Traditionelt set opdeler man videnskab i naturvidenskab, samfundsvidenskab og humaniora (eller kulturvidenskab).

Naturvidenskaben undersøger fænomener i naturen for at finde de bagved liggende love, også kaldet naturlovene. I samfundsvidenskab og humaniora er man ikke på samme måde interesseret i love. Her retter man i stedet blikket mod forståelse.
I humaniora er man for eksempel interesseret i at forstå menneskets tanker ‘indefra’. Det vil sige, at man forsøger at forstå menneskers motiver, meninger og intentioner. Her handler det blandt andet om at forstå sproget, litteraturen, kunsten og historien.
Samfundsvidenskab handler om, hvordan mennesket lever i samfund. Hertil hører blandt andet jura, økonomi og politik. Det handler på den ene side om indlevelse i menneskets situation på samme måde som humanistisk videnskab, men samfundsvidenskaben trækker også på den naturvidenskabelige metode for eksempel i forbindelse med statistik."

Hvad er videnskab?

Vi hører ordet ’videnskab’ alle vegne, men hvad betyder det egentlig, og hvornår kan man kalde sig videnskabsmand? Få svaret her.

videnskab.dk

Google translate:
"
People, society and nature
Traditionally, science is divided into natural sciences, social sciences and humanities (or cultural sciences).

Natural science examines phenomena in nature to find the laws behind them, also called the laws of nature. In the social sciences and humanities, people are not interested in laws in the same way. Here, the focus is instead on understanding.
In the humanities, for example, one is interested in understanding human thoughts 'from the inside'. This means that you try to understand people's motives, opinions and intentions. Here it is, among other things, about understanding the language, literature, art and history.
Social science is about how people live in societies. This includes, among other things, law, economics and politics. On the one hand, it is about empathizing with the human situation in the same way as humanistic science, but social science also draws on the natural science method, for example in connection with statistics."

Notice this: Science is divided into natural sciences, social sciences and humanities (or cultural sciences).

That is from my culture and I can find more about this one as humanities (or cultural sciences). But the end resulut is that a part of it is not the defintion you gave for science.
So no, there is not just one explanation of what science is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

One of the primary axioms of the philosophy of science is methodological naturalism. Science does not engage with the metaphysical.

Thus, using science as the tool for the topic of the metaphysical is a category error.

Irrelevant, not my brother.

 

[PureX]

This boils down to you rejecting the fact that scientists form conclusions.

Anyone can draw a conclusion from any data set, from a complete idiot to the most brilliant scientist. And many will. But it's not science. That's not what science does. And the fact that you are fighting SO HARD to deny it only serves to exemplify the cult-like belief that those who have succumbed to scientism exhibit when it comes to their absolute idealization of science.

It's the last step in the scientific method. This is pretty basic information. Once you accept that fact, it'll help you realize the error with the rest of this.

The last step is a summation of possibilities, not a conclusion. And the fact that you cannot allow for this modest correction in your understanding of the scientific process tells me all I need to know.

 

[Magic Man]

And it is fact it is a defintion of science and not a fact, just because it is a defintion.

Here is an explanation of another understanding of sceince in 3 different forms:
"
Mennesker, samfund og natur
Traditionelt set opdeler man videnskab i naturvidenskab, samfundsvidenskab og humaniora (eller kulturvidenskab).

Naturvidenskaben undersøger fænomener i naturen for at finde de bagved liggende love, også kaldet naturlovene. I samfundsvidenskab og humaniora er man ikke på samme måde interesseret i love. Her retter man i stedet blikket mod forståelse.
I humaniora er man for eksempel interesseret i at forstå menneskets tanker ‘indefra’. Det vil sige, at man forsøger at forstå menneskers motiver, meninger og intentioner. Her handler det blandt andet om at forstå sproget, litteraturen, kunsten og historien.
Samfundsvidenskab handler om, hvordan mennesket lever i samfund. Hertil hører blandt andet jura, økonomi og politik. Det handler på den ene side om indlevelse i menneskets situation på samme måde som humanistisk videnskab, men samfundsvidenskaben trækker også på den naturvidenskabelige metode for eksempel i forbindelse med statistik."

Hvad er videnskab?

Vi hører ordet ’videnskab’ alle vegne, men hvad betyder det egentlig, og hvornår kan man kalde sig videnskabsmand? Få svaret her.

videnskab.dk

Google translate:
"
People, society and nature
Traditionally, science is divided into natural sciences, social sciences and humanities (or cultural sciences).

Natural science examines phenomena in nature to find the laws behind them, also called the laws of nature. In the social sciences and humanities, people are not interested in laws in the same way. Here, the focus is instead on understanding.
In the humanities, for example, one is interested in understanding human thoughts 'from the inside'. This means that you try to understand people's motives, opinions and intentions. Here it is, among other things, about understanding the language, literature, art and history.
Social science is about how people live in societies. This includes, among other things, law, economics and politics. On the one hand, it is about empathizing with the human situation in the same way as humanistic science, but social science also draws on the natural science method, for example in connection with statistics."

Notice this: Science is divided into natural sciences, social sciences and humanities (or cultural sciences).

That is from my culture and I can find more about this one as humanities (or cultural sciences). But the end resulut is that a part of it is not the defintion you gave for science.
So no, there is not just one explanation of what science is.

That's not from your culture. That's just pointing out the difference between different disciplines and things that are called science. You're using that to make sweeping claims about "science" in general. Yes, psychiatry is different from chemistry. Yes, the word "science", like many words, can have different meanings. No, it's not good to conflate all of those to make a point that doesn't pertain to all of them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's not from your culture. That's just pointing out the difference between different disciplines and things that are called science. You're using that to make sweeping claims about "science" in general. Yes, psychiatry is different from chemistry. Yes, the word "science", like many words, can have different meanings. No, it's not good to conflate all of those to make a point that doesn't pertain to all of them.

Yes, science is my culture is not what sicence is in your culture. What you claim is science is my culture natural and in part social science. But it is not science as such just because you state that it is so.
So you don't control the words and niether do I. That is the point that you can't understand.

 

[Magic Man]

Anyone can draw a conclusion from any data set, from a complete idiot to the most brilliant scientist. And many will. But it's not science. That's not what science does. And the fact that you are fighting SO HARD to deny it only serves to exemplify the cult-like belief that those who have succumbed to scientism exhibit when it comes to their absolute idealization of science.

The last step is a summation of possibilities, not a conclusion. And the fact that you cannot allow for this modest correction in your understanding of the scientific process tells me all I need to know.

If you decide to accept the fact that the last step of the scientific method is to report a conclusion, let me know. Otherwise, this is pointless.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you decide to accept the fact that the last step of the scientific method is to report a conclusion, let me know. Otherwise, this is pointless.

What is your stance on Karl Popper's version of science?

 

[Magic Man]

Yes, science is my culture is not what sicence is in your culture. What you claim is science is my culture natural and in part social science. But it is not science as such just because you state that it is so.
So you don't control the words and niether do I. That is the point that you can't understand.

This is the problem. Science is the same in your culture and mine and in all others. This is exactly what I was talking about. You can talk about the difference between different disciplines like psychiatry and biology, but those differences aren't cultural. They're just objective differences between different disciplines/fields.

 

[Magic Man]

What is your stance on Karl Popper's version of science?

Don't know, but it's not a "version of science".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is the problem. Science is the same in your culture and mine and in all others. This is exactly what I was talking about. You can talk about the difference between different disciplines like psychiatry and biology, but those differences aren't cultural. They're just objective differences between different disciplines/fields.

Yeah, you really don't understand that there is no science as in effect science in my culture. It is all different variants that there are not all the same as sicence as you claim it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Don't know, but it's not a "version of science".

So what is it? BTW what is logical postivism?

 

[Magic Man]

Yeah, you really don't understand that there is no science as in effect science in my culture. It is all different variants that there are not all the same as sicence as you claim it.

What I realize is that science is the same in your culture as it is in mine, as it is in China, as it is in Zimbabwe, as it is in Australia. There is a difference between "social sciences" like psychiatry and "natural sciences" like biology. There is no difference between science in different cultures, though.

 

[Magic Man]

So what is it? BTW what is logical postivism?

I don't know. Why?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What I realize is that science is the same in your culture as it is in mine, as it is in China, as it is in Zimbabwe, as it is in Australia. There is a difference between "social sciences" like psychiatry and "natural sciences" like biology. There is no difference between science in different cultures, though.

And you left out the 3rd ones.

BTW
"
Mange forskellige definitioner
Gennem tiderne har man desuden forsøgt sig med et hav af bud på, hvad videnskab er. De mest brugte er:

1) at videnskab er en forfinelse af dagliglivets erfaringer.

2) at den er teoretisk, modsat praktisk viden.

3) at den er karakteriseret ved formen af sine udsagn, f.eks. at de skal være universelle og matematisk formulerede.

4) at den er karakteriseret ved bestemte metoder og procedurer, f.eks. eksperimenter.

5) at den giver objektiv viden via sociale mekanismer til sikring af dens offentlige karakter.


Den videnskabelig metode blev grundlagt af Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). Først laver man nogle observationer i naturen. På den baggrund bygger man en hypotese som så testes med eksperimenter. Bekræfter eksperimenterne hypotesen har man en videnskabelig teori. I praksis er der dog mange flere led, og i dag bruger man også mange forskellige metodemodeller.
6) at den resulterer i offentlig tilgængelig viden i form af bøger og artikler.

Summa summarum, der er ikke nogen klar definition på videnskab. Alle er dog enige om at videnskab dækker over en form for profession eller et job, som har sine egne arbejdspladser, arbejdsmetoder og egne jobtitler. Det vil sige, at videnskab på en måde er nysgerrighed sat i system."

Hvad er videnskab?

Vi hører ordet ’videnskab’ alle vegne, men hvad betyder det egentlig, og hvornår kan man kalde sig videnskabsmand? Få svaret her.

videnskab.dk

"Many different definitions
Throughout the ages, people have also tried a lot of ideas about what science is. The most used are:

1) that science is a refinement of the experiences of daily life.

2) that it is theoretical, as opposed to practical knowledge.

3) that it is characterized by the form of its statements, e.g. that they must be universal and mathematically formulated.

4) that it is characterized by certain methods and procedures, e.g. experiments.

5) that it provides objective knowledge via social mechanisms to ensure its public nature.


The scientific method was founded by Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). First, you make some observations in nature. Based on this, a hypothesis is built which is then tested with experiments. If the experiments confirm the hypothesis, you have a scientific theory. In practice, however, there are many more stages, and many different method models are also used today.
6) that it results in publicly available knowledge in the form of books and articles.

Summa summarum, there is no clear definition of science. However, everyone agrees that science covers a form of profession or a job which has its own workplaces, working methods and its own job titles. That is to say, science is, in a way, curiosity put into a system."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know. Why?

Well, you really know the different methodlogies used in science.
You can google both.

 

[Magic Man]

And you left out the 3rd ones.

BTW
"
Mange forskellige definitioner
Gennem tiderne har man desuden forsøgt sig med et hav af bud på, hvad videnskab er. De mest brugte er:

1) at videnskab er en forfinelse af dagliglivets erfaringer.

2) at den er teoretisk, modsat praktisk viden.

3) at den er karakteriseret ved formen af sine udsagn, f.eks. at de skal være universelle og matematisk formulerede.

4) at den er karakteriseret ved bestemte metoder og procedurer, f.eks. eksperimenter.

5) at den giver objektiv viden via sociale mekanismer til sikring af dens offentlige karakter.


Den videnskabelig metode blev grundlagt af Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). Først laver man nogle observationer i naturen. På den baggrund bygger man en hypotese som så testes med eksperimenter. Bekræfter eksperimenterne hypotesen har man en videnskabelig teori. I praksis er der dog mange flere led, og i dag bruger man også mange forskellige metodemodeller.
6) at den resulterer i offentlig tilgængelig viden i form af bøger og artikler.

Summa summarum, der er ikke nogen klar definition på videnskab. Alle er dog enige om at videnskab dækker over en form for profession eller et job, som har sine egne arbejdspladser, arbejdsmetoder og egne jobtitler. Det vil sige, at videnskab på en måde er nysgerrighed sat i system."

Hvad er videnskab?

Vi hører ordet ’videnskab’ alle vegne, men hvad betyder det egentlig, og hvornår kan man kalde sig videnskabsmand? Få svaret her.

videnskab.dk

"Many different definitions
Throughout the ages, people have also tried a lot of ideas about what science is. The most used are:

1) that science is a refinement of the experiences of daily life.

2) that it is theoretical, as opposed to practical knowledge.

3) that it is characterized by the form of its statements, e.g. that they must be universal and mathematically formulated.

4) that it is characterized by certain methods and procedures, e.g. experiments.

5) that it provides objective knowledge via social mechanisms to ensure its public nature.


The scientific method was founded by Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). First, you make some observations in nature. Based on this, a hypothesis is built which is then tested with experiments. If the experiments confirm the hypothesis, you have a scientific theory. In practice, however, there are many more stages, and many different method models are also used today.
6) that it results in publicly available knowledge in the form of books and articles.

Summa summarum, there is no clear definition of science. However, everyone agrees that science covers a form of profession or a job which has its own workplaces, working methods and its own job titles. That is to say, science is, in a way, curiosity put into a system."

That's not different variants of science or different versions of it. 4, 5 and 6 are true (mostly). 1 is an interpretation and depends on what exactly you mean. 2 is right and wrong, in that science can be both theoretical and practical. 3 is simply wrong.

Science is the same everywhere. Those statements about it are either true or false and don't depend on the culture.