Evidence, science and religion and that evidence matters.

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Statistical modeling uses a margin of error, which adds subjectivity to the evidence. That type of evidence is not objective evidence, due to the fuzzy nature design of the data. One lab may find that coffee is good for you and another bad for you, based on their subjective margin of error. Whims of the gods evidence is not an objective approach, even if a useful tool.

Live half as long, prove twice as many theorems.

 

[shunyadragon]

Statistical modeling uses a margin of error, which adds subjectivity to the evidence. That type of evidence is not objective evidence, due to the fuzzy nature design of the data. One lab may find that coffee is good for you and another bad for you, based on their subjective margin of error. Whims of the gods evidence is not an objective approach, even if a useful tool.

Marketing, which is considered a social science, also uses statistical methods. This implies all natural science, that uses statistical methods, should be considered a part of social science; due to the subjectivity of fuzzy dice data. That math method adds a math bias in terms of how one explains and views reality; whims of the gods. In that universe objectivity; probability of 1.0 or pure objectivity is not achievable.

Intentional ignorance of Statistics and how it is used in research

Evolution, as currently expressed and marketed, should be considered social science, due to using the same math approach as political science and marketing. But it is sold; marketed, as natural and objective science. This social science connection is why evolution is one of the few "objective science" engaged in a social war manipulating public opinion like a marketeer and politician.

The sciences of evolution are not Social Sciences, The above represents a paranoid intentional ignorance of evolution based on an ancient tribal agenda

 

[shunyadragon]

Just an aside. In German and Scandanavia wee have a 3rd version of overall sceince, which is in effect subjective. It is called by different names as humaities, cultural sciences, "spirit/mind/mental" sciences, human sciences.

These mentioned above are not names for overall sciences in Germany and Scandinavia

 

[shunyadragon]

Err. No.

Anyway this is going into some weird semantical rhetoric. I din't wish to engage with that.

ITs a fact you are ignoring based on intentional ignorance regardless.

 

[shunyadragon]

Live half as long, prove twice as many theorems.

Huh?!?!?!

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Huh?!?!?!

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/308355905708446067/

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

These mentioned above are not names for overall sciences in Germany and Scandinavia

No, that is Wissenschaft and videnskab/vetenskap/vitenskap and not Natur Wissenschat/natur videnskab/vetenskap/vitenskap, which is one of the subs-ets of science.

So the word science as Wissenschaft/videnskab/vetenskap/vitenskap in those langauges is not natural science, but science in general for 3 sub-sets.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, of course, but not what different version of methodology is assumed. I.e. Popper, Logical Postivism and so on. Or what kind of naturalsim is aaumed.
There are no single version of a methodlogy for even natural science, if you look closer.
What is meant with say fact is not the same for all the different methodoligies.

The natural sciences all use the same scientific method.
No matter how many times you try to yap about it.

They all work by methodological naturalism, principles of falsification, properly testing hypothesis, peer review, etc.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The natural sciences all use the same scientific method.
No matter how many times you try to yap about it.

They all work by methodological naturalism, principles of falsification, properly testing hypothesis, peer review, etc.

Well, no. Not really, here is a link to a site written by sceintist regarding induction and falsification:

The philosophy of science - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

"Induction — method of reasoning in which a generalization is argued to be true based on individual examples that seem to fit with that generalization. For example, after observing that trees, bacteria, sea anemones, fruit flies, and humans have cells, one might inductively infer that all organisms have cells."
"Falsification — the view, associated with philosopher Karl Popper, that evidence can only be used to rule out ideas, not to support them. Popper proposed that scientific ideas can only be tested through falsification, never through a search for supporting evidence."

Combine those 2 and you get that it is both true and not that all organisms have cells.
It depends on how you view the different concepts in science.
So in the strong sense, for the example that the earth rotates around its axis, it is not true that it will do so tomorrow, if you go by Popper. If you go by induction, it is true that it also will do so tomorrow.

And thus we have 2 versions of even natural science.

 

[Pogo]

Well, no. Not really, here is a link to a site written by sceintist regarding induction and falsification:

The philosophy of science - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

"Induction — method of reasoning in which a generalization is argued to be true based on individual examples that seem to fit with that generalization. For example, after observing that trees, bacteria, sea anemones, fruit flies, and humans have cells, one might inductively infer that all organisms have cells."
"Falsification — the view, associated with philosopher Karl Popper, that evidence can only be used to rule out ideas, not to support them. Popper proposed that scientific ideas can only be tested through falsification, never through a search for supporting evidence."

Combine those 2 and you get that it is both true and not that all organisms have cells.
It depends on how you view the different concepts in science.
So in the strong sense, for the example that the earth rotates around its axis, it is not true that it will do so tomorrow, if you go by Popper. If you go by induction, it is true that it also will do so tomorrow.

And thus we have 2 versions of even natural science.

And two versions of philosophy, useful and masturbatory.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

And two versions of philosophy, useful and masturbatory.

Well, according to the website, some folks are interested in philosophy, and other folks aren’t, which makes sense to me.

And sometimes philosophers disagree with scientists, just like mathematicians do.

Sounds like the sort of cultural clash that Richard Feynman liked to talk about.

This is philosophy. One can’t expect the scientists to immediately fall in line with philosophers when they have science to do.

Philosophy is hard, whereas science is fun.

Of course the scientists might tend to prefer science to philosophy.

In fact, isn’t that what statisticians call the “null hypothesis”?

The thing to remember is this (to paraphrase Richard Feynman), “One should not criticize philosophers just because they are not slaves to science. Philosophers are well within their rights to tell scientists to go do their own philosophy.”

Though they might seem elementary, these questions are actually quite difficult to answer satisfactorily. Opinions on such issues vary widely within the field (and occasionally part ways with the views of scientists themselves — who mainly spend their time doing science, not analyzing it abstractly). Despite this diversity of opinion, philosophers of science can largely agree on one thing: there is no single, simple way to define science!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And two versions of philosophy, useful and masturbatory.

Well, there are no evidence for these 2 words as you apparently use them. And if they are meant to be derogatory as "bad", then that is also without with evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, no.

Well, yes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, yes.

Please use better notation when you qoute a post.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please use better notation when you qoute a post.

I don't think it required anything else.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't think it required anything else.

Well, that is subjective as it stands.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, that is subjective as it stands.

If you say so. Then again, to you literally everything is subjective. So yeah...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you say so. Then again, to you literally everything is subjective. So yeah...

No, there is a part of my experinces which are objective. So no!

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

If you say so. Then again, to you literally everything is subjective. So yeah...

Everything?

Definition:

Everything is Applied Mathematics.

The Rest is Pure Mathematics.

Put that on your bumper sticker.

 

[gnostic]

Well, according to the website, some folks are interested in philosophy, and other folks aren’t, which makes sense to me.

And sometimes philosophers disagree with scientists, just like mathematicians do.

Sounds like the sort of cultural clash that Richard Feynman liked to talk about.

This is philosophy. One can’t expect the scientists to immediately fall in line with philosophers when they have science to do.

Philosophy is hard, whereas science is fun.

Of course the scientists might tend to prefer science to philosophy.

In fact, isn’t that what statisticians call the “null hypothesis”?

The thing to remember is this (to paraphrase Richard Feynman), “One should not criticize philosophers just because they are not slaves to science. Philosophers are well within their rights to tell scientists to go do their own philosophy.”

Which philosophy, Banach-Tarski Paradox???

You use the singular “philosophy“, as if all the hundreds, if not thousands, of different philosophies, agree with others. The reality is that many of the philosophies have different focuses.

For instances, many are focused on personal worldviews, and different schools of thought would often disagree with each other‘s “worldview”, and they can’t be all “right”. It is the same with philosophies that focus on different cultures, and again, there may be disagreements as to which social norms are better. For example, there are philosophies that exist in the US, where there are many different cultures and customs, like one philosophy might embrace diversity of different cultures, but another philosophy that might promote an all-white American culture, or another philosophy that think all-black American culture. Each one of these 3 philosophies would often disagree with each other’s philosophies, so how would you pick which philosophy is correct or better.

It is the same with different political philosophies, eg democracy vs socialism, capitalism vs communism, etc. And different religious philosophies.

None of the above philosophies are focused on Natural Sciences, so really, they have no use, to how science works.

Richard Freynman is generalising; he speak of philosophy as if there is only philosophy, when there are hun of different philosophies. So unless Freynman can tell us which “philosophy“ of what he talking about, then Freynman saying that no one “should criticise philosophers”, only demonstrated that he is a bloody fool who doesn’t know what he is talking about.

here is a question for you, BPT:

Should a physicist agree with a philosopher simply because his or her status as a “philosopher“, when that philosopher has never study physics before?

If you were to say yes, then it would be like asking asking a wise man to follow a fool…which is not only unreasonable and unproductive, but also unrealistic.

Just because someone call themselves philosophers, don’t make them right, especially if they have no education and no experience in any scientific field.