Evidence, science and religion and that evidence matters.

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've no problem with folks learning something new. I think science can help with that.

What is science to you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, it's actually not.

Except that it is.

How the Scientific Method Works

The importance of the scientific method is high because it standardizes all science experiments. Learn about the importance of the scientific method.

science.howstuffworks.com

First sentence:

The scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter.

Further down the article:

But in the scientific community, where results have to be reviewed and duplicated, bias must be avoided at all costs.

That's the job of the scientific method. It provides an objective, standardized approach to conducting experiments and, in doing so, improves their results.

Scientific method is simply a hands on way of applying logic to our subjective reasoning to help us recognize and accept "better" alternative conceptualizations. Scientists understand this. Which is why they never declare a theory 'the truth'. The scientism crowd, however, imagines that all apparently functional theory is 'truth'.

Ow great, again with the "scientism" accusations. Awesome.

All the thermometer does is apply our subjectively determined value increments on our conceptual experience of heat. We could have labeled it with letters instead of numbers for all it actually does.

Uhu, uhu... Yet you can say "it feels hot" while I can say in the same room "no, it is chilly in here" and meanwhile the thermometer will note the same temperature for the both of us.

 

[Nakosis]

What is science to you?

A systematic process of validating knowledge.
It generally requires a lot of skepticism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is funny how I learn to spot non-science words in claims of science. All I did were to read your text for science and non-science and then stop with I spooted the first non-science word. And it connects to faith as trust. Your word was trustworthy.
If I ask you to do that word without subjective mumbo jumbo, you couldn't.
That is your kind and sub-culture and not just you. You do your own kind of subjective mumbo jumbo, but you really do, because you are really objectively special in your own subjective understanding.

But for the rest of your post, I like that you are honest. And you state your subjective interest. That is good.

You are like a broken record.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Except that it is.

How the Scientific Method Works

The importance of the scientific method is high because it standardizes all science experiments. Learn about the importance of the scientific method.

science.howstuffworks.com

First sentence:

The scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter.

Further down the article:

But in the scientific community, where results have to be reviewed and duplicated, bias must be avoided at all costs.

That's the job of the scientific method. It provides an objective, standardized approach to conducting experiments and, in doing so, improves their results.



Ow great, again with the "scientism" accusations. Awesome.



Uhu, uhu... Yet you can say "it feels hot" while I can say in the same room "no, it is chilly in here" and meanwhile the thermometer will note the same temperature for the both of us.

No, not all versions of science in all cultures for the bold part.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, not all versions of science in all cultures for the bold part.

The method is the method.

If you can identify groups that do it differently, then they are not following the method. That, or they are engaging in very sloppy science.

When doing scientific research, that is what you are supposed to do: use standardized objective methods geared towards removing bias in all its forms as much as possible.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A systematic process of validating knowledge.
It generally requires a lot of skepticism.

Yeah, I haven't really found knowledge as validated objectively and rationally as a skeptic. Rather I have found different beliefsystem and that includes my own.
In effect we are doing 2 different version of skepticism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The method is the method.

If you can identify groups that do it differently, then they are not following the method.

But it is not the method, it is one method. It is your bias talking when you claim it is the method and not just one method and that there are others ones
You are as biased as the rest of us as far as I can tell. And yes, that includes me, because I try to be honest, when I am biases.

BTW the bold is in effect self referential, a sort of tautology and only true in an in effect emphy sense for the formal sense of X is X. So that is not science, but rather logic and/or philosophy.

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah, I haven't really found knowledge as validated objectively and rationally as a skeptic. Rather I have found different beliefsystem and that includes my own.
In effect we are doing 2 different version of skepticism.

How is your version of skepticism different?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How is your version of skepticism different?

You are a local one. I am a global one. You belive in a correct (local) form of validating knowledge. I have found no (global) correct form for that.

 

[Yerda]

As for the debate, do you know of any model of the universe that is only external and don't require internal understanding in part?

I'm not sure I completely understand what you are saying in the OP, but it is worth keeping in mind that models are representative by their nature. They stand as symbols for something else.

We can say that the thing that we are modelling - the something else - is external to us without contradiction. But to say the model of the something else is external is to contradict ourselves.

I don't know if this makes sense, or is important even if it does make sense. Does anyone suggest "the model of the universe is only external"?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not sure I completely understand what you are saying in the OP, but it is worth keeping in mind that models are representative by their nature. They stand as symbols for something else.

We can say that the thing that we are modelling - the something else - is external to us without contradiction. But to say the model of the something else is external is to contradict ourselves.

I don't know if this makes sense, or is important even if it does make sense. Does anyone suggest "the model of the universe is only external"?

No, not when we model humans for how they understand internally. We human also make models of us and models of how we make models.

You are in effect doing a strong form of dualism but it doesn't hold up.
Here is the non-natural science test. If there are maps and the landscape and the maps are not the same as the landscape, then where do the maps exist?

 

[Nakosis]

You are a local one. I am a global one. You belive in a correct (local) form of validating knowledge. I have found no (global) correct form for that.

Global? You mean universal?
Science is about as universal as you can get. It allows for your skepticism, my skepticism as well as the skepticism of anyone else that has an ability to be skeptical.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Global? You mean universal?
Science is about as universal as you can get. It allows for your skepticism, my skepticism as well as the skepticism of anyone else that has an ability to be skeptical.

Yeah, but natural science is only one form of knowledge.

Skepticism | Definition, Philosophy, Examples, History, & Criticism

Skepticism, the attitude of doubting knowledge claims set forth in various areas. Philosophical skeptics have doubted the possibility of any knowledge not derived directly from experience, and they have developed arguments to undermine the contentions of dogmatic philosophers, scientists, and...

www.britannica.com

In other words I am a philosophical skeptic, where you are a sceintific skeptic and that is not the same.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But it is not the method, it is one method. It is your bias talking when you claim it is the method and not just one method and that there are others ones

No, there is just the one method in context of the type of study being done.
Obviously it is adjusted based on the field / type of experiment.

What I mean is that there are "best practices" put in place.
And they are geared towards getting the most reliable results.
And you get the most reliable results by keeping it as objective at possible and avoiding bias as much as possible.

How exactly you do that, depends on the type of study and branch you are engaging in, off course.

But all of it falls under the "scientific method".

Being sloppy with it will only result in sloppy results.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, not when we model humans for how they understand internally. We human also make models of us and models of how we make models.

You are in effect doing a strong form of dualism but it doesn't hold up.
Here is the non-natural science test. If there are maps and the landscape and the maps are not the same as the landscape, then where do the maps exist?

If the maps don't match the landscapes, the maps are wrong (that is, if the maps are supposed to model the landscape)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In other words I am a philosophical skeptic, where you are a sceintific skeptic and that is not the same.

What is the practical difference?

Try and not to be vague and full of jargon. Speak plainly and clear.
What is the practical difference?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, there is just the one method in context of the type of study being done.
Obviously it is adjusted based on the field / type of experiment.

What I mean is that there are "best practices" put in place.
And they are geared towards getting the most reliable results.
And you get the most reliable results by keeping it as objective at possible and avoiding bias as much as possible.

How exactly you do that, depends on the type of study and branch you are engaging in, off course.

But all of it falls under the "scientific method".

Being sloppy with it will only result in sloppy results.

Yeah, here is how I will do it. I will google it and rely on the books I already have written by different scientists.
I enjoy to learn how other people on forums understand science, but for what science is, I don't use forums.

And I will find other sources than just English language ones as they also have a bias.
In effect you are reporting your bias and I am reporting mine, but you are speical, because it seems you believe, that you don't have a cultural bias.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If the maps don't match the landscapes, the maps are wrong (that is, if the maps are supposed to model the landscape)

But where does the maps exist?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is the practical difference?

Try and not to be vague and full of jargon. Speak plainly and clear.
What is the practical difference?

That we understand and in effect act differently for certain behavoiur in the landscape.
In practice we have different cognitve schemata and it would properly show up if we were brainscanned.