How do you define SCIENCE?

[YoursTrue]

Statistical science is not pure science, since it has watered down rules, for falsification. The weather man or weather woman can get it wrong, time and time again, using the results of statistical based weather science, but they will still have a job. Rational theory does not have that watered down luxury of getting self falsification ignored.

When cold fusion was thought to have been demonstrated a decade or so ago, other labs tested the theory and nobody could reproduce it. Since that time, the claim is now considered refuted. The weather man using statistical science can get it wrong day after day, and even falsify their own claims; bad call, but nothing happens. Why the dual standard with one so tough, and the other so soft?

If Cold Fusion had used a statistical black box game and said they have beat the odds, which were like winning the lottery or finding like in there galaxy, that unique day, they may have got a prize. Instead they were trying to stay casual, so this if this did happen, it could be rationally scaled into the energy industry. Rational gets less mercy or less benefit of the doubt.

This soft approach, allows politics to enter the science arena, and endorse what is allowed to linger, even if falsified. I do not think it is right that one aspects of science gets to over ride its own self falsification. The early models of global warming were always too high. Yet the theory lingered, due to the casino math pass, even after the annual self falsification. Like the weather man, people sweep falsification under the rug, and watch it again.

Medical Science is the same way. Blanket statements can be made about behavior and health; black box studies. These may be true for some, but one can also find exceptions that can falsify any global theories. Yet this science remains, because it is connected to a black box and the whims of the gods.

This is not the fault of science, since they have lab coats. It is the fault of the interceding gods of dice and cards. There is a religious element to this version of science, based on faith in faceless and formless gods, not called gods, who make rational and accountable theory, next to impossible. This area of science needs slack, since it not the fault of science but of the whims of the faceless gods who are not called gods.

I do not trust science that can buffer itself from falsification. This allows poor and incomplete theory to linger and then become sold as rational science by politicians.

Say the many religion started to use statistical studies, to make it harder to falsify religion. They can use the whims of the faceless gods, who are not called gods, of the black box, to add uncertainty that then has to be forgiven. The mistake that religion makes is it tries to be rational with its foundation premises, and not take the easy road that dice and cards have to offer. Evolution uses uncertainty, so falsification does not apply.

The more I learn about evolution, the less realistic it is in its terms. But many are going to accept the theory despite the inexplicable realities.

 

[YoursTrue]

And right on cue, there it is.

I'll just say here that the science behind "macroevolution" is exactly the same as the science behind "microevolution". It's just the same process on different scales, without even a distinct line between them.

Ty for your comment. It may make sense to you and others but not to me any longer. There is no logical answer to explain evolution. You may think so but there is none. Guesses but no surety or exactitude.

 

[PureX]

It isn't? There are theories aren't there? And in order to substantiate the validity of a theory, what do you think is needed?

Science is not trying to "substantiate any theories". Science sifts through observed data and tries to identify new physical possibilities. Then it tries to test those tjeoretical possibilities to see if they are, indeed, viable possibilities. So long as they remain viable, they remain possible, and they will continue to be tested in various ways as new possibilities are developed.

You are confusing science with "scientism", which is a modern concept-cult based on philosophical materialism and the worship of an ideological fantasy of "objectivity", and it's presumed representation of the truth of all that is.

I understand your confusion as this 'scientism' nonsense has infected a great many of those folks who think and proclaim it to be science.

 

[Secret Chief]

Odd response. Does that translate to 'Does the refrigerator light stay on when the door is closed?'

Er, no. Just a play on the expression "pix or it didn't happen." One aspect of science is of course peer reviewing and this will involve consideration of research before it is published in scientific journals.

 

[YoursTrue]

Science is not trying to "substantiate any theories". Science sifts through observed data and tries to identify new physical possibilities. Then it tries to test those tjeoretical possibilities to see if they are, indeed, viable possibilities. So long as they remain viable, they remain possible, and they will continue to be tested in various ways as new possibilities are developed.

You are confusing science with "scientism", which is a modern concept-cult based on philosophical materialism and the worship of an ideological fantasy of "objectivity", and it's presumed representation of the truth of all that is.

I understand your confusion as this 'scientism' nonsense has infected a great many of those folks who think and proclaim it to be science.

Yes science seems to verify or disband a theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

Er, no. Just a play on the expression "pix or it didn't happen." One aspect of science is of course peer reviewing and this will involve consideration of research when it is published in scientific journals.

Peer review is often by those who get the most votes or money...

 

[YoursTrue]

Er, no. Just a play on the expression "pix or it didn't happen." One aspect of science is of course peer reviewing and this will involve consideration of research when it is published in scientific journals.

Peer review is often by those who get the most votes or money...

Science is not trying to "substantiate any theories". Science sifts through observed data and tries to identify new physical possibilities. Then it tries to test those tjeoretical possibilities to see if they are, indeed, viable possibilities. So long as they remain viable, they remain possible, and they will continue to be tested in various ways as new possibilities are developed.

You are confusing science with "scientism", which is a modern concept-cult based on philosophical materialism and the worship of an ideological fantasy of "objectivity", and it's presumed representation of the truth of all that is.

I understand your confusion as this 'scientism' nonsense has infected a great many of those folks who think and proclaim it to be science.

At this point, after reading about proteins and supposed unaccounted mutations conjecturally leading to organisms evolving I no longer believe the speculations. Because it is speculation and looking at it intelligently as it is... it shows as nonsensical. Not making sense. If that is science and accepted as certain, I'm out. But thanks anyway.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Ty for your comment. It may make sense to you and others but not to me any longer. There is no logical answer to explain evolution. You may think so but there is none. Guesses but no surety or exactitude.

Now there you are quite incorrect. The evidence is there to see, but you have to be willing to look at much greater expanses of time than you appear able to do.

 

[Secret Chief]

Peer review is often by those who get the most votes or money...

How's that work then? Can you provide evidence for your claim?


This seems germane:

- https://www.science.org/content/page/peer-review-science-publications

- Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications

 

[Nakosis]

Science cannot validate 'What you believe is true.'

Funny since I've used it many times to do just that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Now there you are quite incorrect. The evidence is there to see, but you have to be willing to look at much greater expanses of time than you appear able to do.

Look closer. It just isn't there. Even far away... speculation nothing verifiable.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Look closer. It just isn't there. Even far away... speculation nothing verifiable.

Your problem with science isn't the science -- it's you. It seems to work amazingly well -- enough to have invented all the technology, pharmaceuticals and chemistry that you take for granted every day. Explain to me how an MRI can take cross-section pictures of the inside of your body without making any cuts -- that will tell you how much you actually understand about how science works.

 

[exchemist]

This is complete nonsense.

"Objectivism" is a philosophical construct that has nothing whatever to do with science, except in the biased minds of the "scientism" cult. They label the data gathered by the scientific process "objective" and then worship it as if it were the fountain of all wisdom and truth. But it's neither objective nor subjective. It's just data. Information that scientists can use to explore the next unknown possibility.

Not at all. You are being perverse - and a little bit hysterical. Why the angry (and patently ridiculous) hyperbole about “worship” of data?

The purpose of demanding observations be reproducible is that they can then to be agreed to be likely true, as opposed to being uncorroborated, merely anecdotal, or even fraudulent. Without establishing a set of agreed facts about how nature behaves, one can’t develop a theory that will command support. I should have thought that was rather obvious.

I did not refer to “objectivism”. And I was careful to state that reproducible data is an approach towards objectivity, rather than attaining it. That’s because we can’t exclude every element potential of bias, or limited perspective, in any human activity, scientific or otherwise.

”Objectivism”, philosophically speaking, is something I had to look up and appears to be associated with the unpleasant notions of the ghastly Ayn Rand. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[PureX]

Yes science seems to verify or disband a theory.

Scientists call them "theories", but they always retain the label "theory" because they are in fact functional possibilities that experimentation has either shown to be functionally possible, or not to be. Science is not philosophy. It is not seeking truth. It's a method of exploring physical possibilities via testing for physical functionality. That's it. All science will ever give us is increased effectiveness in terms of physical functionality.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The universe revealed by science is very different from Christianity’s universe. The latter is a small man-centred creation existing specifically
for the moral testing of human beings. In this picture the small and the large lie within the range of man’s imagination; in the new picture the small and the large can only be understood through the lens of mathematics, a conceptual instrument of immensely greater penetration and accuracy than human imaginings. From Galileo and Newton to relativity theory and quantum mechanics – to say nothing of the advances in chemistry, the biological sciences and technology – the rich, deep, powerful theories of modern science make theology and the metaphysics of the past look extremely limited and naive as accounts of the universe.

 

[Yazata]

The discussion is about SCIENCE -- Creation -- and religion. How do you define science, first of all? One definition of science: (yes, I know there are different "branches" of science, but looking for a broad definition):
Science: "The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained:"
If possible, limit discussion to the definition of SCIENCE before striking out to other areas.

I think that historically, the word 'science' was applied to any organized and systematic body of knowledge. Cooking was a science as was blacksmithing. We still occasionally hear about theology being the science of the divine and man's relation to it, which seems to have a similar origin in medieval times.

Since the "scientific revolution" of the 17th century, the reference of the word 'science' has been narrowed a great deal, to refer to a particular kind of organized and systematic knowledge displaying particular characteristics. The use of the word 'scientist' to refer to practitioners of this more restricted kind of 'science' is relatively new, having been coined by William Whewell in 1834. Prior to that, what we think of today as 'scientists' were known as 'natural philosophers'.

So the word 'science' gradually came by fits and starts to mean organized and systematic knowledge about the natural world, that only appeals to explanatory principles that are natural in nature. (Defining 'natural' obviously becomes an issue there.)

Along with this implicit metaphysical naturalism, there was an accompanying epistemological empiricism. So 'scientific' propositions had to be justifiable by sensory experience. There was an emphasis on objectivity, which led to the idea that 'scientific' claims need to be confirmed by others.

I think that most of these changes just happened by accretion in a particular kind of cultural environment found in Europe at the time.

It was only later, in the 19th century, that philosophers tried to identify whatever it is that seems to make this kind of natural science unique. So we see the appearance of philosophies of science and formulations of an often fanciful "scientific method", in hopes that it could be taught to school children.

 

[exchemist]

Most of the time, however sometimes the scientific community is wrong:

• 20 of the Greatest Blunders in Science in the Last 20 Years
• Famous Scientific Theories That Were Proven Wrong - Grunge
• When Great Scientists Got It Wrong : NPR
• Take That Back: The Top Scientific Retractions of 2019 - Live Science
• These are science's Top 10 erroneous results
• Sometimes Science Is Wrong - Scientific American

(more here)

Good point, but let's take this one thing at a time. Are we agreed that while most of the time the scientific community is correct that sometimes they can be wrong?

That goes without saying and is why, in science, the door is always ajar for new insights that show current theory to be wrong or incomplete.

 

[HonestJoe]

Ty for your comment. It may make sense to you and others but not to me any longer. There is no logical answer to explain evolution. You may think so but there is none. Guesses but no surety or exactitude.

Your inability (or unwillingness) to understand doesn't mean it isn't true.

There are plenty of logical answers to explain the various aspects and processes involved in evolution. Some of them are very clear and others are much more speculative (though not necessarily wrong) and plenty have been developed, expanded or even replaced as more evidence has been discovered. There is no singular definitive answer but nobody is saying that there is. That's how science works.

Maybe you should go back to understanding what science means, not coming up with a literal definition you can spin to fit your preconceived conclusions about things that you feel impact your religion but actually understanding what science is and how it works to reach conclusions. Maybe focusing on a much less complex and controversial subject area for that.

 

[exchemist]

So with that in mind I was thinking what is the science behind macroevolution?

Reproducible observations, resulting in a hypotheses, tested by further observation, as I explained in post 4. Why is this hard for you to grasp?

 

[Whateverist]

AIG and the Discovery Institute have catch-22 provisions in their 'Constitution' that the literal understanding of the Bible takes precedence over science.

Yeah not a good approach for anyone who cares at all about truth.