The Absolutism of Science

[Thief]

Gotcha.

That's definitely beyond my level. I basically flunked out of High School Trig. Nowadays, my exposure to mathematics is primarily through computer programming, which as far as I can tell only deal with infinity insofar as it's avoided like the ****ing plague.

Saw a well known theoretical physicist make the 'same' statement.

He displayed a chalkboard effort that results with infinity+infinity+infinity...
etc...etc....etc....

He then strikes a thoughtful pose for the camera and explains it doesn't set well in the mind of people working with numbers.

I think the guy's name is Kaku.

 

[Sapiens]

so there is no absolutism in science?

Only probability.

isnt anyone bothered by the tentative nature of science

No. That's the nature of the beast.

that we are in some situation where we are regaining iteligence we had lost from a time before-when we just knew

If I understand what you are struggling to say ... that's complete and utter horse puckey.

 

[Parsimony]

so Science is tentatively true or we can say tentatively false

Hypotheses in science have differing degrees of certainty as to their truth value. The more evidence that supports them, the more likely they are to be true. A hypothesis only graduates to a theory when there is a high probability of it being correct. Some theories have so much evidence going for them that it is taken for granted by most people that they are just plain right (such as the atomic theory of matter or the cell theory of biology).

 

[Riverwolf]

so Science is tentatively true or we can say tentatively false

Neither, if you understand how the sciences work.

 

[deeoracle]

Only probability.
No. That's the nature of the beast.

If I understand what you are struggling to say ... that's complete and utter horse puckey.

understandably, I can say the same thing about science which is only probability, tentative and self-righteously proposing itself as the most empirical proof of sentient reality

 

[deeoracle]

Either would be incorrect.

So what is Science?

 

[Sapiens]

understandably, I can say the same thing about science which is only probability, tentative and self-righteously proposing itself as the most empirical proof of sentient reality

You can say anything you want but when you do educated and knowledgeable people will think you a fool whilst the devout that cleave to your cult will think you devout ... take your pick, one is demonstrably correct, the other is abject horse pucky. I have confidence that you will choose wrong.

 

[outhouse]

So what is Science?

It is not in the business to prove anything. that is why it is not true or false.



It observes and reports findings and facts. That's simple.

 

[Skwim]

So what is Science?

Yeah, I think most of us here figured you had no idea. Nice to see your humble admission of ignorance in this arena of arrogant certainty. I salute you.

 

[LuisDantas]

understandably, I can say the same thing about science which is only probability, tentative and self-righteously proposing itself as the most empirical proof of sentient reality

Sure, you can say that. But why would you?

I can only figure you don't quite understand what science is.

 

[deeoracle]

Sure, you can say that. But why would you?

I can only figure you don't quite understand what science is.

Well let's say I am not one for probability and tentativeness. I prefer Old-fashion absolute truth-
If science is saying absolute truth may be in most instances too high a bar to set - then science is a frivolous sport in the pursuit of inconclusive assumptions.

It is unclear to me , how science can claim to be the only pursuit in which empirical evidence is obtained- I think that assumption is as troubling as religion's claim on the truth

 

[deeoracle]

You can say anything you want but when you do educated and knowledgeable people will think you a fool whilst the devout that cleave to your cult will think you devout ... take your pick, one is demonstrably correct, the other is abject horse pucky. I have confidence that you will choose wrong.

I am glad you said educated people- you meant people educated by these scientist

and of course anything that challenges science willbe looked at as horse pucky - because after all - the billions of dollars invested in these experiments must count for something

 

[deeoracle]

It is not in the business to prove anything. that is why it is not true or false.



It observes and reports findings and facts. That's simple.

so science has made the conclusion there is nothing that can be proven in the sentient world

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And yet it can be proven that 0.999 BAR is equal to 1.0.

Not exactly. It can be proven that given the construction of the reals (a relatively recent and post-calculus development) that infinite decimals can be represented by geometric series which converge to a specific number, e.g.,

.99999...= [9/(10^1) + 9/(10^1) + 9/(10^3) +...]

Factor out 9/(10^1), yielding

=

...=

...assuming the formula

rather than proving it.

It is absolutely essential to note that the reason for convergence isn't just infinitely many repeating decimals but how we can represent these as infinite series and apply analytical methods which depend upon separate proofs (in this case, for example, the proofs concerning the convergence of geometric series). It is not the case that there exists any number like .999999 such that any number of digits "9" will ever make the number equal to one. It is only true that the infinite series representation of repeating decimals converges to 1.

Claiming that .99999... is equal to one (or that .9999 BAR is) presents the same kind of flaw in the assertion that as

then

 

[deeoracle]

Thank you for that word _ 'Converges"- it seems Science converges to truth but it is not equal to it.

 

[outhouse]

so science has made the conclusion there is nothing that can be proven in the sentient world

What part of science observes and reports don't you understand?

 

[outhouse]

I am glad you said educated people- you meant people educated by these scientist

and of course anything that challenges science willbe looked at as horse pucky - because after all - the billions of dollars invested in these experiments must count for something

Pathetic bias you show.

Your only giving theism a bad name embarrassing them.

 

[outhouse]

- I think that assumption is as troubling as religion's claim on the truth

That is because of the severe ignorance of both science and religion you possess.

 

[Parsimony]

I prefer Old-fashion absolute truth-

So what methodology do you propose that we use to find absolute truths about the world we live in?

 

[outhouse]

So what methodology do you propose that we use to find absolute truths about the world we live in?

You do know religious mythology Is the only answer to truth !!!!