The Problem with Science

[ThePainefulTruth]

I am wondering how you are using science in this example? What is your hypothesis? What is the null hypothesis? What data are you using? How is it objective?

Political science, if it were actually treated as a science, must start with a statement of the objective of politics. There are many grandiose objectives but they end up confusing the issue with varying degrees of support for a given objective. The simpler and more universal, the better, which is, Good Order. The only objections to that comes from tyrants and anarchists (your null hypotheses) which is a very small proportion (3%?) of the population. From there, rationally deducing a simple moral code is relatively easy. And objective morality, which is much simpler than all the junk that religions and egomaniacs have built up, is very simple. To wit:

Morality is honoring the EQUAL rights of ALL to life, liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation through force or fraud. That's it. And that morality is the only thing that should be legislated by government.

How is the current scientific consensus amongst climatologists on global warming "corrupt"?

Grants awarded with an understood objective, and convenient variables to "prove" what the evidence doesn't. That's the short answer. But rather than divert this into a tangent, we have plenty of threads on it already, and I'm sure there will be more to come--same with abortion.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Indeed, I have had a brief education on politics. Apparently a local MP of a constituency gets approx 4 times the wage as a normal worker for doing nothing really. Neither does a person have to have any sort of skills to be a politician.
It seems that even the stupid could run a country if they ''buy'' an election.

Exactly, which is why there should be a minimal test to qualify to vote, like the ones used for naturalized citizens. Civics (the Constitution and why we have it) has disappeared from many government school systems.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

That goes about it all wrong, you don't combine religions to come up with a religion, you take the facts as far as you can, and then add reasonable speculation on which we can debate.

Syncretism: 1.The amalgamation or attempted amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought.

Thanks also for defining "Truth" as God. With that in mind, we can leave science out of the discussion, as science by definition does not concern itself with God.

You misunderstand. Truth is God or the ultimate ideal, whether that ideal is a super consciousness or not. Science can't make a statement one way or the other because there's no evidence to work with (except hearsay.)

It looks as if you may have some sort of Pantheist inclination. Like Einstein, perhaps?

Yes, but I don't pursue it, because if God exists, whether It is or isn't pandeistic or panendiestic is basically irrelevant and of no useful value even for speculation.

 

[james blunt]

Exactly, which is why there should be a minimal test to qualify to vote, like the ones used for naturalized citizens. Civics (the Constitution and why we have it) has disappeared from many government school systems.

Well, if we are going to switch to political mode, just let me put my political head on.

Dear Mr speaker,

There is no doubt in my mind that the election system in general is considerably flawed. Not only the election system, additionally those elected.
Often those elected did not get the ''majority'' of the votes. The total cumulative votes of all the other parties combined ,being the winning amount of votes. What I mean by this sir, is the majority of people did not want the party who won, to have won.
In example if all parties other than the conservative party joined together, the conservative party would then struggle to win another election.
It is a sort of paradox, the winners always the minority of votes because all the other parties combined votes add up to a majority.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I think that is very astute. Whether we all recognize it or not.

We all believe in things, & as long as we simply acknowledge this, we can all get along. Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself.

Or as I am want to put it, blind faith has only hearsay revelation as "evidence" for its authority.

It is not so much a problem with science the method which strongly encourages skepticism, but science the human, ideological, political, academic institution- which has always been it's nemesis.

Yes, our integrity or lack of it determines how we deal with temptation.

 

[exchemist]

Syncretism: 1.The amalgamation or attempted amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought.



You misunderstand. Truth is God or the ultimate ideal, whether that ideal is a super consciousness or not. Science can't make a statement one way or the other because there's no evidence to work with (except hearsay.)



Yes, but I don't pursue it, because if God exists, whether It is or isn't pandeistic or panendiestic is basically irrelevant and of no useful value even for speculation.

Just a small point: the first quote to which you reply is actually your own words, not mine. There was a glitch in the quoting in post 23.

Re Truth and God, the reason I say we can leave science out of the discussion is because science restricts itself, as a matter of method, to natural explanations and does not engage in metaphysical speculations. You are free to claim that science is, without acknowledging it, trying to understand God through its work, but it is not the job of science to comment on that view. (I think we are agreeing, actually.)

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Well, if we are going to switch to political mode, just let me put my political head on.

Dear Mr speaker,

There is no doubt in my mind that the election system in general is considerably flawed. Not only the election system, additionally those elected.
Often those elected did not get the ''majority'' of the votes. The total cumulative votes of all the other parties combined ,being the winning amount of votes. What I mean by this sir, is the majority of people did not want the party who won, to have won.
In example if all parties other than the conservative party joined together, the conservative party would then struggle to win another election.
It is a sort of paradox, the winners always the minority of votes because all the other parties combined votes add up to a majority.

And since they agreed to do so they are then the majority. And lest we forget, democracy is not the ultimate objective, but rather, the protection of individual rights from their negation by a majority.

 

[james blunt]

Just a small point: the first quote to which you reply is actually your own words, not mine. There was a glitch in the quoting in post 23.

Re Truth and God, the reason I say we can leave science out of the discussion is because science restricts itself, as a matter of method, to natural explanations and does not engage in metaphysical speculations. You are free to claim that science is, without acknowledging it, trying to understand God through its work, but it is not the job of science to comment on that view. (I think we are agreeing, actually.)

I define God - An entity that creates substance.

Would anyone argue that definition ?

Science or a creationist?

Objectively that definition is absolute and the answer to what God is, also being absolute, space.

 

[james blunt]

And since they agreed to do so they are then the majority. And lest we forget, democracy is not the ultimate objective, but rather, the protection of individual rights from their negation by a majority.

I view things this way, I am people , you are people, we are all people, there should not be an inequality in rights. Wages should be on even terms, one persons time has the exact same value as another persons time.
However, there should be bonuses for nurses, doctors, firemen, the police, people who are doing lets say the caring jobs, the most risk.
I don't think I have seen a government yet that has any sort of clue how to govern and have a happy country.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I define God - An entity that creates substance.

Would anyone argue that definition ?

Science or a creationist?

Objectively that definition is absolute and the answer to what God is, also being absolute, space.

Your definition of what God is, will be added to the growing list of other unfalsifiable and unverifiable self-serving assertions. All definitions are true, and no definition is false. What substance has this entity created? Just one objective God-specific substance would do?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I simply answered your question. I gave you many examples of things that are subjective, and have no objective origins. In other words, effects without a cause. Was there an example that you disagreed with? You were talking about the objective basis for our subjectivity. I have no idea of the relevance of "enablement", or how it proves objectivity. Are you now defining objectivity as a human position, or as an absolute?

You yourself entail the objective by which these things arise in the first place.

You cannot subjectively "see" without a physical working eye to see with.

The things you mentioned are not independently subjective. There cannot be a cause without an effect and vice versa.

 

[shunyadragon]

That is comparative to saying space does not exist. Any given point of any volume of space is given as 0 values. 0 exists as any point, any given points of a volume are identical . The summation of all points of an infinite volume is 0 .

I.e space is nothingness , absolute 0.

Mapping from any given point

ƒ: x = 0→∞
ƒ: y = 0→∞
ƒ: z = 0→∞

Your digging yourself into a hole with math that does not demonstrate the existence of an absolute. Individual points defined by math does not represent 'space.' Space is neither absolute, simple nor empty.

Math may be used as descriptive.of our physical existence. You would have to come up with a math that actually describes an absolute as 'space,' and not simple points described above.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You yourself entail the objective by which these things arise in the first place.

You cannot subjectively "see" without a physical working eye to see with.

The things you mentioned are not independently subjective. There cannot be a cause without an effect and vice versa.

I'm afraid I am not smart enough to keep wading through your word salad, and philosophical gymnastics. Please do not misrepresent or change the meaning of anything I say. You avoided my supernatural examples. You avoided my question. You even made up your own straw man to argue with. I never stated that vision is not subjective without a functioning eye. it is simply a given that the eye and brain must be functional. Does the the liver or heart have their own brain? It is OBJECTIVE reality that provides the stimuli(cause) for our sensory organs, to maintains the brain's subjective perspective.

I never stated that our sensory organs were independently subjective. This is nonsense, and would imply that our sense organs are sentient, and can think for themselves. Put simply, if you pick up a cube of ice, your sensory organs will provide your brain with enough information to formulate its best-guess composite of your subjective experience. It will provide your consciousness with a visual, pressure, textural, and temperature representation of the event. Nothing more, and nothing less.

We can never escape from our subjective perspective. And nothing in the Universe can escape cause and effect, and Entropy.

 

[james blunt]

Your digging yourself into a hole with math that does not demonstrate the existence of an absolute. Individual points defined by math does not represent 'space.' Space is neither absolute, simple nor empty.

Math may be used as descriptive.of our physical existence. You would have to come up with a math that actually describes an absolute as 'space,' and not simple points described above.

You are being obtuse sir.

 

[Woberts]

You are being obtuse sir.

And you're not?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

But you are only there in thought , you are not really observing, that removes observer affect.

Then I wouldn't be able to see past my finger if I weren't there.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Political science, if it were actually treated as a science, must start with a statement of the objective of politics. There are many grandiose objectives but they end up confusing the issue with varying degrees of support for a given objective. The simpler and more universal, the better, which is, Good Order. The only objections to that comes from tyrants and anarchists (your null hypotheses) which is a very small proportion (3%?) of the population. From there, rationally deducing a simple moral code is relatively easy. And objective morality, which is much simpler than all the junk that religions and egomaniacs have built up, is very simple. To wit:

Morality is honoring the EQUAL rights of ALL to life, liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation through force or fraud. That's it. And that morality is the only thing that should be legislated by government.

I'm still not seeing how the scientific method is being applied. What units is order measured in? How do we empirically measure order? Also, how are you measuring an objective morality independently of the subjective wants and needs of humans?

Grants awarded with an understood objective, and convenient variables to "prove" what the evidence doesn't. That's the short answer. But rather than divert this into a tangent, we have plenty of threads on it already, and I'm sure there will be more to come--same with abortion.

In my experience, climate change deniers are never able to marshal any evidence in support of their claims. It's rather difficult to get around 100 years of science that clearly points to the reality of the Greenhouse Effect.

 

[james blunt]

Then I wouldn't be able to see past my finger if I weren't there.

For all of you that are blind : I will point out a point for you

 

[shunyadragon]

You are being obtuse sir.

No, I am being accurate according to our present knowledge of science, and how math is used as descriptive, and does not replace observations in our physical existence. There are no objectively observable absolutes in 'space,' and space is simple.

 

[james blunt]

No, I am being accurate according to our present knowledge of science, and how math is used as descriptive, and does not replace observations in our physical existence. There are no objectively observable absolutes in 'space,' and space is simple.

Sir, you are mistaken, consider your own words you are saying: ''no objectively observable absolutes in space''.

Not in space, the' space . The space that everything of physicality occupies. You are mistaking the word space for universe.