What do You Think Science is...

[Audie]

You'd have a stronger point if you weren't declaring a conclusion yourself here.

Conclusions are a key element of scientific method. The key point is that those conclusions aren't presented as being definitive or unchallengeable. They represent what the evidence supports as it stands, but remain open to new evidence or further study which can lead to those conclusions being corrected or even replaced.

Even stronger if the " point" had any substance to it

 

[PureX]

Just look up " conclusions" in science,
and read it.
Nobody says a hypothesis is a conclusion.
And "results" is just more equivocation.

Whenever you have to run to the dictionary to justify an assertion, you've no real justification. Because dictionaries do not establish or reflect logic.

 

[PureX]

You'd have a stronger point if you weren't declaring a conclusion yourself here.

Conclusions are a key element of scientific method. The key point is that those conclusions aren't presented as being definitive or unchallengeable. They represent what the evidence supports as it stands, but remain open to new evidence or further study which can lead to those conclusions being corrected or even replaced.

I'm not engaged in science. I'm engaged in a discussion about science.

Conclusions are not any part of the scientific method. Results are. But results are not conclusions. And neither are the hypotheses that those results generate. The whole point of science is to NOT assume conclusions (truth). Because assumed conclusions are bias, and the goal of the process of science is to try and minimize bias as much as possible.

 

[Audie]

Whenever you have to run to the dictionary to justify an assertion, you've no real justification. Because dictionaries do not establish or reflect logic.

Yet another strawman.
I made no mention of a dictionary.

I pointed out, lest ye forget, that your
talk of " conclusions" is based in ignorance.

Youve no evident knowledge of the basics of science as from formal education.
AKA dont know what you are talking about.

In the absence of that, Googling a few sites
as I suggested might relieve you of your confusion.

Though if you actually confuse that
with consulting a dictionary, for heavens sake,
a web site from, say, Berkeley will be far
from sufficient to help out.

And btw, confusion wise, I was not even addressing logic.
The subject is your ignorance re
" conclisions" in nscience.

 

[Audie]

I'm not engaged in science. I'm engaged in a discussion about science.

Conclusions are not any part of the scientific method. Results are. But results are not conclusions. And neither are the hypotheses that those results generate. The whole point of science is to NOT assume conclusions (truth). Because assumed conclusions are bias, and the goal of the process of science is to try and minimize bias as much as possible.

A typical device of politicians, advertisers, con men, and
others out to deceive is mix in enough factual information
to lend apparent credibility to the falsehoods mixed in.

We all know a hypothesis is not a conclusion.

That assuming conclusions is opposite to science.

That is good to minimizee bias.

Etc.

But we also know the meaning of, role of " conclusions"
in science, and you dont.

 

[firedragon]

Not everyone is into such gross equivocation.
Many prefer their words to mean something.

Super wisdom. Impressive. But doesnt answer anything.

Thanks.

 

[lukethethird]

Real science doesn't generate any conclusions. It simply explores the perceived possibilities by testing their functionality. If they function, they function. If they don't, they don't. Either way, the result presents us with a new set of possibilities to test. And so one.

Drawing conclusions is unscientific, as any real scientist will tell you. It's just another bias to avoid, and an example of 'scientism' - to assume that science pursues and produces 'truth'.

Sure thing Sherlock, but since science generates knowledge, it wouldn't hurt you to learn something now and again.

 

[Audie]

Super wisdom. Impressive. But doesnt answer anything.

Thanks.

i thought you did it on purpose.
My bad.

 

[lukethethird]

Everyone has faith, belief, and prejudices. Science vs religion is a false dichotomy created by people who wish to do it for whatever reason. Its a strawman. Its a bogus argument made up to feel good about one's self.

One of the two generates knowledge that can be applied.

 

[Audie]

Sure thing Sherlock, but since science generates knowledge, it wouldn't hurt you to learn something now and again.

It might be super painful to learn and then admit to being mistaken about anything.

 

[HonestJoe]

I'm not engaged in science. I'm engaged in a discussion about science.

So conclusions are allowed if you're not engaged in science but prohibited if you are engaged in science? That makes no sense.

Conclusions are not any part of the scientific method. Results are. But results are not conclusions. And neither are the hypotheses that those results generate. The whole point of science is to NOT assume conclusions (truth). Because assumed conclusions are bias, and the goal of the process of science is to try and minimize bias as much as possible.

You're simply making a mess of multiple well-defined terms there. Conclusions are a key point in scientific process - science could achieve literally nothing of any practical use if we stopped at raw results. Results are indeed not conclusions, results lead to conclusions. Results don't lead to hypotheses at all (at least not directly). If anything, it's the other way around - observation, hypothesis, evidence, results, conclusions.

I think the significant point to counter here is that nobody is assuming conclusions nor are they presented as definitive or unchallengeable truth. Scientific conclusions are the logical interpretation of the data and results, typically incorporating uncertainties, acknowledging limitations and recommending further research to build upon them (or indeed to contradict them).

And ultimately, in the wider context of this thread, we're always going to be reaching conclusions, regardless of the method or processes that we use to reach them. The question is essentially about the best ways to get to them.

 

[lukethethird]

It might be super painful to learn and then admit to being mistaken about anything.

It happens to me all the time, I'm used to it.

 

[Audie]

It happens to me all the time, I'm used to it.

And you learned it can be a great feeling.
What a sad situation for someone who is so
afraid of being wrong, they cannot admit it and refuse to learn.

 

[Audie]

So conclusions are allowed if you're not engaged in science but prohibited if you are engaged in science? That makes no sense.

You're simply making a mess of multiple well-defined terms there. Conclusions are a key point in scientific process - science could achieve literally nothing of any practical use if we stopped at raw results. Results are indeed not conclusions, results lead to conclusions. Results don't lead to hypotheses at all (at least not directly). If anything, it's the other way around - observation, hypothesis, evidence, results, conclusions.

I think the significant point to counter here is that nobody is assuming conclusions nor are they presented as definitive or unchallengeable truth. Scientific conclusions are the logical interpretation of the data and results, typically incorporating uncertainties, acknowledging limitations and recommending further research to build upon them (or indeed to contradict them).

And ultimately, in the wider context of this thread, we're always going to be reaching conclusions, regardless of the method or processes that we use to reach them. The question is essentially about the best ways to get to them.

" making a mess of well defined terms"

 

[PureX]

The theory of the evolution of life forms was proposed as a possibility over a century ago. Since then scientists of many different disciplines have been testing the theory by applying it to the physical world they study to see if it functions (produces predicted results). And for the most part, is has. It has had to be amended; some things added and some things dropped, but at it's core, it has remained a functioning theory of how life has evolved to be what it is, today, on this planet.

This, however, does not mean that it is a "conclusion", now, and no longer a theory. All it means is that it is what it is: a theory that has thus far shown itself to function as valid within a wide array of physical conditions and circumstances. In fact, no theory in science ever stops being a theory. No theory in science ever becomes a "conclusion". Because history has shown that when that happens (occasionally even a quorum of scientists have fallen under the spell of a presumed conclusion) it tends to create a huge impediment to the scientific process that takes years and much effort to finally get past.

The fact that any one of YOU may have concluded that the theory of evolution is no longer a theory, but is now a fact of reality is NOT SCIENCE. It's just your opinion. In fact, it's your opinion masquerading as science. Which makes it, "pseudo-science" ... or in this instance; 'scientism'. And the fact that I am pointing this out, and some of you are fighting tooth and nail to deny it only serves to further exemplify the cult-like nature of 'scientism', and of it's willful ignorance of what actual science is, and does.

 

[lukethethird]

The theory of the evolution of life forms was proposed as a possibility over a century ago. Since then scientist of many different disciplines have been testing the theory by applying it to the physical world they study to see if it functions (produces predicted results). And for the most part, is has. It has had to be amended; some things added and some things dropped, but at it's core, it has remained a functioning theory of how life has evolved to be what it is, today, on this planet.

This, however, does not mean that it is a "conclusion", now, and no longer a theory. All it means is that it is what it is: a theory that has thus far shown itself to function as valid within a wide array of physical conditions and circumstances. In fact, no theory in science ever stops being a theory. No theory in science ever becomes a "conclusion". Because history has shown that when that happens (occasionally even a quorum of scientists have fallen under the spell of a presumed conclusion) it tends to create a huge impediment to the scientific process that takes years and much effort to finally get past.

The fact that any one of YOU may have concluded that the theory of evolution is no longer a theory, but is now a fact of reality is NOT SCIENCE. It's just your opinion. In fact, it's your opinion masquerading as science. Which makes it, "pseudo-science" ... or in this instance; 'scientism'. And the fact that I am pointing this out, and some of you are fighting tooth and nail to deny it only serves to further exemplify the cult-like nature of 'scientism', and of it's complete ignorance of what actual science is, and does.

Anyone that understands the slightest thing about science is aware that facts are tentative and subject to change. You're barking up the wrong tree, again.

 

[firedragon]

One of the two generates knowledge that can be applied.

Okay. So whats your point?

 

[lukethethird]

Okay. So whats your point?

The other doesn't.

 

[PureX]

Anyone that understands the slightest thing about science is aware that facts are tentative and subject to change. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Well, if they are, they seem to be acting contrary to it a great deal of the time. And then trying to claim they aren't. There's a core of dishonesty that fuels 'scientism' and shows up in post after post on these threads. Posts that proclaim theories like evolution to be absolute and undeniable facts because science has proven it so, and who post these assertions as if anyone who dared to disagree with them must be some sort of idiot or fool, and now here you are claiming they all actually know that none of these arrogant proclamations are actually scientific, at all. I find that very hard to believe. Especially when I see NO POSTED EVIDENCE that would indicate that to be so. It appears to me that these people really believe what they're posting.

What I see are people who are doing with science what religious fanatics sometimes do with their religious texts: turn it into an absolute and indisputable fountainhead and authority for truth, when it's really nothing more than their own personal opinion/interpretation deifying itself, and giving them a phony, inflated sense of self-righteousness.

 

[firedragon]

The other doesn't.

Great. So whats your point?