What do You Think Science is...

[lukethethird]

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, which is really nothing more than their own personal opinion/interpretation deifying itself, and giving them a phony, inflated sense of self-righteousness.

Facts hold up until better explanations come along, meanwhile I see your computer still works so what is the problem?

 

[Audie]

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.

Never have, never will, never can post
one example

 

[Sheldon]

Real science doesn't generate any conclusions.

"So, Einstein's conclusion that the inertial mass of an object changes if the object absorbs or emits energy was revolutionary and transformative. For as Einstein concluded “If the theory agrees with the facts, then radiation transmits inertia between emitting and absorbing bodies”"

"By such reasoning, Newton came to the conclusion that any two objects in the Universe exert gravitational attraction on each other, with the force having a universal form: The constant of proportionality G is known as the universal gravitational constant."

"Based on these simple observations, Darwin concluded the following: In a population, some individuals will have inherited traits that help them survive and reproduce (given the conditions of the environment, such as the predators and food sources present)."

 

[PureX]

Facts hold up until better explanations come along, meanwhile I see your computer still works so what is the problem?

Facts are not "best guesses". Facts are pieces of information that are true relative to other pieces of information. They are either true within an assigned context or they aren't. "Best guessing" is what people do with them.

As for the computer, it is a functional object. A machine. It exists and it functions because, through the process of science, we can explore the limitations and possibilities of physicality. Science does not pursue knowledge of 'the truth'. It can only pursue knowledge of physical functionality. And that's what these computers represent. Functionality. Which is why when people presume that science delivers them "the real truth" they are deluded. And deceived. And when they use this delusion to justify denigrating any other possible pursuit of the truth, they become antithetical to human growth and advancement.

 

[PureX]

Never have, never will, never can post
one example

I JUST DID! But you can't see it. It's amazing, really!

 

[PureX]

"So, Einstein's conclusion that the inertial mass of an object changes if the object absorbs or emits energy was revolutionary and transformative. For as Einstein concluded “If the theory agrees with the facts, then radiation transmits inertia between emitting and absorbing bodies”"

"By such reasoning, Newton came to the conclusion that any two objects in the Universe exert gravitational attraction on each other, with the force having a universal form: The constant of proportionality G is known as the universal gravitational constant."

"Based on these simple observations, Darwin concluded the following: In a population, some individuals will have inherited traits that help them survive and reproduce (given the conditions of the environment, such as the predators and food sources present)."

Einstein didn't "conclude" anything. He theorized it. And he understood that he had theorized it. Same with Darwin, and every other scientists in history. YOU can't tell the difference because YOU can't see past your absurd worship of science as the fountain of reality and truth.

 

[lukethethird]

Facts are not "best guesses". Facts are pieces of information that are true relative to other pieces of information. They are either true within an assigned context or they aren't. "Best guessing" is what people do with them.

As for the computer, it is a functional object. A machine. It exists and it functions because, through the process of science, we can explore the limitations and possibilities of physicality. Science does not pursue knowledge of 'the truth'. It can only pursue knowledge of physical functionality. And that's what these computers represent. Functionality. Which is why when people presume that science delivers them "the real truth" they are deluded. And deceived. And when they use this delusion to justify denigrating any other possible pursuit of the truth, they become antithetical to human growth and advancement.

Nobody stated that facts are 'best guesses' and no one stated that science delivers 'the real truth.'
You are arguing with your own made up nonsense.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

A scientific theory can also be a scientific fact, they are not mutually exclusive. This doesn't mean it isn't open to revision, if new evidence requires it.

Since all the scientific evidence from over 162 years of global scientific scrutiny supports species evolution, and from multiple scientific fields of study, it'd be fair to say a substantive reversal of it, is about as likely as the earth turning out to be flat, and at the centre of the universe after all.

 

[Audie]

I JUST DID! But you can't see it. It's amazing, really!

No, you did not.
No way there's a match to
the outlandish things you claim
to see.
But I think I understand you now,
how you, ah, detect things, and I can quit asking.

 

[Sheldon]

Einstein didn't "conclude" anything. He theorized it. And he understood that he had theorized it. Same with Darwin, and every other scientists in history. YOU can't tell the difference because YOU can't see past your absurd worship of science as the fountain of reality and truth.

I'm afraid that straw man isn't very compelling, since I didn't write those excerpts, I merely quoted them, and linked the source. Maybe you could address the fact they contradict your claim, and explain why your self aggrandising bombast should be given more credence than those sources? Instead of dishonestly attacking me for quoting them, though I think we all know by now, how unlikely that is.

Einstein didn't "conclude" anything. He theorized it. And he understood that he had theorized it. Same with Darwin,

1859: Darwin Published On the Origin of Species, Proposing Continual Evolution of Species

"Darwin concluded that species change through natural selection, or - to use Wallace's phrase - through "the survival of the fittest" in a given environment."

Hmm, who to believe, the National Human Genome Research Institute, or some Billy no name off the internet, give me minute I can do this...

 

[Audie]

Nobody stated that facts are 'best guesses' and no one stated that science delivers 'the real truth.'
You are arguing with your own made up nonsense.

And not much use discussing made up
nonsense.

 

[Sheldon]

Nobody stated that facts are 'best guesses' and no one stated that science delivers 'the real truth.'
You are arguing with your own made up nonsense.

Is anyone really at all surprised at that by now?

 

[Audie]

Is anyone really at all surprised at that by now?

Maybe by how far it can go

 

[lukethethird]

Is anyone really at all surprised at that by now?

Funny, but it never occured to me that I should just make up quotes and jam them into the poster's mouth that I'm having a forum discussion with.

 

[lukethethird]

Maybe by how far it can go

So far he's picked a battle with evolution and the scientific method.
His weapon of choice? Faith.

 

[nPeace]

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.

I understand what you are saying. The results are what are looked for. The scientific method produces those. The scientists then accept those results, as the conclusion... until some other results are accepted as the conclusion.

 

[nPeace]

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.

Right, the theory is not the conclusion. The results "lead" to conclusions.
Conclusions are two-fold - 1) the ones reached by assuming that the results say what one believes, and 2) the conclusions from the results.

An example of the latter, is the experiment of Louis Pasteur, where the results pointed to gave the conclusion.

 

[nPeace]

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.

I understand you here.
Totally agree with the first part.
Understand fully the second part. It can be quite tough.
That's how messed up the enemy of truth made it... but I don't want to sound self-righteous, so I'll leave it there.
Do you think we will ever find out... the truth, I mean?

 

[PureX]

I understand what you are saying. The results are what are looked for. The scientific method produces those. The scientists then accept those results, as the conclusion... until some other results are accepted as the conclusion.

Real scientists don't interpret results as "conclusions", they simply accept them as results. And then they formulate new possibilities (to be tested) on the basis of those results. Possibilities that show themselves to be viable, remain viable (theories), those that do not, present us with new (alternative) possibilities. There are never any "conclusions" being drawn by the scientists. Only by those who don't understand what science is, how it works, and how it doesn't.

Science is about grasping the possibilities (formulating theories), and testing them through physical application (experimentation) to see if they function (if they remain viable theories). Or if they don't (then providing us with information that enables us to formulate new theories to test). None of this necessitates presuming any conclusions. That's the whole point of science: to avoid formulating conclusions, and instead, to simply follow the theories that function, until they don't. And then amend them, or formulate new ones.

 

[PureX]

I understand you here.
Totally agree with the first part.
Understand fully the second part. It can be quite tough.
That's how messed up the enemy of truth made it... but I don't want to sound self-righteous, so I'll leave it there.
Do you think we will ever find out... the truth, I mean?

Humans do not possess the capacity to understand 'the whole truth'. The best we can do us try to be as honest with ourselves and each other as we can be, and accept the relative truthfulness of whatever 'facts' we can ascertain. But many of us really don't like the idea that there is so much that we can't know. And so they turn both religion and/or science into their magical totems of overcoming our innate human ignorance, by pretending these are something that they're not: fountainheads of unquestionable truth.