What do You Think Science is...

[Sheldon]

Do you not understand what the word "conclude" means? It means done, finished, over with, completed, no more effort required, no need for any further inquiry.

Is that what you going to do here again, resort to semantics and sophistry? You'll be telling us they're "just theories" next. In this context it does not mean that at all.

Conclusion
noun

1. the end or finish of an event, process, or text.
   
   
2. a judgement or decision reached by reasoning.

Clearly in a scientific context a conclusion means the secondary definition and not the first. Anyone with even the most basic grasp of the methods of science knows, that an essential component is that all scientific conclusions must remain tentative and open to revision in the light of new evidence, no matter how unlikely that is. So you're just wrong here.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Science is about believing ideas only when solid, repeatable, predictable evidence exists to support the idea.

And then when science is wrong make excuses and continue to rely on and make decisions based on “the science”. It’s like twister up in here, science
today reminds me of Jim Jones Koolaid drinkers.

 

[PureX]

... a judgement or decision reached by reasoning.

Exactly why it's unnecessary and even detrimental to the practice of science. Science is a process that tests whether or not a theory we have developed about physical functionality functions when it's applied to the physical world. And once this experiment has occurred, and the results are observed, they simply stand as they are. And from them we then either hold onto our preconceived theory, we drop it (as it didn't function as predicted) or we alter it according to the results. There is no more need for "making decisions" or for applying "reasoning" in the practice of science then there is in any other aspect of life, or human endeavor. Artists make decisions and apply reasoning. Priests make decisions and apply reasoning. Everyone makes decisions and apply reasoning. It's just what we humans do from one moment and situation to the next.

But the whole point of doing science is to minimize the bias that comes along with our "making decisions" and "applying reasoning". It's why science is all and only about testing our theories, physically, to see if they actually work. And even when they do work within the context of the experiment we've set up, we do not presume that to mean anything more than it is. We are free to speculate on what the results might be telling us about reality. And to alter or generate new theories, accordingly. But only so as to be tested, further. There are no "conclusions" in the scientific endeavor. It's is always ongoing. Always seeking to test the functionality of the next theory.

The 'scientism' crown can't accept this. Because for them, science is the fountainhead of the truth of existence. It is the doorway to absolute knowledge (righteousness). And so it MUST be able to render "conclusions". Rendering unassailable conclusions is what makes science sacred to the 'scientism' cult. It's how they generate and maintain their imagined intellectual superiority over everyone else, and how they are able to pretend that they're not trapped within the profound ignorance of the human condition.

And it's why this 'scientism' cult is a mirror image of the religious fundimentalists that do the very same thing with their sacred texts.

 

[lukethethird]

It makes a difference in exactly the same way a religious fundamentalist philosophical paradigm makes a difference. Both are a deliberate denial of the limits of the human condition in favor of fantasies that give us falsely presumed access to the 'whole truth'. And whenever we humans are determined to engage in such dishonesty and self-agrandizing thinking, we become antagonists to both reality and truth. We deny the truth of who and what we are, and of what we are not.

Doing this has consequences. And they are almost always bad. Because when we deny the limitations of the human condition, through false religiosity, or 'scientism', we deny our own humanity in the process.

Who said anything about scientism and who said anything about looking for 'whole truth'? You are worked up over nothing.

 

[icehorse]

And then when science is wrong make excuses and continue to rely on and make decisions based on “the science”. It’s like twister up in here, science
today reminds me of Jim Jones Koolaid drinkers.

Got any examples of that? In my experience scientists are generally quite humble, and more than willing to abandon old ideas if new evidence suggests that the old ideas were wrong.

Compare this to most religion, which pretends to know answers to questions it doesn't have answers to, AND clings to the barbaric and primitive teachings found in dusty old books that are thousands of years old.

 

[Sheldon]

And then when science is wrong make excuses and continue to rely on and make decisions based on “the science”. It’s like twister up in here, science
today reminds me of Jim Jones Koolaid drinkers.

Errant nonsense, I can only hope you're being deliberately disingenuous.

 

[Sheldon]

Exactly why it's unnecessary and even detrimental to the practice of science. Science is a process that tests whether or not a theory we have developed about physical functionality functions when it's applied to the physical world. And once this experiment has occurred, and the results are observed, they simply stand as they are. And from them we then either hold onto our preconceived theory, we drop it (as it didn't function as predicted) or we alter it according to the results. There is no more need for "making decisions" or for applying "reasoning" in the practice of science then there is in any other aspect of life, or human endeavor. Artists make decisions and apply reasoning. Priests make decisions and apply reasoning. Everyone makes decisions and apply reasoning. It's just what we humans do from one moment and situation to the next.

But the whole point of doing science is to minimize the bias that comes along with our "making decisions" and "applying reasoning". It's why science is all and only about testing our theories, physically, to see if they actually work. And even when they do work within the context of the experiment we've set up, we do not presume that to mean anything more than it is. We are free to speculate on what the results might be telling us about reality. And to alter or generate new theories, accordingly. But only so as to be tested, further. There are no "conclusions" in the scientific endeavor. It's is always ongoing. Always seeking to test the functionality of the next theory.

The 'scientism' crown can't accept this. Because for them, science is the fountainhead of the truth of existence. It is the doorway to absolute knowledge (righteousness). And so it MUST be able to render "conclusions". Rendering unassailable conclusions is what makes science sacred to the 'scientism' cult. It's how they generate and maintain their imagined intellectual superiority over everyone else, and how they are able to pretend that they're not trapped within the profound ignorance of the human condition.

And it's why this 'scientism' cult is a mirror image of the religious fundimentalists that do the very same thing with their sacred texts.

Science involves reaching conclusions, but these are not absolutes as you have suggested, and as I have explained it is a basic requirement of the method that those conclusions, like all scientific ideas, remain tentative, and open to revision in the light of new evidence, no matter how unlikely that is. None of this remotely involves scientism.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Got any examples of that? In my experience scientists are generally quite humble, and more than willing to abandon old ideas if new evidence suggests that the old ideas were wrong.

Compare this to most religion, which pretends to know answers to questions it doesn't have answers to, AND clings to the barbaric and primitive teachings found in dusty old books that are thousands of years old.

The science said Covid vaccines were going to stop transmission and the spread of Covid and they don’t, that changed very fast.
Darwin's theory of evolution has had big changes over the years.
The signs about global warming and how this land will be under water by such and such Year and that year has come and gone and no change.

 

[lukethethird]

Exactly why it's unnecessary and even detrimental to the practice of science. Science is a process that tests whether or not a theory we have developed about physical functionality functions when it's applied to the physical world. And once this experiment has occurred, and the results are observed, they simply stand as they are. And from them we then either hold onto our preconceived theory, we drop it (as it didn't function as predicted) or we alter it according to the results. There is no more need for "making decisions" or for applying "reasoning" in the practice of science then there is in any other aspect of life, or human endeavor. Artists make decisions and apply reasoning. Priests make decisions and apply reasoning. Everyone makes decisions and apply reasoning. It's just what we humans do from one moment and situation to the next.

But the whole point of doing science is to minimize the bias that comes along with our "making decisions" and "applying reasoning". It's why science is all and only about testing our theories, physically, to see if they actually work. And even when they do work within the context of the experiment we've set up, we do not presume that to mean anything more than it is. We are free to speculate on what the results might be telling us about reality. And to alter or generate new theories, accordingly. But only so as to be tested, further. There are no "conclusions" in the scientific endeavor. It's is always ongoing. Always seeking to test the functionality of the next theory.

The 'scientism' crown can't accept this. Because for them, science is the fountainhead of the truth of existence. It is the doorway to absolute knowledge (righteousness). And so it MUST be able to render "conclusions". Rendering unassailable conclusions is what makes science sacred to the 'scientism' cult. It's how they generate and maintain their imagined intellectual superiority over everyone else, and how they are able to pretend that they're not trapped within the profound ignorance of the human condition.

And it's why this 'scientism' cult is a mirror image of the religious fundimentalists that do the very same thing with their sacred texts.

The doorway to absolute knowledge? There is no such thing as absolute knowledge. Rendering unassailable conclusions? Again, on what planet? Get a grip of youself.

 

[Sheldon]

The science said Covid vaccines were going to stop transmission and the spread of Covid and they don’t, that changed very fast.

That sounds like a dubious claim to me, I remember reading an article about the Oxford team, and the vaccine they were developing, and even during the clinical trials, they knew and stated quite clearly it was not a guarantee against catching the virus, but not one cased during the clinical trials became critical after catching it, that had and has huge ramifications, and for pretty obvious reasons.

Darwin's theory of evolution has had big changes over the years.

The core of Darwin's theory, species evolution and natural selection remain accepted scientific facts, the amazing thing is how much Darwin got right first time. Maybe you could explain half a dozen of these "big changes" for us?

The signs about global warming and how this land will be under water by such and such Year and that year has come and gone and no change.

Now you're just making up nonsense.

 

[PureX]

Science involves reaching conclusions, but these are not absolutes as you have suggested...

The very word "conclusion" implies an absolute (the end). The whole reason you are arguing about this is because you really want science to ratify your own 'conclusions'. That's what the cult of scientism is all about. But real science is just a process. It neither requires nor generates any 'conclusions'. It's just a process for testing the physical functionality of theories about physical functionality.

 

[lukethethird]

The very word "conclusion" implies an absolute (the end). The whole reason you are arguing about this is because you really want science to ratify your own 'conclusions'. That's what the cult of scientism is all about. But real science is just a process. It neither requires nor generates any 'conclusions'. It's just a process for testing the physical functionality of theories about physical functionality.

Absolutes don't exist, you're swinging at non-existent fantasies swirling about in your own head. I suggest taking a deep breath and looking outside at the trees for a moment and this will all go away.

 

[PureX]

Absolutes don't exist, you're swinging at non-existent fantasies swirling about in your own head.

Of course they exist, as ideas. We don't know if they exist as an actuality because we are limited and finite beings. But they may. You should think a little more before making such pronouncements.

 

[icehorse]

The science said Covid vaccines were going to stop transmission and the spread of Covid and they don’t, that changed very fast.

I can't imagine a well regarded scientist saying any such thing.

Darwin's theory of evolution has had big changes over the years.

I think you're making my argument for me! Science is humble. If new evidence is found, old ideas can be revised or abandoned. One way we could look at the PROCESS of science is that at any given time, science is challenging the best known theories to see if they hold up, and changing them if they don't.

The signs about global warming and how this land will be under water by such and such Year and that year has come and gone and no change.

No credible scientist has ever claimed to be able to absolutely accurately predict the future. Even the best weathermen struggle to predict the timing of weather events even a few days into the future. So it could be that some predictions concerning how quickly sea levels will rise have been wrong. But it IS clear that the sea level is rising. And it's fairly simple math to predict HOW MUCH sea levels will rise if Greenland's glaciers melt and how much more they will rise if Antarctica's glaciers melt.

If you don't think sea levels are rising, do some internet searching on the small island nations in the Pacific and Indian oceans that are being inundated.

 

[lukethethird]

Of course they exist, as ideas. We don't know if they exist as an actuality because we are limited and finite beings. But they may. You should think a little more before making such pronouncements.

I am not the the one here making pronouncements. You are the one rambling on about whole truths and absolutes, unassailable conclusions, scientism, and on and on. You see the words science and conclusion in a sentence and cry scientism as if that is supposed to mean something to anyone besides you. If you want to do away with reason and live by faith I say go for it, knock yourself out.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I think you're making my argument for me! Science is humble. If new evidence is found, old ideas can be revised or abandoned. One way we could look at the PROCESS of science is that at any given time, science is challenging the best known theories to see if they hold up, and changing them if they don't.

In other words science is fallible and people shouldn’t trust and base their lives off that because they are just that, tested theories that change or are abandoned.

 

[ElishaElijah]

The core of Darwin's theory, species evolution and natural selection remain accepted scientific facts, the amazing thing is how much Darwin got right first time. Maybe you could explain half a dozen of these "big changes" for us?

The meaning of evolution has changed over the years since origin of life cannot be determined by any scientific method, the missing link is still missing, the question of how life originated according to science doesn’t work out.

 

[Sheldon]

The very word "conclusion" implies an absolute (the end).

No it doesn't, the word conclusion has more than one definition, and in a scientific context it is not the one you are doggedly insisting it is.

Conclusion
noun
1. the end or finish of an event, process, or text.
2. a judgement or decision reached by reasoning.

When we talk about scientists reaching conclusions, they clearly mean the secondary definition, as has been explained, all scientific conclusions no matter how well evidenced, must remain a tentative, this is an essential requirement of the method.

The whole reason you are arguing about this is because you really want science to ratify your own 'conclusions'.

Even for you that is preposterous nonsense. How on earth can any conclusions I reach about anything be ratified by science, and to what end?

That's what the cult of scientism is all about.

If you say so, I can't help but notice you're wielding the accusation like a weapon, from thread to thread, and use it to attack anyone who dares disagree with you. I find it rather amusing anyway.

real science is just a process. It neither requires nor generates any 'conclusions'.

It is a process, and that process involves conclusions. I even linked several scientific publications listing conclusions Darwin, Newton and Einstein had reached. You just waved them away of course.

It's just a process for testing the physical functionality of theories about physical functionality.

Which sometimes supports conclusions. This ludicrous claim was pretty funny when you made it, it's getting ever more hilarious the more you try to defend it.

"Einstein concluded that simultaneity is not absolute, or in other words, that simultaneous events as seen by one observer could occur at different times from the perspective of another. It's not lightspeed that changes, he realized, but time itself that is relative."

"A conclusion is a statement based on experimental measurements and observations. It includes a summary of the results, whether or not the hypothesis was supported, the significance of the study, and future research."

 

[Sheldon]

The meaning of evolution has changed over the years since origin of life cannot be determined by any scientific method, the missing link is still missing,

Oh your god, missing link, seriously? That's just hilarious.

the question of how life originated according to science doesn’t work out.

What on earth are you talking about? Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life? You should stop making sweeping claims on a topic if you haven't even the most basic understanding of it. Dear oh dear, you'll be saying it's just a theory next. Missing link, good grief, no one who has any grasp of evolution uses that canard anymore.

"missing link, hypothetical extinct creature halfway in the evolutionary line between modern human beings and their anthropoid progenitors. In the latter half of the 19th century, a common misinterpretation of Charles Darwin's work was that humans were lineally descended from existing species of apes."

 

[Quagmire]

Science is a demonic conspiracy created by Satan to keep people from finding out that Jesus rode a valociraptor.