"True" Science vs Science - can you comment?

Donn said:
Here endeth
the thread.
Interesting Ian
killed it dead.
He's but a simian
with an open head.



:(
Click to expand...

A*sewipe features.
 
cbish said:
Donn

I feel terrrible that your thread got hammered this way.
Click to expand...

Do you have a problem with any of my contributions???
 
Re: Re: "True" Science vs Science - can you comment?

dmarker said:
Original author
I am no conspiracy theorist - as I prefer to include as many tangible facts
within my perceptual experience of something. I am NOT interested in plain
theories and conjecture without any tangible substance (that gets nobody
anywhere). Indeed, the Evidence is what matters. [Interestingly enough,
Evidence is subjective for most people... and quite so, the 'weight of
evidence' will vary from person-to-person and society-to-society; a concept
that is NOT too foreign in the practise of Law in all civilized cultures
around our planet].


dmarker
How is evidence subjective? A fingerprint is a fingerprint. DNA is DNA, no matter where you go. An eyewitness is an eyewitness in Nebraska or Nepal.

In China, it is said that the faintest ink is better than the best memory and in the western world we agree and provide stenographers and video cameras to keep a permanant record.

And notice that he capitalizes "evidence". As if all evidence is created equal. No, it is not. A fingerprint in the victim's blood is much better evidence than a eyewitness who saw someone who looked like you twenty feet from the crime scene.
Click to expand...

All our experiences are a result of interpretation, of low level theory. It is quite clearly the case that, depending on ones background assumptions, evidence will be viewed in a differing light. So I see nothing wrong with what the original author said here.
 
Oh dear, Interesting Ian goes off on one yet again. It's a shame really, an obviously clever chap without any proof to support his position other than intellectual games.

Come on Ian, get that planet-sized brain in gear and show us just one, just one incident that is conclusive proof of the existence of the paranormal.

You claim that the evidence for life after death is compelling. I disagree; the recent tests asking those who have had "O.O.B.E.s" to determine messages written on cards which could not have been viewed otherwise have failed.

I'd be interested to know whether you turned to philosophy in an attempt to justify preconceived beliefs, or whether philosophy caused you to believe the improbable and unprovable.
 
Ian wrote:

Do you have a problem with any of my contributions???
Click to expand...

No, I just get tired of off topic petty bickering. It's not just you. There seems to be combinations of people who jump in on threads and start peeing on each others leg.:(
 
Re: Re: Re: "True" Science vs Science - can you comment?

Originally posted by
It is quite clearly the case that, depending on ones background assumptions, evidence will be viewed in a differing light.
Click to expand...
So we should be able to have, say, a feminist biology with no cells? Or, perhaps, there should be a dualist science with proof of spirits? We should also never have experienced the great classic surpises of science, should we? How does this claim possibly explain Rutherford's gold foil experiment? How does it possibly explain Margulie's discovery that mitochondria were actually separate organisms that eventually became organelles?
 
Thanks Bill, I am off to google Rutherford and Margulie!

I know that evidence is not relative (as he suggests), but good, fighting reasons why are pretty thin on my ground; hence my thanks for your examples.
Now I just gotta read up on 'em.
 
TLN said:


Exactly.

Ian, there's no "philosophy" of science that I'm aware of.
Click to expand...


Yes, you have shown your ignorance more than once already. We get it. You've never heard of the philosophy of science.

Now, care to take the time to educate yourself instead of just being hostile to Ian?

The philosophy of science is not a 'theory', it's a branch of philosophy. It considers such questions as Ian suggested. In University I took a class called "Philosophy of Science", we studied works by Kuhn, Popper, Carnap, Quine amongst others I cannot remember right now. It is a large branch of philosophy that was particularily active throughout the 20th century.

If you want to know more, google "philosophy of science".

Ian's description was one normally given. The philosophy of science discusses such questions as he gave.

Sheesh.

Adam
 
TLN said:
It's funny how you and TC can call my ignorant and tell me to take calsses...

yet neither of you can define the "philosophy" of science.

It's amusing how quickly you turn to insults (classic Ian) when backed into a corner.

Define the "philosophy" of science. TC, see if you can do this with posting links, but on your own. But don't call me ignorant if you can define your own terms.
Click to expand...

You are clearly still misuderstanding at this point. It is not a "philosophy" of science that Ian is talking about. As he's said more than once, he's talking about "philosophy of science". A chunk of philosophical studies. Just like there is epistomology, the "philosophy of knowledge", which studies theories of knowledge, justification, what makes a statement 'true', what 'true' means, etc...

You seem to be thinking that Ian is talking about there being a particular "philosophy" which "science" adheres to, this is not what he was talking about at all.

Adam
 
Donn said:
Thanks Bill, I am off to google Rutherford and Margulie!

I know that evidence is not relative (as he suggests), but good, fighting reasons why are pretty thin on my ground; hence my thanks for your examples.
Now I just gotta read up on 'em.
Click to expand...

Donn,

A correction to my typo: That should have been "Margulis." Her full name is Lynn Margulis.
 
BillHoyt said:


Donn,

A correction to my typo: That should have been "Margulis." Her full name is Lynn Margulis.
Click to expand...

Edited to add: Quite a lady, I met her many times and took a class she taught in my undergrad days.

Getting back to the philosophy of science, look up Karl Popper. I could not presennt it better myself. As for logical fallacies, http://skepdic.com is a great place to read about logic.

Oh, and anyone claiming to be something where they have no experience or education is probably more than a few cards short of a deck. Science is heavily math and logic based. Further, science builds on itself, so without education or experience, you have absolutely no clue what you are doing and will merely reinvent the wheel over and over. Just because someone can eloquently put together an article does not mean anything. Look at the content and ignore the charismatic nonsense. The same goes for politicians, and one thing they left out is that the politicians in power in a democracy are a reflection of the voters who put them there- got ignorant voters who believe some silver tongue charismatic white male who went to Harvard or Yale? Guess what, that is what you will get. So once again, the alternative crowd is avoiding any discussion of personal responsibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom