| Author | Message | ||
     Sami |
In the ''The CCP-Coronavirus Pandemic'' thread the question was raised about what science is. That may seem like an easy question, but it doesn't have an easy answer. My way of describing science is to compare it with cheese. Not just any kind of cheese, but Swiss cheese with holes everywhere. You'll understand why science is like Swiss cheese once you take a look at these articles below. The furious pace of modern research is creating a gnarly statistics problem https://massivesci.com/articles/science-truth-erro r-replication-crisis/ Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers' https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054 778 Study finds scientific reproducibility does not equate to scientific truth https://phys.org/news/2019-05-scientific-equate-tr uth.html 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift- the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970 The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science https://www.nas.org/reports/the-irreproducibility- crisis-of-modern-science/full-report How the Reproducibility Crisis in Academia is Affecting Scientific Research https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/02/09/how- the-reproducibility-crisis-in-academia-is-affectin g-scientific-research/ Scientific method: Statistical errors https://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-stat istical-errors-1.14700 The ASA Statement on p-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose https://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00 031305.2016.1154108 Half of the Facts You Know Are Probably Wrong https://reason.com/2012/10/02/half-of-the-facts-yo u-know-are-probably/ Study delivers bleak verdict on validity of psychology experiment results https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/st udy-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psycholo gy-experiment-results A Massive Hoax Exposes Social Justice in Academia (Full Interview) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97FuO-hEhQo Academics expose corruption in Grievance Studies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVk9a5Jcd1k | ||
| Blake |
That's a reading and video list everyone who admires or even just respects "science" today ought to twice review. Thanks for sharing that. "Science" has become a cult of worship among our popular culture. Just get yourself graduated with a PhD and call yourself a "scientist" and behold the respect paid to you concerning whatever topic you might care to comment upon. Evidence? We don't need evidence, we only require consensus. Dare to challenge us? We will ruin you. We are sciency sciencers of the scientism of science. A couple more to add: Why most published research is wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q The Bayesian Trap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R13BD8qKeTg The Illusion of Truth: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cebFWOlx848 (Message edited by blake on April 04, 2020) | ||
| Hootowl |
Science is a process. Hypothesis, test, invalidate, or prove and repeat. Lots of science still going on. Then there are the pseudosciences. Atmospheric science consists of almost entirely observation and theory. We cannot test because we do not have a lab the size of the earth. Geology is also one of these. It is a consensus field of study, not true science. Lots of good work being done, and lots of evidence for the conclusions, but since no repeatable experiments can be performed, say, on the formation and breakup of the three (they think) supercontinents that earth has experienced since the impact (they think) that remade the surface of the earth and formed the moon, it’s not science, it’s just observation and consensus. | ||
| Sami |
Blake, science has become a cult of worship. I hesitate to call it a religion, because I don't want to give religion a bad name. Pseudo-religion, perhaps. I know you're critical of evolution as I am, so I don't think you'll be surprised to know that even atheists such as Michael Ruse admit that it's a religion: ''Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish [Duane T. Gish the Creation Scientist] is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.'' Michael Ruse, "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3. Hootowl, the scientific consensus is where the rubber meets the road. Only two kinds of people dare to question the consensus: Truth seekers and masochists. Scientists and their fan base will come down on you with a ton of bricks if you dare to question their authority or consensus. You mention science being a process. Technically, almost everything is a process, so almost everything is science. The problem with that, as you have mentioned, is that many processes are not testable or reproducible. This is part of the reproducibility crisis and it's quite a big problem facing science right now. It's not the only problem, but certainly one that has many scientists worried and rightfully so. This crisis of reproducibility has brought to light one of the Achilles' heel of modern science. (Message edited by Sami on April 04, 2020) | ||
| Hootowl |
Need I say that all science is a process but not all processes are science? Your reasoning on that is faulty. | ||
| Sami |
Hootowl, my reasoning would be faulty only if I was arguing that all processes are science. I was not arguing for that. Instead, I am referring to the reported processes in the scientific literature allegedly being reproducible. Many of the processes that are alleged to be reproducible in the scientific literature are not reproducible after all. See the articles on the reproducibility crisis for more. Here is my reasoning (simplified): 1. If the scientific literature is right, then the reported processes are reproducible. 2. The reported processes are not reproducible. 3. Therefore, the scientific literature is wrong. This follows the modus tollens rule of inference. | ||
| Hootowl |
I agree completely. This threw me: “Technically, almost everything is a process, so almost everything is science.” That’s just not the case. | ||
| Sami |
Hootowl, in what sense is that not the case? Take for example riding a bike. Riding a bike is a process, but it is also a reproducible process. Does that make riding a bike a science? | ||
| Hootowl |
Your bicycle example proves my point. Not all processes are science. Your assertion was that science is a process, so all processes are science. That is a logical fallacy. | ||
| Sami |
Hootowl, You're confusing two things here. One is regarding the nature of science (''what is science'') the other is regarding the nature of the reproducibility crisis. My bike example is with regard to the nature of science. If science is a process, then it is valid to ask whether X (for example, riding a bike) is science. I have not asserted that all processes are science, so I have not proven your point. Basically my question is, what are the criteria for science? Reproducibility is one criteria that you mentioned, which is why I used the bike example. | ||
| Hootowl |
Riding a bicycle is not science. You’ve not discovered and proven something previously unknown. Once something is known, the application of it is simply math or physics. Engineering is a prime example of the application of previous discoveries. But I think you’re missing my point. You said nearly all science is a process, so nearly all processes are science. That’s simply not the case, and is a logical fallacy. However, I have no disagreement with you about the sad state of science today regarding the repeatability of experiments. | ||
| Sami |
Someone first rode a bike, just as someone first invented the wheel, previously unknown. There's a first time for everything, including riding a bike. We agree that engineering is the practical application of knowledge. Although, knowledge in this case doesn't have to be coming from science, because engineering is not limited to science. For example, the discovery of the wheel may not have been science/scientific. The wheel could have been a coincidence, or given to us by aliens or whatever. The point being that science is not the only venue of knowledge, practical or otherwise. It's still not clear what logical fallacy you have in mind. Remember that we're still asking the question, ''What is science?''. The process of riding a bike may or may not be ''science'' depending on what we mean by that word. | ||
| Hootowl |
All mice are rodents, but not all rodents are mice. By the same token, all science is a process, not all processes are science. Your contention to the contrary is a logical fallacy. | ||
| Sami |
Hootowl, That fallacy doesn't apply here, because I haven't said that all processes are science. It may be the case to define ''science'' in such a broad way as to have almost every process become science. What sets ''science'' apart from other processes is the crucial question here. If you ask me, that question may not have a clear cut answer. | ||
| Hootowl |
My apologies. You said nearly all processes are science. It’s just as wrong, though. | ||
| Sami |
Hootowl, it's not just as wrong, because it's no longer a fallacy. Science also means: ''1.3 archaic Knowledge of any kind.'' https://www.lexico.com/definition/science Nearly all processes give us knowledge of some kind, therefore nearly all processes are science. Given this, riding a bike is science, because it gives us knowledge. When you ride a bike you gain knowledge about your condition, knowledge about the condition of your bike, etc. Engineering also is science, because engineering provides us with knowledge of a kind. Of course, we can narrow down the definition of science to only hypothesising, testing, validating and repeating and so on. When we do this, we find the reproducibility crisis in science. Science in this sense is in a crisis. | ||
| Aesquire |
If you get real bored...  we have a science thread that has hit most of the high spots on fraud. I also post new or unusual science news, but the original title refers to both GOT ( the tv series, not a misspelling of The Deity ) and the Climate Con. I won't bore you further, beyond asserting that the Scientific Method is a tool of great value. The dividing line between science and philosophy ( or religion ) is that in science you propose a theory, a guess on how reality works, then try to prove it wrong. If you can, then the theory is false, reset & make another guess. Philosophy has no "prove it wrong" step. Or intent! That's also the case for Economics, Religion, and many of the "soft sciences", that aren't sciences at all, but schools of thought based on faith or reason, not facts. | ||
| Sami |
Aesquire, certainly there's a lot of fraud within climate change science. The scientific method has a limited value, it's not the be-all and end-all of things. The supposed value of the scientific method lies mainly in testing ideas, something that philosophy and religion are criticised for to be lacking. However, to test those ideas scientists have to be able to duplicate the proposed experiments. The reproducibility crisis in science shows that often those experiments cannot be duplicated, hence those ideas cannot be tested. Ironically, this renders much of the scientific literature no better than philosophy, or economics, or other ''soft sciences''. In fact, this renders much of the scientific literature no better than flipping a coin! Science is not scientific https://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/06/science-is-not -scientific.html Coin flips are more reliable than science https://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/09/coin-flips-are -more-reliable-than.html Oh, I don't find this boring  (Message edited by Sami on April 05, 2020) | ||
| Blake |
Patrick, Philosophy is proved wrong through formal logical analyses and argument. Find a logical fallacy, prove an argument fallacious. We've conversed about the science vs philosophy relationship before. You can't have or do science without philosophy. Philosophy is the foundational basis for science, for without assuming at least five different philosophical axioms, science is wrecked. 1) the universal and eternal laws of logic 2) the existence of objective truth 3) the accuracy of human powers of observation 4) the validity of human reasoning 5) the reality of the past And undergirding all of that is God. No God means no objective truth, no knowledge, no valid human reasoning, and so no science. To know anything, you have to either know everything, or have revelation from someone who does. Cause otherwise, something that you don't know might contradict something that you think you know. You know? | ||
| Blake |
Jeff and Patrick: Scientific methodology cannot prove anything true, not in the strict philosophical sense. It can be used to prove something false, but not true. | ||
| Hootowl |
No argument from me, Blake. I don’t believe I’ve argued otherwise. | ||
| Aesquire |
But...but... Didn't science prove that Global... Oh, nevermind. Blake... Don't recall I argued otherwise either. ... Method is a tool of great value. The dividing line between science and philosophy ( or religion ) is that in science you propose a theory, a guess on how reality works, then try to prove it wrong. If you can, then the theory is false, reset & make another guess. Sami, sure you need the philosophy that there is objective reality to properly use the tool of the scientific method. | ||
| Aesquire |
I don't claim to be a "scientist", and I'm an amateur engineer, ( took classes but didn't graduate with the degree ) but occasionally have played engineer. Not always successfully. But I've built 3 ( admittedly cheap and limited ) flying machines and helped design one of those, and all left the ground with me as pilot, and I'm still here. ( their returning to the Earth is assumed.. ) | ||
| Aesquire |
To briefly return to religion, I was exposed to the Jesuit fallacy that being unprovable was proof of God's existence. My insistence that is circular reasoning did not make me popular with the Yet I do not argue that the gods don't exist. Or God, singular, exclusive, unique, as some prefer to believe. But such belief is without proof in a scientific sense. I can easily parrot the arguments of the atheists, but they require as much faith as to believe. Pascal's Wager! Aka hedge your bets! | ||
| Sami |
Blake, those 5 philosophical axioms are indeed prerequisites to do science. It's safe to say that most scientists are poor philosophers. There are exceptions, such as Werner Heisenberg who said: “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” Most scientists take the first gulp and declare that God is dead. They don't have the courage of their convictions to drink the whole glass to the bottom where God resides. | ||
| Sami |
''Sami, sure you need the philosophy that there is objective reality to properly use the tool of the scientific method.'' Definitely. However, many scientists are not well-versed in philosophy to realise that. You may recall Stephen Hawking who claimed that philosophy is dead. And he was one of the ''brightest'' scientists of all time, supposedly. He also said that the universe created itself from nothing. The tool of the scientific method is as good as the person using it. If the person using it is philosophically ignorant, or even worse, philosophically arrogant, then the tool loses its edge and becomes dull. We need to have the right tool for the right job for the right person. No matter how sharp the tool is, it becomes useless in the wrong hands and for the wrong job. The scientific method stands or falls by philosophy. | ||
| Blake |
Jeff and Patrick, Just let me win my straw man arguments, and we'll be fine.  Me no read good. Hey Patrick, what's wrong with a circular argument? We express the speed of light in terms of meters, the definition of which is based on the speed of light.  | ||
| Hootowl |
Not quite. C is how for it travels in 1 second. The unit of measurement could be anything, and it would still travel at that speed. The speed of light and its wavelength at a given frequency is fixed. One of those frequencies has a wavelength of one meter. I don’t see that as circular. | ||
| Aesquire |
Ah! A subject I'm a legitimate professional or at least an informed & educamated jerk on! The Meter WAS defined as a fraction of the Earth's circumference at the equator. It was wrong, but fairly close. There's a platinum bar in Paris ( a set, really ) and copies in D.C., Greenwich, etc. that Only much later did they redefine length as a certain arbitrary wavelength of light times an arbitrary multiplier. ( not one meter! That would be completely circular ) So, yeah! Circular... ( circumference ) and redefined. They also changed the inch from a now defunct 25.xXxX millimeters to exactly 25.4. Originally the inch was based on some now long dead King's thumb. Then X# of barleycorns, averaged, and lined up neatly, then a stick in a vault.... | ||
| Aesquire |
Now defining the Second! Which you need to define the frequency. To define length. ( volume, etc. Ad infinitum........) So... If you measure time by how long it takes a straw man to fall a certain distance into a carousel... You are measuring time by distance & distance by time. Using gravity, which is DESCRIBED by time & distance & force... Force is defined by distance, time, and gravity. And a horse. And gravity is not yet understood, just described. AS........ And at this point the logical fallacy of appeal to irrelevant authority is cited... (Message edited by Aesquire on April 07, 2020) |
