3 ms·

Try this. This is a particularly good one. Science is definitely not a consensus of observations. It is a systematic effort to unveil what is. http://oyc.yale.

• iaw 10y ago
  I'm not asking you to send me a resource that has led you to your current conclusions. I'm asking that you formulate an argument that I can read that will make me believe that your arguments are well-formulated here. You made a very strong statement and I think that if you could logically justify it in written form it would be a valuable contribution to the thread.
  • lngnmn 10y ago
    I could only try to clarify the same principles a bit more. Non-falsifiable and non empirically verified hypothesis does not amount for a science and constitutes a set of beliefs similar to religion among a community of its followers. As long as there is absolutely no way to reliably test or even measure, leave alone empirically validate anything, this set of beliefs is technically is a non-science and should be explicitly named as mere speculation. My first comment was the claim that what we deal with is a socially constructed phenomena, similar to a religious belief or a mass-hysteria because it is a) cannot be tested and b) constructed by a certain social group. Technically, I do not see any contradiction in my claim.