4 ms·

> That's because scientists don't have time for philosophical debates about resolved issues. How about I go poll about 20 working scientists tomorrow whether t

> That's because scientists don't have time for philosophical debates about resolved issues. How about I go poll about 20 working scientists tomorrow whether they seek truth or not, and get back to you? You know, real scientists, the kind who have PhD's (i.e., credentials) and get paid to make discoveries? > I saw no point in refuting all your incorrect arguments once by one. An education would have done this, but that's clearly lacking. Clearly. I'll go demand my money back.

lutusp 14y ago
> I'll go demand my money back. That won't work. MIT did their part, but as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. But since you haven't tried to defend your claim that science is a search for truth, let me do it for you. Let's say for the sake of argument that science is a search for truth. Science, in the modern sense, has existed for about 300 years, but it hasn't uncovered any truths yet. So why do people continue to support such a complete failure? If science was a machine meant to uncover truths, it would have been scrapped along ago. Prove me wrong. Identify a truth that science has uncovered. To save time, I'll propose an example -- evolution, a very well-supported scientific theory. Is evolution now true? Let's assume that it is. But if so, that means all the working evolutionary biologists are cheating their granting agencies and should be tried for fraud. Do you see where this is going? There are no truths in science, but that is not at all surprising, because truth is not the goal of science. This, by the way, is how I reply to religious fundamentalists who say that science is just a bunch of theories, and no final truths -- that is correct, and it is by design, not by accident. > You know, real scientists, the kind who have PhD's (i.e., credentials) ... Where do you get these ideas? Science is not about credentials, it is about evidence. Were this not so, Einstein, the un-degreed patent clerk, would not have been published in 1905. But as it happens, he was published. The reason? He sent his work to scientists like himself, people who care about substance.
- nessus42 14y ago
  > Where do you get these ideas? Science is not about credentials, it is about evidence. Is it your assertion that science is not at all about scientists? The vast majority of scientists have serious credentials, and, in fact virtually all job openings for scientists require these credentials. As for Einstein, he had a PhD at the time that four of his Annus Mirabilis papers were published, though it is not that uncommon for PhD students to also have papers published. In science fields these days, however, their professors would typically be coauthors, whether they actually had anything to do with the research or not. There are, of course exceptions. As for science not being about credentials, of course it is not about them. Credentials are just one of the many tools that are used for getting the job done. > Prove me wrong. Identify a truth that science has uncovered. It is oh so easy to prove you wrong! Here I go: In five seconds when I drop this pen, it will fall from my fingers to the ground. I can even accurately predict the velocity with which it will hit the ground, and the amount of heat that will be produced as a consequence. Here I go.... There I was correct. Science gave me a truth. There are millions more where that came from. As for evolution, yes evolution is true. Just because I can't prove something to a logical certainty does not make it not true. In fact, that's just Philosophy 101. Knowledge does not require provability; it only requires justified true belief. (There are some caveats with "justified true belief", but I'm sure that philosophers will have that worked out sometime in the next few millennia. In the meantime, that definition of knowledge works well enough for me and for all the scientists that I've chatted with about the subject.) As to there still being details to be worked out, that doesn't detract from trueness. If I have a clock and I say that it correctly tells the time within plus or minus one minute, if the clock does live up to that claim, then my theory that I can use it to measure time is true. With that theory, and my working clock, I will always know the time plus or minus one minute. None of this contradicts the fact that I might desire to own a clock that will tell me the correct time, plus or minus 30 seconds, or 10 seconds, or 10 milliseconds, or 10 microseconds. Better theories and better equipment allow me to produce more precise facts. Less precise facts are still facts. Edit: I will admit that one might typically not use the word "true" to describe a theory, which is a model, except for ones that we have extreme confidence in, such as gravity, QM, and evolution. If we do use the term "true" for theories of lesser confidence, then we are using the term "true" in the sense of a true compass rather than a true proposition. We might more typically use the term "accurate". But an accurate theory is "accurate" specifically because it produces true propositions with high reliability. Additionally, we can also rephrase any accurate theory to be a true proposition by stating it something like so: "We will be using a scientific model, which we will describe as follows: .... This model lets us make predictions with an accuracy given by the following statistics, and the following caveats: ....
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > Is it your assertion that science is not at all about scientists? What are you going on about? I never said that science isn't about scientists, I said it isn't about authority. Do try to read before inventing positions for the other person. > As for Einstein, he had a PhD at the time that four of his Annus Mirabilis papers were published False. Check your history. > In five seconds when I drop this pen, it will fall from my fingers to the ground. I said a scientific truth, not a single observation. You haven't the slightest idea what "truth" means. Science requires more than one data point, and it also requires an explanation, and you certainly are not qualified to explain why your pencil takes the path it does. And were all that not so, gravity would still suffer from being a provisional set of ideas that are incompatible with quantum, another very well-supported theory. I understand this is all outside your education. > As for evolution, yes evolution is true. Evolution is a scientific theory, it is not true now, and it will never be true. Were this not the case, if evolution had been declare true, then all those evolutionary biologists could be sued for fraud. The reason? They are still working out evolutionary theory, the theory that you think represents truth. > As to there still being details to be worked out, that doesn't detract from trueness. Jesus Christ! This proves that you have no idea what "true" means, with respect to science. Why do you think scientists insist that what they craft are called "theories"? Science requires falsifiability -- this is so everywhere, and it is not a debate topic. Because science requires falsifiability, there are no truths in science, because truths cannot be falsified -- that property is reserved to theories. Source: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability Quote: "Falsifiability is the ability of a theory—a working framework for explaining and predicting natural phenomena—to be disproved by an experiment or observation. The ability to evaluate theories against observations is essential to the scientific method, and as such, the falsifiability of theories is key to this and is the prime test for whether a proposition or theory can be described as scientific." Couldn't have said it better myself.
    - nessus42 14y ago
      Falsifiable does not mean not true. And even if one does not wish to apply the term "true" to theories, this does not imply that scientists do not seek truth. They most certainly seek theories that make true predictions, and in this manner they are seeking truth. (And finding it very successfully, I might add.) It is you who apparently have no solid education, nor much exposure to actual scientists. If you want to become educated, perhaps you should read this book, written by a scientist and endorsed by Dawkins, another scientist. It's called "Why Evolution is True": http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/a-nod-from-dawkins/ http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/a-nod-fro... Or if you want a quicker education, watch this three minute video, where Richard Dawkins says these sage words: "What science is about is finding what is true in the real world": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TOsfBSuqdk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TOsfBSuqdk I'm sure that you're a smart guy, but you are also a condescending ignoramus.

lutusp 14y ago

> I'll go demand my money back. That won't work. MIT did their part, but as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. But since you haven't tried to defend your claim that science is a search for truth, let me do it for you. Let's say for the sake of argument that science is a search for truth. Science, in the modern sense, has existed for about 300 years, but it hasn't uncovered any truths yet. So why do people continue to support such a complete failure? If science was a machine meant to uncover truths, it would have been scrapped along ago. Prove me wrong. Identify a truth that science has uncovered. To save time, I'll propose an example -- evolution, a very well-supported scientific theory. Is evolution now true? Let's assume that it is. But if so, that means all the working evolutionary biologists are cheating their granting agencies and should be tried for fraud. Do you see where this is going? There are no truths in science, but that is not at all surprising, because truth is not the goal of science. This, by the way, is how I reply to religious fundamentalists who say that science is just a bunch of theories, and no final truths -- that is correct, and it is by design, not by accident. > You know, real scientists, the kind who have PhD's (i.e., credentials) ... Where do you get these ideas? Science is not about credentials, it is about evidence. Were this not so, Einstein, the un-degreed patent clerk, would not have been published in 1905. But as it happens, he was published. The reason? He sent his work to scientists like himself, people who care about substance.

nessus42 14y ago
> Where do you get these ideas? Science is not about credentials, it is about evidence. Is it your assertion that science is not at all about scientists? The vast majority of scientists have serious credentials, and, in fact virtually all job openings for scientists require these credentials. As for Einstein, he had a PhD at the time that four of his Annus Mirabilis papers were published, though it is not that uncommon for PhD students to also have papers published. In science fields these days, however, their professors would typically be coauthors, whether they actually had anything to do with the research or not. There are, of course exceptions. As for science not being about credentials, of course it is not about them. Credentials are just one of the many tools that are used for getting the job done. > Prove me wrong. Identify a truth that science has uncovered. It is oh so easy to prove you wrong! Here I go: In five seconds when I drop this pen, it will fall from my fingers to the ground. I can even accurately predict the velocity with which it will hit the ground, and the amount of heat that will be produced as a consequence. Here I go.... There I was correct. Science gave me a truth. There are millions more where that came from. As for evolution, yes evolution is true. Just because I can't prove something to a logical certainty does not make it not true. In fact, that's just Philosophy 101. Knowledge does not require provability; it only requires justified true belief. (There are some caveats with "justified true belief", but I'm sure that philosophers will have that worked out sometime in the next few millennia. In the meantime, that definition of knowledge works well enough for me and for all the scientists that I've chatted with about the subject.) As to there still being details to be worked out, that doesn't detract from trueness. If I have a clock and I say that it correctly tells the time within plus or minus one minute, if the clock does live up to that claim, then my theory that I can use it to measure time is true. With that theory, and my working clock, I will always know the time plus or minus one minute. None of this contradicts the fact that I might desire to own a clock that will tell me the correct time, plus or minus 30 seconds, or 10 seconds, or 10 milliseconds, or 10 microseconds. Better theories and better equipment allow me to produce more precise facts. Less precise facts are still facts. Edit: I will admit that one might typically not use the word "true" to describe a theory, which is a model, except for ones that we have extreme confidence in, such as gravity, QM, and evolution. If we do use the term "true" for theories of lesser confidence, then we are using the term "true" in the sense of a true compass rather than a true proposition. We might more typically use the term "accurate". But an accurate theory is "accurate" specifically because it produces true propositions with high reliability. Additionally, we can also rephrase any accurate theory to be a true proposition by stating it something like so: "We will be using a scientific model, which we will describe as follows: .... This model lets us make predictions with an accuracy given by the following statistics, and the following caveats: ....
- lutusp 14y ago
  > Is it your assertion that science is not at all about scientists? What are you going on about? I never said that science isn't about scientists, I said it isn't about authority. Do try to read before inventing positions for the other person. > As for Einstein, he had a PhD at the time that four of his Annus Mirabilis papers were published False. Check your history. > In five seconds when I drop this pen, it will fall from my fingers to the ground. I said a scientific truth, not a single observation. You haven't the slightest idea what "truth" means. Science requires more than one data point, and it also requires an explanation, and you certainly are not qualified to explain why your pencil takes the path it does. And were all that not so, gravity would still suffer from being a provisional set of ideas that are incompatible with quantum, another very well-supported theory. I understand this is all outside your education. > As for evolution, yes evolution is true. Evolution is a scientific theory, it is not true now, and it will never be true. Were this not the case, if evolution had been declare true, then all those evolutionary biologists could be sued for fraud. The reason? They are still working out evolutionary theory, the theory that you think represents truth. > As to there still being details to be worked out, that doesn't detract from trueness. Jesus Christ! This proves that you have no idea what "true" means, with respect to science. Why do you think scientists insist that what they craft are called "theories"? Science requires falsifiability -- this is so everywhere, and it is not a debate topic. Because science requires falsifiability, there are no truths in science, because truths cannot be falsified -- that property is reserved to theories. Source: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability Quote: "Falsifiability is the ability of a theory—a working framework for explaining and predicting natural phenomena—to be disproved by an experiment or observation. The ability to evaluate theories against observations is essential to the scientific method, and as such, the falsifiability of theories is key to this and is the prime test for whether a proposition or theory can be described as scientific." Couldn't have said it better myself.
  - nessus42 14y ago
    Falsifiable does not mean not true. And even if one does not wish to apply the term "true" to theories, this does not imply that scientists do not seek truth. They most certainly seek theories that make true predictions, and in this manner they are seeking truth. (And finding it very successfully, I might add.) It is you who apparently have no solid education, nor much exposure to actual scientists. If you want to become educated, perhaps you should read this book, written by a scientist and endorsed by Dawkins, another scientist. It's called "Why Evolution is True": http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/a-nod-from-dawkins/ http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/a-nod-fro... Or if you want a quicker education, watch this three minute video, where Richard Dawkins says these sage words: "What science is about is finding what is true in the real world": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TOsfBSuqdk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TOsfBSuqdk I'm sure that you're a smart guy, but you are also a condescending ignoramus.