2 ms·

How do you define "well-established"? What about well-established scientific THEORIES (i'm not sure what is the definition of a scientific truth) that turn out

by alex_c 17y ago

How do you define "well-established"? What about well-established scientific THEORIES (i'm not sure what is the definition of a scientific truth) that turn out to be false or inaccurate after decades of being well-established? What if such a well-established theory is in the process of being disproven or replaced with a better theory - which happens to be "the other side of the debate" today?

amichail 17y ago
If a theory turns out to be false/inaccurate, it would no longer be included. If a theory is not the truth but is good enough in practical cases, such as Newton's Laws, then that's fine.
- alex_c 17y ago
  But how do you decide that a theory has turned out to be false? Once a certain percentage of qualified scientists agree? What percentage? And how do you define a qualified scientist? Think of all the FUD around climate change research. Do YOU know exactly which studies are valid and which ones aren't? Do you just hire climatologists to tell you? WHICH ones do you hire? How do you define "good enough in practical cases"? I could keep going like this. I'm not even worrying about commercial viability, I'll make the assertion that what you're proposing to build is impossible to build. My reasoning is that you're trying to fit things without a universally accepted definition - "truth" or "scientifically accepted" - into an absolute, binary system - "include" or "exclude". That is impossible to do correctly or completely. At best, you either end up with something fairly arbitrary, or you end up with a system which only includes the "facts" accepted by everyone, and excludes anything controversial. This ranges somewhere between useless and downright harmful, in my opinion (if this system is accepted as "truth", then new ideas have that much more of an uphill battle to be accepted).
  - amichail 17y ago
    It would include controversial topics where there is nonetheless scientific consensus that one side is correct.

by alex_c 17y ago

amichail 17y ago

If a theory turns out to be false/inaccurate, it would no longer be included. If a theory is not the truth but is good enough in practical cases, such as Newton's Laws, then that's fine.

alex_c 17y ago
But how do you decide that a theory has turned out to be false? Once a certain percentage of qualified scientists agree? What percentage? And how do you define a qualified scientist? Think of all the FUD around climate change research. Do YOU know exactly which studies are valid and which ones aren't? Do you just hire climatologists to tell you? WHICH ones do you hire? How do you define "good enough in practical cases"? I could keep going like this. I'm not even worrying about commercial viability, I'll make the assertion that what you're proposing to build is impossible to build. My reasoning is that you're trying to fit things without a universally accepted definition - "truth" or "scientifically accepted" - into an absolute, binary system - "include" or "exclude". That is impossible to do correctly or completely. At best, you either end up with something fairly arbitrary, or you end up with a system which only includes the "facts" accepted by everyone, and excludes anything controversial. This ranges somewhere between useless and downright harmful, in my opinion (if this system is accepted as "truth", then new ideas have that much more of an uphill battle to be accepted).
- amichail 17y ago
  It would include controversial topics where there is nonetheless scientific consensus that one side is correct.