"Aardwolf" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
>
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > Science is not a collection of facts to be parroted by rote, it is a
> > process by which we refine our understanding of how various aspects of
> > the Universe work. It's the height of arrogance to proclaim that one
> > can authoritatively state that something is the TRVTH especially in
> > light of the amazing changes that have come in our understanding of
> > almost every scientific field over only the last few centuries.
>
> This is the only post I will send out in this thread. However people need
to know what science is
> and what it is not. Science is the only tool we have for actually
understanding how the world
> around us works, because it is done by making rational, logical deductions
based on unbiased
> observations, _not_ by simply making up just-so stories and asserting that
they are correct--nothing
> can be learned that way, only proclaimed.
>
> For science to work, the intent behind the making of observations must be
to _find out_ how a
> phenomenon of nature works, _not_ to support a preconceived notion. The
observations must be made
> with an open mind. Only after the observations are done is a hypothesis
formed to explain the facts
> that these observations have yielded. Experiments are done to test the
hypothesis. If successful
> (or even if not) the results and conclusion are submitted for publication.
Additionally, everything
> must be documented--the initial observations, and the exact methodology
used for the experiments, so
> the work can be repeated by others to test it. Also the hypothesis must be
constructed so that it is
> potentially falsifiable.
>
> Those are the three most important aspects of the scientific
process--verification, repeatability,
> and falsifiability. The work must be able to be repeated by anyone with
access to similar equipment
> so that its honesty can be tested, as well as to find out if the process
was somehow flawed (if
> everyone else's results come out the same, but differently than those of
the original researchers),
> or if the hypothesis was too simple (differing results caused by
additional variables not accounted
> for by the original researchers), etc. Falsifiability is extremely
important as well. The
> hypothesis _must_ be potentially able to be disproved, otherwise nothing
can be learned from the
> research. In order for it to be regarded as correct, it must be able to
stand up to the most severe
> criticism that can be thrown at it, for as long as it exists. Scientific
theories are designed so
> that it is always possible for them to be proven wrong, and replaced with
a better theory that can
> stand up to the criticism that broke the older one. That is the only way
knowledge can really be
> advanced--by trying, and succeeding (or continually failing) to pull down
other's ideas, with
> _scientific_ work of your own. It also means that nothing in science can
be absolutely proved, but
> here's where a misunderstanding occurs: It doesn't mean that the
scientific community in general
> can't have a pretty good idea, maybe 99.9999999etc. %, that they are
indeed correct in their
> reasoning. There might always be a _chance_ that even the most concrete
theory or law is incorrect,
> but at some point the evidence becomes so overwhelmingly supportive (say,
the Second Law of
> Thermodynamics, and the ability to accurately predict (engineer) and build
things like internal
> combustion engines) that the chance of being wrong, sans any new
information, which itself must pass
> the same rigorous tests and inbuilt skepticism, becomes so small it isn't
worth worrying about. Only
> the best explanations survive, there is no room for the weak. And if it
is not falsifiable it is
> _not_ science.
>
> The work is published in scientific journals so that it is subject to peer
review, in order to have
> that criticism thrown at it, so it has to stand up or fail, and also to
make sure it is as unbiased
> as humanly possible--the only way to do that is to have everything--data,
methods, theories, set on
> by a trained group of skeptical scientists. It isn't perfect, ego and the
cherished work of a career
> can get in the way of rational criticism--but that is poor science, and
that's why there is a
> _group_ of peers to review the published work. People accuse scientists
of being skeptical, and not
> open to alternate ideas or explanations. They _have_ to be skeptics, if
they weren't they wouldn't
> be scientists. Again they aren't perfect; sometimes new ideas, scientific
as they may be, seem too
> radical and are missed--for a time, until enough evidence is presented for
the work to be deemed
> worth publishing.
>
>
> What science is _NOT_ is an explanation in the form of a just-so story
asserted to be true by its
> author. Nothing can be learned from that, it's just a fancy way of
saying "because I said so, and
> all who disagree with me are wrong". Science is also _NOT_ done by
attempting to "prove" just so
> stories _OR_ preconceived notions by gathering supporting data. That's
particularly dishonest in
> fact, because it ignores all of the data that doesn't support it, which it
needs if it is to be
> discussed scientifically. That makes it the _opposite_ of science,
nonetheless people who don't
> know any better can't tell the difference, and it is deliberately dressed
up to make people think it
> _is_ scientific, where science is not a tool used to _prove_ anything, but
to _discover_, to get as
> close as _rationally_ possible to the truth of, what actually goes on.
>
> If you choose to accept an _idea_ over and above, if need be even contrary
to, certain _established
> facts_, than it is a belief, _not_ science. And it cannot be either
proved or disproved, nothing
> can be learned from it, and it can't be argued to any conclusion, because
it simply is what you
> decide it is, completely disconnected from the influence of anything else.
This is not an attempt
> to pass a moral judgment on it either (that also is outside the realm of
science), however a belief
> cannot be used to argue against science because no matter the truth of it,
no matter how competent
> the explanation it provides, it is designed so that it cannot be critiqued
or even rationally argued
> against, and thus nothing can be learned from it.
>
> --Aardwolf.
>
>
>
Very good explanation. It is also the reason I say Lloyd is no scientist, he
fails on every level.
mhnb.42839$Fm2.17324@attbi_s04...
