(December 28, 2012 at 2:02 pm)Undeceived Wrote: If the results of an experiment are unable to be replicated, science throws them out.
And then we start over - not give up and stop.
(December 28, 2012 at 2:02 pm)Undeceived Wrote: We're not talking about their purview-- every experiment has to be in the "interest range" of scientists to be conducted in the first place! When did this argument shift from discussing objective measurement to speculating about subjective anticipation?
When you started talking about what can or cannot come under scientific scrutiny.
(December 28, 2012 at 2:02 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Could you explain, please? In my experience, I don't understand something unless it happens more than once or changes with the manipulation of a single variable.
And how do you what those variables are without prior understanding?
(December 28, 2012 at 2:02 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Exactly. The bias is to withhold judgment until a natural solution is found. That might be a fine practice in discovering how things work but science has never discovered a solution natural or supernatural why things work. Scientific laws are in the "why" category. Not only has a "why" never been found, but hundreds of philosophers have argued why it can never be found (it requires ending the chain of efficient causes as we know it--a logical fallacy). So why don't we move into the realm of philosophy for answers rather than holding out for the improbable?
What in blazes are you babbling about? What do you mean that science has never found a "why". Science has been answering those "whys" all over the place. Besides, philosophy and science are nto as separate as you might think.
