RE: The relationship between Science and Philosophy
September 29, 2014 at 5:24 am
(This post was last modified: September 29, 2014 at 5:26 am by g0sU.)
(September 21, 2014 at 9:32 pm)bennyboy Wrote: They are non-overlapping by definition, but they themselves are not guaranteed always to be defined as we define them now. Consensus, if made by idiots, can be the greatest enemy of truth. So-- what's the chance that idiots will never get the chance to rebrand the word "science" in dangerous and ignorant ways?
I'd say zero. When science is treated as an institution rather than a collection of carefully-chosen philosophical assumptions and positions, it will be dead. Don't believe me? Look at the American educational system.
Well what stops those same idiots from making other "carefully chosen philosophical assumptions and positions"and pretend that they have a clue what they are talking about? If anything: consensus between more sophisticated philosophers. That´s simply the way human interactions work: If you´re the only one committed to a certain idea, chances are good nobody gives a shit.
The trick is to get the majority on the right track. And for this we only need the scientific method. To prove others wrong you simply have to find one counterexample, case closed. Getting a theory to the point where general consensus is that it is true, is a very long process of trying to dispprove it and getting to the point where denial is absurd in the eyes of most. By this method we might miss out on faster progress but we are as sure of things as humans can reasonably demand.
So to protect scientific integrity we only need peer review.
cheers
p.s.: Yes, false ideas have crept(?) in which I sadly consider unavoidable.
This is my signature. There are many others like it, but this one is mine. My signature is my best friend.
