Philosophical problems with science.

[Simon Moon]

What "reality" is is different depending on ones environment they grow up in, and what reality is is a philosophical question not a scientific one.

Reality is not different depending on environment. Ones perception or explanation of reality may be different, but not reality itself.

If you want to test if reality is environmentally determined, ask a bunch of Yogis in India that claim they can levitate, if they will jump off of a 500 foot cliff.

"The margin of error grows less". How would one know that this is the case?

Because it is testable.

Example:

If a medical scientist claims that their more advanced procedure for treating a disease is more effective than the previously used procedure, their claim can be tested.

If it does indeed work better, the margin of error has just been demonstrated to be less.

Assimilating facts to support a position is hardly a way to a "truth", what facts are chosen or left out is based on human bias.

Which is why science is subject to: peer review, falsifiability, repeated testing, etc.

[Anomalocaris]

So it's a religion to point out the philosophical problems with science????

If you believe science is "more truthful" than religion then explain how this can be considering that science is not about absolutes anyway.

Religion is a dishonest bullshitter while science is a more honest bullshitter. Both are bullshit and completely relative to time in history and not to any absolute truths or facts.

Please, be a hero, and call science's bluff by sitting under a tanning lamp turned to high for 10 days, so you show us the Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic radiation is all bullshit.

If you remain disposed afterwards, then please jump off of a tall building and illustrate to us how Newton's law of gravity is all the fancy of a bullshitter as well.

[Brian37]

Anyone who believes Oswald had help has no fucking business speaking about what facts are.

f science is a search for facts then it is based on an ever changing series of what are called facts,

No dip shit.

Self correcting and updating does not mean "anything goes". Not knowing the future does not mean pink unicorns exist nor does it lend any fucking validity to claims of magical sky heros.

The only thing the future does is correct and or improve our understanding and build upon it, that is not a license to let bullshit in as a gap answer.

[Simon Moon]

Me thinks the OP would be best served reading something like -

Exploring the Scientific Method: Cases and Questions by Steven Gimble


Or even the more rudimentary -

A Beginner's Guide to Scientific Method by Stephen Carey


Most of his misconceptions are addressed in these books.

[feeling]

So it's a religion to point out the philosophical problems with science????

If you believe science is "more truthful" than religion then explain how this can be considering that science is not about absolutes anyway.

Religion is a dishonest bullshitter while science is a more honest bullshitter. Both are bullshit and completely relative to time in history and not to any absolute truths or facts.

Please, be a hero, and call science's bluff by sitting under a tanning lamp turned to high for 10 days, so you show us the Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic radiation is all bullshit.

If you remain disposed afterwards, then please jump off of a tall building and illustrate to us how Newton's law of gravity is all the fancy of a bullshitter as well.

Well that's a nice practical approach to solve this confusion

[CapnAwesome]

Okay, I'll call it an implication of support for deliberate ignorance, which is basically religion once you organize it.

So it's a religion to point out the philosophical problems with science????

If you believe science is "more truthful" than religion then explain how this can be considering that science is not about absolutes anyway.

Religion is a dishonest bullshitter while science is a more honest bullshitter. Both are bullshit and completely relative to time in history and not to any absolute truths or facts.

There are way more problems with philosophy than there are with science. Philosophy is far more contradictory and changes far more often. Science isn't even about the establishment of facts but rather a manner of testing facts.

[I and I]

It's very simple....

From all his posts on this site and back on TTA, before he was banned, I&I made it very clear he doesn't what science is or how it works.
So, all his opinions and thoughts on it are wrong, invalid, and unimportant.

---

"Explaining observations" is determined by ones historical place in time, education therefore class, ideologies, religions, all which can and often do form what kinds of observations and questions are formed.

So, if an American scientist within recent history said he discovered the rate of gravitational acceleration on Earth is 9.8m/s², you're saying that rate will be different for people who are poor than it is for rich people? That rate will be different for a conservative than it is a liberal? That rate will be different for a socialist than it will be for a capitalist? That rate will be different for someone from 1700 than it will be for someone from 2200? That rate will be different for someone who flunked high school than it will be for someone with 5 masters degrees?

The interpretation of studies will always be determined by human bias. Scientists concede that very little is known about gravity and yes, to a cave mans mind gravity was non existent. Unless there is evidence that they knew the rate of gravity. If you are about to claim that claim about gravity is "true" regardless of time period then you are asserting that truth is outside of human perception. If this is your claim then how would one go about proving this?

[Ryantology]

The interpretation of studies will always be determined by human bias. Scientists concede that very little is known about gravity and yes, to a cave mans mind gravity was non existent. Unless there is evidence that they knew the rate of gravity. If you are about to claim that claim about gravity is "true" regardless of time period then you are asserting that truth is outside of human perception. If this is your claim then how would one go about proving this?

And yet, cavemen understood basic concepts such as "things fall to the ground when you drop them". If not, they would not have developed spear tossing and archery. They understood the concept we describe as 'gravity'.

You are mistakenly conflating the concept with the choice of terms used to describe how the concept works, but that's your problem, not science's. Even if we don't know precisely how it works, it does still work.

[EgoRaptor]

Science & intellectualism don't mix well with Maoism, so naturally they must be bullshit.

PS. you are trying to justify a religion, as Maoism is a political religion.

[LostLocke]

The interpretation of studies will always be determined by human bias. Scientists concede that very little is known about gravity...

So, you're saying you either know everything about something, or you know nothing about something?
That is obviously and factually false.

and yes, to a cave mans mind gravity was non existent. Unless there is evidence that they knew the rate of gravity.

Are you claiming that something doesn't exist until we know it exists?

If you are about to claim that claim about gravity is "true" regardless of time period then you are asserting that truth is outside of human perception.

We know what gravity's rate of acceleration is now. (And by the way, that number is fact right now. You obviously have never flown in a plane or else you'd know how that rate is applied to things today)
We know enough about gravity to know how to come up with those rates. That's the reason the Apollo missions and Martian rovers were able to land on the surfaces and not crash down, or float away.
So yes, we can say that Earth's gravity was, for all purposes, the same in cave man days as it is today.
You think it was different, then explain how and why it was different, and what the rate was back then.

Now it's your turn.
Answer one of my original simple yes or no questions.
Is the rate of gravity different for people of different backgrounds?
Yes or no.