|
Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: For contemplation... (8/16/2006 10:15:02 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross
quote:
ORIGINAL: Daddy4UdderSlut
Such arguments can be amusing I suppose, but are in my opinion, a complete waste of time - to spend mental effort on considering the validity of arbitrary statements for which there is zero evidence, and which are untestable... this is where science and philosophy part company quite cleanly.
Except that if you have questions still lingering such as "what can we know about what we are studying if we don't even know we can know anything at all" or "what can we measure other than our own measurement" or "how can we interpret any "evidence" if we do not understand what "interpretation" is at all" then it kinda throws a wrench into the process.
And "science" has been proven time and time again just how false and falsified it can be. I joke with my partner who's doing research in photonic crystals about how all those "stray data points" that get removed from the curves are all going to make him explode into a million pieces one day.
Anyway, like I said, we all have to act AS IF we had the answers to these questions and go on the assumption that we do. But that doesn't mean we actually DO have the answers.
On the notion that scientists are sometimes wrong, and that some of them are dishonest (such as the South Korean cloning scientist who was found to have falisifed his claims recently), of course this is true. The scientific viewpoint on nature evolves over time - that's just a fact. From your statements, you would argue that the fact that the scientific view of nature evolves is evidence that it doesn't work. Rather, I would say completely the opposite. The fact that it evolves over time (unlike, say, abstract philosophy) is evidence that it *does* work. Furthermore, the view does converge over time. Certain disciplines, such as chemistry, which are more mature in the ability of theory to account for observation, actually don't change very rapidly anymore.
Science is quite distinct from philosophy in that there is competition for explaining nature. The competition is played out in public forums (the peer reviewed scientific literature). Correctness is not judged by self-consistency of arbitrary sets of statements. Rather, it's judged by experimental observations from nature which either support or contradict the theory. Competition, peer review, and the requirement that assertions be backed up by observations... that's a very powerful system. Perfect, no, but it sure as hell works. There is nothing to stop you from making whatever statements you wish on an internet forum, regardless of their validity. On the notion that science is arbitrary or merely thrashing aimlessly about in the unknowable, I'll just point out the fact that we are not still living in caves, in the darkness.
|
|
|
|
