An Attack on Science

•likely to fail or make errors; "everyone is fallible to some degree(fallible)
•authentic: conforming to fact and therefore worthy of belief; "an authentic account by an eyewitness"; "reliable information.(Reliable)

Now, that we have got the definition out of the way, lets look at the real problem.

When you say collecting data, you have said nothing about what that thing is thats allowing you to get those data? You simply assumed they exist? Hence that's science.. assuming the universe exist. Second, you say data, now if those data continually repeat it self, you can make a pretty generalized statement(law) thorugh your method of induction. What you have done is say this is how it's always been in the past and in the future!

See, you use of induction is where everything collapses. Sure you might get the same result or the same behaviour, but there is no way you can say that at time delta t the same behaviour WILL happen! Saying "likely" just shows the flaws in the method.

lol, yeah you sort of get me here.. I'm not using deductive reasoning, in fact i'm using induction lol.

Because I know this same method has failed us in the past, so hence it will fail us in the future.

As for deduction, I didn't start with an axiom or a statment that I take to be true, but what I've done is examine both reasoning and claim there must be another method that will always yield the same result regardless of us.

Do you have a better alternative ? No ? So what´s the point upon uncertainty ? I am sure although sometimes it does n´t seams so, ken is well aware on the limits of Knowledge...

People who have posted on this thread have acknowledged the classical "problem of induction." We have all been telling you that it makes no difference to the way science is actually practiced. Science is not looking for absolute truth, only for practical explanations.

Exactly. Science works just fine for Ikurwa to post on the internet, which makes his/her alleged "attack" on it doubly ridiculous <G>

If science can't justify why it uses induction, then we are all skeptics!

We can't know anything without doubt.

To be skeptical about claims to absolute truth is a good thing, but to completely ignore sense data would be foolish.

The reason communication is a two way street is that meaning can never be presumed to have been communicated... Do you know what I mean???

Fido, If what you say is true, how come those posting on this blog understand what the other is communicating?

Maybe, you're the only one confused here.

If you mean that we cannot know anything unless it is impossible that we should be mistaken, I wonder what the argument for that is. Have you one? I believe I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And although it is possible that I should be mistaken, as long as I am not mistaken, I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. Why should the requirement for knowing be the impossibility of mistake rather than the inactuality of mistake?

Suppose you are tested on the capitals of South American countries to see whether you know what they are. And suppose you are asked whether I know what the capital of Ecuador is, and you reply Quito. The tester says, "Sorry, you don't know what the capital of Ecuador is". You say, "But I was sure it was Quito. What is it". And the tester replies, "It is Quito". So, you naturally say, "But I said it was Quito. So why don't I know it is Quito?" And the tester answers. "Oh, it is Quito, all right, but you don't know it is Quito because although you are right, and your are not mistaken, you still don't know it is Quito because it is possible for you to be mistaken."

What would you think about that. Would you accept that you don't know it is Quito even if you got the right answer because it is possible for it not to be Quito?

Every time some one from the government speaks I have to guess what they really mean... And every time I hear one of those church people talk on tv I have to guess what they really mean... Half the time I have to guess what my wife and kids mean... Ya say something once; why say it again works for psycho killers; but the impossibility of ever speaking truth requires an effort on both ends, to communicate and to be understood, and to let the other know they are being understood.. Communication is a form, but it is also a form of relationship, and a relationship is not so immediate as infinite, though it is always immediate as well... I call Kenn when he says some babble totally capable of being misunerstood, and because I am saying stuff no one has ever heard before, original to all but a few- I expect to be misunderstood and so keep hammering at it... Until death does us part, it is too early to give up on communication...

I have a friend who was once a DI in the Army... When giving a lesson he would say: Here is what I am going to tell you...And then he would tell them what he was going to tell them, and then he would tell them, this is what I told you... And 2% never get it even if you sky write it...

Fido, You should already be aware that government-speak is a totally different language that is used to dummify the masses into mush. Their success is the evidence.

Jefferson recognized that people do not like to change their forms; and they only do it out of desparation... It is that fact that gives the liars the advantage, and no advantage is better than people who really want to believe the lies are true so they will not have to take up their responsibility like the cross it is, and carry on...

if observation ( induction ) is called to be flawed and deduction ( inference ) is flawed then what exactly should Science be based ?

its become an unnecessary paradox

science does its best , for the most part , to understand reality

science = knowledge