25
   

Must Scientific Knowledge Be Considered Relative?

 
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 11:27 am
@Thomas,
...yes, but mind you that objective also does not mean final but rather relative...what is objective is the relation between the scope of a question and the correlated scope of an answer...often people tend to get confused and find in objectivity a final description of reality when truth is validly asserted...
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 11:18 pm
@Thomas,
Yes. The worst thing one can say about another's theory is that it is not even false. Wink
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 11:18 pm
@Thomas,
Yes. The worst thing one can say about another's theory is that it is not even false. Wink
Damcha
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 11:39 pm
@Thomas,
What I offered in your first quote is not jargon. I attempted to provide an explanation to the best of my ability of how I am thinking about the phenomena we are trying to discuss. The fact that my explanation is vague should evidence that the topic is complex. I feel that I am making serious statements about the ontological history of scientific knowledge. Instead of dismissing ideas it'd be more conducive to discussion if you would critique them by first attempting to comprehend their assertions.

Thomas wrote:
No, it is not the case. For example, the phlogiston theory of fire is objective, but false. The postulates of astrology are objective, yet they are false at best. (I say "at best" because some are so vague they don't even rise to the level of being false.) Creationism and Intelligent-Design theory are objective and false. The examples of objective-but-false theories could be multiplied endlessly. "Objective" and "true" are distinct concepts.


Fair enough, thank you for clarifying this for me, maybe I was making a crude distinction.
I interpret that by false you might mean not 'practically implemented', however am not sure what you are indicating by 'true'. Could you elaborate?
Science science, and any of its sub-disciplines, include many competing hypothesis and theories, and it is by way of this 'natural selection' of 'objective' (in your use of the term) theories that a refinement in human understanding occurs, I am having trouble understanding what classifies an amorphous, pluralistic system of knowledge as 'true'.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2011 03:03 am
In defence of Science:
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2011 12:33 pm
@JLNobody,
JLN, you're like the guy in Catch-22 who sees everything twice, except you're the guy who posts everything twice. You do realize, don't you, that you can delete duplicate posts?
JLNobody
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2011 01:00 pm
@joefromchicago,
Too bad one can't see how many times I DO delete duplicates.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2011 01:27 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

It could over time. We don't know that now, because we haven't had the "time" to study atoms and how they originated.


Found this on the net:
Quote:
Resolved QuestionShow me another »
Can atoms change into other atoms?
how and what does it have to do with fission and fusion and nucluer decay? .... please dumb it down al little. lol
3 years ago Report Abuse

chalis91...
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

Yes they can. In fact it is theorized that main two elements to exist after the proposed big-bang were hydrogen and helium. All other elements were then created by fusion products from these two elements.

Now that we have a periodic table's worth of elements, fusion and fission and nuclear decay can occur to change one element into another.

Fusion occurs when two atoms of one or more elements combine to create a new atom. This reaction results in the release of ALOT of heat and energy. This reaction occurs inside the sun and inside hydrogen bombs.

Fission occurs when one atom decays into two or more atoms. This reaction also releases alot of energy (not as much as fusion though). This reaction also can occur in stars. It also occurs inside of atomic bombs (like those used in world war II).

Nuclear decay is when an atom decays to another element or isotope by loss of an energy particle. This is different that fission in that the atom does not split into two or more atoms, but loses energy through a particle. There are different types of particles that can be lost, most commonly referred to as alpha, beta and gamma radiation. This is a very common form of nuclear decay and is what many radioactively elements do spontaneously over time.



I understand this but this was not my point

my point was that hydgrogen never in its self changes to the point that it never exists again
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2011 02:05 pm
@north,
Doesn't hydrogen convert into helium?
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2011 02:10 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Doesn't hydrogen convert into helium?


it does , through fusion , it seems

and to do this means that hydrogen must be consistent in its atomic structure

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2011 02:11 pm
@north,
And the sun, perhaps.
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2011 02:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

And the sun, perhaps.


again , my point is that for helium to exist , means that hydrogen must be consistent in its atomic and sub-atomic structure
0 Replies
 
bluemist phil
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2012 08:25 am
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

My use of "objective" and "relative" might be confusing. By objective, I mean "free from bias." By relative, I mean "influenced by cultural, political, or financial interests."

Motivation to *do* science is always biased by either personal or social influences.

One meaning of relative in science is that the *results* are not absolute but depend on something else. If the result is X, then it could be absolutely X to everyone, everywhere, under all possible circumstances, OR the result always depends on some Y, so X is only X if Y.

Biased motivation becomes apparent in selecting Y, the circumstances of the scientific study. With method y1, you'd get result x1, with method y2 you'll get result x2. Every time.
0 Replies
 
Rickoshay75
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2012 04:45 pm
@wandeljw,
In the philosophy and sociology of science, there is a school of thought that scientific research is driven by cultural, social, political, and even financial profit frameworks. Thus, the view that scientific facts are objective is being attacked. >>

There has many scientific discoveries that has improved life, no doubt about that, and all could be proven and demonstrated, but now we're supposed to believe in unsupported theories that cannot be proven or demonstrated with no other accepted evidence then the exalted words of a group of scientists who can see into the future and make no mistakes.
nothingtodo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2012 01:02 pm
@wandeljw,
Is it not true though, that once ethics with regards to pain, life and death.. Is the primary focus of any agendas everywhere, within reason the lower one goes towards 'low risk'. That all seconded arguments matter only if time is short, since revelation of today's 'final truth' can easily be swayed tomorrow. In any area or multiple areas?.

You get some weirdness around that due to 'low risk' being more subjective.. than overseen. Which is why we often see some very odd folks, in Gen-pop planet Earth.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2012 01:08 pm
@Rickoshay75,
It doesn't matter what motivates scientific research; humans are curious about what makes up our environment, purpose of life, and how much we can learn about them.

Most of the research are based on economic and political reasons.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 01:13 pm
science is nothing more than a disguised rligion1 How can it not be?!
Rickoshay75
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 05:29 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Quehoniaomath wrote:

science is nothing more than a disguised rligion1 How can it not be?!


The dictionary says Science is: The state of knowing knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding - nothing about a particular subject.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 11:17 pm
@Rickoshay75,
http://s26.postimg.org/9cg75rc1h/Remember_Don_t_Feed_the_Trolls_fanpop_22675484_4.jpg
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2014 11:34 pm
Not sure what exactly is meant by "relative" in the OP (I could read more of the thread, but I'm not going to), but insofar as objectivity can be approached by the human mind, scientists do put safeguards against individual biases and interests by having as many independent observations/tests done as possible, as aspect glaringly absent from myth-based claims:

Quote:
Empirical Evidence: A Definition
Kim Ann Zimmerman, LiveScience Contributor | July 07, 2012 10:38am

Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.

The scientific method begins with scientists forming questions and then acquiring the knowledge to either support or disprove a specific theory. That is where the collection of empirical data comes into play.

Before any piece of empirical data is collected, scientists carefully design their research methods to ensure the accuracy, quality and integrity of the data. If there are flaws in the way that empirical data is collected, the research will not be considered valid.

The scientific method often involves lab experiments that are repeated over and over, and these experiments result in quantitative data—in the form of numbers and statistics. However, that is not the only process used for gathering information to support or refute a theory. Qualitative research, often used in the social sciences, examines the reasons behind human behavior.

The objective of science is that all empirical data that has been gathered through observation, experience and experimentation is without bias. The strength of any scientific research depends on the ability to gather and analyze empirical data in the most unbiased and controlled fashion possible. However, in the 1960s, scientific historian and philosopher Thomas Kuhn promoted the idea that scientists can be influenced by prior beliefs and experiences.

Because scientists are human and prone to error, empirical data is often gathered by multiple scientists who independently replicate experiments. This also guards against scientists who unconsciously, or in rare cases consciously, veer from the prescribed research parameters which could skew the results.

The recording of empirical data is also crucial to the scientific methods, as science can only be advanced if data is shared and analyzed. Peer review of empirical data is essential to protect against bad science.


http://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/18/2021 at 04:35:03