What is Real Science?

I just saw that term used in another thread...and responded with:

"Real science" means not being afraid to say, "I don't know."

I was talking with an atheist who was decrying something or other, though, so that may have influenced the way I responded.

Joe Friday: "All we want is the facts, sir."

True reality seems far fetched to me. Science just studies what can be observed. There are plenty of scientists who have been bought by medicine and industry to make money, rather than pursue an enlightened course. So, of course scientists are not infallible, nor do most claim to be. Where the overly religious and agnostics go wrong is wanting to mix their concepts of religion and mysticism into a field that is unconcerned with their worries and conceits. On the other hand, evolution has been shown to be true and that shoots down some things, such as the Bible, giving fodder to atheists and stoking the insecurities of believers. Believing is an option for scientists, but accepting the Bible's version of believing requires some mental gymnastics few real scientists can manage.

I think the term would be better applied as a "real" scientist, meaning someone who does not jump to conclusions, or try to prove a vested interest rather than being open minded....but "real" science ? I got nada .

Utter nonsense, Edgar. Particularly something like:



Theists and atheists are two sides of one coin, Edgar. Atheists are the ones pretending that science, logic and reason play a part in why they are atheists.
But "true scientists" would never say, "We do not know the true nature of REALITY...but we are arbitrarily going to eliminate one possibility...and pretend we are being "scientific" by doing so.

The agnostic says, "I do not know. Let's explore and find out if we can find out. If we cannot...we should explore some more."




The Bible could be completely wrong about everything...and that would not impact on whether or not there is at least one god...or no gods.

Evolution = no gods exist...makes about as much sense as Gaps = at least one god exists...

...which is to say that it makes no sense at all. Totally illogical conclusions on both parts.



Yeah...and some scientists are atheists who BELIEVE there are no gods.

BELIEVING...or guessing...is always an option...one that I note you exercise.

Real science as compared to the crap that Gungasnake, for exaple, trots out here.

I should have used the term 'absolute reality' instead of 'true reality'

This could get interesting.

Are religious and financial motives the only agents that cloud the nature of reality and science?

religious and financial motives
These are pushed on it by non or anti science types.They have no place in real science.

I was wondering about peer review

I don't remember what I learned from my first or continuing readings or classes in science subjects re a definition (I read histories of medicine from age 13; I'm 73 now) - I do remember my real world of working in the field of immunology as a research tech, rarely one of the authors (not first, in those cases), many times acknowledged in papers. Scholarly science papers are ongoing works in progress, in my view.

My take on real science is that it is an effort to test a hypothesis, double blind, with rigorous technical care. What is rigorous may change as the researchers learn more. Biases can occur, depending on the fund source, now more and more worthy of question. But the best, whatever the source, work to do clean science. We were funded by NIH, not pharma, but one of my colleagues got a doctorate in pharmacy later, plus tenure in another university, and I have no doubt she did not change the way she worked. Even funding by government agencies is tricky as judgment for what to fund can be affected, thus relative lack of funding for unusual diseases.

Others will read the papers and work to refute them in their own labs (science is also a kind of conversation) or develop the questions brought up from the results. Our lab got requests for copies of the papers from all over the globe (well, in a manner of speaking). This was before the internet. I still have some neato stamps.

More and more testing happens, new roads to follow, new roads to disprove. On and on.

@ Neo..

...Edgar KNOWS this because Edgar KNOWS there are no gods...just like Edgar KNOWS that since evolution has been shown to have a firm basis...

...that means there are no gods.

You're suggesting peer review clouds the nature of reality and science? It does more to keep research honest than anything else.

What do you know about "real science"? Have you done any scientific research or observation ?

Nearly all Christian believers have seen the Bible as an allegorical or metaphorical document for the past millenium at least, so you are beating a well-worn straw man.

Indeed the history of scientific observation itself, in many fields, ranging from cosmology to biology, involves the progressive development of more and more specific mnetaphors for what is observed and the processes assumed to be behind it all. General Relativity and Qunatum dynamics involve several fundamental metaphors - is it a particle or a wave, or an undescribed form of energy ? is a question fundamental to both. Ultimately most of our scientific "knowledge" is also metaphorical.

Biological evolution is an observable fact, but the theory behind it does not explain either the origin or existence of the universe or the life in it.

You need to reflect on the limits of science based on observation, therory and subsequent observations to confirm such dedfuctions and inferences. A little reflection on your own limitations wouldn't hurt either.

**** you.

Now there's a disciplined, rational mind at work !!

Oh!
What I meant was the desire for peer review. As in not every peer peers into your data collection.

As far as philosophy, the immuno lab area I worked in had a lot of bright people, some of them residents passing through for a year, various post docs, under the aegis of the steady heads of labs with good reputations re published work. I guarantee each of these folks at whatever level had varying views (as in, like, philosophies?) on all sorts of matters, including about knowledge. One of them babbled on philosophy all the live long day, part of why I eventually left when recruited for another job; he wasn't my boss, but just dealing with him day in and out was a pain. I'm a little testy about philosophy types. Anyway, besides that yattering, he was brilliant.

This brings us around to gods again. One of my favorite people was Mike Derechin. Good story teller, the least of it. Anyway, he raised german shepherds and they were part of his fun takes, tales, or tails. Dogs in command.

https://www.doximity.com/pub/michael-derechin-md
It's been a long bunch of years passing, but his story of the burglar and the shepherd lives in my memory as an epiphany for the burglar.

But don't you understand, George...for Edgar, the evidence confirming evolution proves there are no gods.

That is very important to him...since it confirms his "beliefs" that there are no gods.

Probably true, but hard to visualize .... like a midget dunking a basketball.