What is Real Science?

@Frank Apisa,

You are absolutely correct on this .

@Ionus,

What is Real Science ?

The investigation into all aspects of nature . Which in the end gives Humanity a much better chance of survival . Here on this planet and beyond.

Anything less is unaceptable .

Egos and gods get in the way of , clouds , makes opaque , of what is really important about science , our Human survival .

That is real science

1 Reply

@north,

I think you have misconstrued the basics . Is it science or isnt it ? Does the word science include the possibility of false science, so the added word "real" is also necessary ?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Frank,

You are being illogical. I don't think anyone here suggested that if god excists he would be able to reveal his existence to us. The issue is has he done so?

No, I am not being illogical, George...and the issue is not has he done so. The issue is whether or not it could be done.

I have never suggested we cannot know...just that we do not know.

Stop being illogical by suggesting I am being illogical.

Quote:

You have separately and loudly proclaimed your agnosticism, assering that the existence of a god can neither be proved nor disproven.

That is essentially the same as neologist's third alternative which you call a "non starter".

Here it is again;

Quote:
Or, we believe there is no way to discern God's existence.

Change "discern" to "prove" and they are identical.

No, George…I have not. In fact, I have gone out of my way to point out the difference. Here is a link to a thread talking about just that. It is to a thread of mine titled: Atheists cannot KNOW there are no gods, but theists possibly can KNOW there is a GOD.

http://able2know.org/topic/192088-1

So you are dead wrong…as you often are.

I hope this time you are able to acknowledge to me that you are dead wrong.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Thank you, Ionus.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Beliefophobia

Good one.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

I think you have misconstrued the basics . Is it science or isnt it ? Does the word science include the possibility of false science, so the added word "real" is also necessary ?

What basics ? Science is the investigation of Nature . The real is the ability to be objective . If people can't be objective , then what is learned is less then people who are.

1 Reply

@north,

The basics of the english language and the meaning of the word science . It may be necessary to stipulate false science, but it would never be necessary to say real science . Science is real or it is not science .

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, you are playing a semantical game. I checked the thread you linked, and it appears that no one else was buying your **** there either. Personal spiritual experiences do not constitute objectively verifiable facts. They can't be repeated at will, or by others. They can certainly be convincing to some experiencing them, and therefore brcome a personally meaningful basis for belief, but they do not constitute knowledge of objective reality . You are here, in effect begging the question of God's existence. That's OK with me. Indeed I believe the world has a creator. However it doesn't constitute a proof.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Science is real or it is not science .

Exactly the reason for my question.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Frank, you are playing a semantical game.

I am not playing a semantic game, George. I am having a discussion with someone who when not able to discuss properly, accuses an opponent of playing games.

Quote:

I checked the thread you linked, and it appears that no one else was buying your **** there either. Personal spiritual experiences do not constitute objectively verifiable facts.

What does any of that have to do with what was being discussed?

Quote:

They can't be repeated at will, or by others. They can certainly be convincing to some experiencing them, and therefore brcome a personally meaningful basis for belief, but they do not constitute knowledge of objective reality . You are here, in effect begging the question of God's existence. That's OK with me. Indeed I believe the world has a creator. However it doesn't constitute a proof.

What are you talking about?????

I am not asking for proof of anything. Anything!!!

Neo's third item requires that I do "believing"...and I do not do that.

You are just stirring mud and hoping nobody will notice.

Pick out the one thing you are taking issue with...and present it. I will discuss it with you...and I will be consistent in what I say with what I have said in the past.

If the best you can do is to claim I am playing games...or that I am being illogical...save your time, because I am not doing either.

0 Replies

Some scattered thoughts (I havn't read this thread yet):
I do believe that doubt is as important in science as faith is in religion. But faith is not totally irrelevant in science which can never be presuppositionless. But in the case of science presuppositions are subject to challenge while they are not in most religions.
What is the difference between "basic science" and applied science (e.g., engineering and medicine)?

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

The role of faith in science is almost minimal...you know why ? because it just drives libido for pushing investigation on an hypothesis which is based on having good reasons to be investigated...Plausibility.

That small detail is of paramount importance to distinguish it from other forms of blind belief.

When the answer to why do you have faith in such and such is because it looks plausible then I am not concerned. The day it stops looking plausible it is abandoned.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Granted: faith is minimal in Science in the sense that its presuppositions are taken for granted and not treated as part of the problematic. But since this occurs at the beginning it is "crucial."
By the way, don't you think that plausibility may also be one of the goals of "serious" theology?

3 Replies

@JLNobody,

Interesting question.

Other than "we do not know if there is at least one god...or if there are no gods...and the evidence we have available is too ambiguous to use for making a meaningful guess"...

...what else do you consider "plausible" in the area of "serious" theology?

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Granted: faith is minimal in Science in the sense that its presuppositions are taken for granted and not treated as part of the problematic. But since this occurs at the beginning it is "crucial."
By the way, don't you think that plausibility may also be one of the goals of "serious" theology?

Agree with the first remark, it is tricky.
As for theology no...what it does is way more perverse. It steals from a very generalisable ontology twists it and transforms it into a "Christmas pie"...and I am referring to the "top theology"...the regular is beyond words worth commenting...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I agree about the "perversity" of theistic ontology. But my reference to the theologian's goal of "plausibility" refers to his thinking not to ours."

0 Replies

Where is the red of the rose that you used to love when you get to know roses ? ..falling outwards from your own gazing you sleep the red away and the rose is robbed from its purpose...

Where are you lost at ? Was the memory of that kiss that tricked you into wonderland ? You love the longing and the memory of the kiss not the kissing...your wonderland is a mystery...

...do you believe in light when there is only light ? What is it then that casts light from darkness so shinning can feel warm ?
Where are you lost at ?

Is the questioning that answers the whim of searching something ? or the answering that questions you with motionless silence ?
Did you lost your head inside heading somewhere your forgot worth remembering ?
Where are you lost at ?

Foreigner to yourself you move...shadow of a shadow in a dark night under the rocky road no one ever crossed...where are you lost at ?

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

By 'presuppositions' do you mean 'axioms' or 'propositions'?

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Real science - True reality
What the heck is everyone talking about?
Is there a fake science? What is it?
Is there false reality, as in "It is as it isn't"?

Science is simple. Not sure why people think they need to make it complex.

Science is a systematic method of examining reality and comparing it with questions.

Hypothesis
Compute the consequences of the hypothesis.
Test the hypothesis and compare with reality.
If they conflict with each other then it is wrong.

The only weakness in this is having a limits amount of consequences, if you do not verify enough consequences then you could have made a mistake. But consequences are really only available according to the data that you currently have. If additional data arrives at a later time, this new data could create a consequence that invalidates the conclusion. Also if the conclusion of the experiment can not be compared with reality then it can't be verified.

This is why science advances and is humble to it's past claims. Nothing can be validated as a definite because there is always a chance you will collect some data later that invalidates it and therefore the conclusion needs to be updated.

2 Replies

What is Real Science?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know