What is Real Science?

Mostly, i was attempting to question the reasons why folks use such terms as
real science
true reality, or
absolute reality

Since they are redundant

You are truly correct.

Yah, you betcha

I think it comes down to some silly aspects of how people perceive reality and occasionally reality doesn't seem to connect with our suggested common sense of how it "should" behave. This is due to lacking bits of information so we collectively come to the wrong conclusion but it is not obvious enough to point out our error.

So these adjectives are lump on as an attempt to separate the two aspects of a currently held notion vs a more recent or deeper understanding conclusion has come to. They are just used for convince of conversation but really have nothing different. If you removed these adjectives perhaps the conversation would become confusing or even worse assume both people are referring to the same identical concept.

True, for sure.

(Reference the other thread)
Note that "information" is never independent of particular observers and their hypotheses with respect to attempts to predict and control. Independence assumes Kant's noumena which is inaccessible.

This bears repeating again.

i've only scanned the last 5 pages, but in that brief scan i haven't seen a mention of the word of "experiment"! Real science rests on EXPERIMENT!

Are all of you thread contributors just brains-in-jars? Is the concept of experiment beyond your kin? What do you foolosphers even think you're discussing re: science if you ignore the relevance of experiments in relation to hypothesis, observation, and theory? i think the "concept" of "science" discussed here isn't scientific, at all.

"Real", "true", "objective", "necessary", "perception", "concept"...science-wise what do you even think you are talking about?

It is hard to imagine a less scientific discussion regarding science than this one.

Aren't you bright eh ? A beacon of shining light...

That would be all.Perhaps that was not the OP's intent.

You must of missed my post on the previous page then. So perhaps get better at scanning over posts? Because I did mention experimentation.

Razzleg, your points are well taken, but we must keep in mind that when we discuss the "nature" of Science we are not doing science--not experimenting or testing falsifiable hypotheses--we are doing philosophy of science.
I love "foolosophy"--very playful.

Most so called fringe science these days is philosophy disguised of science.
All theoretical models from maths to physics are PHILOSOPHY by definition...

...it just so happens we have a sort of institutional war between the academics that disagree on the kind of philosophy worth doing and so they swap the names to make a distinction...

...on one side the scientists play the serious philosophers...on the other the "old school" guys play the philosophers role...they often have different wording for the same phenomena...

...in all fairness "old" philosophers make less mistakes at interpreting data while scientists are better at collecting it but prone to logical fallacy...fun stuff to watch from afar...

...I just so happen to laugh at the dispute because it is clear scientists don't have the vaguest clue they are philosophers every time they start with an hypothesis...its impossible to separate the scientific activity from philosophy...Even results need interpretation by reason. Data without explanation means zilch.

A lot of folks might say that science may rightly be called such inasmuch as it employs scientific method.
But the standards of 'proof' vary anong disciplines, some accepting correlations barely above chance.
So, are the social sciences 'science', or just intelligent speculation?

I suppose we can do without an absolute distinction between science and non-science
As a SOCIAL "scientist" I and my colleagues tried to be relatively scientific in our methods and attitude toward our subject matter. The various disciplines could be located on a continuum between "scientific" (the more quantitative efforts--economics and some sociology) and "scholarly" (e.g. the interpretive disciplines--field anthropology).

I see the thumb down clown has returned.

Real Science ; being objective

True Reality ; encompassing All aspects of Reality from energy , matter to the paranormal.

Absolute reality ; both of the above

1 - You can't. You are always forced into a pov. Exactly in the same sense you cannot see our Moon from Mars in the same way you do from Earth.

...the space where you live, "the landscape", physical, biochemical, mental, environmental, cultural, always force you into a perspective. The perspective you are in is not delusional but conditional.

...the data you get from what you are trying to know even if transformed through all these mediums is still valid. Its a REAL pov. Although of course as all povs an incomplete picture of the phenomena. There can literally be trillions of povs upon anything. None of them is absolutely wrong...in fact it is more true to state they all are absolutely right even if incomplete.

2 - Finally mind this, Reality is always true and always absolute. You can skip calling it true reality or absolute reality...its redundant. The word reality already implies both things. (otherwise we would call it a fantasy...but even fantasies are real fantasies and a part of reality as such)

Reality is what is the case not the knowing whatever portion of it fits where...
That part, the knowing where X fits, is irrelevant for the correct use of the concept of Reality...

When we say aaaaah this was an elaborate illusion it was not real, we are at fault...we should rather say aaaah this was not the full story about what I thought it was...what is being "ilusional" is we thinking our pov was complete and then back tracking thinking its totally wrong. None of them is true.

Our descriptions of reality have always a valid pov since they result from a chain of cause and effect that shows how X pattern of data transformed till we got it...the data transformed as it might be is still there. Encoded but nonetheless REAL information.

This is the kind of philosophical debate worth seeing so that people actually grasp the state of affairs we are in...needless to say I am with the first guy all the way.

Reality is an object with many sides, in a lifetime we may have the luxury of seeing more than one, maybe several sides, but you will never see them all, alas! true reality in its entirety cannot be known