What is Real Science?

neologist wrote:

I would say I am as well established in the physical sciences as any on a2k. And one intent of my OP is to stimulate critical thought.

Have I failed?

Just my 2p's worth: No, I wouldn't say that you've failed. I enjoy discussing things with you, whether we ultimately agree or not. The process of exchanging ideas and understandings encourage5s self-examination, and I'm big on that.

One hair to split, though: I think farmerman has you on the "well established in the physical sciences" bit. And me, for that matter.

Which has what to do with Neo's preference for completely undemonstrated superstitions? Not only that, but Neo constantly attempts to claim that scripture says what it patently does not say, and that there are passages of scripture which predicted the future (from the perspective of loons he quotes), and then cannot sustain a narrative of how those claims were fulfilled. He takes a "two out of three ain't bad" position, when, in fact, it's more like one dubiously alleged instance out of about two dozen phony baloney claims. It was on that basis that I finally got sick and tired of his BS. If scripture is supposed to be the divinely inspired, inerrant record of the word of "God," then two out of three will never be good enough, let alone one phony-ba5loney claim out of a couple of dozen.

I sure as hell don't need you to tell me anything about history--and I'm frankly getting sick of your horseshit condescension, because I've never seen any evidence that you have anything to teach me about history, nor any other subject in which I am interested.

One must tread carefully in the presence of the sage, lest he be deluged by many words.

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.

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.

A salient point for this thread is that both "science" and "religion" are two activities which appear to be unique to the human species. Both are involved with prediction and control..a concept of future states. The word " reality" merely expresses a degree of confidence in those future states and this where the two activities differ. Science aspires to "universal confidence" whereas religion is "parochial". The well known catch all clause...an attempt at "universality".... that "all knowledge is in the gift of God"..sometimes interpreted as "Man's limited control ...he being made in the image of God" ...tends to be the modus operandi of religious scientists.

Which has what to do with Neo's preference for completely undemonstrated superstitions? Not only that, but Neo constantly attempts to claim that scripture says what it patently does not say, and that there are passages of scripture which predicted the future (from the perspective of loons he quotes), and then cannot sustain a narrative of how those claims were fulfilled. He takes a "two out of three ain't bad" position, when, in fact, it's more like one dubiously alleged instance out of about two dozen phony baloney claims. It was on that basis that I finally got sick and tired of his BS. If scripture is supposed to be the divinely inspired, inerrant record of the word of "God," then two out of three will never be good enough, let alone one phony-baloney claim out of a couple of dozen.

I sure as hell don't need you to tell me anything about history--and I'm frankly getting sick of your horseshit condescension, because I've never seen any evidence that you have anything to teach me about history, nor any other subject in which I am interested.