The problems with science

If it was made up it would not be able to be duplicated under laboratory conditions.

- why is this a problem? and
- why does this 'observation' even matter?

Do you mean we mostly intuit knowledge, and then confirm it?

You are correct in thinking that 'thinghood' is a philosophical issue, but philosophical pragmatists would say that 'thinghood' at the most basic level, arises from human needs with respect to their attempts to predict and control focal aspects of what they see as 'the world'. That 'seeing' has been enhanced by what we call 'science' which has extended human physiological perceptual limits with transducers ( one of the first notable ones being perhaps the telescope).
So 'thinghood' now tends to be suggested by the expansion of science itself rather than looking to philosophy for its 'things'. However, philosophical issues with science are now more concerned with the ethics and direction of 'prediction and control' rather than the self generating epistemological process which does give rise to 'new things'. (aka 'discovery').
Your 'problem' is in fact dismissed by philosophical pragmatists who argue that the 'reality/nonreality' debate is futile. 'Concepts' are contemporary social tools coined by 'words' which facilitate mutual goals.

The problem with science most commonly alleged is a failure to align with popular religious or political narratives.

Ask yourself the following: is there a way of rationally address any issue that is addressed by 'science' without it automatically also being 'science?'

Let's say you want to weigh in with a radically-theological perspective on climate, for example, and claim that climate change is the result of God's will or sin or some combination thereof.

Ok, so people will claim that you are not using 'science' to address the issue, but if you want to respond to them in terms they accept, you're going to have to operationalize what you mean by "God's will" and "sin."

Once you operationalize your terms in a concrete way, you have started doing science. You may say that everything that happens beyond human control is 'God's will,' and everything that humans do artificially that conflicts with what nature would do in their/our absence amounts to "sin." At that point, you have a basis for a falsifiable theory and you can deduce tests that will support or discredit/falsify your theory.

To falsify, in Popper's terms, you have to seek out the best possible hypotheses for disproving your theory. E.g. you have to think of scenarios where humans artificially alter nature with the result of preventing the climate from changing. If you can then prove that climate is not changing or that it's possible to prevent or stop climate change by artificial means, then you have falsified your theory. On the other hand, if you cannot find proof that artificial human activities maintain climate stability, then you have not yet falsified your theory and you must go on seeking tests to disprove it.

In short, science is really just the application of scientific method and empiricism to addressing questions. Does that mean that no one could ever find a way to pass off pseudoscience as science by simulating the application of scientific method to achieve deceptive results? No, of course they could. It just means that if you in good faith apply scientific method to answering any question, that is by definition 'science.' It has nothing to do with who you work for or what your degree is in because science was not invented as a set of disciplinary territories. Those emerged later as people started wanting to control and limit access to professional positions, funding, and public attention.

Well stated Setanta! +1

I find that many people are trying to sound deeper than they are by adding "Quantum" or "Quanta" to make up compund scientistic phrases.

Quantum Cosmetology

"Quantum" now has a philosophical/spiritual meaning that is remotely based on science (at least a layman's understanding of what a scientists say). This used to really bother me, but now I accept it (since many people in my circle of non-scientific friends now use the word).

As long as you keep in mind that the spiritual word is distinct from the science it has value. The word "quantum" in this sense means having unlimited possibilities.

TO ALL
Googling 'bogdan9310' leads to the self publicity links removed by the administator. From this we can conclude that he is a promoter of 'mind control conspiracy theories', and his understanding of 'philosophy' is limited to a realiance on Cartestian Dualism (cogito ergo sum ).

Im a Quantum Shepherd

I really understand. What bothers the **** out of me is that the term "Quantum" really originated as something like a"Small Share" . It already had a decent meaning, that translated into physics nicely.

Like the coopting of real words by computer industry, "QUANTUM" all of a sudden, started meaning LARGE and after that it became gobbledegook.
SO I really disagree with you that theres a decent philosophical counterpart mening either "Big" or "Little". Its a dumass misappropriation in which most of its non science uses mean NOTHING.

"Quantum Leap"
"Quantum of Solace"
"Quantum Meridian" (Thats total BS itdoesnt even a base of measure )

We have a few folks here who are obviously science fiction readers or science hobbyists who use the two word phrase with impunity. They must be found and their quantum fatuousness made examples of.

Science is a method, not a discipline, nowadays usually done by a bunch of chimps with a pimp up front to rip off the benefits...same old, same old...it works but the intellectual process tastes like ****! On the other hand, the Humanities require more finesse and cannot be brut forced out.

Sciences and the humanities are branches of the same tree of philosophy. They just look ostensibly different after a couple hundred years of product differentiation.

Universal Repulsion - a new fundamental force.

Similar to universal gravitation force between matters, there is an universal repulsion force between line of sight electrons on the surface of matters. Without gravitation, we cannot orbit the Sun. Without repulsion, Sun light cannot reach us.

Because electrons are on the surface of all matters, and because line of sight electrons are constantly repelling each other with Coulomb's force F=Ke x ee/R^2, therefore between the surfaces of matter A and matter B there exists an universal repulsion force F=Ke x aebe/R^2. In the equation, a is the number of line of sight electrons on the surface of mater A, b is the number of line of sight electrons on the surface of matter B, R is the average distance.

This universal repulsion force is always existing at any distance, therefore line of sight electrons are constantly connected by this force at any distance, therefore they can share their kinetic energy instantaneously at any distance.

This universal repulsion force is the conductor of light energy in the vacuum space between stars and planets. Light energy is instantly shared between line of sight vibrating electrons on the surface of the Sun and electrons on Earth outer atmosphere, then it becomes light wave and traveling in the air at light speed C.

This universal repulsion force is the conductor of light between things you see and your eyes. Due to air in between, light speed is C.

This universal repulsion force is the conductor of EM wave between antenna and receiver. Due to air in between, EM wave speed is C.

Due to the existence of universal repulsion force, all star lights reach Earth outer atmosphere instantly, become light wave traveling in the air at speed C.

Sun light takes 8 minutes to reach us is mistaken. Time delay in space communication is impossible.

If light speed in vacuum space is infinite, relativity, electromagnetism and quantum physics will be all wrong.

Use MIT trillion frame per second camera to measure light speed inside of a vacuum glass bottle, we can prove light speed in vacuum is infinite.

Light only exists in air, water, medium/matter. There is no light in vacuum space.

Energy instantly teleported from the Sun to Earth outer atmosphere. Due to the existence of universal repulsion force between electrons on the sun and our outer atmosphere.

Einstein and Newton thought light is something traveling through space at light speed. It has both wave and particle properties.

They were both wrong.

Lets see, with a non equivalency analogy, Id have to lean on Einstein E=mc^^ (as you may recall the French and German Acads of SCience had proven actually works in space and on earth and the concept of space/time and the interexchange of energy and mass can be drawn mathematically and have been shown to really work ).

BUT According to you, in a vacuum, (c) would be undefined ( itd be c/0) so we would be left with E=m(c/0)^^. That would require a whole new definition of much science. You tryin to sell me a gelded ram?




Are you a fan of Anisotropic Synchrony Convention?? me neither.

The scientific method itself is a by-product of philosophy.

That must be one of the most ridiculous statements about science I ever read.

You might have misunderstood it then. It isn't a statement about science. It is a statement about philosophy.

Would you step onto an airplane designed by philosophers?