-->
@3RU7AL
You are making an argument for solipsism.
Science is not objective.
Posts
Total:
153
-->
@mustardness
I agree, none of that answers the question.
What was the question?
-->
@3RU7AL
Let's say you are right, science is subjective.
What are the consequences of that?
What does it mean for science?
-->
@TwoMan
Po, you are no longer a Master. You have dishonored your ancestors.
-->
@Paul
Let's say you are right, science is subjective.What are the consequences of that?What does it mean for science?
Instead of pretending that science is "objective", wouldn't it seem better to explain to people what are considered adequate (sufficient) standards of evidence?
Large numbers of people already think that science is simply a matter of opinion and decide to believe (for example) that creationism is a perfectly valid alternative.
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you a creationist?
-->
@Paul
Really?
-->
@Paul
What was the question?
Is science objective?
Ive already answered that in at least three of my posts here.
When I was on a jury the judge instructed us jurors, that, he was the judged of the law ergo objective and that we, the jurors, were judge of truth ergo objective based the information presented to us.
Were are to winnow-out the truth from all of the information irrespective of how it was presented { spun } to us.
-->
@3RU7AL
Would you prefer I regard you as a creationist or would you prefer I regard you as something else?
-->
@Paul
I'm advocating for explicit standards of evidence.
-->
@mustardness
I was just kidding. :)
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm advocating for explicit standards of evidence.
So you want to lay down some rules as to what we should regard as scientific evidence.
Tell me what those rules should be?
-->
@Paul
So you want to lay down some rules as to what we should regard as scientific evidence.Tell me what those rules should be?
Statistical significance should be at least 3 sigma for "evidence" and at least 5 sigma for "new discovery".
All studies that are authorized to be declared "scientific" must make all raw data available for review and results must be duplicated (confirmed/verified) by at least two other independent labs.
Scientific conclusions should be careful not to use "appeal to ignorance" or "shifting burden of proof" or violate any common logical fallacies.
-->
@3RU7AL
So how many independent labs should be required to verify that it is "scientific"?
-->
@Paul
"...at least two other independent labs."
-->
@3RU7AL
Only two? That's all the proof you yourself would need to classify something as scientifically sound?
-->
@Paul
These are considered minimum requirements.
-->
@3RU7AL
The vast majority of the scientific principles that make up established mainstream science today have been tested a lot more than twice. It's more like thousands of times.
-->
@Paul
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False -
-->
@3RU7AL
So science is not objective because most published research findings are false?
-->
@Paul
Science is not objective because it is conducted by humans.
All known definitions of "objective" categorically exclude human observation and judgement.
-->
@3RU7AL
If I look up at the moon, the stairs and the planets in the night sky is my observation objective?
-->
@Paul
No.If I look up at the moon, the stairs and the planets in the night sky is my observation objective?
What you observe is subject to how fast you're moving, what's happening to the space between you and the stars, what is between you and the stars, and both your movements in relation to each other. Someone else, in another time or location, will observe something else.
The universe is relative.
-->
@Paul
If I look up at the moon, the stairs and the planets in the night sky is my observation objective?
Obviously not.
Your ability to make observations is sample biased by the range of your senses and your temporal and geographic position along with your presumed motivation and ability to communicate those observations and furthermore your audience's ability to receive and decipher your data without error.
-->
@ethang5
The universe is relative.
Interesting idea.
-->
@3RU7AL
Which branch of science are you most interested in and how do you know that the study at the link is not false?
The universe is relative.
Interesting idea.
Most scientists who read Einstein's general theory of relativity think so. As do most physicists who prove Einstein correct in experiments.
-->
@Paul
Which branch of science are you most interested in and how do you know that the study at the link is not false?
I am primarily self-interested.
I never make the mistake of believing any particular story or source is 100% true.
-->
@ethang5
The occupied space, parts that compose our eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe are relative.The universe is relative.
Finite Universe as a whole has not other occupied space to be relative too. Relativity requires twoness.
At best we can our finite, Universe is embraced/surround by macro-infinite non-occupied space.
Ergo we can express this latter set in various ways .......O...........
Where Universe = O and the dots represent macro-infinite non-occupied space.
I prefer a more comprehensive expression that is inclusive of the Cosmic Trinity and bilateral consciousness;
....SPACE{>*<) i (>*<)SPACE.....
Cosmic Trinity
1) eternally existent, spirit-1, { spirit-of-intent }, metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ex concepts of God, Universe, Concepts etc,
-------------------------line of demarcation------------------------------------
2} metaphysical-2, eternally existent, macro-infinite non-occupied space,
3} spirit-2, eternally existent, macro-infinite, occupied space Universe.
These are simple set to grasp yet so few so any ability to comprehend them. Its and ego problem in most cases.