ISIL, Taliban = True Islam??

[Azrael Antilla]

I think this is where you're going wrong.

Science is manned by humans and they will always be wrong about some things; even if we use tried and tested methods we can still fudge them, as we see with a lot of medicine errors (such as the thalidomide scandal) and various sets of 'data' that have been cocked-up.

Interpretation can be faulty. Instrumental error can result in false data. Some scientists even fabricate data.

This all gets rectified thanks to the scientific method. Which demands that all conclusions are falsifiable and indepently verifiable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you want to change the method be my ****ing guest. I'd like to see some suggestions..

Well, start be learning when you are subjective.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Well, start be learning when you are subjective.

Will do!

FFS..

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Interpretation can be faulty. Instrumental error can result in false data. Some scientists even fabricate data.

This all gets rectified thanks to the scientific method. Which demands that all conclusions are falsifiable and indepently verifiable.

So how do you makes this fallible; "Unlike crappy religious narratives."? And independently verifiable?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Will do!

FFS..

That was subjective, the FSS.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

That was subjective, the FSS.

It was an expression of exasperation mixed with a sense of disillusionment, and a subtle hint of annoyance.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It was an expression of exasperation mixed with a sense of disillusionment, and a subtle hint of annoyance.

Yeah, subjective. Now please do science on this: "Unlike crappy religious narratives."

I think I get you. You apparently use science as a political and moral ideology.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries). It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.[1][2][3] Wikipedia

Hope this helps.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Pretty much what I've said it is. Now if any one here thinks there is room for improvement. Don't hesitate to inform me right away.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Yeah, subjective. Now please do science on this: "Unlike crappy religious narratives."

I think I get you. You apparently use science as a political and moral ideology.

Do I? How singular of me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries). It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.[1][2][3] Wikipedia

Hope this helps.

Popper didn't use induction. So never trust wikipedia, unless you can do a base check yourself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do I? How singular of me.

Yes, apparently based on some of your other posts, if I remember correctly.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Pretty much what I've said it is. Now if any one here thinks there is room for improvement. Don't hesitate to inform me right away.

Anyone? No? Ok.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Pretty much what I've said it is. Now if any one here thinks there is room for improvement. Don't hesitate to inform me right away.

Popper already did that.

 

[Augustus]

Science contrary to Augustus's claim. Is not wrong about anything... the method is not wrong. It is flawless. It is objective.

Sorry, really is the last one (I'll ignore the fact you are clearly misrepresenting me again).

Blind religious devotion indeed. "Flawless" "Objective"

If anything can be described as "anti-science", your statement is pretty close to it. Are you genuinely unaware of the subjectivities that many aspects of the sciences rely on? That theories/hypotheses being tested generally rely on other theories that are assumed? That unprovable axioms are required to underpin method?

Science may be the best tool we have to understand many aspects of reality, but its methods are neither flawless nor perfectly objective by any rational means.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Popper didn't use induction. So never trust wikipedia, unless you can do a base check yourself.

Well I was a HPLC accredited chemical analyst for 12 years. There's that experience that tells me wiki has got it about right. Please provide any additional information that contradicts wiki.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Sorry, really is the last one (I'll ignore the fact you are clearly misrepresenting me again).

Blind religious devotion indeed. "Flawless" "Objective"

If anything can be described as "anti-science", your statement is pretty close to it. Are you genuinely unaware of the subjectivities that many aspects of the sciences rely on? That theories being tested generally rely on other theories that are assumed? That unprovable axioms are required to underpin method?

Science may be the best tool we have to understand many aspects of reality, but its methods are neither flawless nor perfectly objective by any rational means.

Name a method of investigation more productive and more objective than the scientific method. Otherwise...yes. Relatively speaking. There is no better way. To understand the nature of reality.

 

[Augustus]

Name a method of investigation more productive and more objective than the scientific method. Otherwise...

The best method our irrational species of animals with limited cognitive capacity, incomplete information and inbuilt biases has ≠ flawless, objective

Not rocket science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well I was a HPLC accredited chemical analyst for 12 years. There's that experience that tells me wiki has got it about right. Please provide any additional information that contradicts wiki.

Yeah, you can find it yourself. Just Google Karl Popper and understand what source to use. I found it. Now I am testing you.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Are you genuinely unaware of the subjectivities that many aspects of the sciences rely on? That theories/hypotheses being tested generally rely on other theories that are assumed? That unprovable axioms are required to underpin method?

Utter nonsense. Please provide an example.