What We Thought

[nPeace]

What does that mean to you, and what does it imply?
If you are a scientist, I would also like to hear from you on this question.

So that you understand what I mean, please read this article. Thanks.

The article is just an example, to highlight the fact that scientists often think things which they later realize is not correct.

I am really asking when you hear or read that clause - the title - in relation to certain things scientists believe, and claim, what does that mean to you, and what does it imply?
If you are a scientist, I would also like to hear from you on this question.

 

[sun rise]

To me it's an interesting discovery and not surprising given the extensive list of animals and birds that use tools of one sort or another. Tool use by animals - Wikipedia Further, looking at what animals actually make tools, there are studies such as Is primate tool use special? Chimpanzee and New Caledonian crow compared that discuss tool making.

 

[ChristineM]

What does that mean to you, and what does it imply?
If you are a scientist, I would also like to hear from you on this question.

So that you understand what I mean, please read this article. Thanks.

It seems earlier primates could make and use tools. Not surprised really.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What does that mean to you, and what does it imply?
If you are a scientist, I would also like to hear from you on this question.

So that you understand what I mean, please read this article. Thanks.

Here is the problem Imagine using the scientific understanding and then imagine looking at picture of you mother and then her mother and so on. Continue and tell me when that mother is not a human and then look at her daughter and tell me why she is a human?
Do you understand the problem?

 

[Mock Turtle]

What does that mean to you, and what does it imply?
If you are a scientist, I would also like to hear from you on this question.

So that you understand what I mean, please read this article. Thanks.

As I have always suggested - humans have a long history, even if we only label the species as 'human' at some point in that history. And prior to this - just like so many other species - we will have exhibited enough intelligence to use whatever we found in our environment to survive. Just as other non-human species do too.

 

[nPeace]

Seems the OP wasn't clear. My apologies.
The article was just an example, to highlight the fact that scientists often think things which they later realize was not correct.

I was really asking when you hear or read that clause - the title - in relation to certain things scientists believe, and claim, what does that mean to you, and what does it imply?
If you are a scientist, I would also like to hear from you on this question.

Should I adgust the OP so that it reflects that? I think I had better do that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Seems the OP wasn't clear. My apologies.
The article was just an example, to highlight the fact that scientists often think things which they later realize was not correct.
...

That is how science works.

 

[nPeace]

That is how science works.

Thank you.
Do you mean it works on beliefs?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thank you.
Do you mean it works on beliefs?

Well, not religious beliefs and not general beliefs, but it relies on some axiomatic assumptions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Seems the OP wasn't clear. My apologies.
The article was just an example, to highlight the fact that scientists often think things which they later realize was not correct.

I was really asking when you hear or read that clause - the title - in relation to certain things scientists believe, and claim, what does that mean to you, and what does it imply?
If you are a scientist, I would also like to hear from you on this question.

Should I adgust the OP so that it reflects that? I think I had better do that.

The fact that science is self-correcting in the face of evidence that contradicts a previous understanding is a good thing. Don't you agree?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The article was just an example, to highlight the fact that scientists often think things which they later realize was not correct.

Everyone thinks things that prove to be not correct. Scientists make it their mission to weed out these incorrect conclusions and correct them.

OTOH, religion is often quite incorrect, but in the face of contradictory evidence doubles down and refuses to correct itself.

 

[nPeace]

The fact that science is self-correcting in the face of evidence that contradicts a previous understanding is a good thing. Don't you agree?

So, what is it correcting? What is the previous understand called - a fact, belief, or something else?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Everyone thinks things that prove to be not correct. Scientists make it their mission to weed out these incorrect conclusions and correct them.

OTOH, religion is often quite incorrect, but in the face of contradictory evidence doubles down and refuses to correct itself.

There is more to the everyday world than science and religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, what is it correcting? What is the previous understand called - a fact, belief, or something else?

"A conclusion" would work.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, what is it correcting? What is the previous understand called - a fact, belief, or something else?

You really try to win by playing words. Here is your problem. You win and yet the rest of us who acts differently than you and continue to do so.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What does that mean to you, and what does it imply?

It means that science, pursued with discipline and integrity, does a masterful job in advancing knowledge.

 

[nPeace]

Well, not religious beliefs and not general beliefs, but it relies on some axiomatic assumptions.

I don't understand.
An unquestionable assumption is not a belief?
If there is no proof for an _______, is it not a belief?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't understand.
An unquestionable assumption is not a belief?
If there is no proof for an _______, is it not a belief?

Then everything is a belief, because proof is based on beliefs, if you understand how proof works. But not all belief are exactly the same, though they are equal for the category of belonging to the set of beliefs.

 

[nPeace]

Everyone thinks things that prove to be not correct. Scientists make it their mission to weed out these incorrect conclusions and correct them.

OTOH, religion is often quite incorrect, but in the face of contradictory evidence doubles down and refuses to correct itself.

Why do you believe that religion "in the face of contradictory evidence doubles down and refuses to correct itself"?
Have you seen this in all religion?
If not, why do you generalize?

 

[nPeace]

You really try to win by playing words. Here is your problem. You win and yet the rest of us who acts differently than you and continue to do so.