Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,424 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,190,318
Pageviews Today: 1,544,261Threads Today: 393Posts Today: 6,877
12:31 PM


Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
REPORT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IN REPLY
Message Subject Notes from an "alternate universe". Introduction to a new way of thinking.
Poster Handle Anonymous Coward
Post Content
And examples of the shaky ground would be ...


Hello!

I say that the scientific method cannot be tested scientifically because the foundations of the method rest upon assumptions independent from experience.

As someone has put it better than myself:

"..there are certain philosophical assumptions made at the base of the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions are the basis of naturalism, the philosophy on which science is grounded.."

The nature of something cannot be observed independently of the observation (as it really is). There will always be "perception" of something, even if you are perceiving something through an apparatus.

Math is the only science that does not need to be based on reality. The other sciences, the natural sciences, do need to be based on reality.

Today's science does not test its core assumptions. Because that would mean the end of science as we know it. Why would it want to kill itself?

Thanks.
 Quoting: chaol 183770



Interesting, but not quite satisfactory, answer. This is a good thread, and it seems worth a serious answeer.

Are you sure that "scientifically test" the scientific method makes sense? It is a phylosofical principle and its only possible test is "if it works".

About the "assumptions independent from experience", you quote that text (author?) that seems to refer more to the way many perceive science as a kind of faith - which includes a lot of scientists, but far, very far from all of them.

A true, open minded scientist doesn't assume that reality is "absolutely" objective and consistent (not written in the text but implied, otherwise the phrase doesn't make sense), but that it is "relatively" so in a limited slice of time and space; such a person accepts the possibility of evolution and changes.
The same applies to "perceive the reality accurately", that in reality is only a process of improving approximations, quite conscious of the possibilities of errors.

Not very shaky, I would say, A (decreasing) little, yes, but with the full knowledge that it is so.

After those remarks, you still think that "Today's science does not test its core assumptions .. "? that seems a partisan judgement, more on the plane of chemtrails or zero-point folklore.

I appreciate the quotes in "alternate universe", that could be only of the mind, you never explicitly state that is is physical; acceptintG the game, when did you "arrive in this reality". An exact answer (YEAR) would be highly appreciated.

Thanks to you
 
Please verify you're human:




Reason for copyright violation:



News