Just saying that critics of science must deal with the plain fact that it works spectacularly well as a means of gaining real knowledge compared with say, theology, philosophy or chicken entrails.That is quite a leap from a little comment about some evidence to a large list of results of science.
I agreeThat is quite a leap from a little comment about some evidence to a large list of results of science.
Not neccesarily, it doesnât. Regarding clearly physical properties of clealy physical objects - generally, youâre probably right. But science, especially historically, is far less reliable than perhaps weâre often led to believeJust saying that critics of science must deal with the plain fact that it works spectacularly well as a means of gaining real knowledge compared with say, theology, philosophy or chicken entrails.
I should check who Iâm talking to! I thought you were hecd2 being unusually breezy!We are not a scientific blunder.(lol!)This thread is becoming rather interesting.
On the contrary, knowledge in all these domains is knowledge. For example, we know what electrons are and we know what their properties are and exactly how they will behave in a huge range of circumstances with a precision and a certainty that at least equals and in many cases exceeds anything we know about elephants.Without such a knowledge of the behaviour of electrons, and particularly their behaviour in semiconductors, we would have no cell phones. Itâs your ignorance of how we acquire that confidence in our knowledge of electrons, or the expansion of the universe, and your unwillingness or inability to correct that deficiency that allows you to assert this fallacy over and over again.
Do - we - or - do - we - not - rely - entirely - upon - visual - data - for - our - understanding - of - distant - planetary - bodies?
I donât want to do an A-level - Iâm just arguing particular points. Feel free to answer the question above! I understand you get very excited about all this stuff, and want everyboy else to as well, but more straightforward answers would be more effective
Well, I was applying it loosly, but youâre a hardcore representative of logical positivism, and such ideologies determine your expressions, so itâs accurate in a specific sense as well.
It was part of the same discussion as spectroscopy, wasnât it?
I thought we were talking stars, but we can discuss planets too. In the case of planets the answer is unequivocally no - we do not rely entirely on visual data for our knowledge about them. As for stars, unless you interpret âvisual dataâ widely to mean all electromagnetic wavelengths, from radio waves, through microwave, infrared, visible (which is the only part of the EM spectrum to which the term âvisualâ is normally applied), ultraviolet, X-rays and gamma rays, which interpretation would be rather eccentric, then, again, the answer is no. Certainly we donât know everything that we know about stars simply by looking at them with or without telescopes.
In other words, you canât be bothered to learn anything about the subject, but you still feel that the dogmatic statements you make from your lack of understanding are somehow âargumentsâ. Donât you think thatâs rather contemptuous of science? Why do you feel so threatened by it?
Logical positivism! You donât know a single thing about my epistemology, so again you are making dogmatic statements from a position of no knowledge. But in any case, how can pointing out the fact that we can know things that are not apparent to the unaided senses be in any way a signature of logical positivism, and what on earth is âpositivistic jargonâ?
No - as far as I know, you havenât mentioned Mars on this forum prior to this thread. So letâs have your reference or can we assume that youâre making it up as you go along? By the way on the other thread you made this statement "Didnât the Universe shrink about 10 years ago (or rather, wasnât it decided that it was smaller than previously thought about 10 years ago)? " to which the answer is a plain no. Both threads are case studies in your being given evidence and refusing to engage with it and then inventing things without any justification in order to personally maintain an unjustifiable and flawed epistemology.
Gamma rays⌠now, rather than try and just demand everyone study a module, you could have just mentioned thatâŚ
I feel threatened by a dogmatism that doesnât recognise itself as such. Such a thing is no longer science, but scientism. And delusory
Iâve argued with you on many a thread, and if you are anything other than an *extremely * straightlaced positivist, you keep it well hidden. It is a signpost of logical positivism because, realistically, it is not honest to say that we *do * know such things *unless * youâre a positivist.
Did I not? Iâm amazed, since Iâm pretty sure I was told about it around that time⌠Are you saying that the Scientific Establishment has unchangingly stuck to the idea that the universe is expanding?
Right. So when these laser beams are hitting the protons to measure their characteristics, are they actually hitting protons which have been literally idenitified spacially, isolated physically and targetted seperately, or are they actually hitting atoms, which have been calculated to have such particles around them, the results of the collisions being calculated according to the understanding of their movements and features as calculated relatively to the atom? (If that makes sense⌠which Iâm sure it wonât to hecd2I should check who Iâm talking to! I thought you were hecd2 being unusually breezy!
Anyway, that video didnât display on the computer I was using, and I donât have audio on this computer, so Iâll have to try and get it to work laterâŚ
)Because they donât know how to do anything on purpose.
I mentioned spectroscopy and you didnât have the interest to find out how we determine the properties of stars with it, so why would me mentioning something else be different? Your original point wasnât that what we know about stars all comes through visual data, but that we canât know anything about stars because they are far away, which was, and is, wrong. And, as you now see, the other claim about visual data only is also wrong.
You seem not to recognise that there are many flavours of positivism, and I am absolutely and unequivocally not a logical positivist.
Yes, thatâs what Iâm saying: once the proposition that the universe is expanding was accepted it, scientists have not changed that view.
Sorry - oversight - go here and pages after:Anyway, this is beginning to seem like a poker game youâve set up, and are holding all the cards to⌠Iâm pretty sure I keep asking you, direct me to the relevant thread!
So what? Anyone who thinks they know that the Higgs boson exists is talking nonsense. The Higgs boson has not been detected as yet, so you wonât find anyone working in the fields of high energy physics or theoretical physics who has claimed that they know the Higgs boson exists. Actually, this is a rather good example of how science works to verify its propositions. Until such time as the postulated Higgs is detected, no-one who knows what they are talking about will say that they know it exists.Couldnât help but notice this in the sidebar
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=592178
Whether the Higgs Boson particle was ever thought to have been âknownâ to exist or not (and I donât think it ever was), I know several people who thought it wasâŚ
But did it occur to you that the idea for, say, a computer chip, let alone designing it, fabricating it and making it work, depends entirely on having a darn good prior understanding of electrons?
Some scientists maybe think Godâs condom broke. I donât know if this is a bad joke or what, but I had to say it. Most scientists today think that everything is reduced to sex. I know that God doesnât use condoms. Is this joke disrespectful or am I just poking fun at certain peopleâs silly view of the universe
Yes, itâs messy and full of failures, but the fact that there can be sure-fire failures (guesses not born out by physical evidence) is why itâs so successful. Critics of science can have their day when philosophers land a ship on Mars and theologians rid the world of malaria.
Perhaps in a medieval university, but these days itâs rare to find zoology taught by the philosophy department or marine biologists trotting off for their essential primer on Wittgenstein.And compared to philosophy - you do realise that the scientific investigation is just a form of philosophical investigation, right?
Rolling your eyes doesnât really cut it with me since it denotes an unscientific attitude. Your lack of knowledge suggests to me that you spin things out in a way that suits your lack of understanding the truth. Letâs see if I can direct you in the proper direction. In the future learn to do some research on your own.Couldnât help but notice this in the sidebar
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=592178
Whether the Higgs Boson particle was ever thought to have been âknownâ to exist or not (and I donât think it ever was), I know several people who thought it wasâŚ
Also, a small section from a larger article by CERN that explains the âNew CMS Higgs Search Results for the Lepton Photon 2011 Conferenceâ on August 22nd 2011:
Iâm extremely busy this week but hope to return to your other comments over the weekend.
valentino
What you never heard the saying ashes to ashes and from dust to dust?