Customer Discussions > science discussion forum

The validity of Scientific Inquiry...


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 108 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 8 Feb 2012 18:29:30 GMT
Spin says:
By what theory or hypothesis does "science" claim to express reality? Do not all scientific justifications rely solely on personal interpretation, personal acceptance and personal world-views? If not, please provide a theory which validates scientific inquiry, independently of ones personal interpretation of such a theory.

Posted on 9 Feb 2012 14:10:30 GMT
R. Kroell says:
Ri vath kau eh ri vath rok nam-tor na'etek hi etek kau-tor. (There is no other wisdom and no other hope for us but that we grow wise.)

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Feb 2012 17:07:14 GMT
G. Heron says:
Spin

"Do not all scientific justifications rely solely on personal interpretation, personal acceptance and personal world-views? "

No the validity of any scientific theory is tested against observation and experiment made in the real world.

Posted on 9 Feb 2012 17:25:51 GMT
R. Kroell says:
The "theory" of E=mc2 is a good example which validates scientific inquiry, independently of ones personal interpretation of such a theory.
And if Spin knew hwo science works (I know I am reapting my self, but Spin has no ability to learn something), he would not ask that questions.
On the other side, I wish that spin shows me a theory or hypothesis that "rely solely on personal interpretation, personal acceptance and personal world-views".
So we can discuss.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Feb 2012 18:17:59 GMT
Spin says:
G; And is not "observation" a subjective phenomenon? And is not "experiment" based on personal interpretation of how reality operates? "Observation vs reality" is the concept at the heart of the Heisenberg principle, is it not? Even your last post is the result of subjective, not objective, considerations.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Feb 2012 18:27:11 GMT
Spin says:
R: E=MC2 does not validate scientific inquiry. It has nothing to do with scientific inquiry. E=MC2 is a fact, not a philosophy. It predicts its own demise under certain conditions, which in your argument means it predicts the demise of scientific inquiry (an implication I am sure you would reject). To accept a scientific reality as the basis of a philosophical belief only corrupts the meaning and intent of that knowledge. In short, it is not up to me to show you that your personal interpretation of the world is in fact subjective; Your replies (indeed everyones replies, including mine) prove the point of subjectivity without my intervention. It is up to you to show me that your interpretation is objective and in no way relies on personal experience, observation or hypotheses. Good luck. =)

Posted on 11 Feb 2012 21:36:31 GMT
R. Kroell says:
Maybe my english is not good enough to understand you in this case.
E=mc2, please recognize that m and c are written in the small form (just to be a nitpicker here), and yes, 2 should be up and small, but I can't get this here.
You once said that everything in science is a theory.
So this is one, too.
This theory has been proven many times, and untuil now, it was not disproven in observation or experiment.
This willl still be true regardless of being atheists, christian, jew, muslim, or so on.
So that concept is not depending on that "all scientific justifications rely solely on personal interpretation, personal acceptance and personal world-views".
Again, maybe I misunderstood you opening post.
Science is based on facts and observation and test and trail.
An apple still falls to the ground, be it in Iraq, Germany, Wales, or even Wisconsin. And even Moon and Mars.
On the other hand we have creationsm, here, the apple can suddenly float into space. Here, the objectivity is bounded by the "book".

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2012 22:33:34 GMT
Spin says:
Kroell; A "fact" is a single aspect of reality, one among many. The totality of facts consitute reality. "Truth" is the relation between consciousness and reality. Since concsiouness can only ever have a relation with facts, not the totality of facts, it can never know reality. It can know "truth" only by accepting and understanding the facts it denies due to its own desire for its own comfort. As Wittgenstein said, the world is the totality of facts. Unfortunately, the positivists could never account for knowledge. And that is where experience, not philosophy, religion or science, comes in.

Posted on 13 Feb 2012 11:19:50 GMT
R. Kroell says:
"Since concsiouness can only ever have a relation with facts, not the totality of facts, it can never know reality."
Sorry, this is utter nonsense.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Feb 2012 20:27:33 GMT
Last edited by the author on 13 Feb 2012 20:28:29 GMT
Spin says:
Fin. No wonder all you guys resort to computrs, mobile phones eyc. The beuaty of knpwlege concerns profit.

Yes, You are right. All knowlwdge is directed to mobile phones, tablets and media communication. Very advanced, I must sdmit. scienece, t this moment in time, is concernedconly with profit, not knowledg. Even you, using technology, have no idea of the consequences of your action.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Feb 2012 20:30:42 GMT
[Deleted by Amazon on 13 Feb 2012 23:35:43 GMT]

Posted on 13 Feb 2012 21:26:31 GMT
S.R.J says:
i know the question asks of scientific enquiry. My knowledge of such enquiry is skant, however is it not the case that one 'proof' has to be replicated by other individuals before any such proof can be regarded as having scientific validity. Does this not remove some of the bases of your proposition Spin?
S.R.J

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Feb 2012 10:00:59 GMT
G. Heron says:
Spin
""Observation vs reality" is the concept at the heart of the Heisenberg principle, is it not?"

No.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Feb 2012 20:02:32 GMT
Last edited by the author on 15 Feb 2012 20:03:46 GMT
Spin says:
G; jesus, my freind, you know very little about quantum physics and its history. Why do you assume to be justified in making such false proclamations? Worse, why do think it valid to misinform readers with little knowledge of science? Call yourself a scientist? More, a "geologist"? Jesus wept.

Posted on 15 Feb 2012 22:39:19 GMT
Last edited by the author on 15 Feb 2012 22:40:58 GMT
R. Kroell says:
Spin: you don't know how to handle the principle of uncertantiy. It is just over your mind.
If you would read through the books, you would, maybe, understand.

Posted on 15 Feb 2012 22:40:29 GMT
R. Kroell says:
It seems to me that physics is far beyond your understanding. We all see this from your statements.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Feb 2012 17:59:31 GMT
G. Heron says:
Spin,

I am not a geologist although I don't understand why you seem to think geology is not a science. I am not a scientist but I know enough to know that Observation vs reality is not what the uncertainty principle is about. I would of course suggets that people check it out for themselves, there is plenty on the internet for people to study and they can draw their own conclusions.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Feb 2012 22:28:39 GMT
Spin says:
G; as I am sure you are aware, I constantly advise folk NOT to use the internet as a source of objective information and knowledge. To do so is the height of intellectual laziness and is precisely the reason why this world is creating conflict instead of resolving it. Everyone is "informed" but nobody "knows".

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Feb 2012 09:12:39 GMT
G. Heron says:
Spin

"G; as I am sure you are aware, I constantly advise folk NOT to use the internet as a source of objective information and knowledge. To do so is the height of intellectual laziness and is precisely the reason why this world is creating conflict instead of resolving it. Everyone is "informed" but nobody "knows". "

I must disagree, of course there is a lot of rubbish on the net but one just has to be careful about the sources. I would suggest that the hight of intelectual laziness is not looking at all. What would be your prefered method for tracking down information about something?

Posted on 17 Feb 2012 12:10:18 GMT
R. Kroell says:
That depence on the kind of sources. The Internet is a usefull source of information. Spin denies this, of cource. He thinks that people are not able to decide for themselves.
Going research on the internet has nothing to do with laziness.
What is the difference of a written book available in the universities libraries, or the same availible on the faculties hompage?

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Feb 2012 11:04:00 GMT
Last edited by the author on 19 Feb 2012 17:26:18 GMT
Mr. Bde Wall says:
Hi Spin,

"By what theory or hypothesis does "science" claim to express reality?"

Well, I'm not sure science claims any such thing itself, but various traditions in thought may claim this for it e.g. positivism. There are sensible approaches to science and its relationship to things in themselves which dont straightforwardly assume it reflects what the world is like beyond any question. Popper's falsificationism is a good example, whereby its main function is not to reflect the world but to falsify hypotheses - in other words - to rule out, rather than rule in, propositions about the natural world. If a hypothesis stands up to test after test after test, its still not a proven fact, but its not ruled out, and we can carry on working with it, in practical terms, as if it was a fact (unless it does become falsified). It doesnt necessarily have to be one. Kuhn offers another approach to scientific understanding involving revolutionary shifts in scientific discursive practice, as does Foucault for the human sciences. These are also interesting but I wont go into those now.

So we have in Popper and others an approach to scientific legitimacy as a practical and useful guideline to how we approach the natural world without needing to resort to either individual interpretation alone or a naive positivism (science straightforwardly unveiling the absolute and questionable truth of a given natural phenomenon, beyond any revision).

Posted on 23 Feb 2012 10:54:58 GMT
Spin says:
I am sure the Logical positivists, and indeed the Existentialists, would have a heart attack at knowing what we now know of scientific reality. =) But, all seriousness aside, the question comes down to experience, not theory. And at a personal level, whether one advocates falsificationism or verificationism, scientific realism or anti-realism, etc...Complex subjects worthy of more than our simplistic comments (well, mine anyway) on a web-site. =)

Posted on 23 Feb 2012 13:12:40 GMT
R. Kroell says:
Says the one who always writes E=MC2 instead of E=mc2 without knowing why the first on is wrong.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2012 14:38:06 GMT
Spin says:
R: If you value artificial signs to the extent that you argue about reality, and imply that you do not understand what is being said, go ahead. Not my problem. People with nothing to say resort to pedantry and ad hominem argument.

Posted on 23 Feb 2012 15:17:00 GMT
R. Kroell says:
But still you don't know!
And hence you contributions are wrong and irrelvant.
Calling others dumb and idiots.
And PS: regarding you comment that the Universe is not 14 billion years because of relativity,
you can read pages 66 ff in Greene's new book. The topic is adressed there, and yes, it is still 14 ba. It is just your understanding, or better misunderstanding of science that keeps you posting this bulldroppings.
You should use your time to get into matters before you call people dumb and idiots instead of spending the whole day presenting yourself and and your lack of knowledge.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  science discussion forum
Participants:  12
Total posts:  108
Initial post:  8 Feb 2012
Latest post:  10 Nov 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions