August 30th, 2007, 08:15 PM
Given the nature of evidence and the fact that to date the evidence for most things for which science claims to have evidence has since been found with NEW evidence to not be correct at all, we can conclude that evidence itself is lacking in good evidence that 'evidence' for anything indeed exists at all.
What say you?
August 30th, 2007, 08:36 PM
Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
Name one thing as an example! Because you are just outright twisting and exaggerating the truth to suit yourself, as usual.
August 31st, 2007, 04:11 AM
Evidence cannot prove a theory correct because there may be other evidence that contradicts the theory, just unidscovered as yet.
Thus as I said in my first post......
You're right, we can always be wrong. And I could easily be persuaded to agree that the scientific community should be a little more undecided when finding 'evidence' of something in particular. But let's not be nurturing too pessimistic of an attitude about oil and water science; we have to travel through point B in order to reach C.
August 31st, 2007, 10:37 PM
If you really believed that, I don't think you would be here on a science forum because you can't do science without evidence.
yep, but denying irrevocably that point C is possible kind of limits the likelihood of us ever getting there , unless someone really sticks their neck out and goes against the tide.
September 1st, 2007, 05:10 PM
Then how did science evolve Harold?If you really believed that, I don't think you would be here on a science forum because you can't do science without evidence.
September 1st, 2007, 07:01 PM
Theories are revised based on the new evidence, but that doesn't mean there was anything wrong with the old evidence. What was proved wrong was our interpretation of the evidence.
September 2nd, 2007, 11:46 AM
What a cop out.
It was more than poor interprettation, it was lack of sufficent skill and knowledge to understand what was being observed/studied or even how to study it.
Perhaps science should dispatch of the word 'evidence', it is rather redundant. In the future we will discover a whole new science that turns existing knowledge on it's head and so it will be then, why not now?
The science of the ancients has yet to be conceived of. I guess that is quite a way off yet.
There is TOO much in this world and we are only scratching the surface.
What we observe is limited to that which evolution/biology has allowed us to observe but there is so much more.
September 2nd, 2007, 12:55 PM
Sounds like a lot of mystical bull crap to me. I'll stick with science.
September 2nd, 2007, 03:05 PM
Will you ever shut up with your moronic shortsided proparganda
?
Harry boy was in fact was being most generous. Evidence is never wrong(read the definition if youre too retarded to understand that) its just the interpretation due to not having enough of it that hasnt evolved .
The scientific process is so stringent that virtually no interpretations are wrong, just incomplete.
Science is a work in progress, only witchcraft never takes onboard further findings and adjusts accordingly.
September 3rd, 2007, 10:56 AM
yep, following a 'faith' is always saferSounds like a lot of mystical bull crap to me. I'll stick with science.
I prefer to live dangerously.
September 3rd, 2007, 10:58 AM
what a load of rubbishWill you ever shut up with your moronic shortsided proparganda
?
Harry boy was in fact was being most generous. Evidence is never wrong(read the definition if youre too retarded to understand that) its just the interpretation due to not having enough of it that hasnt evolved .
The scientific process is so stringent that virtually no interpretations are wrong, just incomplete.
Science is a work in progress, only witchcraft never takes onboard further findings and adjusts accordingly.
Evidence in science mean 'tentative'
but to the layman it means' beyond doubt'
which of course nothing IS beyond doubt, cos we don't know it all yet and never will.
You sound like a politician
"yes the war was the right thing to do AT THE TIME, but now we see it was wrong"
You just can't accept that your system is flawed. It is subject to prejudice, bias and MONEY buying specific RESULTS.
ToR, i can understand were you are coming from but under your line of thinking we would need to completely forget everything know, or at least think we know. It's a little bit like saying 'because crimes are still committed even though we have laws and prisons, we should simply abandon all of that and all become anarchists'.
September 3rd, 2007, 07:51 PM
No! a piece of evidence cannot lie, it can only be incomplete. The tentitive nature is due to us not having all the evidence for the whole picture, and the subsequent interpretation.
Nothing is beyond doubt, and no scientist will claim so.but to the layman it means' beyond doubt'
...Correctomondo! well done.which of course nothing IS beyond doubt, cos we don't know it all yet and never will.
I reiterate: Initiated science is vary rarely wrong, its just incomplete and unrefined."yes the war was the right thing to do AT THE TIME, but now we see it was wrong"
You are like the politician: Twisting the history of science to suit your spin!
Nothing that involves human endeavour is free from error and bias, that's why a piece of science has to be independently repeated countless times to eliminate those things to a negligible level, before it is accepted i.e. "The scientific process.".[u]You just can't accept that your system is flawed. It is subject to prejudice, bias and MONEY buying specific RESULTS.[
Nice jugs.
yeh science never got it wrong ever did they
plank
wiki
"
In summary, beliefs or assumptions about causal relationships are utilized to determine whether facts are evidence of a hypothesis.
Background beliefs differ. As a result, where observers operate under different paradigms, rational observers may find different meaning in scientific evidence from the same event[2]. For example, Priestly, working with phlogiston theory, took his observations about the decomposition of what we know today as mercuric oxide as evidence of the phlogiston. In contrast, Lavoisier, developing the theory of elements, took the same facts as evidence for oxygen[3]. Note that a causal relationship between the facts and hypothesis does not exist to cause the facts to be taken as evidence[1], but rather the causal relationship is provided by the person seeking to establish facts as evidence.
A more formal method to characterize the effect of background beliefs is Bayesianism[4]. Bayesian theory provides that one’s beliefs depend on evidence to which one is exposed and one’s prior experiences (probability distribution, in Bayesian terms)[5]. As a result, two observers of the same event will rationally arrive at different evidence, given the same facts, because their priors (previous experiences) differ.
The importance of background beliefs in the determination of what facts are evidence can also be illustrated using syllogistic logic as provided by Aristotle. A standard syllogism is a triad where two propositions jointly imply the conclusion[6]:
All men are mortal,
Aristotle is a man; therefore
Aristotle is mortal.
"
Listen deafy:
No one ever gets every thing right!
Independently initiated science is just so stringent that it rarely gets anything completely wrong.
Your assumptions that science is continuously being proven wrong, are based on a lack of education of the history of science.
BTW Quotes from wiki just about sums up your lack of any stringency what-so-ever in your sources.
This is a ridiculous standard you are applying to science. Science isn't right all the time, therefore it's flawed? Give me a break
suggesting something is NOT flawed, is suggesting it is PERFECT.
You believe science to be perfect ?
that's funny coming from someone with ZERO sources to back him up.
You are just playing with definitions. Science isn't flawed just because some of the results science produces aren't "correct". Science works to provide models to explain reality - and that's exactly what it does. As better models come along, they replace the old ones. By your definition science would only not be "flawed" if someone popped out of the womb and instantly knew everything about the universe. It's a completely useless point to make.suggesting something is NOT flawed, is suggesting it is PERFECT.
You believe science to be perfect ?
you are being a very silly billy now aren't you. If Einstein shares my point of view, what need have I of yours?You are just playing with definitions. Science isn't flawed just because some of the results science produces aren't "correct". Science works to provide models to explain reality - and that's exactly what it does. As better models come along, they replace the old ones. By your definition science would only not be "flawed" if someone popped out of the womb and instantly knew everything about the universe. It's a completely useless point to make.suggesting something is NOT flawed, is suggesting it is PERFECT.
You believe science to be perfect ?
The mind boggles as to where you sourced that little snippet.
What is the usefulness of your position? Anything not perfect and omniscient is flawed. Oh boy there's a revelation for you! Well done.you are being a very silly billy now aren't you. If Einstein shares my point of view, what need have I of yours?You are just playing with definitions. Science isn't flawed just because some of the results science produces aren't "correct". Science works to provide models to explain reality - and that's exactly what it does. As better models come along, they replace the old ones. By your definition science would only not be "flawed" if someone popped out of the womb and instantly knew everything about the universe. It's a completely useless point to make.suggesting something is NOT flawed, is suggesting it is PERFECT.
You believe science to be perfect ?
@ToR
For someone who says science is a load of bull and only some sort of faith you are using the fruits of this "faith" quite often, don't you?
So to you thermodynamics (you know, that little part of science that deals with e.g. energies and temperatures and stuff like that ) is bulls**t. But yet you use your fridge every day. So how do you think some guy called Linde came up with a method to keep food and beverages cool and fresh for prolonged periods of time? He was just dreaming it up or what? Oh no, wait.......he was polishing his crystal ball and somehow the solution just manifested itself. No, wait.......now I know! Entropy, the mighty god of thermodynamics appeared in a burning Bush (pun intended) and gave him the stone tables of refridgeration!!!! Tadaaaaaaaa!!!
Or just the fact that you are spreading your (not even) half baked Gobledigook here on this board. What do you think makes modern data transmission over long ranges possible? Yesssssssss, it's
MAGIC!!!!
Or is it just that mankind is making use of one of the predicted effects of quantum mechanics. Yup, I am talking about L.A.S.E.R.s
And when I follow your train of (well) "thoughts", we might as well be sitting on our hands (or for those so inclined stick our fingers up our butts as to keep them nice and warm) be content with ourself, and wait for the next miracle. Humptidumptidoooooooooo.
Yes. After due reflection on the matter I am 100% certain of this. As a devout agnostic and world champion fence sitter it is unusual for me to be so definite about anything, but I am certain about that.
You are, perhaps, being confused by the observation that many of sciences findings are flawed; that many scientists have behaved in a flawed manner; but both of these are quite different from the character fo science itself. Science is a methdology intended to deal with certain kinds of questions. It does this in a delightfully proficient and effective way. It is, within its self-imposed constraints, undoubtedly perfect.
Not every scientific theory ever has or ever will be disproved. I don't know which ones will last forever, but I'm pretty sure some of them will.
The thing about life is that nothing is ever certain, and any observation of evidence we make could turn out to be a random phenomenon.
However, while there's no such thing as a certainty, there is such a thing as a safe bet, or at least a good bet. A large casino can never be sure it won't lose a half billion dollars in a single day, but casinos are one of the safest investments out there, in areas where gambling is allowed.
Good science means you're betting with the odds. Religion usually means you're not, but you really really hope you'll get lucky.
Does anyone think theory of relativity is trolling? At the very least she has no idea about science or perhaps even english vocabulary.
Innapropriate assumption given irrelevant facts. These posts were done when the avatar picture for ToR was not the one current, therefore people back then would have been more succeptable to insulting her. Now she has shown her gender people are nicer to her except you. You have attributed your self assumed incongruent writing of ToR given the fact that she is female to add to that-which is a sexist comment in itself. Perhaps you have had bad experiences with women in the past but this is no need to insult her intelligence.
Justify why she has no idea of science or the English vocabulary. By the way, if you already don't know this topic is in the pseudoscience section therefore anything in here is not proven science so there would be nothing wrong even if the science here was flawed, thats the whole point of it being in this section!
I realize I'm coming to the party late, but I figure I'll add my 2 cents.
Let's think about what evidence really is, after all. Evidence is observational data gathered about the the natural world. This data can support or disprove hypothetical claims.
Here is a piece of data. If I hold a pencil in the air, and then let go of it, it falls. Now, some would say this is evidence in support of gravity. Others could say this is evidence in support of the fact that the earth is a giant magnet and all material objects have tiny magnets in them that are attracted to the earth's surface. As in ToR's wiki quote, these different people took the fact of the released pencil falling as evidence in support of different hypotheses. (ToR's underlined text in the wiki quote about "different evidence" is really just a semantic slip up.) The evidence, however, remains the same. The pencil fell. This, I hope we can all agree, is a relatively incontrovertible fact. This is why, in science, more than one piece of evidence/data needs to be gathered in order for a theory to be better supported.
As has also been mentioned, the evidence itself does not change, but often our perception of it does. What looks like a homogeneous black dot under a less powerful microscope might resolve into a tiny, complex, detailed pattern with a more powerful microscope. That doesn't mean the pattern wasn't there the first time we looked at it. It means that our observational tools just weren't good enough to see it correctly. But the evidence, the data, is the same as it ever was.
Then there's problems like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle - basically, the act of observing the data actually changes the data. Originally applied to electrons, it can sort of be applied to other things too, like observing children on a playground. If you sit there in the middle of their play with a clipboard, writing down everything they do and watching them intently, they will probably behave somewhat differently than they would if this stranger wasn't in their midst and staring at them. But these problems lie in difficulties of observation, and not with the data, not with the evidence. It's there. The electrons are spinning, the children are playing - but unless a different, better method of observation can be found, that evidence is simply unavailable to us. But it's still there, it's still the same.
Innapropriate assumption given irrelevant facts. These posts were done when the avatar picture for ToR was not the one current, therefore people back then would have been more succeptable to insulting her. Now she has shown her gender people are nicer to her except you. You have attributed your self assumed incongruent writing of ToR given the fact that she is female to add to that-which is a sexist comment in itself. Perhaps you have had bad experiences with women in the past but this is no need to insult her intelligence.
Alright! I'm assuming you're being ironic/sarcastic, no I was not being sexist that had no bearing on it, I think you being the first one to mention that on this thread are the only one thinking along that line,
my vocabulary comment was in reference of misinterpreting the definition of the word evidence.
As for misunderstanding science (and now in retrospect its history) we have an example of a wiki quoting person who thinks einstein was a theist, ToR, if indeed you believe you and Einstein share your points of view, then I too share them, but from this thread, that is not evident.
Science is not perfect, but unlike religion (which is axiomatically flawed), it strives to be.
Well, that and the pseudoscience section is not meant to be a flame section!!!!!
| « proof time is circular | flat earth.... » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
