RealScience

Direct relationships, (not statistical significance), than can be demonstrated to be true.

I suppose a forum like this (ryze 500 citizens) is not an appropriate place to argue the failures of science and the scientific method. The effect of the failures is clear in that there is bad science in our courtrooms and legislation and nobody cares because they are so disillusioned by science they don't even know objectivity is possible. Even many scientists are duped by Khans argument that science is arbitrary. The scientific community really aught to police themselves. Their failure results in injustice in our courtroom, waste of our tax dollars, and bad legislation, bad medical information and a public that is clueless about what is known verses what is mere speculation or lies cloaked in scientific mumbo jumbo. Worst of all, is the hopelessness people feel about improving the situation has given science a bad name leaving no course to improve the situation.

The scientific method and university system is designed to tell us nothing about subjective experience. My own measurements are certainly subjective, but they are also not scientific fact. Only experiments that are reproduced by independent groups and not contradicted by the repeatable results of any other groups are considered objective scientific results. The tenure system in universities is designed to minimize bias by preventing universities or the scientific community from restricting faculty research that is unpopular. Norms have been devised that set guidelines for interpretation of results such that objective statements based on the results may be clearly differentiated from hypothesis or theories that the results might suggest.

But outside a few very select areas of scientific inquiry the system is failing miserably and science has become a popularity contest have very little to do with the actual cause and effect relationships which have discovered to give consistent results by proper scientific inquiry. Science has become a joke in our courtrooms and legislation and no one is taking action to fix it.

What I mean by real science not being arguable is that real science only reports results of experiment. I do not mean they should not be questioned, every student in science has a responsibility to question all prior results and repeat the experiments to insure that they are in fast true. They can and should be questioned, but not argued. No argument can change the results of experiment, only new experiments can contradict them. In anyone can demonstrate different results reliably, only then does the objective view change. It is not my subjective views that makes something objective, it is the consensus view of all the observers of all well controlled experiment.

I am surprised you don't recognize the importance of the power of science to tell us what we don't know. The delusion that science can tell us everything is largely responsible for the popularity of pseudo sciences and bad science a though it were really science. Knowing the limits of science allows us to distinguish fact from speculation. The fact that science cannot answer all our questions is important to know in making good decisions.

Somethings are not now, and may never be subject to scientific determination, other things like the effect of second hand smoke, could be measured in good scientific studies. Since the clearly bogus 1993 surgeon generals report we have had a decade to do some real research, but instead of finding out the truth, people would rather argue about it, as if truth were a democracy. The fact that it does not tell us much about a lot of important stuff is a reality we should be aware of and stop the false notion that science answers everything, as that is the antithesis of real science.

The accomplishments in technology and some aspects of medicine show clearly what can be accomplished when the scientific method is applied rigorously. You say these exist only in my mind, well maybe so, but that which is contradicted in all experiments, turns out to be quite useful and applicable in our world. Indeed, the world we live in behaves largely the same for everybody. Whenever someone drops something it is likely to fall, no matter who drops it or who is watching. We find out what works, and what doesn't work. It is not a matter of opinion or belief, it is not a democracy, it is nature reveling herself to us in an additive, cumulative fashion.

Indeed, people are human, and will subvert the objective scientific method with their own beliefs if they can get away with it. Today, it seems more profitable and popular to subvert science than obey it, far too few care about quality science. Everyone just wants to promote their own beliefs.

There are a few watchdogs like www.junkscience.com but no real effort to expose popular science and demand objective science as a foundation for engineering our tomorrow. > Neil McEvoy wrote: > My problem does indeed lie with semantics and positioning. ie who is empowered to determine what is a science and what is a 'pseudo-science'??

The scientific method is objectively defined. I agree distinguishing real scientific statements from speculation is not always easy, as the arguments can sound convincing when you don't look at the details such as what populations were measured, etc.

Argument aught to be fruitless with respect to exact scientific statements, either they are complete and definitive or they are not with respect to all the logical contexts that have been identified. You can argue that there are specific contexts that might yield different results, such arguments are then included as limitations in the scientific statement. When everyone agrees that all identified logical perspectives that are relevant, have been measured, we can call the result a holistic scientific statement. > >what knowledge do I or others have to say christianity is a pseudo-science vs buddhism vs that cult that john travolta is in?? who can disprove and thus relegate other domains of belief from a domanin of belief??

No one should, the ugly part of any religion or other social movement is when it tries to enforce its beliefs on others. Our collaborations as citizens of the world must be limited to acting on knowledge, not beliefs, to the extent that this is possible, if we are to succeed.

Time for my train, I'll address the rest of this eventually... busy times... > >who has this platform to work from and how do they have it, that's what I'm asking. the problem is that the rational always lies within the proving domain, not outside it. ie you can't use science to prove that science is right in the same way you can't use christianity to prove christianity is the default truth, it's inherently biased to its own existance = you can't actually prove your own beliefs. > >Here, smoke some of this..... > >N. > > > >> Christian T. Frye wrote: >> I think I must have missed something, because when I read the dialogue here I am not sure what the argument is about. >> >>Jim likes sciences, but does not like certain pseudosciences -- but this is overzealousy to Neil. The pseudosciences are not sciences, and this is like different religions, choosing one faith over another. >> >>Unless I missed some posts, I think there is a communication problem here; and maybe this is an argument of semantics. >> >>Could anyone clarify? >> >> >>Sincerely, >> >> >>The Confused Eavesdropper . . . >> >>> Neil McEvoy wrote: >>> >>>> Jim Whitescarver wrote: >>>>I am suprised you don't recognize the importance of the power of science to tell us what we don't know. The delision that science can tell us eveything is largely responsible for the popularity of pseudosciences and bad science a though it were really science. Knowing the limits of science allows us to distiguesh fact from speculation. The fact that science cannot answer all our questions is important to know in making good decisions. >>> >>>Jim >>> >>>This is precisely my point and problem. >>> >>>I don't recognise the importance of the power of science??? Ie since YOU believe it to be the Almighty Truth, you're stunned to learn I don't. sorry dude, I still ain't seeing anything that transcends the fact that you can't prove this conversation isn't contained solely to your mind. give me one fact that does and I'm all yours. >>> >>>The fact that you seek to profile some processes as 'real science' and others as lesser things to be discounted is the act I'm talking about. all zealots do it. my religion is right so yours must therefore be wrong, just different ideas about what is and what isn't. >>> >>>The sciences you seek to dismiss offer answers that western-oriented, measurement-centric methodologies cannot. I'd be a fool to ignore themm since I can't actually disprove them, even by 'scientific' methods. If you can't prove nor disprove it, you're stuck, aren't you? >>> >>>Neil.

Real science is an ideal that we see in only very small corners of human inquiry. It applies to some medical science, but much of modern medicine is little more than black art, with much of the practice being more harmful than no treatment. There are indeed some trumps in medicine as great and greater scientifically than building bridges, but overall medicine is still more of an art than a science. Cloaking it in a vale of real science is wrong. That is the crime I am fighting I am not trying to support the delusions of science. You argue that science is a arbitrary as beliefs, I agree that what is called science is indeed often as arbitrary as beliefs.

But real science is not arbitrary in the least, it is verifiable and cumulative. The flat earth model worked well for humans for thousands of years. If science was really arbitrary and just a matter of belief that it would be possible to go back to a flat earth model. Unfortunately, that would involve so many contradictions to measurement that any high school kid could prove it wrong. The only way we could go back to the flat earth model properly employing the scientific model is if we woke up tomorrow and world actually was flat.

Your argument against the possibility of measurement is contradicted by experience. We can verify measurements as often as we wish and they always come out the same within some reliability. If they came out differently for anybody that would erode the certainty of the result. There is a quantum possibility that you could drop something and it would fall up, but it is about as likely as a pot of water freezing when put on a hot stove. Science tell us the reliability of measurement so that we can the likelihood of something falling when we drop it.

Nature obliges reveling a cause and effect world that exhibits causes and effect that are undeniably linked. Only bad science links them improperly.

But apparently, by our actions and attitudes humanity has no need or desire for good science, they are as happy to act on whims and beliefs or bad science. They want to argue and win their point rather than discover truth. They would rather make esoteric arguments that we can't know anything despite the simple clear evidence that do in areas we employ good science and could in all areas of human inquiry if we had the will. Although there are many areas where science cannot tell us much today, what it does tell us, should be apply it correctly, is what we don't know.

There will always be a place for passionate argument in human endeavor, put the interpretation of real science is defined by the method and is not arguable. When the data consistently says, that in certain circumstances, x happens 99% of the time, we can say that in those circumstances x happens 99% of the time, nothing more.

It is hard to dispel the notion that there is no difference between good science and bogus science. Most all of popular science is bogus science.

If there were no good science, we could not build bridges that stand. A group of theologians, after all, could not make a space craft that goes to the moon.

Truth in science does not reflect the beliefs of the scientists. You can see obviously that the earth is flat, but science dispelled the myth independent of what people wanted to believe. The flat earth model was consistent with experience and although it was only a gross approximation that only applies to the small scale. No scientist like quantum theory, but the have to use it if they want to get the right answers. I myself expect a better, more sensible theory, will be found, but in the mean time there is only one theory that works, all the other are wrong so far independent of any ones beliefs.

Nobody knows how many dimensions the earth has. It not flat, it is not strictly a 3 dimensional pear shaped solid. It occupies a space of at least 4 dimensions and maybe as many as 22 or more. Science can only us how the world behaves with various logical contexts or positions. It you have been duped to think that science is supposed to reveil absolute truth, such as the real dimensionality of the earth, forget it. That is not within the power of science. We can only apply science properly to our world reasonable if we accept its limitations and separate scientific statements from our pet theories and religious beliefs.

Scientists may start off trying to prove their own theories, even though they should, as scientists, reserve judgment, but results of repeatable experiments are not arguable, as anyone can show their fallacy. If nobody tries to disprove a result, the result may indeed be biased by unconscious errors of the experimenters, even when several independent groups have replicated the results. This however is exceeding rare. Competition in the scientific community make it almost certain that bogus results will be overthrown, sooner or later, increasing our knowledge of truth irreversibly. Beliefs can change. Scientific results cannot.

The scientific community may ignore or dismiss unpopular valid results for many generations, but most often, the valid results are accepted after all the old scientists die. These valid results are "good science" and can be shown to be so, independent of the popular views of the scientific community or the public at large.

Poor scientific methods are a worse problem. Many so called scientific people accept results of badly done research.

In any case, cumulative knowledge of the repeatable behaviors of our world from an increasing number of logical perspectives does exist. That is what I call real science, or good science. You and I agree that humans rarely use this kind of science in making political or courtroom decisions.

It may be that human nature is such that we will always use science inappropriately to promote our beliefs, what ever they are. But as long as there is the slightest chance that we can discover truth, rather than just win arguments, I will crusade for truth. Scientists use good science to build bridges because there are consequences, the bridge falls. But in our social world what is popular is celebrated and unpopular despised. The incentives support pseudo science rather than real science.

We have the logical methodology to distinguish scientific facts from fantasy, but we lack the will to apply it. Humanity has thrown up their hands and proclaimed that there can be no objectivity in science, despite the evidence to the contrary.

I can envision a time when humanity no longer tolerates bogus science. When misrepresenting truth is shameful rather than celebrated. We will accept the limitations of science and distinguish between what we really know and what we really don't know. Until then, we will be risk annihilation by engineering a future based on a whim and a prayer.

If you define science as a shared set of beliefs, then it is indeed religion. Do we need a different word for objective holistic discovery of the behavior of our world? Or do we just deal with the fact that "popular science" is not "good science" and expose it for what it is, rationalized speculation, not science.

Dualistic thinking is not inherent in science. It is a mostly western idea that goes back to Plato's "Law of the excluded middle", A proposition may be true or false, there is no third (middle) alternative. Kurt Godel dispelled this myth more than half a century ago, objectively with a sound mamathematicalroof. He showed that not all propositions are dedesirablea third alternative, making inductive proofs, inconclusive. Due to the cumulative nature of science, as distinct from belief systems, this fact can never be overturned and will eventually be applied in real science should real scscienceurvive.

We can throw up our hands and say science is so bad that it is unimportant and not objective, or we can demand higher standards to help us build a society that can stand as well as bridges.