SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Should God be replaced?
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: zonder who wrote (14651)1/21/2003 1:48:14 PM
From: cosmicforce  Read Replies (2) of 28931
 
I think the main problem with the scientific method is that to some extent it tries to do something that ultimately may not be possible - control all inputs to measure an output. Let's say that physics behaves like someone walking through a meadow -- initially, there is no path, but with repeated passing, the path becomes better defined. However, that isn't to say that it will ultimately become a line (as it is shown on the map). We mustn't fall prey to the fallacy of mistaking the model ("science") for the real world ("experience").

Gauging theories suggest that different spaces might have different "predilictions" for want of a better term. Perhaps I could find a space where "heads" come up more often than "tails" to use a silly example, but it has to be balanced by another that has more "tails" than "heads" for the equations of state to hold. What if the space moves, or can be perturbed? The scientific method would never be able to tell if it was an "experimenter effect" or "fraud".

Fraud is a loaded term indicating willful intent to deceive.

When the result is much more subject to chaotic inputs and time, then there would be a subtle effect. What if the effect you seek to measure only happens 1 time in 100 for a particular space? The statistics of small proportions make it very difficult to construct an experiment where this type of effect can be measured, even though with multiple repetitions, it can be seen anecdotally.

In the absence of the testability of conjectures, science has been very skeptical. Perhaps rightly so as that is what is "good science". The problem is that the nature of "Truth" (with a capital tee) may not want to play by man-made rules. Therein lies the challenge to science : determine theoretical constructs that explain all our data, including that data which doesn't support our theory.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News