|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 08 2026 20:12 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 19:58 Silvanel wrote:On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory In essence, I am of the position that a theory of science should describe activities that scientists actually do, not some abstract, imaginary version of it. For stuff that's not really measurable or is more out there you always have philosophy. Even if you can't apply strict scientific method you still need to be able to argue your case among your peers.
Physics, especially cosmology and some fundamental questions about quantum mechanics and its relation to space and gravity, is anyway borderline philosophy. I mean: is bells theorem science? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem
I would say it is, is what science should be about. But for DPB is not, because it is not really falsifiable (as it relies on so many debated assumptions and philosophical positions). I mean You can test it in a lab, but many people do not actually agree on what even is tested in that case...
|
On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Vivax isn't the only person to think that a supernatural explanation is as reliable as a scientific theory.
There are millions of people who make these errors, which are often reasonable ones to make - especially when there is confusing terminology.
Whether an absolute truth exist depends on the approach you're using. You can't use math or materialistic fields to explain the placebo or nocebo effect. Yet, at least.
It's not saying it's supernatural for it to exist, it's saying that there's more to nature that isn't understood by using measuring instruments rather than subjectivity.
+ Show Spoiler +If you perceive a situation as you being under assault by unknown people and someone managed to turn it around and paint you as the problem from a remote location, you'd start asking yourself many questions about what kind of people are living around you if you never find out the reason.
What's the kind of subjectivity that helps one get through the challenges presented at a moment is more of a life skill than a science.
|
On June 08 2026 19:58 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory I have read (in full) most of the books quoted in that wiki article and even some quoted articles. That topic is much more complicated than you think. In essence, I am of the position that a theory of science should describe activities that scientists actually do, not some abstract, imaginary version of it. You also didn't answer my question regarding Steady-state theory - do You belive it to be a scientific theory or not?
You ignored my questions about all 4 of your previously mentioned hypotheses, and now you want my take on an outdated model of the universe's formation that has since been replaced by big bang cosmology? Okay, fine: No I don't believe in a steady state, and it's not a scientific theory either. It's the 5th hypothesis you've brought up, and it's one that's already been disproven. The Wiki on the steady-state model goes into some nice detail about how steady state vs. big bang used to be competing hypotheses until new data was discovered that ultimately refuted the former, supported the latter, and then the latter continued to gain more and more credibility with its explanatory and predictive powers, and even more evidence was uncovered, eventually reaching consensus as a proper scientific theory:
"From the 1940s to the 1960s, the astrophysical community was divided between supporters of the Big Bang theory and supporters of the steady-state theory. The steady-state model is now rejected by most cosmologists, astrophysicists, and astronomers.[1] The observational evidence points to a hot Big Bang cosmology with a finite age of the universe, which the steady-state model does not predict.[2]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model
Also, your use of the phrase "theory of science" is not the same as a scientific theory like evolutionary, big bang, germ, atomic, gravitational, and plate tectonics. "Theory of science" is more akin to how we believe science / scientists should generally operate, which I agree with you includes things "that scientists actually do" (methodological naturalism and the scientific method/process come to mind). I think it's important for you to straighten out theory/hypothesis vs. scientific theory vs. mathematical theorem first though, before throwing out another similarly-sounding phrase like "theory of science".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
