Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Discussion > Science and Technology

Science and Technology Science and Technology Forum - For topics and discussions about the sciences and technology


Thanks Tree7Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 4th, 2016, 02:57 PM   #11
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 24,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
"Lack of objectivity would be flaunted" I think I am reading that you agree with my premise as objectivity as a goal, flaunting in the journals being a form of peer review that serves the goal.

I certainly want to continue a discussion of what and how science is being taught in American public schools.
Go for it. My point was that believe of one's objectivity can be subjective. Which is why we have peer review and competition.
RNG is offline  
Old September 4th, 2016, 03:25 PM   #12
Wall-crawler
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Go for it. My point was that believe of one's objectivity can be subjective. Which is why we have peer review and competition.
I totally get it. Belief in your own objectivity is in itself subjective, actually it can't be anything else.

We have though have had some breakdowns of the peer review function as a policer and/or arbiter.

Last edited by webguy4; September 4th, 2016 at 03:28 PM.
webguy4 is offline  
Old September 4th, 2016, 04:19 PM   #13
Wall-crawler
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,136
My emphasis on objectivity is connected to some more fundamentals about science. Being objective means reducing the number of things you "believe" to the absolute minimum. The scientist doesn't want to believe something, he/she wants to be able to prove something.

Proof being accomplished by means of the scientific method.

While a scientist wants not to accept anything on faith unfortunately that can never be perfectly achieved. One of the axioms science relies on is the belief that there is a logic to the universe that is consistent and explainable.

Last edited by webguy4; September 4th, 2016 at 04:22 PM.
webguy4 is offline  
Old September 4th, 2016, 04:24 PM   #14
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 24,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
I totally get it. Belief in your own objectivity is in itself subjective, actually it can't be anything else.

We have though have had some breakdowns of the peer review function as a policer and/or arbiter.
Perhaps in the short term. But not long and not often.
RNG is offline  
Old September 4th, 2016, 04:26 PM   #15
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 24,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
My emphasis on objectivity is connected to some more fundamentals about science. Being objective means reducing the number of things you "believe" to the absolute minimum. The scientist doesn't want to believe something, he/she wants to be able to prove something.

Proof being accomplished by means of the scientific method.

While a scientist wants not to accept anything on faith unfortunately that can never be perfectly achieved. One of the axioms science relies on is the belief that there is a logic to the universe that is consistent and explainable.
That is true, and there is nothing wrong with it. But equally well, I don't know of any scientist who believes we will ever know everything.

Hopefully you're not heading towards a "god of the gaps" argument.
RNG is offline  
Old September 4th, 2016, 04:38 PM   #16
Wall-crawler
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
That is true, and there is nothing wrong with it. But equally well, I don't know of any scientist who believes we will ever know everything.

Hopefully you're not heading towards a "god of the gaps" argument.
Hmm, I suppose some discussion of God may come up, but if that were my intent I would not have started this discussion under the science and tech header.
webguy4 is offline  
Old September 4th, 2016, 06:01 PM   #17
Wall-crawler
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
That is true, and there is nothing wrong with it. But equally well, I don't know of any scientist who believes we will ever know everything.

Hopefully you're not heading towards a "god of the gaps" argument.
I just noticed you're talking about what a scientist "believes". It is tough trying to be objective, but a scientist should keep trying.

Last edited by webguy4; September 4th, 2016 at 06:13 PM.
webguy4 is offline  
Old September 4th, 2016, 06:18 PM   #18
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 24,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
I just noticed you're talking about what a scientist "believes". It is tough trying to be objective, but a scientist should keep trying.
That one is just silly. If scientists didn't believe some things, like that phenomenon have a real cause, they would all become shoe salesmen.
RNG is offline  
Old September 4th, 2016, 06:32 PM   #19
Wall-crawler
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
That one is just silly. If scientists didn't believe some things, like that phenomenon have a real cause, they would all become shoe salesmen.
Yeah, just having a little fun.

Another axiom of science is a preference for simplicity. Einstein worked diligently, and scientists today still do, for what is sometimes called a theory of everything. A mathamatical formula along the lines of his famous E equals mc(2).

One equation that ties together all forms of time, energy, matter and space. actually there is no objective reason to believe such an equation exists, but it just feels like it should. It's not objective,but it does fit into the pattern of modern science. Eg: newton's laws of motion, quantum mechanics, and einstein's special and general relativity.
webguy4 is offline  
Old September 4th, 2016, 07:14 PM   #20
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 24,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
Yeah, just having a little fun.

Another axiom of science is a preference for simplicity. Einstein worked diligently, and scientists today still do, for what is sometimes called a theory of everything. A mathamatical formula along the lines of his famous E equals mc(2).

One equation that ties together all forms of time, energy, matter and space. actually there is no objective reason to believe such an equation exists, but it just feels like it should. It's not objective,but it does fit into the pattern of modern science. Eg: newton's laws of motion, quantum mechanics, and einstein's special and general relativity.
Well, there's that and the duality of light. That is also a biggie.
RNG is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Discussion > Science and Technology

Tags
science



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ted Cruz Challenged Science At His Climate Change Hearing. Science Won. LongWinded Current Events 27 December 12th, 2015 10:04 AM
science dusty Atheism 12 August 18th, 2015 06:45 AM
Ted Cruz, Longtime Foe Of NASA And Science, Will Oversee NASA And Science In New Cong LongWinded Current Events 7 January 13th, 2015 11:12 AM
Me n Art: The Science of Art coberst Philosophy 1 September 27th, 2008 10:13 AM
Normal Science is Lamp-Post Science coberst Philosophy 0 August 12th, 2008 12:49 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.