There Are No Quarks : Can You Prove Me Wrong? (Page 5) xxxWesxxx: I suggest you learn how science really works instead of insinuating as you foolishly assume science does. Your comment shows that YOU are the one guilty of what you blame others of. DEEP_acheleg: i am foolish? well, you would know- mr onicient: emotionally involved with being correct xxxWesxxx: Onicient? Are you sure I'm the one who is emotionally involved in being correct? To state that science is not absolute, as is the claim, is not an emotional investment my friend. DEEP_acheleg: we are peers. i gave you my review. without hiding behind a ballot. you wont accept it. DEEP_acheleg: well, it seems that i need review your posts- uum, can you provide a summary. much obliged xxxWesxxx: Summary: Science is not based on absolutes. Science has no authorities. Science does not aim to prove anything. It merely collects empirical data for or against hypotheses. The current theoretical scientific principles are a tentative position, which is the most accurate explanations of the facts we know to date. The claim that science says more than this is utterly false. xxxWesxxx: Science stands and falls on its own merit, not on the merit of the scientist presenting it. For that reason there are no authorities. That we cannot know for certain all absolutes, certainly doesn't mean we cannot understand an accurate portrayal of how things occur. It's why we can make accurate predictions, build devices like these computers, and why they all work. The peer-review process aims to remove personal investments and bias, by having multiple scientists test for accuracy through different methods. The goal is not to appeal to authority, it is to test for error. They aim to destroy the theoretical science by means of falsification, or replicate by means of isolation. This wields a very accurate understanding of the science behind it, but by no means aims to make claims of certainty. "Scientific realism", as claimed here, is unscientific completely. DEEP_acheleg: and i stated that scientists still have emotional involvement- even involving others' theses xxxWesxxx: There is a reason for it. Science stands and falls on its own merit, not the merit of the scientist presenting it. Empirical facts have no emotional involvement. The gravitational waves detected this year, for example, do not care what they say in relation to our understanding. DEEP_acheleg: the scientific community is the authourity; however, i cant blame them for not putting it up to a popular vote. the better of 2 evils. in regards to putting actual faith in science, why? its not a belief system, its a utility to advancement. a theory is only "considered such" - in light that it allows them to build further theories. xxxWesxxx: Your lack of comprehension as to what science is becomes quite evident with such ignorant statements. No, the scientific community is NOT the authority. The scientific community has an ethos that reads: NO AUTHORITIES. They don't pick based on what they feel. Theories stand because they are tested and accurate. | Science Chat Room 2 People Chatting Similar Conversations |