There Are No Quarks : Can You Prove Me Wrong? (Page 5)

DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: an ecological fallacy?
9 years ago Report
0
xxxWesxxx
xxxWesxxx: No, peer-review is not an appeal to authority
9 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: sorry, to be brief- its not idiot-proof
9 years ago Report
0
xxxWesxxx
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.
9 years ago Report
0
xxxWesxxx
xxxWesxxx: Indeed, you are making an ecological fallacy
9 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: i speak with my font- not as merely 1 vote out of many
9 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: i am foolish? well, you would know- mr onicient: emotionally involved with being correct
9 years ago Report
0
xxxWesxxx
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.
9 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: we are peers. i gave you my review. without hiding behind a ballot.

you wont accept it.
9 years ago Report
0
xxxWesxxx
xxxWesxxx: Again, not how peer-review works. I suggest you learn it first, then comment on it.
9 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: circumstantial evidence which passes peer review is still circumstantial
9 years ago Report
0
xxxWesxxx
xxxWesxxx: Define circumstantial please
9 years ago Report
0
xxxWesxxx
xxxWesxxx: The define peer-review please.
9 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: that would depend on the circumstances
9 years ago Report
0
xxxWesxxx
xxxWesxxx: Cannot defend your own claims hey?
9 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: what, that science isnt fool-proof?
9 years ago Report
0
xxxWesxxx
xxxWesxxx: Who says it is?
9 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: well, it seems that i need review your posts- uum, can you provide a summary. much obliged
9 years ago Report
0
xxxWesxxx
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.
9 years ago Report
0
xxxWesxxx
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.
9 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: and i stated that scientists still have emotional involvement- even involving others' theses
9 years ago Report
0
xxxWesxxx
xxxWesxxx: Hence science has no authorities. Do you not grasp this?
9 years ago Report
0
xxxWesxxx
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.
9 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
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.
9 years ago Report
0
xxxWesxxx
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.
9 years ago Report
0