Are You A Quack?

I like to think of mathematics as more like the operating system of the Universe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I can predict the future, so no.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That one sentence could see this entire thread derailed!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mathematics is the only way we have to rigorously systematize our claims. So it's our language of the universe, whether we use it correctly or incorrectly.

 

On the contrary. Science always looks for other explanations.

As the saying goes: When you hear hoof-beats, think horses not zebras. But science doesn't ignore the possibility of zebras.

A falling space station might look like a meteor. Somebody ought to call up ISS to make sure they're okay.

 

Magical Realist
for starters: a blog is an OPINION (no matter where it's published). it is the opinion of the author based upon their perspective of things (you know: subjective). it is not fact no matter how many people believe it.

two: believe it or not, not everything published in a magazine is factual. and not everything on the internet is factual.
I know, i know... you're shocked, right?
well... trust me. i can prove it! here is an news article about a man who claims to have pictures of faeries: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nkerbells-flying-air-British-countryside.html

three: if you don't actually know WTF the scientific method is, how can you claim that is't not real?

PhysBang
i am making a factual claim that can be validated by simply finding the evidence. for instance:
the Wounded Knee Massacre - an army detachment was sent to disarm the Miniconjou and in the process "150 men, women, and children of the Lakota had been killed and 51 were wounded (4 men and 47 women and children, some of whom died later); some estimates placed the number of dead at 300"[sic] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre

(i know you don't like wiki - but i suggest you check the references. i did. - and normally i don't use wiki, but this time i am making a point, and said point is cogent)

- soldiers were given the medal of honour for the slaughter : http://nebraskahistory.org/publish/publicat/history/full-text/NH1994MedalsWKnee.pdf

this type of needless killing was also repeated many times in history, in various ways, from the Indian wars to the US Race problems. we have historical documentation that proves it not only existed, but that it was considered correct, glorious and "Justified" and the historical record was the record of the victor ... until recently.

so... if it is factual,
and it's validated by physical evidence and official record,
and it has been repeated (and is still being repeated in the world)
then how f*cking stupid is the argument of "Can you repeat that history? If you can't repeat the history that you are using to make your claim, is your claim then false?" ????

it's fine to be a skeptic, but it is patently absurd to ignore the evidence

well, normally i don't use wiki, but in this case, there was plenty of validated evidence, links and references supporting the claims on the wiki page
I didn't think i would have to quote every reference but i can... if you really must have them... and you can't actually be bothered to read them

there were 156 links supporting their arguments
31 references
and 33 further reading links

all that state the same thing, essentially, validating the claims on the wiki link

more to the point: if there are REFERENCES and the REFERENCES actually VALIDATE the claim, then perhaps the problem isn't the REFERENCE (or Wiki page) that was used, but rather THE READER IS SEEKING CONFIRMATION OF THEIR OWN BIAS ????

i follow the evidence
surely there was plenty of evidence linked on that wiki page to support the arguments used on the page?
or was it too technical?
I can find literature that is simpler if you wish...
[sarcastic hyperbole intended]

there are a variety of techniques or procedures for getting answers, but there is one underlying method. one method that is common between all scientific disciplines that separates them from things like: philosophy, religion, alchemy, astrology, psychics

that method is stated on the wiki page. it is general and generic for a reason.

now... if you found that every single doctor in the world had the exact same procedure for extracting beads from nostrils, you would see what is called: a pattern
with that pattern you could make a: Hypothesis
to test that hypothesis, you would make a: model
that model would have a way to falsify it with it's: prediction
with that prediction you could then test the accuracy of the hypothesis with: experimentation
you would publish your work and how you did it in a: Journal
to insure the accuracy of the work, it would be checked by: peer review
secondary parties not affiliated with you can test your work to insure it's: validated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scien...e_Scientific_Method_as_an_Ongoing_Process.svg

this is a general methodology that is used by science to insure that it's accurate and bias is removed, and that things are built upon validated past knowledge that allows us to progress without fear of failure ... hence the commonality between ALL SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES that is called, oddly enough: the scientific method

it doesn't matter that you think the techniques and procedures of different disciplines mean that there is no general underlying trend or method
what matters is what can be proven, with evidence

IOW- as i've stated in the past and i will continue state: repeating a lie doesn't make it more true

 

Actually it isn't just a blog. It's an excerpt from a book:

"Excerpted from NEWTON’S APPLE AND OTHER MYTHS ABOUT SCIENCE, edited by Ronald L. Numbers and Kostas Kampourakis, published by Harvard University Press. Copyright © 2015 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. Used by permission. All rights reserved."

 

Magical Realist
and a book is just like a blog. there are no constraints on a book or blog (or article) like there is for a peer reviewed study
case in point: https://www.amazon.com/This-Day-Gods-Into-Ruin/dp/0553573284

it is not only a book, but it also has nothing to do with gods. plus, it's fictional.

here is a far more powerful example: https://www.amazon.com/Situation-Gr...UTF8&qid=1475257966&sr=8-3&keywords=reg mundy

this book is published in the science arena under non-fiction/physics (

• Books > Science & Math > Physics > Gravity

yet there is absolutely zero evidence and a whole lot of disturbing and delusional belief packed into the book.

in fact, the feedback i've seen directly from the author, the actual scientific evidence states that this "belief" (as in: there aint no gravity, it's all expansion) is directly refuted and debunked by factual, validated scientific evidence (as well as observation, measurement and everything else)

so - why is the book published as "science"? or even "non-fiction"??

yet you want to argue that your "book" is legitimate or even correct?

a book is simply a version of the eye-witness testimony unless there is corroborating scientific evidence in the form of something that isn't subjective and that can be validated.

your book doesn't have that, regardless of it's label by librarians or it's publisher (or it's excerpt publication in a magazine)

 

A similar view is expressed in the SEP's (thoroughly peer-reviewed) article on "scientific method".

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/

 

Right..Call up the ISS next time you see a flaming object falling from the sky. I'm sure they'll return your call.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yazata
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Really?
peer reviewed philosophy?
that's like peer reviewed religion, IMHO

source = http://philpapers.org/rec/RUSOKO
that paper is also peer reviewed.

did you, perchance, read the reference link in your own page about science and pseudoscience?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/

i did
funny thing: it also mentions things like
the purpose of demarcation

so how does this demarcation happen?
is there, perhaps, an underlying methodology that can define what is science versus what is pseudoscience?

more importantly, why is there a subjective interpretation of "science" in a philosophy journal?

philosophy can't be scientific simply because of the subjective nature of the topic
that is one thing that science isn't - subjective to the individual interpretation

-just sayin'

 

So you do think that that there is good evidence from things that are not repeatable. Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Sure, but you are relying on the truth of events that were one-time, unique occurrences that we reasonably believe to be true.

I was not the person who wrote that the only thing that is true is the repeatable, that was you.

I agree, which is why I questioned you about your extremely skeptical position.

I've read quite a lot about scientific methodology. This extensive reading is why I reject your claim that there is a single scientific method.

Even the wikipedia page supports Yazata's claim that there is no single scientific method.

This claim is not supported by the wikipedia page you use as your citation. The page currently says, "Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features are frequently shared in common between them." This is not an endorsement of a single method or one of common features to all scientific procedures.

I hope you take that to heart!

 

Well, now we merely have to say, "Fuck you, too, Truck Capatin Stumpy." If you are merely going to ignore the work of people who actually study scientific methodology for a living, who are actually identified as authors and go with your interpretation of a wikipedia page, then you really aren't cut out for the whole making inferences thing.

The resounding answer from a thorough study of scientific methodology is that there is not a clear line of demarcation between science and pseudo-science.

There might be anything in a philosophy journal. In this article, there is nothing subjective about science.

It's good to see that you are as ill informed about philosophical methodology as you are about scientific methodology.







[/QUOTE]

 

LOL! All your claims about evidence and repeatability and the scientific method are themselves you doing philosophy. It's certainly not science to define science. There's certainly no peer reviewed studies on the scientific method, or the nature of falsifiability, or even the validity of peer review. These are all subjects of philosophical study, of which logic is a branch. You want to generalize and logically argue the methodology of science? Then that's philosophy, not science.

 

I had fantasized this thread would've been toast; the demarcation of science and pseudo science is to paraphrase Immanuel Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason':

F*ck, if only in a courtroom we had a tool, like how mathematics is used by physics, to determine guilt or innocence.

Or, is that the demarcation you'd wish were there?

 

Mathematics is the language of Physics.

 

You seem to have missed the point being made.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I saw a sky rocket once that looked like a meteor.
Alex

 

I saw a meteor once that looked like a meteor.

 

I saw a brown paper bag that was a brown paper bag.
Alex