Axioms of Science

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by BSFilter, Jun 2, 2006.

  1. BSFilter Nature has no kindess/illwill Registered Senior Member

    Is it better to apply new findings to old theories (which may or may not work)?
    Or create new theories to fit the new findings?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mosheh Thezion Registered Senior Member

    COLLECT ALL the evidense onto one piece of paper....

    look at it.. and ask.. what does it suggest??

    and form your theories as such... and improve them will new evidense.

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. BSFilter Nature has no kindess/illwill Registered Senior Member

    I agree.

    However it seems that we are still applying new findings to old theories, even when they dont fit.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. leopold Valued Senior Member

    when a theory i formed it is tested
    the theory is adjusted to explain the test results and new tests are made
    in this way a theory is refined.

    if however a theory is created and tests do not even come close to what the theory predicted then it is thrown out

    so, in essence science does either one depending on the reveiw process
  8. Paul H Registered Member

    All Science is Wrong.

    I think (if you think) you'll agree.
  9. URI IMU Registered Senior Member

    >> you'll agree.

    no, because science can never be right, or wrong for that matter

    It all depends on the neverending stream of reality called as evidence

    Where this stream leads to, really can be, totally unexpected.
    and even then

    it requires technology to demonstrate a reality point in the matrix of scientific theory

    Its all in the head youknow

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  10. cato less hate, more science Registered Senior Member

    is there some issue of science you don't think is valid? feel free to bring up any problems you have with science. chances are, you are mislead about something, the actual practice of science is quite good.

    p.s. when you make blanket statements like that, with nothing to back it up, it makes you sound stupid. [for future reference]
  11. cato less hate, more science Registered Senior Member

    no response paul? I would really like to clear up any confusion you have.
  12. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    I think you need to clear about what you are saying
    The word "science" means "knowledge". It comes from the Latin word, "scire," "to know."

    Science is defined by empiricism, systematic doubt and controlled experimentation

    Empirical thought is founded on the idea that all knowledge of the world comes from sensory experience; this sensory experience can be trusted to give us an accurate picture of the world. From sensory experience, we can derive the principles whereby the world works by observing phenomena repeatedly and in controlled circumstances. Controlled experience is called an experiment (which is formed from the same word that gives us the word "experience"), and the science, or knowledge, that is derived from this controlled experience is called "experimental science."

    Systematic doubt was originally theorized by René Descartes in the middle of the seventeenth century. Everything, according to Descartes, should be doubted unless it can be proven to be true under all circumstances. Since a controlled experience can produce knowledge, that means that any human being whatsoever should arrive at the same results, same experience, and same knowledge if they control the experience precisely in the same way.

    Controlled experimentation allows for that experience to be repeated; if the repetition of the experience leads to the same knowledge, then the original knowledge is confirmed. Experimental science, then, developed into a series of methods to control and limit human sensory experience so that this experience could be repeated by others who are bound to doubt all knowledge until they can prove it true.

    Hence all science is not wrong

    However, human sciences (sociology, politics) are based primarily on interpretation, that is, human knowledge of all things human, a combination of experience and the human imagination operating on that experience. That is why the human sciences are so uncertain. While one can postulate rules for interpretation, there is ample room for each individual to arrive at different conclusions regarding the same experience.

    Does that answer your question?
  13. valich Registered Senior Member

    Oh come on now. Don't start getting into a debate about what this Paul H nutcase posted about science. A post like that belongs in the cesspool, so don't trap yourself into a ridiculous waste of time arguing about it.

    BSFilter: If you have new findings that the old theory cannot account for, then by definition you have to postulate a new theory, unless you somehow alter or forge the new data to make it artificially fit the old theory. That would be unethical. Scientific theories, just like evoltion, constantly evolve to take into account any new data found. At first you propose a hypothesis, state the findings, and compile the results with your conclusion. Then after this experiment is redublicated by others - peer-reviewed - it becomes a new theory. This should be clear.
  14. madanthonywayne Morning in America Staff Member

    In theory. But in actual practice, throwing out old theories is a pain in the ass. Stuff that doesn't fit is assumed to be anomalous until the data really starts to pile up.
  15. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Not, again!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    You apply Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation for any new finding is an existing theory. If the existing theory doesn't fit, the next most simple explanation is that the theory needs to be expanded. For example relativity, or the quarks and leptons underneath the theory of subatomic particles. If that doesn't work, then the only explanation left is that a new theory is needed. But you continue to work with Occam's Razor and make the new theory as simple as possible to explain the new finding.
  17. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

  18. Creeping Death Out of darkness came light Registered Senior Member

    Paradoxes Points To Limitations Of Suggested Theories Under Consideration.
  19. kaduseus melencolia I Registered Senior Member

    I've stopped using the term theory simply because it has been bastardized by idiots who don't understand the difference between theory and conjecture.
    Your after a 'model' that works, if observation doesn't match the model then either the model is wrong or the interpretation of observation is wrong.
    If the observation doesn't match the model and you can not interpret the observation any other way then the model is wrong.
  20. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Cato, I regret to say that PaulH has very distinctly put one over on you and demonstrated that, on this occassion, you are not thinking.
    Science can never prove anything is true, only that certain things are false. This is axiomatic and lies at the heart of the scientific method.
    Everything is, therefore, provisional. As we extend, expand and deepen our understanding we realise our earlier theories, while often practical approximations, are wrong.
    Therefore, PaulH is correct. Science is, of axiomatic necessity, always wrong. This is, paradoxically, its great strength.
  21. valich Registered Senior Member

    What the hell is this all about? What are you trying to say? Please explain or else get off the forum.
  22. Xevious Truth Beyond Logic Registered Senior Member

    I think his question is a general question about scientific philosophy. If you feel threatened about how that quesiton might apply to a specific situation, and that makes you highly uncomfortable, then you could be dealing with some sort of dishonesty within yourself regarding a deeply held truth.
  23. Xevious Truth Beyond Logic Registered Senior Member

    I personally think either altering any existing theory or abandoning a theory depends on the evidence in hand, and how it is interprited. As stated before, you can get a hundred interpritations from a hundred people regarding the same evidence. It is in my experience that what becomes prevailing theory is either something that simply can not be interprited any other way, and / or the argument is presented by a highly respected individual whom the rest of the scientific community will agree with because they respect his or her work and believe their insights to be based on extensive experience and genuine objectivity.

Share This Page