How Science Can Be Incapable of Recognizing Facts

Okay, so a few million people have a god experience.
Now followers of science like the idea?
Really?
Interesting.
Give the experience to this person, instead of some other person, and you can forget the other 999,999.

You have done nothing to discredit the OP


[qute]Really?[/quote]Yes

I think I'll use one of those clever replies like you use. Let me see if I can get the phrasing right, think I have it:
Nope.
Yea, that's it.
"Nope."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh dear. And here was me thinking you could read.

I wasn't trying to. But since you have admitted that
Science simply asks for more evidence (and better substantiation) than any particular individual, or small group of individuals requires, (which we all knew anyway) then there doesn't seem to be much to talk about.

Good efforts. But wrong.
Evidence please.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, there are 'facts' (as used in philosophy), and there are 'scientific facts'.

Followers of science limit themselves, and so do not recognize actual facts, because they do not qualify as 'scientific facts'.

They deny the factual nature of the universe, when others all around them see it.

I certainly do not think that followers of science should change their meaning of the term.
They only recognize some facts, as being 'scientific facts'.
That does not mean that the scientifically unrecognized facts, are not facts.
Facts are facts. That is the point.
Simply because followers of science are not capable of recognizing them, does not change their factual nature.
Surely we can agree on that.
In some (many) cases, facts have been recognized by the un-scientific, long before the followers of science.
Surely we can agree on that as well.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You've done that quite handily yourself.

Not only have you not made one legitimate point to support your notion that Science is incapable of recognizing (??) a fact, you've also failed to provide an alternative. That is, assuming you actually have a point to this thread, beyond an inept attempt at discrediting the scientific method....

 

Simply because some things are claimed to be facts doesn't mean that they are.

 

Why do you try to be so disagreeable?
We agree.
The scientific requirements for recognition of facts are so stringent that followers of science sometimes deny facts, that others recognize.
Better to be safe, than mistaken, and yet, they are sometimes still mistaken.

Facts are a certain thing, as defined by philosophy.
Science is not satisified with that, and adds strings, conditons.
Sometimes they throw the baby out with the bathwater, but, hey, no perfect system.
Often when followers of science get it wrong about facts, it is because they undervalue the experience of sane, rational, thoughful, individuals.

Sometimes the experience of sane, rational, thoughful individuals, get it wrong too. Hey, no perfect system.

 

I make no attemp to discredit the scientific method, only to point out it's weakness.
Now if you want claim the scientific method is the perfect fact finder, you have a handful, considering how many mistakes it has made.

The scientifc denial of rogue waves demonstrates the weakness of the scientific method.
It claimed what were facts, were not facts.
Hey, no perfect system.

 

That was established long ago.
Dead Horse.

Followers of science sometimes deny facts as experienced by the un-scientific.
Live horse.

 

Ga'day mates.

 

I don't have to try, given the material I'm provided.

And?
Does it also not work the other way round?

And admit everything, whether provable or not? Folk lore becomes fact?
Hardly "safe".

Science isn't philosophy. Get over it.

Ah right. And how do we decide who is sane, rational. thoughtful? Do we put a claimant in front of jury of peers? Get character witnesses? Or go with the fact that people are capable of lying/ being mistaken/ being duped/ subject to hallucination?

QED. Which just invalidated your previous contention.

As you yourself alluded in the OP: at least science is a self-correcting system.

 

In their personal lives, even scientists accept things as true without proper scientific investigation, but you seem to be petitioning science itself to accept into it's body of accumulated knowledge anecdotal testimony without any investigation, and that's not what science is.

These observations, especially when made by trustworthy people, warrant further study, and that's all you can ask of the scientific discipline.

 

Post 15:

Post 30:

Post 26!:

But few breaths left...

 

So, by your own admission, your thread has no point whatsoever.

You see, as a methodology, the scientific method takes into account its own weaknesses. That is one of its powers.

You seem to be under the mistaken notion that some claim is made that science is a 'perfect fact finder'. This is incorrect. No need to blame the methodology here, but rather, the one who has mis-understood it....

 

I do not request that the followers of science change anything about Science.
I think it is a fine system, in as far as it goes.
In the Rogue wage situation, dispite claims by a famous explorer, science was not capable of 'further study', not capable of recgnizing the factual nature of rogue waves.

Or, we could say the event was suitable for further consideration, but the computer models the followers created said they were impossible.
Now tell me, when is it that science uses one of its fact finding tools, (the best available for this particular situation) to pronounce an occurece as 'impossible', and continue study.
I would say rare, and far between, and those who do so are often considered as kooks by fellow followers of science.

Science investigated to the fullest extent of its capabilities, and said rogue waves were not possible. Dispite this, one noted explorer and many sailors were aware of the factual nature of rogue waves.

 

I made no such admission. If you believe otherwise, point it out, and I will explain your error in not correctly understanding my words.

I have made the point that we agree that the tools of Science, used by the followers of science, are not perfect fact finders, and in some situations (rogue waves, for example), dispite its best efforts, they (followers) deny facts, that are accepted as facts, by others, based on un-scientific evidence.

In some cases, followers of science are not capable, because of the very good nature of the scientific method (both old and new versions), of recognizing some facts.
Other individuals, with real world experience, are able to correctly identify actual occurences, as facts.
Science mostly gets it correct about facts, but sometimes others get it long before the followers of science.

 

It would have been unscientific to call rogue waves impossible. In fact wave theory does predict that peaks could combine to form larger peaks.

If we treated all reports and observation as fact, does that mean the Loch Ness monster and alien abductions are also facts?

 

Okay, then if I put you into a rocket and shoot it at 98% of the speed of light. According to you I am aging very, very, very slowly. In the ten years you are on the ship you see that I aged 7.5 years according to you (that's a guesstimation, I do know how to calculate it but I'm just feeling too lazy at the moment).

But according to me, you are aging very, very, very slowly. By the time I have aged 10 years you have aged 7.5 years.

Fact: According to your perspective I am 2.5 years younger then you are.
Fact: According to my perspective you are 2.5 years younger then I am.

Now according you there are 'facts', 'facts' are always right. But the two facts I just gave you are both perfectly correct. So in the above example, which of us is "right"?

 

Here's another fun one. This is assuming you've never taken classes on it.

Fact: You know as a fact that a two mile train cannot fit inside a one mile tunnel.
Fact: I know how to fit a two mile train inside a one mile tunnel.

PS. Before I get nailed by the physics police, I know I am using the term "fact" incorrectly and a real scientist should never use it, I am merely using it for emphasis.

 

From my reference:
"British scientists report observing some of the largest waves ever measured -- reportedly so big, some computer models indicate they shouldn't even exist."

Does it say they are impossible?
Well, "they shouldn't even exist", to me means impossible.
Rogue waves were factual, and followers of science denied this factual information.
Even if they now want to claim, "Well, we never said they were impossible.", that is not the same as acknowledging the factual content of statements from Shackelton and many others.
They were in denial, due to a lack of scientifically acceptable documentation.

What you say about wave theory may be true, but it seems the followers of science did not know it for 80 and more years.
A high rogue wave in the midst of much smaller waves was considered non-factual.

I certainhy never suggested that we should consider all observations as fact.
Never implied that, why do you even bring it up?
Here is the fact: Individuals and group experience occurances that are factual, and followers of science refuse to agree to the factual nature, because of thier strict requirements for facts, that goes beyond the requirements as stated by philosophy.

add:
Many years of research have confirmed that waves of up to 35 meters (115 ft) in height are much more common than mathematical probability theory would predict using a Rayleigh distribution of wave heights.

Once thought by scientists to exist only in legends, rogue waves are now known to be a natural ocean phenomenon. Eyewitness accounts from mariners and damages inflicted on ships have long suggested they occurred; however, their scientific measurement was only positively confirmed following measurements of the "Draupner wave", a rogue wave at the Draupner platform, in the North Sea on January 1, 1995.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave

 

Such a leap of logic I have never seen.
I do not get in rocket ships, I do get on Rocket motorcycles.