Objectivity in Science - Subjectivity on SciForums

talk about you paranoid delusions,
the purpose of those PMs was to send you the reference to an article i found along with some quotes from that article.
was the material creationist? you still yet to answer.
i've noticed you never offered an opinion of what was said, all you have done was the "background chant".

moderators,
is there a way to keep this person from quoting me, i already have him on ignore.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.....[Cloud Atlas]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I didn't read your material. :shrug:
You didn't send me any material, just the annoying PM's
You have me on ignore? :shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you don't believe the meaning of the word science?...Or the following definition....
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][3] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

How about learning how to brush their teeth?
Or how about how man learned to use fire?
All knowledge gained by learning and even more gaining knowledge, changing, altering, modifying, as the learning/science process advances. In essence we can see the scientific method at work even at those early times/periods.

This thread has come about for a few subjective reasons. I'll stick to the scientific aspect alone.
Inferences have been made that subjective opinions should not be part and parcel of some forums such as Maths Cosmology.
My objective opinion on that subjective take, is that the claim is totally and wholly wrong.
Science begins with observation.....we hypothesise, or come up with a subjective opinion as to what that observation was and why it was....We make more similar observations...we test predictions from those observations. From there, over the course of time, the scientific method, and peer review, the hypothesis/subjective opinion, can advance to the more objective theoretical stage.
Then as in line with, say the heliocentric solar system theory, that theory may even grow more in stature, certainty, and objectivity.
In fact in some circumstances [as per our example] to not speak of that scientific theory as fact, is to not give it the credit it deserves.
Do you agree?

Scientific theories are as they are to allow for the inevitable progress of science and new, further observations, which indeed may see the need to modify a theory, to extend its parameters, or to invalidate it.
That is science and the scientific method and peer review allow for that, and at the same time help reinforce the ultimate goal of complete objectivity from subjectivity.

 

You are an idealist, which is nice, but you are greatly underestimating human greed, pride and vanity, and most of all stupidity. Never underestimate human stupidity, it's limitless. And then, of course, the alien shape-shifting reptilian overlords, do not underestimate them either.

Objectivity? Hah! Do you really think that's air you're breathing right now?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Is there any information, scientifically derived, that does not fall prey to the problem of induction? The logical fallacies cum hoc ergo propter hoc / post hoc ergo propter hoc ARE science, aren't they?

 

Wouldn't entropy suggest that using humans as battery in the Matrix, waste more energy relative to the amount used to keep the humans alive?

Or did they do something akin to The Hyperion Cantos (loved that series) where humans were needed to create the Matrix? The last two movies in the Matrix were so crap (IMO) that I couldn't make it to the end while still paying attention to the story. Something about Jesus Neo or the like?

 

Fiction, science-fiction. A metaphor really, not unlike with those chickens. Mmmm, chickens. My point about Matrix was about innate inability to judge objective reality, i.e. how can you know everything is but a dream. It's probably a bit off topic, but it doesn't hurt to have in mind there are limits to what can be objectively known, if anything at all.

 

The data assumptions of statistical models are an artifact of the method, not objective reality. This is what makes it subjective math.

A good example is risk analysis for a group. This is a useful abstraction that leads to useful results. Risk analysis assumes a magic substance called risk is spread across the population. This magic substance connects to all things bad. For example, I, like everyone in the area, have risk of being struck by lightning during a stormy day. Is there a device, like an x-ray machine, that can see my risk, so we know it is real? Is risk a force or is it similar to dark energy, in that we see the impact, but not any substance? The method defines an imaginary substance that permeates me, but only the math can measure it, machines can't see it. If that is the case, theoretically, we could call risk, the breath of the devil, and the math would still work, because the data attribute is purely subjective and defined by the method. The math will still work out with the breath of the devil permeating me, since one does not have to prove it with machines.

Religion can make use of this method to prove god. We will define the opposite of risk, as divine security emanating from God. We can use statistics to support this divine security theory, that is the opposite of risk. If I have risk of getting struck by lightning, today, but I don't get struck by lightning, god did that by vaporizing the risks via divine security. The math will still work. Religion could use this subjective math to prove itself to the same degree as much of subjective science. There is no requirement to use a device to measure god or divine security, since the math, if it works out, is the only proof that is needed.

The method reminds me of a story about an old timer in the electro-plating industry, who was one of the best chrome platers. He used to spit chewing tobacco juice into the vat and he always had the best electro-plating results. This juice had no provable chemical effect, but since his procedure always led to excellent results, many were convinced that somehow his spit and tobacco juice was part of unknown science. It was not easy to discredit this assumption, even if they could not prove the chemistry. Good results meant subjectivity was real.

The practical problem I am creating, is if you become objective and say the method is useful but takes a science shortcut in terms of using data attributes without material proof for the data set, what happens to the science that depends on this short cut? We need to call it one legged science with one objective leg and one subjective artificial leg. Once you can get rid of the statistical method with logical math and data attribute proof, you have two legged objective science.

Does anyone object with the concept of divine security stemming from God, which counters risk that comes from the finger of the devil, if there is statistical math proof that leads to good results? Or is there a dual standard implicit of subjectivity? Objective science does not have a dual standard since the same applies for all. The black box implies subjectivity due to unknowns.

 

IF we are in an artificial simulation, most of what we think we know about science might not apply to the actual world outside.

 

doesn't science supposedly have this covered with peer review?
it's the whole idea behind it.

 

We might be in an artificial simulation. In the Matrix movies, how did they know they were actually out of the Matrix? The 13th Floor should have ended with the main character driving in the desert checking for the edge of "reality" as he did earlier.

 

you seem to be implying that "false correlations" is caused by the scientific method, which isn't true.
"false correlations" is a statistical problem, and a very real one at that.
re-ordering the data and peer review will usually flesh this sort of thing out.
i also assume that most scientists are well aware of "false positives/ false negatives".

 

You mean, the other chickens?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That analogy was from Bertrand Russel by the way.

As far as I understand, the problem of induction is insurmountable. Maybe not though - anyone know? I should look into it. But, the last I recall, it's impossible to say for 100% certain something will happen again, just because it happened to have been observed happening in the past.

Thinking causally may be phylogenetically evolved as an essential part of our brains - even predisposing us to developing a language with words that express this innate survival-friendly bias. When we observe really small things, they do not act causally. The formal fallacy that sits at the center of the scientific method is post hoc ergo proper hoc or in some cases, cum hoc ergo proper hoc.

I suppose that's why we say something is statistically significant and accept the this is only one line of evidence.

 

i think what this boils down to is science can't prove a positive, it can only prove a negative.

 

Indeed Evolution, should be put on a silver platter!
It is overwhelmingly supported and observed, and is as near certain as any scientific theory can be.
Plus of course, it appears to be the only scientific theory available to explain what we see.
Abiogenesis is even more certain.
Of course, I don't know the fine details of the process, but certainty in both being near fact is obvious.

If we were in a court of law, you would be convicted on the evidence available.

The only disturbance I see, is your own after been shown that any deity is actually not required and quite redundant in this day and age.

 

I could easily see science stagnating at the same level it is now for an entire age. People are no longer allowed to question anything, because there are so many people that believe that we already know everything there is to know. Then that is an attitude that has never changed from one age to the next. It has been believed that they knew everything there was to know since people first discovered a single thing.

Questioning things is the first step someone would have to take in order to discover something new. If everyone in history always just accepted all the current knowledge they had, they would have never discovered anything. Some people think that, since we live in the information age, discoveries will become more abundant everyday. Then they obviously haven't frequently visited science forums. It is really just the fastest way to become bombarded by trolls and be on every one of their watch list.

Pretend for a moment Einstein was born much later and relativity had never been invented yet. He then decided to go to science forums to tell people about his revolutionary idea that space and time can be distorted by velocity. It certainly wouldn't take very long before he got banned. Then no amount of trolling would ever convince anyone otherwise, that can be easily seen by the number of trolls that never accept the theory even today.

In regard to the evolution debate, there was thousands of years of evolution involved between me and my grandmother. I ended up being a foot and a half taller. Then I am much more physically fit and adapted to a hostile environment. That is astonishing, given the recent advent of people just sitting and watching television in their normal every day to day lives.