The Stage Theory of Theories

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cenderawasih said:
First of all, thank you for you the stimulating discussion.

Second of all, this is manifest nonsense lol. Are you seriously telling me no scientist has ever claimed anything to be true?

Would you like quotes?
Click to expand...
I didn't say that, Suggest you re-read what I wrote.
 
re above:

I just reread. This is what you wrote:

"That's where you are wrong. In science, people strenuously avoid claiming anything is "true" - beyond the observations themselves (suitably confirmed)."

And why is "true" in scare quotes? Scare quotes are a hedge for those ready to squirm out of anything.

Do you mean "true" or true?

If it's the former, you have all bases covered.
 
I ask once again, are you seriously trying to tell me that no scientist has ever claimed that any of his claims were true? (no scare quotes)
 
I hate this confrontational shit.

One thing I have noticed, though, is that people like you, no matter how many Einstein, Feynmann and Weinberg quotes I present to prove that you are talking manifest nonsense ends in only one result: I get banned then you tell your friends I was a child molestor or something.

I humbly request a little intellectual honesty. Please!!!!!
 
scuse my caps, but this gets tiresome: ARE YOU SERIOUSLY TELLING US THAT SCIENTISTS NEVER CLAIM ANYHING IS TRUE?

To quote you again: "In science, people strenuously avoid claiming anything is "true" "

How about you just search for the words "true" and 'truth" and see what happens?

Sigh!
 
You may be as humble as you like, but we all know it's nonsense.

To our other members out there: What are we laymen supposed to say at the end of a conference on climate change, say, or a symposium on COVID vaccine?

"Hey, Mr Scientist. Is what you are telling us true? Or at least good reason to be true? If not, why am I not in karaoke or something?"
 
Cenderawasih said:
re above:

I just reread. This is what you wrote:

"That's where you are wrong. In science, people strenuously avoid claiming anything is "true" - beyond the observations themselves (suitably confirmed)."

And why is "true" in scare quotes? Scare quotes are a hedge for those ready to squirm out of anything.

Do you mean "true" or true?

If it's the former, you have all bases covered.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to "cover" any "bases". I'm trying to tell you what I think about the nature of science. When you started this thread you invited opinions, saying "Any comments, critiques, insights welcome." That is the spirit in which I am responding.

My point is that the facts in science, where the truth lies , are in the observations. See this for example: https://oxford.universitypressschol...8966.001.0001/acprof-9780199228966-chapter-23

As far as theories are concerned, the only "truth" * they can be said to contain is strictly provisional, for the simple reason that later observations may show that the theory is wrong or incomplete. This has happened many times in the history of science. Max Planck did apparently use the term "scientific truth" in the quote you have cited, but that does not detract from my point. You will find in science people are loath to use the term truth in relation to theories. A theory in science is a model of reality that accounts for observations and enables us to predict new ones.


* The reason for the quotation marks is to distance my own view from the notion that the term is correctly applicable, in the instance I am discussing. It is not to scare anybody. Indeed I have never understood the term "scare quotes". Is this an American thing?

P.S. I don't know if you are interested in a discussion, rather than just a random point-scoring exercise, but if it is the former I suggest calming down and making fewer, and more constructive, posts. ;)
 
Lemme get this straight, ok? You scientists never make any truth claims?

Can you recommend a good astrologer then?
 
exchemist said:
I'm not trying to "cover" any "bases". I'm trying to tell you what I think about the nature of science.
Click to expand...


Well, that's always a bad start LOL. What do you think is the "nature" of science?

The only (true!) generalization I believe that can be made about science is that no true generalizations can be made about science.

But nice to meet ya, anyway :)
 
Cenderawasih said:
Well, that's always a bad start LOL. What do you think is the "nature" of science?

The only (true!) generalization I believe that can be made about science is that no true generalizations can be made about science.

But nice to meet ya, anyway :)
Click to expand...
I wish I could say the same about you. It's funny, but after the initial, apparently productive, exchange, I found myself wondering whether you would run up the Jolly Roger and if so what form it would take. My instinct was correct, evidently. :D

Oh well, another day, another troll, I guess. You are now going on my Ignore list.

....[click].....
 
exchemist said:
I wish I could say the same about you. It's funny, but after the initial, apparently productive, exchange, I found myself wondering whether you would run up the Jolly Roger and if so what form it would take. My instinct was correct, evidently. :D

Oh well, another day, another troll, I guess. You are now going on my Ignore list.

....[click].....
Click to expand...


I hope not. Anyone that makes me think is a friend of mine. Think twice and I'll be two friends :)
 
I'm gonna have to paraphrase David Bohm from memory then . . .

"A scientific theory is the best we have to get close to reality"

Then again I can quote Einstein verbatim . . .

"I think I just lifted a corner of the veil of Maya".

But it's funnier in German.

Exchemist, I hate that "troll" word". It's another hedge term to dismiss anyone that you find threatening. I can explain exactly where you're going wrong if you like.
 
I never called you a troll. You just need to read more. Show me some respect and ya never know what might happen.
 
And neutral readers (if there are any) may have noticed exchemist has conspicuously evaded my challenges to certain ludicrous claims he/she made:

E.g. "The data leads ineluctably to one logical conclusion" (I paraphrase)
 
Cenderawasih said:
And neutral readers (if there are any) may have noticed exchemist has conspicuously evaded my challenges to certain ludicrous claims he/she made:

E.g. "The data leads ineluctably to one logical conclusion" (I paraphrase)
Click to expand...

But hey, that's always the way these things go on sites like these. He/she calls me a troll as he/she refuses to address a sensible question.
 
exchemist said:
With Einstein's SR, he took existing data (invariance of the speed of light), threw away all preconceptions about nature and then just followed to its conclusion what the data implied.
Click to expand...


Fot the less attentive among you, I'd like an answer to this question which I have asked a couple of times only to be called a troll.

Q: I want to know how the data implied the conclusion?

Do you know what "imply" means in logic before you call me a troll?
 
Let's be a little simplistic here. If the data did imply the conclusion, as my new Grand Inquisitor insists, then it would be a simple matter of deductive reasoning to extract that conclusion from the premises. Right?

Well, how come no one else did it except Einstein? Did they lack training in syllogistic logic?

Exchemist, please do not talk down to me. You seem clever. But in this particular instance you are talking shit.

I await your response

Yours sincerely

The Troll
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top