Re: Biochematics

Science is sorta speculation too...

Category:

Education

Tags:

• science
• truth
• certainty
• knowledge

[otonanoC]

****

If science weren't at least somewhat a speculation, then it wouldn't be changing as often as it does...

****

Correct. And this is exactly the issues raised by Thomas Kuhn. Popper's Falsifiability Criterion was what Popper himself would like to have happen personally. This does not mean that I should or that I'm required to stay only in those bounds!

But really you are trying to teach Philosophy-of-Science to me in Youtube comment boxes. Trust me -- I am already aware of it! 0_0

[hofisito]

oh I know... I'm more talking to biochematics.

Popper's cool ;)

[otonanoC]

I absolutely disagree that science is the "same thing" that 0ThouArtThat0 is doing. That's patently false.

However, I would suggest that what he is doing is called the Philosophy of Science. In particular, he is engaging in *Prescriptive Philosophy of Science.*

The other alternative is a **Descriptive Philosophy of Science,** which Biochematics would be drawn to.

The latter says what "science does" rather than what it "should" be doing.

[hofisito]

Yea I'd agree that science isn't the "same thing" in every aspect to what thouartthat is doing.

What I'm more trying to say, that since our observations aren't ever certainly true, then there's a sense of speculation to our theories based on the uncertain observations.

Biochematics was saying that thouartthat's thoughts aren't good cuz they're "speculative" and well... I'm just trying to show that in a certain sense, so is science!

[hofisito]

if science weren't at least somewhat a speculation, then it wouldn't be changing as often as it does...

Of course... I don't believe we shouldn't put our trust in science! (I'm not really a skeptic) We should definately trust science cuz it fits our best observations so far.

Just cuz something is somewhat of a speculation doesn't mean it's not worth our attention. That's why I think we should leave room for talk of the "speculations" of metaphysics

[hofisito]

I hear ya... I really do think science has the great quality of being falsifiable

but... to do anything with science, it requires the use of observations....

and well... we can't know that our observations are accurate, so we can't know that our science is accurate.

I know that you say this ok because science "evolves"

But evolution doesn't necessariliy mean improvement, it just means change.

[hofisito]

lol yea, I shouldn't do this at school either :)

[Biochematics]

Sorry for all the spelling errors - I can't do this at work anymore - its a rule!

[Biochematics]

Science is work in progress

It must mold to what seems to an observable world

If a scientific theory is wrong, it will collapse

On the other hand, non-scientific theories do not have to mold to the observable world.

Though it seems non-scientific theories can't be right or wrong, if they are wrong, we can never now it.

Non-scientific theories have no feedback mechanism; they are not "forced to evolve"