|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Sir FrederickSir Frederick Date: May 8, 2008 10:06
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19826551.700-do-we-need-to-change-the...
Do we need to change the definition of science?
07 May 2008
From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
Robert Matthews
WHAT is the difference between astronomy and astrology? That's easy: astronomy is the scientific study of celestial objects, while
astrology is a load of hokum. Anyone with the most basic understanding of science knows why. Astronomy passes the acid test of real
science: its claims are always capable of being debunked - in other words, they are falsifiable.
Identified as the defining characteristic of real science by the philosopher Karl Popper more than 70 years ago, falsifiability has
long been regarded by many scientists as a trusty weapon for seeing off the menace of pseudoscience.
The late Viennese thinker has been lauded as the greatest philosopher of science by the likes of Nobel prizewinning physicist Steven
Weinberg, while Popper's celebrated book The Logic of Scientific Discovery was described by cosmologist Frank Tipler as "the most
important book of its century".
Times change, though. Popper's definition of science is being sorely tested by the emergence of supposedly scientific ideas which
seem to fail it. From attempts to understand the fundamental nature of space-time to theories purporting to describe events before
the big bang, the frontiers of science are sprouting a host of ideas that are seemingly impossible to falsify.
|
| Show full article (15.52Kb) |
|
| | 13 Comments |
|
|
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: May 8, 2008 11:09
> Do we need to change the definition of science?
> 07 May 2008
> From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
> Robert Matthews
>
> WHAT is the difference between astronomy and astrology? That's easy: astronomy is the scientific study of celestial objects, while
> astrology is a load of hokum. Anyone with the most basic understanding of science knows why. Astronomy passes the acid test of real
> science: its claims are always capable of being debunked - in other words, they are falsifiable.
>
> Identified as the defining characteristic of real science by the philosopher Karl Popper more than 70 years ago, falsifiability has
> long been regarded by many scientists as a trusty weapon for seeing off the menace of pseudoscience.
>
> The late Viennese thinker has been lauded as the greatest philosopher of science by the likes of Nobel prizewinning physicist Steven
> Weinberg, while Popper's celebrated book The Logic of Scientific Discovery was described by cosmologist Frank Tipler as "the most
> important book of its century".
>
> Times change, though. Popper's definition of science is being sorely tested by the emergence of supposedly scientific ideas which
> seem to fail it. From attempts to understand the fundamental nature of space-time to theories purporting to describe events before
> the big bang, the frontiers of science are sprouting a host of ideas that are seemingly impossible to falsify.
> ...
|
| Show full article (3.28Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: zinniczinnic Date: May 8, 2008 12:20
On May 8, 12:06 pm, Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote:
Nice post.
It supports my opinion that induction, via its temporary truths, is
the only path towards the unachievable Right!
[Snip body of text].
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: bigfletch8bigfletch8 Date: May 8, 2008 17:01
On May 9, 3:06 am, Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote:> http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19826551.700-do-we-need...
>
> Do we need to change the definition of science?
> 07 May 2008
> From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
> Robert Matthews
>
> WHAT is the difference between astronomy and astrology? That's easy: astronomy is the scientific study of celestial objects, while
> astrology is a load of hokum. Anyone with the most basic understanding of science knows why. Astronomy passes the acid test of real
> science: its claims are always capable of being debunked - in other words, they are falsifiable.
>
> Identified as the defining characteristic of real science by the philosopher Karl Popper more than 70 years ago, falsifiability has
> long been regarded by many scientists as a trusty weapon for seeing off the menace of pseudoscience.
>
> The late Viennese thinker has been lauded as the greatest philosopher of science by the likes of Nobel prizewinning physicist Steven
> Weinberg, while Popper's celebrated book The Logic of Scientific Discovery was described by cosmologist Frank Tipler as "the most
> important book of its century".
>
> Times change, though. Popper's definition of science is being sorely tested by the emergence of supposedly scientific ideas which ...
|
| Show full article (17.01Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: MilanMilan Date: May 8, 2008 17:04
"Sir Frederick" fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:4ic6245v8d8k7ou7vv1nctdo5nmm2b30lm@4ax.com...
Thanks for posting this article, Fred. I bet the frikking mystics who tend
to pollute this forum won't touch it with a bargepole. They probably have no
clue what falsification means. I bet they think it means printing
counterfeit money.
Regards
Milan
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: XanXan Date: May 8, 2008 18:47
gmail.com> wrote in message
news:699954d5-6e14-494d-95f9-3b90e8861c58@b9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
The whole arena of the philosphy of science is simply that of the
individual always growing in awareness beyond his curent observation.
The 'spiritual' pov, works in 'constants', one of which being the
observer is always ahead of the observation.
Interesting to hear of eminent scientists 'hit the wall' when they
face the objective vs the subjective, where their own fraternity
actually splits (not unlike the initial cell of their individual
biological 'start'.They can never work out that one either !
Another spiritual constant is that the individual searches
'externally', until he starts to 'find' internally.
Hope Zinnic reads this one.He always states that it is 'mystical
arrogance' to suggest that science is always playing catchup.
This article is a great demonstration of yet another 'constant', the
more they discover, the less they know'.
Yes, I do appreciate the "science" that led to air travel, but the
travel one can experience while on a plane, like the multiverse, is
not limited by the application of such scientific discoveries.
|
| Show full article (1.93Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: XanXan Date: May 8, 2008 18:53
"Xan" home.com> wrote in message
news:l2OUj.229$Nk5.215@newsfe15.ams2...>
> gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:699954d5-6e14-494d-95f9-3b90e8861c58@b9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> The whole arena of the philosphy of science is simply that of the
> individual always growing in awareness beyond his curent observation.
>
> The 'spiritual' pov, works in 'constants', one of which being the
> observer is always ahead of the observation.
>
> Interesting to hear of eminent scientists 'hit the wall' when they
> face the objective vs the subjective, where their own fraternity
> actually splits (not unlike the initial cell of their individual
> biological 'start'.They can never work out that one either !
>
> Another spiritual constant is that the individual searches
> 'externally', until he starts to 'find' internally.
> ...
|
| Show full article (3.09Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: XanXan Date: May 8, 2008 19:13
You may by all means encourage people to be "self" - but in all
seriousness - should you?
Are there not people who you would rather were "less" than "more" of who
they are?
Should you not leave imparting divine knowledge and sacred direction of the
human psyche to the powers that be?
That the Truth finds you.
You do not find the Truth.
And that nothing you or anyone says means anything to anyone.
Only the powers that be - the intelligence - on a personal and individual
level for everyone matter.
Each human is exactly and precisely measured and the path he walks is
predetermined.
It is known.
And yet the free will to walk the path is free will.
It would be impossible to explain the intelligence to you - except maybe as
a mass mind of billions - linked to microchips of such phenomenal processing
power and speed - that the destiny and outcome and control of billions of
planets and species such as humans is easy.
That the control was set in place at the start. ...
|
| Show full article (3.60Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: XanXan Date: May 8, 2008 19:28
Obviously we do not always provide a ground underfoot and warmth.
Some prefer water.
Some very odd gases.
Some like to fly.
Some are cold blooded.
There are some very odd kinds of alien life - as odd to you as if we said a
HELICOPTER was an alien life form.
No human of any kind could understand what we do - and what we have to
endure.
The kind of understanding we have to have for species who are SO alien.
And the problems so many species have.
Everything is placed on Earth for a reason. Drugs - music - diamonds -
religious books.
There is nothing that is random.
Every experience is planned right down to the meticulous synchronicity of
which you speak - where even the words and numbers compute and make sense in
a most extraordinary way.
Imagine how hard it would be to keep you amused in a million years time -
when you seek far more of this kind of thing?
And what of the millions of species who are already there? And many much ...
|
| Show full article (1.33Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: bigfletch8bigfletch8 Date: May 9, 2008 00:57
On May 9, 11:47 am, "Xan" home.com> wrote:> gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:699954d5-6e14-494d-95f9-3b90e8861c58@b9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> The whole arena of the philosphy of science is simply that of the
> individual always growing in awareness beyond his curent observation.
>
> The 'spiritual' pov, works in 'constants', one of which being the
> observer is always ahead of the observation.
>
> Interesting to hear of eminent scientists 'hit the wall' when they
> face the objective vs the subjective, where their own fraternity
> actually splits (not unlike the initial cell of their individual
> biological 'start'.They can never work out that one either !
>
> Another spiritual constant is that the individual searches
> 'externally', until he starts to 'find' internally.
>
> Hope Zinnic reads this one.He always states that it is 'mystical ...
|
| Show full article (2.32Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
