What Science Is .. and Isn't

Not at all true.

But it also SAYS; "This is what is true (within THIS particular ontology).

In philosophy statements are made that define the particular philosophy. When those statements are shown to be false, logically incoherent, the entire philosophy is forfeit.

Again, not true. That which is true “by definition of the ontology” is precisely and exactly true… period.
That doesn’t mean that the ontology is observationally correct or useful. But it cannot be disputed as being true for that ontology.
Each and every ontology declares the concepts and definitions involved. They are not up for truth debate. If they change, it is a new and different ontology and philosophy. Solipsism cannot evolve into empiricism, except by name through misuse of the label. Otherwise, nothing could ever be said to be false.

Science on the other hand, is a method, not a proclaimed truth ontology. Thus the only way for Science to be declared “untrue” is to find that the method of observation is untrue, which doesn’t even make sense. The method can have limits, but it is merely a method for something. There is no “truth” involved.

Science: “You proposed that if I did this, I would get that. I did this and I didn’t get that.
Science does not say that anything is true, merely that you have or have not proposed something logically coherent with observation.

The hell they aren’t. If they aren’t up for debate you’re not doing philosophy. You’re practicing religion.

Bullshit.
You are merely building an understanding that is to be tested for usefulness.
The components of the understanding are whatever they are… period.
If the understanding is that circletoids are round, then circletoids, in that understanding, are round.
End of story. There is no testing to “see if circletoids are round”. They are declared to be round.

How do you know that a circle is really round?
Have you actually ever seen a perfect circle?
How do you know that what you were looking at was actually a circle of any kind?
Maybe they got it wrong?
How do observationally test to see if what you are calling a circle really is a circle?

Science does not answer “why” questions (sufficiently). It answers “how” questions (sufficiently).

If you confuse why for how, then you’re going to misunderstand the basic essence and function of science.

Science specializes in logical truisms (math) and finds applications for these truisms through experimentation and empirical premises. However, science does not actually apply scientific discoveries or inventions in practice. This is the difference between morality (dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima), religion, and invention (building a bomb and seeing if it works), science.

Philosophy is deciding and justifying the use of the bomb, before dropping it. Philosophy, science, and religion are all separated distinctly.

Science is horrible at descriptive language. Science describes nothing well. But science explains everything very well. This is why everybody loves science, because it explains everything. But it does not “describe” everything.

Religion and artistry describes “everything”. This is poetry. And philosophy dabbles in this too. But religion is best fit for definition, since is a straight appeal to emotion.

Description appeals to emotions, and this is one of its best and most useful functions. Descriptive language binds the subjective world with the objective world. It keeps humanity attached to nature.

My words are on fire. Metaphors. Do you feel burned by them?

This is completely anti-science and anti-scientific, yet meaningful and purposeful.

In the news, Bill O’Reilly routinely uses fiery rhetoric to inflame his opponents.

You don’t seem to be getting it.

Again, that’s a religious notion.

Since when does declaring something make it true? If the understanding is wrong, it can be modified. There is no need to accept, or adhere to, a strict ontological framework in such an absolute sense.

There is the rub.

It’s possible to construct an ontology which is precise and true by definition.

However, any system which seeks a correspondence with existence is only tentative … always subject to falsification by brute reality. That’s science in operation.

I think we basically agree on those bits.

I don’t see philosophers submitting their theories for testing by science. I don’t see a ‘why’ formulated by philosophers. The ‘why’ is defined in terms of cause and effect and the interaction of objects and energy in a vast machine. It’s done by scientists. What can philosophers add?

No. That is rational thought and definitions of words.

Since the invention of declared definitions.

Which immediately makes it a DIFFERENT understanding.
What else does “different” mean?

The need is language and rationality.
Else we can just say that Christianity stands for the same thing a quantum physics.

You had better explain or describe what you mean by 'explain ’ and ‘describe’ because everything that you write seems to depend on your use of these words.

That is only because they don’t call themselves “philosophers”. They call themselves “scientists” and “theoretical physicists” even though what they propose is often anything but observationally demonstrated.

Science proposes NO ontology.
It merely verifies the observational coherency of proposed ontologies.
Anyone proposing an ontology is a Philosopher… whether good at it or bad.

Two things that people hang onto religiously. Like you.

You’re referring to words having meanings, not those meanings corresponding to reality. The former is definition, the latter is an approximation of truth.

Not totally, but perhaps in part, sure. Every time I amend a belief, I’m not adopting a totally different ontological framework, which is what you’ve been [wrongly] suggesting.

Yeah, in a religious sense. I know you’re all about that but not everyone shares your sentiments.

Exactly. Case in point.

If you want to call defining the words that I use in communication, “a religion”, then fine.
The IRS might disagree with you, but I don’t really care.

We are not talking about “amending a belief”.
We are talking about the very definition of the concepts that define the belief.

So you AGREE that Christianity is the same ontology as QM???
Wow…

It’s more the way you treat those words.

.

That can change in part too, silly.

Uh, no. I agree that you approach science from a religious mindset.

All you are saying is that we are going to keep the same words, but change the definitions of them as we please.
Can’t you figure out where that would lead?
…it isn’t pretty.

I agree with almost every statement Saint has made in this thread.

As for the difference between description and explanation…

Description:
Inherently subjective, confined to personal experience and perspective
Poetic, Artistic, subject to change, linguistics changes as language evolves
Descriptive languages include English, Music, Paintings, Poetry, Rhetoric

Explanation:
Inherently objective, conflated beyond personal experience and perspective
Materialistic, Existential, rarely or never changes, logical, rational
Explicative languages include Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry

No. I’m saying we build upon what we have, which can include refinement of definitions as well as the words we use.

When they decided that the old English measuring system wasn’t the best, they didn’t merely redefine an inch to be a centimeter. They chose a word “centimeter” and a conversion factor “2.47” so as to leave the word “inch” to mean what it had meant.

Recently they have spoken of redefining the word “temperature” to mean kinetic heat when positive of absolute and degree of entropy when negative. In other words, they are trying to use the same word to mean two different things distinguished merely by whether kinetic energy is involved. They propose that a stack of blocks is “colder” than scattered blocks. Why? Why not just use a different word for the degree of scattering, such as “entropitity”, “degree of entropy”?

The only connection involved was that they found that by altering the degree of entropy in a molecular structure, they could cause the material to absorb heat (kinetic energy) yet remain at absolute zero kinetic temperature. They are still trying to support the untenable notion that the second theory of thermodynamics is absolute universal law. In effect, they are sustaining the sanctity of a religion by redefining what words mean rather than updating their vocabulary. They are doing exactly what they accuse the religions of doing, being disingenuous.

They are calling it “a discovery in Science”, when in fact, it is merely a shift in ontological construct for sake of religiosity. Science doesn’t actually claim any truths or any ontology. Science merely verifies observational hypotheses. It doesn’t “discover” new ontologies. Philosophers do that. And when they are Scientism worshipers, they get pretty bad at it because they are desperate to form a holy religion out of their ontologies that have been using Science for support (such as quantum physics).

That’s exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about.

Words can mean different things in different contexts. It’s really not that complicated.

Words meaning different things (and in that case, “in the SAME context”) is exactly what creates confusion and the destruction of language and societies.

Yeah, allowing words to have multiple meanings destroys societies. Totally.