Science & philosophy

After just watching a programme on ch4, it really does make me laugh how Science claim they know answers etc but they are merely hypothesis over and over again. One of the scioentist said ‘‘It is possible that one day we will be able to observe other worlds (Universe’s) f they trully do exist out there.’’. How can he be wrong for making a statement like that? He simply can’t be wrong and that’s what Science is all about. If 20,000yrs had passed and we still hadn’t observed these other worlds, that statement can still not be wrong. Scientists claim that these other worlds may be governed by complete different physical laws to what we’r used to. But yet again, can they ever be wrong? What are different forms of reality? s there even such a thing? Would this other mode of existence or reality not require motion/distance etc? Scientists obviously won’t attempt at stating physical difference that may exists in another Universe, is it so that they can never be wrong?

yup, you have exposed it rami

all along, we have been working from the shadows, ensuring we will never be shown wrong, and doing a lil take-over-the-government business on the side.

course we cant allow you to keep spreading the word, so prepare to be reprogrammed or something.

Scientists are just as precise as the evidence allows.

Here is a summary of the programme that Rami saw.

Particularly interesting was the computer simulation hypothesis.

From first page.

And from last page

Hmmm . .reminds me of what I said a few weeks ago on this other board:

“For all you know we might all be some specimens put in a toy Universe, by some super intelligent aliens, just to see how long we will go about our lives until we realize that something is strange about the world”.

Hi, I just register to the site so I hope you don’t find it presumptious if I just jump right in. I was just thinking about what you all were talking about. And I agree to some length and than to another I do not. For instance, yes most of science is nothing but theories. Taty have not been proven, and in many of the cases, especially those theories that are truly complex will remain simple theories. I would posit that philosophy is the exact same, if not even more lacking in hard facts. I would contiue by saying that the two are interconnected for one without the other leaves us helpless. Although they can never help us to fully understand everything that we want to understand because if that happened it would go against nature. For the nature of the universe at least in concern to man is that we contiually quest for knowledge. Otherwise we have no purpose/drive in life. But that is just my thought. What do you all think?

I mean, are scientists merely carrying out their role in society or are they actually personnally attached to these theories. In other words, do scientists trully believe in these theories or do they actually hold their own beliefs besides from the theories that they test for.

honestly, if i had to give my own explanation of why scientists say such zaniness as the multi-worlds theories, id say they say these things because they have no easier way of explaining themselves and their math to the public.

i remember hearing about shrodingers cat and how he is both alive and dead, and people are like amazed at this, they take it literally. shrodinger wasnt putting forward a theory, he was explaining why the theory is completely crazy so far.

he was basically joking, just like scientists are joking when they say that a universe exists for every possible random choice a particle makes. this would be no different than saying, in the year 1200, a universe is created for every time a worm “spontanesouly generates” from the sky. one universe is created for when the worm “randomly falls” in one spot, another one exists where the worm falls into a spot inches away.

the only reason why they would say something so crazy is because they dont know what causes the random decisions. THE LAST thing i would use to explain random decison making is “a universe exists for each random decision” i mean this is the craziest most ridiculous intellectual cop out i can ever imagine. its like saying hitler was an ass because another universe existed where he isnt. shutup scientists, your confusing people.

as for most of the other pieces of sceince that produce reproducible results, those things are totally worthwhile if they can make machines for us to use.

I don’t think that the majority of scientists claim they know absolute answers.
That’s just a simple minded view of science that a lot of people get taught (or think they get taught ) in primary school and perhaps college and then stick to or argue against for the rest of their adult lives.

There are people who make statements supposedly in the name of / backed up by the whole of science because they think it gives their argument more credibility.
Look out for people who use the word ‘fact’ a lot.

The reason science may come off as a sort of sophist scheme to construct statements that can never be shown to be false is because, in general, scientists are very aware of the contingent nature of their ‘knowledge’ and in accordance try to report their findings in a very careful manner, as not to jump to conclusions.
I don’t think that’s a negative trait of science.
Most scientists are very aware of the limits of their little analysis, the people they report to (which indirectly may include you and me) sometimes are not or (ab)use it to get their way.

You can make a guess at that yourself. What I like to add is that one ‘theory’ is often not equally likely to another. Some ideas that are posed to be theories in popular media are more like fancy hypotheses that are just fun and interesting to play with but which aren’t supported by evidence at all. Some of these are highly subjective and based on little but wild hunches some are very accurate deductions from existing models but without any evidence nonetheless.

I feel science is more an act of weeding out what is highly implausible, all the rest is still very much possible.

Subject to Change

I know what I know, and I know it is true.
If you ask me for proof, I can talk till you’re blue.
I have it all here, in print and in scrawl.
It’s a fact, not a theory…In fact it’s a law.
I know it’s the truth, no matter how strange,
Oh, by the way, it’s all subject to change.

C.C.Keiser
1/16/99

Introductory Classical Mechanics

Title page for Physics 16, Harvard University,
by David Morin:

THERE ONCE WAS A CLASSICAL THEORY
…Of which quantum disciples were leery.
They said, “Why spend so long
On a theory that’s wrong?”
Well, it works for your everyday query!

Nothing’s Nil

The odds of there being Nothing are nil.
In Zero and Naught there’s nothing to fill.
We cannot have Nothing, and Zero wont exist.
It’s an absolute certainty “Something” must persist.
Nothing and Nothingness contain their own demise.
Granting Zero an existence has tainted our surmise.

C.C.Keiser
9/9/03

I concur with Troy.
Few scientist would fit the straw man described in the posts above. In most cases the content of popular science as presented to the general public is a simplified version of complex theory to allow accesibility to the lay reader. As with many scholarly enterprises metaphor is a sucessful means to describing scientific research to those lacking the prerequisite knowledge. However, it is generally the frontiers of science which are much more marketable (eg. string theory). Although these works make for great reading and can be very thought provoking, they are primaryly speculative. Exempli gratia, a book on why a ball roles down a inclined plane would be quickly tossed in the corner for one on time travel and parallel universes.

Ergo, the quotes used above which have been referred to as theory are inappropriate. They do not reflect scientific theory and have not been presented as one. Therefore to point out there limitations-which are totally logical and appropriate- of these “theories” is an insufficient means to discredit science, as science is not being appropriately represented.

In a similar sense the terms ‘theory’, ‘fact’ and ‘proof’ need to be used tentativley when discussing the epistemology of scientific method.

cheers.