Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Strad and Nagyvary on James Randi's website


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

quote:


Originally posted by:
DSutton

I think it is important to recognize what science is capable of and what it is

not.


I reckon that. BUT do you or do you not agree what I said in response to Andres that

Any science/experiments is only as good as its designer? The incapability roots in human limitations. So what's the problem?

quote:


Originally posted by:
DSutton

Mankind has invented science to model reality.


Mankind has invented science to model reality???? Modeling or mimic reality is only a vehicle for scientists to get to the bottom line. Modeling reality is NOT the goal of science. I was a scientist by training and by profession prior to my joining IT. But please pardon my ignorance, I didn't even know that my job was to model reality. Sorry, no refunds for my salary from me.

quote:


Originally posted by:
DSutton

Science makes no claim to truth, only that reality is 'like'

such and such.....and that is all it can do.


So who makes claim to truth? Philosophers or religion leaders perhaps? So philosophy and religion are almighty? If the limitations of science is inherited from those of the humans, shouldn't we then conclude philosophy and religion are not man-made?

Since I also majored in literature, I am, almost by default, interested in

"What is reality?", "What is illusion?" "What makes one think there is no illusion behind another illusion?"

Perhaps you can shed some light for me?

Link to post
Share on other sites

DSutton, I think you misunderstand what scientists think and do. To use your example of an apple falling, a scientist may use empirical observations to describe the motion of an apple when released but if they left it at that, then believing the apple would fall on the millionth time it was released would be based on faith. But scientists try to link their observations to develop generalized descriptions of reality, which are usually mathematically based for the physical sciences (Newton's inverse square relationship for gravitation). They then use these descriptions to predict new situations and then gather evidence (this is Karl Poppers description of trying to falsify a hypothesis). After enough attempts to falsify the hypothesis then the theory becomes accepted as a valid description of reality. However, "science" is self correcting in that if over time, more sophisticated experiments provide evidence which do falsify a theory, then eventually a new theory emerges. In that way, Newtonian mechanics was replaced by Relativity theory. And yet, unless you are dealing with velocities near the speed of light and masses near that of a planet, engineers use newtonian mechanics to design, cars, planes buildings and bridges quite safely. The point being that all scientific theories are tentative to some extent. Scientists know this very well but that doesnt seem to be the understanding of non-scientists. There may come a point when a complete understanding is reached but that's certainly not the case at present in cosmology or quantum mechanics. However, some theories do appear to be "laws", the first and second laws of thermodynamics for instance and perhaps we do have a complete understanding of that reality.

In summary, "science" always tries to observe, describe, understand and predict the world as we know it. Its not perfect and sometimes the knowledge gained has had terrible effects as well as good (though most would argue that's down to humanity as a whole rather than the abstract concept of "science". In many cases and there are some areas of existence where it has little or no relevance (hermeneutics for instance). But it is more open to change and correction (and that is provable) than virtually any other ideology I can think of and for that reason not only should we celebrate it but also accept that it has become the most important ideology humanity has ever discovered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Words" or "language" generally speaking is not a precise tool for communication. If you want ideas that is precisely

communicated then you need other better tools. For example, music notations, math notations, etc.

each term has its more precise meaning. "Words" are convenient but rough.

PS. If someone put the question in this way: "Would borax treatment of wood hurt the sound

of a violin?" (hypothsis). The "landmark paper" showed that it does not. (not neccessarily hurts)

PS. The the second comment would be " further research should be forcoming" (make it more sufficient)

PS If we change the word " hurt" by "benefit" is more useful, then the "landmark paper"

is not sufficient.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I hope the "secret" isn't borax, because I don't see any mechanism by which it could change things enough to make a difference. I suspect there are a lot more types of tests that could be done--not only chemical ones--that could reveal much. The idea of visual examination doesn't seem to have been fully tapped out, for instance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...