Quote:


So that would be most scientists? And my high school science teacher?

Quote:


Generally, they are wrong. That is part of the power of science.

I once 'read' a play by Rowan Atkinson which involved an audience at the Bolshoi ballet. None of the parts had any words. It consisted entirely of expressions and gestures. In fact the only thing you could hear was the performance. It was an interesting concept. When we were reading it, I could just imagine Mr Bean playing some of the roles.

I wish I could find a reference to it on the web or even You-Tube. I'd love to see that play being performed.

Our group decided not to go ahead with the play. Rowan Atkinson's royalties were too high.

Soren wrote on Nov 21^st, 2010 at 4:36pm:


That figures. I had suspected that for a long time.

muso wrote on Nov 21^st, 2010 at 5:01pm:



Actually, even now, after Soren has claimed to be a philosophy graduate, it is rather difficult to accept that as a statement based in reality!

freediver wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 8:12pm:



Why would you even bother? What's the point?

Put it this way - Could philosophers have come up with Quantum physics, where subatomic particles don't follow the laws of logic in our highly limited view of the macroscopic universe?

The major advances in science have been from outside the box.

As far as not understanding it - what I do understand is that there are various conflicting assertions, none of which in any way reflect what usually goes on in scientific research. Even if they did, scientific practices are dynamic.  They don't fit into any neat box.  In research you do what you have to do. You work with whatever information or clues are available to you.

Nothing is as cut and dried as 'falsifiable' or 'unfalsifiable'. You have to take risks. You have to stick your neck out.   To take a culinary analogy, you have to eat the whole enchilada, even if you don't know what's in it.

Philosophy of science is just a weapon used by certain groups with an agenda, to attempt to limit its scope. We don't go there - it's not scientific. (Here be monsters). Science must not encroach on that which belongs to God.

The question is not so much "is it falsifiable?", but "does it work?"

It's a bit like computer code. If it works, don't mess with it. Don't try to fix what isn't broken. OK, it could have a latent problem in the code, but we'll just run beta's until we get it all sorted out.  

freediver wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 10:31pm:


- a bit like Windows 7. It might be flawed, but people still use it subject to its limitations. 'Imperfect' is not the same as 'wrong'.

Life is imperfect. We are all imperfect, but that doesn't make us invariably wrong.  

muso wrote on Nov 24^th, 2010 at 9:41am:



Typical science graduate - talking through his Bumsen burner....

You can't compare life's imperfections to those of a tool (Windows 7) unless you know what it is like to be part of that tool, just as you are part of life and not using it as a tool.


Lovely weather we're having today, what?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 24^th, 2010 at 10:26am:


Yeah. It's usually related to serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine levels in the brain. The symptoms are treatable.  There are many different causes, including drug abuse, viruses, social problems etc.

It's largely thanks to advances in Medical Science that we can diagnose depression and identify its root causes.

Just remind me again what Philosophy brings to the table.