Can you make assumptions in science?

Post Reply New Topic

Examples abound in all religion, not just Eastern ones. Anthropomorphizing reality is pretty much what religion is. What is God/Zeus/Shiva etc. but attempts by humans to give human characteristics to the natural world? I don't think this is extreme egomania though. It's just hard to not put humans at the center of everything, it's just how we roll. Science has been a steady struggle to get away from this anthropomorphizing and be as objective as possible.

It hurt humanity's ego to see the sun rather than the earth as the center of our solar system and worse yet as our solar system to be one of very,very many. It hurt humanity's ego once again to see humans as just another primate instead of the special chosen ones officially named to rule over all. But this is normal egoism, not extreme.

The universe is terrifying in its enormity. I don't use "terrifying" lightly. I think the vastness (visible even to our paleolithic ancestors looking up at the sky) is so overwhelming that it is a comfort to imagine something is out there that loves us as earthlings,or at least vertebrates, conceptualizes love. The alternative is a sense of insignificance which easily brings on existential dread. Religion promises significance, the personal touch from a deity (or deities) who notice us and care about us. That is an understandable view but it isn't objective observation.

If you want to discuss "religion" I suggest it belongs on another thread and with a definition of what "religion" means.

Presently "religion" is just being used as a pejorative term to dismiss anything that does not conform to the religion of Naturalism or Materialism.

I am suggesting that religious or ideological assumptions (i.e. Naturalism, Materialism, Atheism, Agnosticism, Voodoo etc.) have no place in science. Just because a religious or ideological assumption is relentlessly sold in the popular media does not make it any less impossible, or unreasonable, or unscientific.

David you are becoming ever more irrational. For the best definition of science

"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.

If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” Richard Feynman

Perhaps you need some of your own advice:

Arty, we have been discussing this to no avail.

A guess (or more in scientific parlance; an hypothesis) is not the same as an assumption. An hypothesis (or guess) is a possible explanation for an observation that is to be verified or falsified by experiment.

An assumption is a presumed "fact" independent of any observational or experimental validity.

I bow to your expertise on this point, David. You're well practiced at making assumptions.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assumption

Honestly, sometimes it's best just to look the word up in the most widely used dictionary on Google.

It sure beats mental masturbation, in my opinion.

Of COURSE, ONE CAN MAKE Assumptions in science, AS after all is said and done AND FELT, Assumption is a frigging synonym for an hypothetical.

This is just common sense.

And science can't understand common sense, often, it seems, from what i've seen here..

And seriously, systemization is the PROBLEM, per the broadest definition of SCIENCE, as most humans run on emotion and assumption, otherwise, if 'they' use science alone, historically, 'they' WILL never make it OUT of the stone age, as the wild animals WILL be eating 'them', by the time 'they' repeat 'THAT' experiment, FOR 'DEAD'..

Emotion, imagination, and human creativity THAT IS the source fire (INSPIRATION) for human social cooperation and survival, is, overall, not a science based thingy, per the scientific method, as many of these observable human behaviors, simply CANNOT BE REPEATED, WITH any measure of scientific tool available FOR EMPIRICAL MEASURE.

Humans attempt to apply order to reality to relieve existential angst.

The river keeps flowing, ebbing, and flowing to the OCEAN THAT IS REAL, DESPITE what humans 'think' they know by experiment alone.

Science is good to make tools of life better but it will LIKELY never speak FULLY to the human heArt, soul, or spirit that are all synonyms for the emotional 'ORGAN' that emotes human survival.

AND that's wHere philosophy comes in, as science is 'just a book', with a few pages entailing the true FULLER existence AND POTENTIAL of human being, in inner world manifested OUTSIDE of what 'this or that' human 'sees' of 'IT'.

But anyway, Merriam Webster IS the authority here, when it comes to the FACT THAT ASSUMPTIONS ARE MADE IN SCIENCE.

But when it comes to Human relative free WILL, AND EMOTIONS OF FAITH, HOPE, and BELIEF:

STYX AND THE LORD OF THE RINGS KNOWS, AND MOREOVER FEELS, MORE ABOUT that THAN SCIENCE LIKELY EVER will.

And with THAT SAID AND FELT, I'LL LEAVE this, and please do carry on, with WHATEVER..



OH, and about that Avatar; I'm starting to look LIKE A THIEF IN THE NIGHT..;):)

HUH..
he
HEH..!

Kudos! Well put.

THANK YOU, KIND sir..

Which, of course, means that all "wisdom" is completely detached from reality.

Don't believe me... go check Blavatskyite magic.

Anyhow, as far as I know, this thread is still about assumptions in science.

Wow! Now that's a new one... a religion about religions. lol
You do come up with some "esoteric" people to keep things interesting.
Have you been digging through Shirley Maclaine's bookshelves?

If anyone is still curious about "why would they do it" you should ask the bods above. It's clearly even less reasonable than I thought.

A bit cryptic, David. Sorry, after 3 Coronas I'm not following at all.

David you are a fool. That is all there is to it. We have tried.to explain and demonstrate where you are so badly mistaken, but the fact that you believe there is 200 (or so) year old fraud that is still being meted out on an unsuspecting community by the vast majority of the scientific body, and you snd your cadre of brave souls are the only ones who can see it, tells me you are lost to rational discourse.

You are impervious to the fact that you have not one jot of empirical evidence to back your claims, all you are capable of is making false accusations against science by using nonsense terms such as observable and historical science, and presenting false interpretations of actual science. You are so enthralled by Genesis that you cannot see.the idiocy of your claims. You suggest that assumptions in science are no better than religious dogma. How asinine can you be. Yes assumptions can be wrong. The luminiforous aether being a good case in point. But unlike dogmatic belief, science continuously questions and queries these assumptions and in this particular case it was overthrown, light was no longer seen as being relative to the aether, time was no longer seen as invariant, the speed of massless particles was established, a new invariant property was discovered and hey presto you have gps to use on your farm. Or was Einstein a fool and is spacetime and E=MC2 a load of useless assumptions that have no place in science? Nothing will penetrate the wall of delusion and brainwashing that that you are enveloped in. The only logical understanding I can find for your irrational take on science is that you have conflated Aristotelian and Scholasticideas of "knowing via thought" with modern scientific use of assumptions and a modern take on Axioms. But I doubt it.

In geneREAL, he's referencing Theosophy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy

Helena Blavatsky is the founder of that mix of philosophy, science, and religion coming together to express TRUTH.

AND yes, I agree with part of what she says but not all of it.

I DO NOT believe that Helena could go about doing GROSS PSYCHIC phenomenon like appearing in two places at one time, and perhaps she was taking the PISS OUT of material reductionists that exist in traditional religions and science, as well, by offering a satire of greater human potential.

Aleister Crowley, did a similar thing in all his mystery school teachings of the Occult, as he loved to make SARCASTIC remarks about those who he felt where NOT as enlightened, as he.

Modern Satanists do the same thing with symbols of ancient myths to trick literalist Christians into getting all bent out of shape, enjoying all the OH MY GOD reactions.

Lucifernarian's reflect the so-called gnostic teachings of Christianity better than modern Christianity.

But at least Aleister Crowley admits that the only law is Love under Will.

Human nature doesn't have to be rocket science OR the world around 'US'.

Will is the survival instinct that all healthy animals possess.

Love is more complicated and MOST complicated when it comes to human beings.

But never the less, it is the greatest force and potential among human beings, in my humble opinion.

And in my opinion LOVE is the force of pro-social emotion conquering con-social emotion by HUMAN WILL OF FORCE.

To focus WILL on the positive connecting forces of life is to grow stronger.

To focus WILL on the negative connecting forces of life is to grow weaker.

And of course a major aspect of this is human emotion and empathy.

To cooperate is to often survive AND grow stronger

To divide and conquer is to often not survive AND grow weaker.

And anyone who goes throwing pejoratives around like everyone who doesn't agree with them is a Narcissist does not impress me.

It is a common weakness that humans use to promote themselves, as better than others.

Knowing truth does not make one better than anyone else

Knowing truth simply makes one more fortunate than some other folks.

Sharing it is human integrity, duty, and ethical behavior all in ONE force to simply help other folks be at peace AND creative, imaginative, to move ahead in this world, to add a verse to the Uni-verse as it exists, instead of remaining stagnant and unproductive human beings.

And perhaps the fact that humans can be inspired to do this altruistic behavior without materialistic reward is proof enough of magic, AND IS PROOF ENOUGH FOR ME, AS one individual who reaps the benefits of this way of human life, every now of now.

And just a final point(S), to be a true fool, is to know a real fool.

That's cryptic too but TRUTH.

And I do enjoy sarcasm and satire too, as it provides vehicles and vessels to inspire folks to think deeper about life WHO CAN.

IT does not appear all CAN but I for one hope that is NOT Truth.

In other words I HOPE IT IS A FALSE ASSUMPTION, PER SYSTEMIZING SCIENCE.

And that is why you will never see me personally attacking anyone here, as 'WE' are ALL on a journey to TRUTH, whether we make it or not.

It is those who lag behind the most who warrant the most help..

The reason I am here, NOW; simply and truthfully put.

But I am a trickster; tHere is NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT.

And I continue to perfect that ancient and human archetypal practice, as illustrated more fully at the link below, with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO HIDE.

TO BE A TRUE FOOL IS TO BE TOTALLY FREE HUMAN BEING. ..

THE HIGHEST OF ALL HUMAN ARCHETYPES AS AGREED UPON IN most MYSTERY SCHOOLS.

i JUST DO IT, AS MY FRIENDS AT NIKE SAY. ..

WITH NEVER EVER A REGRET, as my only master IS MOTHER NATURE TRUE AKA GOD2.

AND OF COURSE abiding by all federal, state, and local laws, per the country that is truly under GOD per MORE FULLY expressing human freedoms in the 1st Amendment, per the GOOD OLE' USA.

SO, as Katy Perry exclaimes in her so-called illuminati ritual at the end of her FABULOUS Super-Bowl Half-Time cryptic symbolic EXTRAVAGANZA OF TOTALLY IMAGINATIVE CREATIVE ART, I'LL leave now by repeating her ending exclamation point.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!..

http://katiemiafrederick.com/2015/02/02/3000-miles-of-dance-walking-now/

Well! There you have it! "Science" is whatever the Party ideology says it is. It clearly has nothing to do with observation and reason.