Can you make assumptions in science?

Post Reply New Topic

David all we are asking for is empirical evidence for what you are claiming. Surely if you are so convinced that the majority view in physics ,biology, chemistry and cosmology is wrong you would have supporting evidence! All we are asking for is that evidence.

Here's anther example of how political and ideological assumptions destroy science.

http://www.principia-scientific.org/the ... smear.html

David who cares. Basically you are full of s**t. Provide evidence or shut up. In all my time on this forum I have not come across some one who has such an absence in credibility as yourself.

Like I have asked repeatedly provide evidence for your claims,

David, on page 6 of this thread, I gave rather lengthy evidence of how your credibility on "assumptions" and ideology is quite lacking. One day, when you've taken the plank out of your own eye, maybe you'll have the temperance for such discussions. Unfortunately, right now you sound a tad ignorant of your own glaring hypocrisy. Just one more example of your ideological subjectivity.

Edit: But that's ok.. gives me something to look forward to.

From the article:



This assumption about the motives of people "caterwauling over climate change" is indeed political and ideological. But neither it nor any other political or ideological assumption has destroyed science. Science has not been destroyed and is actually in fine health.

Elsewhere on that website there is a calm and non-inflammatory article about the discovery of a new antibiotic. (Although, in the comment section, somebody comments that the very excellence of the research makes them furious about climate change research.) That's because the discovery of new antibiotics is not emotionally charged for them so they can look at it objectively.

Some subjects of research will cause an emotional reaction in some people, but this emotional reaction does not destroy science.

You say a lot about what you think science isn't. But never about what you think it is. When I pressed you on that point earlier you claimed to have already given an answer but this answer was just a misunderstanding of entropy.

I don't think you understand what science is at all. You consistently mix up science with specific researchers or specific research.

I have consistently said, and always implied, that natural science is the discovery of the workings of nature by observation, hypothesis, and experimentation. There must be a method to science or it degenerates into a mush of conjecture, assumption and superstition; as it has done in the current popularised "versions" sold entirely by media hype.
Scientific method:

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

That's simple enough; though I expect it's way more than you "Snake-oil" salesmen can understand or accept because it's inconvenient to your ideological prejudices (assumptions).

What popularised nonscience does (as in the example of climate "science" above) is to assume the desired "result" then "cherry-pick", or fraudulently misrepresent, or simply fabricate "observations" to suit.

It's painfully obvious that there is here a cadre of "Jihadists" who's mission is to eliminate any questioning of their Materialist ideology and its prophets so that no debate can ensue about any genuinely scientific issues.
Dogma #1: Everything is explained by Materialism.
Dogma #2: Anything that can't be explained by Materialism... refer to Dogma #1.

I was rather hoping that there might be some sharp-minded and interestingly "unconventional" folk to be found on a supposedly "'spergic" forum but, once again, I am disappointed.

Perhaps the problem is that the "diagnostic tools" for diagnosing 'Spergia can't distinguish between 'Spergics and ordinary, common, garden variety, narcissists.

Anyhow*, I'll continue with the beer and direct my conversation to people who have a bit more to their knowledge base than commonplace media hype.

Once again David I ask you to provide evidence for your specific claims. All you have done in the post above is demonstrate just how accurate Narrator's assement of your level of self awareness is. The above post is nothing more than a hypocritcal diatribe, replete with half truths and nonsense conjecture. As I have said before you are nothing but a one trick pony who has the ability to verbalise diarrhoea. For pities sake it would appear that you cannot even understand the qoute you just posted. If you did then you would realise that it is you not us that violate the principles of the scientific method.

lol.. so true to form, David. Ignore the log in your own eye.
And just to up the anti.... I'm drinking a Corona or two

I can't drink Corona.... I don't have an appropriate tie to match.... or any of the other lah-de-dah that identifies me with the "in" crowd.

I've been drinking Corona since long before it was popular, but I do like the 'lah-de-dah' reactions it gets. lol

We agree. And thank you for answering. When it comes to media hype, I think it's important to distinguish between what gets reported in the media and the actual research. Reporters, including science reporters, are all about headlines and tightened up narratives. They will draw unsupported conclusions from inconclusive research in order to tighten a narrative for the article. I always go back to the original paper if possible- thanl you internet for making this easy. I am unable to understand the math in physics papers but do fine with papers that don't use math beyond statistics (the math course I did well in, unlike the others).
(wiki entry on the scientific method removed for space)



It is simple enough. Of course I understand and accept it. It doesn't conflict with my assumptions. In fact it is the basis of my assumptions.



What you are calling "popularised nonscience" is probably articles writen which do in fact cherry pick research. Google could probably find some. But the actual research and data are not fabricated. That's quite an accusation to claim that researchers have fabricated data to fit a narrative.



Alternatively, refer back to your own definition of science(which I agree with) that it is the discovery of the workings of nature through observation, hypothesis and experimentation. This means the supernatural is excluded. What you call jihadists are just people trying to get you to nstick to nature and stop trying to find supernatural (religious) reasons for things.



A whole section of insults. Not cool.

I did learn something new today.....about Australia and beer. I had no idea Corona was popular or considered a fancy beer (per the "wear a tie" remark). Perhaps that is due to expense from shipping costs? In the U.S. it's considered a laid back summer party beer. This is kicked off on May 5 of every year with Cinco de Mayo parties (where non-Mexicans inexplicably use the liberation of Mexico as a reason for Mexican themed parties with lots of Corona). It continues through summer with Corona at picnics and barbecues. People drink Corona at other times too but its' main association is with the laid back relaxation of outdoor get-togethers. It's a beach and poolside beer. The very thought of it being 'posh' in Australia is hilarious.

We also have our own warped take on Australian beer which is confined exclusively to Fosters. There was a commercial saying "Fosters, it's Australian for beer" and since it's the only Australian beer here, Americans sometimes get the impression it's the only one in Australia too, or at least the most popular.

Fosters is hardly drunk here, at least not in the 3 states I have lived in. As to Corona it is a mid priced beer, but I doubt most Aussie's would regard it as fancy. But then my view on what is seen as Lah de dah is somewhat warped as I drink red wine and think most beer is crap , love my English Bitter though

First things first... I don't like any of the commercial, industrially synthesised stuff that is sold as beer. Most of it tastes like weak, fizzy, cold tea with unidentifiable contaminants... except Foster's which is contaminated with musk flavoured lollies. The only really good thing to come out of "Safustraya" is the properly brewed Cooper's range of which I particularly like the stout, dark ales and bitters. I am only talking about the "actual "research"" that is produced entirely to pamper, and produce, media hype. Don't take my word for it, there's a mountain of evidence that there are a great number of "scientists" out there who gladly exchange their integrity for 30 bits of popular publicity by supporting politically and ideologically driven agendas. Do your own research. I am not suggesting anything "supernatural"; that term has been so much abused with misuse that it's practically only used as an excuse by people playing with Ouija boards and the like, and as a term of derision by Materialists trying desperately to avoid having to consider perfectly natural metaphysical reality.

Perfectly natural, and obvious, metaphysical entities like life, intellect and will, just for starters.

It is completely impossible to recognise even the existence of a physical reality without life and intellect, most obviously. A pretty standard attempted diversion for when your bluff is effectively called.
Nope! The only use for assumptions in science is to convert it into nonscience (Snake Oil) to sell a politically or/and ideologically based agenda to the naïve and credulous.

And true to form you provide no evidence for your claims.

If there is something in my "claims" that you think requires "evidence" beyond your potential observation and recollection you will itemise such, perhaps?

I think I itemised 15 or 16 of your "claims" on page 6, or should I say, your "subjective assumptions."