Hi Konrad, Once again, you have a heck of an interesting mind and have asked an intriguing question. So what do I think? First, I think it would be interesting, in that I’d guess they would find nothing especially interesting. He was, after all, a human being first. So even if you had a video…
Please forgive my lack of commentary on the OP’s question. As I see it, this question – whether evolution is real – has already been answered quite eloquently. My interest here stems from Arnold’s rather astute comment; that most people fail to define the term “fact.” As well as from Paul’s seriously intelligent attempt to…
First, this question is deceptively simple. And it assumes a lot. It assumes we can properly define science and in doing so, rule out the parts which may be science. Currently, we can’t even agree on the method, let alone what makes something a science. Setting this aside though, the question being asked seems to…
Alex, whether you realize it or not (and at the risk of inciting any currently attending science-police), this question is at the heart of what’s wrong with the current scientific method. And despite this method having done much good, in truth, it fails to make discoveries close to one hundred percent of the time. Imagine….
What a complicated question! My two cents? Jacob Bernoulli’s, Ars Conjectandi (The Art of Conjecture), published in 1713, is the first book to be published on what has come to be called, statistics. And anytime science treats statistics as science, it is doing something Bernoulli warned against. Here, Bernoulli is the man who invented statistics…
In my model, there are four possible kinds of science: physical science (the science of visible things; e.g. matter), mental science (the science of invisible things; e.g energy), theoretical science (the science of unchanging things; theories & facts), and real world science (the science of changing things; real world outcomes). Notice there are two pairs…
To begin with, it makes sense you’d ask about this difference. These two things have much in common, including that they both refer to philosophical viewpoints used as tools in the search for truth. And flaws aside, both have served us well.But both also have problems. A hypothesis is an untested, guessed answer. The current…
First, Kura, thank you for asking what is surely a wonderfully stimulating question, albeit, it’s a question which I personally find to be mind-breakingly complex. Your question not only refers to the nature of science itself (“finitely settled”). It also refers to those who practice science (the “scientific integrity” of scientists), all of whom are…
Once upon a time, science and philosophy were married. During this time, all scientists were generalists and called themselves, “natural philosophers.” They believed that to adequately explore the natural world, they needed a broad swath of knowledge. And that to acquire this knowledge, they needed to cooperate with, and share their discoveries with, each other….
The short answer is, as currently practiced, sadly, mostly not. And yes, there is a part of psychology which is good science; the part wherein scientists gather observations without interpreting this data. Unfortunately, modern psychology then falls apart, when it claims to know what this data implies about human nature. Why? Because they base most…