Is science a reliable source for truth?

a reply to: circuitsports

Pfft.

The Panama Canal is approximately 80 kilometers long between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. This waterway was cut through one of narrowest saddles of the isthmus that joins North and South America.

www.pancanal.com...

a reply to: Phage

PFT maps don't lie

en.wikipedia.org...#/media/File:Caribbean_general_map.png]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caribbean_Sea#/media/File:Caribbean_ge neral_map.png

The Caribbean Sea is an oceanic sea largely situated on the Caribbean Plate. The Caribbean Sea is ----- separated from the ocean------by several island arcs of various ages. The youngest stretches from the Lesser Antilles to the Virgin Islands to the north east of Trinidad and Tobago off the coast of Venezuela. This arc was formed by the collision of the South American Plate with the Caribbean Plate and includes active and extinct volcanoes such as Mount Pelee, the Quill (volcano) on Sint Eustatius in the Caribbean Netherlands and Morne Trois Pitons on Dominica. The larger islands in the northern part of the sea Cuba, Hispaniola, Jamaica and Puerto Rico lie on an older island arc.

Back to my original point, you can't go north by traveling west

The entrance to the Panama Canal is near the city of Colón (at about 9° 18' N, 79° 55' W). On the Pacific side, the entrance is near Panama City (at about 8° 56' N, 79° 33' W). These coordinates prove that if the journey were traveled in a straight line, it would be a north-south route.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: ErosA433

Im a particle physicist... Am I wealthy? Nope not really, I'm getting paid an average salary compared to the country, and yet, because large numbers get batted around in terms of the research grants we get, people equate it to some kind of award say for a sportsman... "This experiment got 2billion" As though we get the 2billion and divvy it up between people who work on the experiment. This is further from the truth, as that money will mostly go to buy equipment, engineering and training of people.

For a long time now, I have hoped to bump into a particle physicist. The information included in the PDF has scarcely seen the light of day for thousands of years. This is what I believe, and to me there is no better explanation. Please study it and digest it, and feel very empowered when you are hit with the truth. It will not feel subjective to you I promise.

This framework was designed by Pythagorus to be used as the basis for all science in the future and it has been buried for centuries.

Let's see if your bias allows you to explore it. It will challenge your understanding.

Pythagorean Hylozoics - Henry T Laurency

I put this here in case anyone was looking for the link I posted, it could easily get lost with all the bad geography going on.

CircuitSports and Phage each appear to have scientific evidence to support their arguments which really does make you question wether science is a reliable source for truth.

As opposed to......? A comparison for where else knowledge is also gained would help in the debate. As far as I know or can tell, yes it is the ONLY reliable source of knowledge because no matter what philosophy or theory has come before in order to manifest the said scientific process, the said process ALWAYS gives the results of said philosophical idea or theory. This thread doesn't make any sense and just seems like an attempt to discredit science in general for no reason.

originally posted by: Blarneystoner

originally posted by: bogdan9310
I’m going to start off by asking a simple question: What is science? Some might say it’s the only way to arrive at knowledge. But science only analyzes existing concepts, it is widely known that philosophy is the art of concept creation, and it’s not until a concept is declared by philosophy, when a scientific field spawns to study it.

Science is nothing more than the gradual progress and discoveries based on previous work, and we can describe the source of our current understanding of science as the product of a collective mind of scientists working together, but in different timelines. Albert Einstein did not come up with relativity from scratch, the concept of time was already there. Isaac Newton based his absolute space and time theory on top of Johannes Kepler’s work, and so on.

My point is that we mostly make up knowledge, then build it up, rather than discovering it. I think that the scientific method is unreliable, it relies more on observations and less on personal experience.

And the problem I want to point out, is that a lot of people treat it like religion. They bring up science in conversations to back up their arguments like the science is settled and can never be proven wrong.

Logic is the foundation of reasoning. Reasoning is the process by which we judge and arrive at the truth. Logic is how we derive Truth.

For an argument to be considered sound, the argument must meet two fundamental criteria.

1. Is the premise True
2. Is the reasoning valid

Ex;
1. Sandy is has red hair, therefore 2. Sandy is not a blonde.

A logical argument can be distilled down to it's fundamental elements as a mathematical equation.

Some truths are inexorable.

~ 1+1=2
~ For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. (Verifiable, repeatable and reproducible results)

Science is the study of the physical world around us, it's structure and behavior. It is inherently uncertain but some conclusions (truths) have been established as such beyond a reasonable doubt. Some experiments produce different results which can lead to differing conclusions.

Induction is a part of the scientific method that leads to uncertainty. The meaning of Induction is the act of bringing forward or adducing something (such as facts or particulars). Part of the problem is that experimental results can be open to interpretation. Another problematic aspect is that it's not always possible to eliminate or account for all of the factors involved in the outcome of an experiment.

Science isn't religion, but it's the best method we currently have to analyze and describe our physical world and the mechanisms that govern it.

I want to point out here that: Science and Religion both EQUALLY use DEDUCTIVE reasoning.

Where they differ is that science also uses INDUCTIVE reasoning. But religion totally abandons INDUCTIVE reasoning. ("Faith" basically amounts to "ignoring the odds and believing anyway")

Pure science, that free from political motivation, is a reliable source for truth. That is its goal. That being said, any truth should always be challenged when evidence is produced that says otherwise. Why? Because truth, fact, reality, whatever you want to call it, is only as accurate as the data that goes into it. Technology can change things. Experience can change things. Yada yada yada. In my mind, it's more amazing how many things hold up to the test of time. A hundred years ago we would travel by horse drawn wagon. My, how far we've come in so little time. But it's ludicrous to think we have it all figured out.

"Is science a reliable source for truth?"

Science is reliabler than anything else, if you're seeking empirical data. If philosophy or conjecture represents truth to you, then that's what works for you. But you cannot apply it as a generality across a random population.

Science won't be right all of the time, but it's righter (and provable) more often than anything else.

Yes, I'm aware I butchered some words and articulated my point in a slipshod manner, but you get the picture

The question as presented is somewhat clunky, however. It's like seeing the following question on an essay test:


37. Define the universe. Give three examples.

originally posted by: TheTruthRocks
37. Define the universe. Give three examples.

1. The universe is the space in which your consciousness interacts with and creates reality.

a. Everything a person personally experiences and which has an effect on that person's physical reality, which we like to call the "known universe."
b. Physical reality that can be assumed or implied but does not have any direct effect on a person. Stars too far away or too old to ever be seen, etc.
c. The non-physical universe of concepts, thoughts, and ideas that can interact with an motivate a person to do physical things in the known universe, but are not themselves physical.

So you agree with the OP? Simply being "science" doesn't make anything more "truth" as those in places of power in "science" will abuse said power. Sounds like you agree with the OP.

a reply to: UKTruth

Science is like the dictionary. It only makes sense as long as everybody agrees on what the words mean.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Same could be said about mathematics.

But those words as you put it or ideologies contain such notions as Phi, Pi, G.

Which are present and repeated, everywhere, and in everything we see, from pinecones to spiral galaxies.

Science is all about measurement and repetition, science is all about math.

a reply to: Blarneystoner

Logic is the foundation of reasoning. Reasoning is the process by which we judge and arrive at the truth. Logic is how we derive Truth

The first word split the world in two. Unthink about that for a minute..

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: circuitsports
What direction do you travel when traversing the Panama canal from the Atlantic to the Pacific?

Thats a simple question to answer if you consider the model to be simple and thats part the problem of science. It is always based on a simplified model.


Assumptions made here are how are you travelling.. (what is your method of movement) How fast are you travelling. It depends on the route taken. It depends on who is navigating. I could go on but you get the idea.

If you want a simple answer you need a simple model.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Blue Shift
Science is all about measurement and repetition, science is all about math.

Which has its own very crippling limitations. Yeah, it's good for measuring things (very roughly), and seeing how they interact with other things. But it's piss poor when used to describe actual reality, because reality is constantly in flux.

For instance, did you know that there is no such thing as "one?" It's a fantasy. A construct. Nothing in reality is completely separated from anything else. So one plus one? Yep. It's one. I can say "I have one apple," but that's only because we agree that lump of organized energy, absorbing and leaking energy everywhere around it, is an "apple."

Remember that old video game "Asteroids?" You flew your little spaceship around an blew up asteroids for points. But one of the fun things about it was that if you fly your ship off the screen, it will instantaneously pop back up on the other side of the screen. Why does it do that? Because math. In real life your ship would never do that.

Math is great for some things. But don't confuse it with reality.

a reply to: bogdan9310

I will make it simple. Most wont get this. Science is a poison chalice. It was given to us. Its a religion without a soul. Nothing more. Nothing less.

a reply to: Blue Shift

1+1 = 2 that's a basic axiom im afraid and true for all logical purpose. LoL

Its not the same thing viewed from a different perspective in any kind of meaningful manner.

Been watching a little to much Lucy perchance?

"Remember that old video game "Asteroids?"

"Why does it do that? Because math."

2d math you see its possible in those dimensions, and its a computer program all of which is dependant on logic to function.

Math is not just great is the language of nature given form, wish i understood it better to be rather honest.

a reply to: purplemer

Science questions itself and allows progress whereas religion, which says we have a Soul, is pretty much static.

One seeks truth and answers the other obedience and blind faith.

Nothing more, nothing less.

SKY SCHOLAR
recently restored my hope that a good ole science is still out there. Throughout the history the best used to be underground and the brightest brains were persecuted.

Science was always corrupted and prone to scientism. Astrophysics is run by the mathemagicians "proving" any fantasy - believers of the Hawking cult and the rest is politicized by the global warming alarmists and other tax-money scammers. Still there are some bright exceptions and a huge boring base doing the work and making cool gadgets.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: purplemer

Science questions itself and allows progress whereas religion, which says we have a Soul, is pretty much static.

One seeks truth and answers the other obedience and blind faith.

Nothing more, nothing less.

No they both require blind faith. They are both stories and in many ways very similar. Whats the difference between the big bang for example and god creating the universe.

As C.S.Lewis put it. Give me one miracle and I will explain the rest.



Both are used to control the masses. You think in this corporate dictorship in which we live truth is more readily available.

NO we live in an age where we are confused than ever before. This is a post truth world.

a reply to: purplemer

We will always live in an age where we are even more confused than ever before.

As our understanding grows so to do the shores of our ignorance.

Science will always pose far more interesting and complex queries than it ever answers.

That's part of the package and fundamental to logical consistency.

Science at least looks before she leaps, religion not so much.

None of the two care where they land all the same.