Excellent, thanks. So the bottom line is we have several theories that all account for the observations and we cannot prove one or the other is true. Sounds about right for almost the whole of science. Maybe science should be renamed theorience?
Good one :) 'Theorience'. That is great, made me laugh out loud. Yes, many models can explain the phenomena but they are not taught and this is dangerous. People might disagree with the other models, but they are valid. Back to philosophical choices.
There is a great book by the physicist and science-historian Pierre Duhem 'Save the Phenomena' (to quote medieval sources), meaning you can invent a theory to explain what you see in the cosmos, whether it is true or not, might not matter, as long as it explains the phenomena.
'Science' has gone further and now proposes 'noumena', or activities that cannot be seen or rationalised but 'must be true' to make equations balance or the theory work. An example is 'evolution', or theories to explain why the rotation of planets and moons are all over the place (big rocks are usually invoked) x 1 million other examples. Yet they are forwarded as some sort of gospel.
Thanks for the link. Glad to have been the source of a chortle or two. On the moon shot. 1. Did Saturn five (S5) rocket exist? I think so. 2. Did S5 blast off? I think so. 3. Did it carry command module and lunar module? I think so. 4. Did command module dock with lunar module? Probably. 5. Did combined ships travel to the moon? Not so sure. 6. Did combined ships travel around the Moon? Not so sure. Pictures of the far side of the moon look real but could have been taken by a probe or faked. Now here comes the big one. 7. Did they land on the moon? Not at all sure. There is no way to verify very much of this. Science used to be aware, as far as I am aware, that speculation remains speculation until proven to be true or proven to be false. For over a hundred ears now propagandists have accustomed the ignorant and uneducated as well as politicians and legal institutions to accept speculation as fact. The result is that they have the power to create any fantasy reality they wish based on any metaphysical notions about reality they care to invent. The speculative scientific cart is universally before reality horse. Lucy Letby must be guilty as somebody must have done it and since she was in the room it must have been her. Hence a century of nonsense about time travel and warp speed and worm holes and black holes, and so on, all because it was decided that relativistic speculations were universal truth. How much better it would be if scientists could cease their arrogant truth claims and join us in a philosophy seminar or two and accept that we know almost nothing for sure. Keep up the good work Dr F.
Excellent, thanks. So the bottom line is we have several theories that all account for the observations and we cannot prove one or the other is true. Sounds about right for almost the whole of science. Maybe science should be renamed theorience?
Good one :) 'Theorience'. That is great, made me laugh out loud. Yes, many models can explain the phenomena but they are not taught and this is dangerous. People might disagree with the other models, but they are valid. Back to philosophical choices.
There is a great book by the physicist and science-historian Pierre Duhem 'Save the Phenomena' (to quote medieval sources), meaning you can invent a theory to explain what you see in the cosmos, whether it is true or not, might not matter, as long as it explains the phenomena.
'Science' has gone further and now proposes 'noumena', or activities that cannot be seen or rationalised but 'must be true' to make equations balance or the theory work. An example is 'evolution', or theories to explain why the rotation of planets and moons are all over the place (big rocks are usually invoked) x 1 million other examples. Yet they are forwarded as some sort of gospel.
https://books.google.com/books/about/To_Save_the_Phenomena.html?id=2g2ZCwAAQBAJ
Thanks for the link. Glad to have been the source of a chortle or two. On the moon shot. 1. Did Saturn five (S5) rocket exist? I think so. 2. Did S5 blast off? I think so. 3. Did it carry command module and lunar module? I think so. 4. Did command module dock with lunar module? Probably. 5. Did combined ships travel to the moon? Not so sure. 6. Did combined ships travel around the Moon? Not so sure. Pictures of the far side of the moon look real but could have been taken by a probe or faked. Now here comes the big one. 7. Did they land on the moon? Not at all sure. There is no way to verify very much of this. Science used to be aware, as far as I am aware, that speculation remains speculation until proven to be true or proven to be false. For over a hundred ears now propagandists have accustomed the ignorant and uneducated as well as politicians and legal institutions to accept speculation as fact. The result is that they have the power to create any fantasy reality they wish based on any metaphysical notions about reality they care to invent. The speculative scientific cart is universally before reality horse. Lucy Letby must be guilty as somebody must have done it and since she was in the room it must have been her. Hence a century of nonsense about time travel and warp speed and worm holes and black holes, and so on, all because it was decided that relativistic speculations were universal truth. How much better it would be if scientists could cease their arrogant truth claims and join us in a philosophy seminar or two and accept that we know almost nothing for sure. Keep up the good work Dr F.