Utopia Talk - Politics - Science can be known

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sat Jun 28 01:06:40 2025

Utopia Talk / Politics / Science can be known

Isaksson
Member Mon Nov 01 16:56:39
According to Poppers falsification theory, a scientist must look at what speaks against the supportet theory.

An example from Psychology by Bruce E Goldstein we can use is: If i want to know whether all crows are black, instead of varifying every crow that is black I should look for what speaks against that theory and look for a white crow.

This is the the philosophy of science. To look what speaks against a theory.

Usually scientist argue that Creationism is not science since the theory is the set up in that manners that it can be falsified.

But how can a scientist know that evolution is true when he should look for what speaks against it. With the theory of falsifcation a scientist cannot know the truth, for he must look for what speaks against the truth! - If we assume that science is the truth that is..,

Isaksson
Member Mon Nov 01 17:13:29
There are two rules i follow from here on:

1. A scientist, according to science, always need to speak against the truth.

2. Science always need to falsify itself inorder to progress!

NeverWoods
Member Mon Nov 01 17:15:48
http://www...kgcTJ0&feature=player_embedded

Isaksson
Member Mon Nov 01 17:16:38
I won't look at that link...

NeverWoods
Member Mon Nov 01 17:21:00
Then dont.

NeverWoods
Member Mon Nov 01 17:21:16
But you did see that link.

Isaksson
Member Mon Nov 01 17:23:27
It's totally irrelvant. Argue against me!! bash me!! Refute me!!

NeverWoods
Member Mon Nov 01 17:33:45
No.

miltonfriedman
Member Mon Nov 01 18:14:12
"It's totally irrelvant. Argue against me!! bash me!! Refute me!!"

Jeez. What a pathetic attention whore.

Isaksson
Member Mon Nov 01 18:49:09
I am just stimulating my mind here on these forums.

miltonfriedman
Member Mon Nov 01 19:19:29
that's a great way relabel trolling.

Isaksson
Member Mon Nov 01 23:43:47
Can you argue for your cause, can you refute mine. otherwise you can stay away from my threads... No one force you to open them and moreover noone ask you to comment them with irrelevant notions.

My notion is that scientist, according the science, always has to speak against the truth. This since science assumes science is true.

The second notion of science i follow is that science always need to falsify itself inorder to progress.

These are the two rules i follow.

We are discussing science from a scientifical point of view here.

I suspect milton is arguing for trolling, because he got no relevant arguements against these two rules..

miltonfriedman
Member Mon Nov 01 23:45:54
God cures my trolling because when you work YOU WORK! God makes me unemployed so I can troll the forum all day long.

Isaksson
Member Mon Nov 01 23:47:38
Busted...

freaky boy
Member Tue Nov 02 00:24:40
fuck of loser

kargen
Member Tue Nov 02 00:34:49
Both your points are wrong as they are absolutes. That means one example contrary to your statements make them false.

Now think a momment and consider that science can also build on or add to the truth. Truth can be vague and science can work to make the truth more precise. Doesn't mean it was wrong, just not as detailed as it might be.

Quite a long time ago some guy decided there are certain illnesses caused by these tiny little things we can't see. Virus is what he decided to call one of these little things. Eventually somebody else figured out how to see these little things. Called the instrument a microscope and it was decided it was good for looking all kinds of cool tiny things.

Then somebody said hey now that we can see a virus I bet we can figure out how to kill it.

He didn't argue against the truth or or prove it wrong. Nope what he did is add to the truth. Made it more precise.

You can go either way with science. You can assume the truth as it is, or you can assume what is known is wrong. Then you go about your work from there and prepare yourself for the answer which ever way it takes you.

Isaksson
Member Tue Nov 02 00:52:56
Inventions are patented and constructed. Here it requires something that is called leadership, as you command your invention to work.

According to Poppers theory of falsfication you need to look for what speaks against scientifical theories, theories that are assumpted to be true.

For instance, you know that evolution is true, (i don't believe in it), but you need to look for what speaks against it.

You know that general relativity is true, but you need to speak against it. Atleast inorder to be a true scientist.

kargen
Member Tue Nov 02 15:36:24
You don't really have a clue about Popper's theory of falsification.

Basically he said some theories can't be tested and some can. Or more to the point some theories can't be proven false, even though they may be false, and some theories could be proven false, but may not actually be false.

saiko
Member Tue Nov 02 17:57:28
"For instance, you know that evolution is true, (i don't believe in it), but you need to look for what speaks against it."

What you do in practice is assume evolution is not true, and then find evidence to refute that position.

Isaksson
Member Wed Nov 03 13:20:01
As a scientist you should look for what speaks against your theory.

Isaksson
Member Wed Nov 03 13:31:36
Kargen, I gonna illustrate what I mean, I gonna illustrate how a scietnist should work.

I have a theoy that black holes are surrounded with dark matter. As a scientist i should look for what speaks against this theory and let others confirm it. So what speaks against it? if dark matter doesn't escape black holes it is impossible for dark matter to surround blakc holes.

kargen
Member Wed Nov 03 16:30:51
So you have two ways to go with your theory. First assume there is dark matter. You can then look to discover the properties of black matter, or look to where it might be most prevelant. Both would expand on the original assumption that there is black energy. You would be building on the truth.
You could then make your claim about black holes and dark energy. If you looked into the properties of black matter you could then work to discover if those properties could exist in and around a black hole. Again expanding on the truth. Right now your claim about black holes and dark energy isn't considered truth. It is just an idea at this point ready to be proven or not. This is something that is provable or falsifiable if you want to go that direction. It isn't feasible just yet to expect it to be falsified or proven, but eventually it could be.
Basically you need to expand your knowledge on both the properties of black holes and the properties of dark matter to test your idea. If you want to assume it is true then work to disprove it that is fine. If you want to work it from the other side that is also fine. It all amounts to the same thing.

You will one way or the other provide more detail to the truth about dark matter and black holes. You may also prove false a popular theory or two along the way. That doesn't mean you are always fighting against the truth.

Seb
Member Wed Nov 03 16:52:04
Isaakson:

"But how can a scientist know that evolution is true when he should look for what speaks against it"

To falsify evolution, one need only say, find fossilised bunny rabbits in the precambrian rocks.

How can we know it is true? Well, we can't, but it is the theory that is most consistent with the facts, and provides excellent predictive value.

Remember, Darwin did not come up with evolution by looking at fossils, he did it by looking at finches beaks. From that we have evolution, and from that we expect that we can put fossils in order showing their evolutionay herritage. You would note expect such a detailed fossil record without evolution.

The fossil record is a prediction of evolution, which gives greater confidence to the theory.

saiko
Member Wed Nov 03 18:37:28
"As a scientist you should look for what speaks against your theory."

Or any theory at all. It is perfectly acceptable to advance science by looking for what speaks against someone else's theory.

show deleted posts

Isaksson Member	Mon Nov 01 16:56:39 According to Poppers falsification theory, a scientist must look at what speaks against the supportet theory. An example from Psychology by Bruce E Goldstein we can use is: If i want to know whether all crows are black, instead of varifying every crow that is black I should look for what speaks against that theory and look for a white crow. This is the the philosophy of science. To look what speaks against a theory. Usually scientist argue that Creationism is not science since the theory is the set up in that manners that it can be falsified. But how can a scientist know that evolution is true when he should look for what speaks against it. With the theory of falsifcation a scientist cannot know the truth, for he must look for what speaks against the truth! - If we assume that science is the truth that is..,
Isaksson Member	Mon Nov 01 17:13:29 There are two rules i follow from here on: 1. A scientist, according to science, always need to speak against the truth. 2. Science always need to falsify itself inorder to progress!
NeverWoods Member	Mon Nov 01 17:15:48 http://www...kgcTJ0&feature=player_embedded
Isaksson Member	Mon Nov 01 17:16:38 I won't look at that link...
NeverWoods Member	Mon Nov 01 17:21:00 Then dont.
NeverWoods Member	Mon Nov 01 17:21:16 But you did see that link.
Isaksson Member	Mon Nov 01 17:23:27 It's totally irrelvant. Argue against me!! bash me!! Refute me!!
NeverWoods Member	Mon Nov 01 17:33:45 No.
miltonfriedman Member	Mon Nov 01 18:14:12 "It's totally irrelvant. Argue against me!! bash me!! Refute me!!" Jeez. What a pathetic attention whore.
Isaksson Member	Mon Nov 01 18:49:09 I am just stimulating my mind here on these forums.
miltonfriedman Member	Mon Nov 01 19:19:29 that's a great way relabel trolling.
Isaksson Member	Mon Nov 01 23:43:47 Can you argue for your cause, can you refute mine. otherwise you can stay away from my threads... No one force you to open them and moreover noone ask you to comment them with irrelevant notions. My notion is that scientist, according the science, always has to speak against the truth. This since science assumes science is true. The second notion of science i follow is that science always need to falsify itself inorder to progress. These are the two rules i follow. We are discussing science from a scientifical point of view here. I suspect milton is arguing for trolling, because he got no relevant arguements against these two rules..
miltonfriedman Member	Mon Nov 01 23:45:54 God cures my trolling because when you work YOU WORK! God makes me unemployed so I can troll the forum all day long.
Isaksson Member	Mon Nov 01 23:47:38 Busted...
freaky boy Member	Tue Nov 02 00:24:40 fuck of loser
kargen Member	Tue Nov 02 00:34:49 Both your points are wrong as they are absolutes. That means one example contrary to your statements make them false. Now think a momment and consider that science can also build on or add to the truth. Truth can be vague and science can work to make the truth more precise. Doesn't mean it was wrong, just not as detailed as it might be. Quite a long time ago some guy decided there are certain illnesses caused by these tiny little things we can't see. Virus is what he decided to call one of these little things. Eventually somebody else figured out how to see these little things. Called the instrument a microscope and it was decided it was good for looking all kinds of cool tiny things. Then somebody said hey now that we can see a virus I bet we can figure out how to kill it. He didn't argue against the truth or or prove it wrong. Nope what he did is add to the truth. Made it more precise. You can go either way with science. You can assume the truth as it is, or you can assume what is known is wrong. Then you go about your work from there and prepare yourself for the answer which ever way it takes you.
Isaksson Member	Tue Nov 02 00:52:56 Inventions are patented and constructed. Here it requires something that is called leadership, as you command your invention to work. According to Poppers theory of falsfication you need to look for what speaks against scientifical theories, theories that are assumpted to be true. For instance, you know that evolution is true, (i don't believe in it), but you need to look for what speaks against it. You know that general relativity is true, but you need to speak against it. Atleast inorder to be a true scientist.
kargen Member	Tue Nov 02 15:36:24 You don't really have a clue about Popper's theory of falsification. Basically he said some theories can't be tested and some can. Or more to the point some theories can't be proven false, even though they may be false, and some theories could be proven false, but may not actually be false.
saiko Member	Tue Nov 02 17:57:28 "For instance, you know that evolution is true, (i don't believe in it), but you need to look for what speaks against it." What you do in practice is assume evolution is not true, and then find evidence to refute that position.
Isaksson Member	Wed Nov 03 13:20:01 As a scientist you should look for what speaks against your theory.
Isaksson Member	Wed Nov 03 13:31:36 Kargen, I gonna illustrate what I mean, I gonna illustrate how a scietnist should work. I have a theoy that black holes are surrounded with dark matter. As a scientist i should look for what speaks against this theory and let others confirm it. So what speaks against it? if dark matter doesn't escape black holes it is impossible for dark matter to surround blakc holes.
kargen Member	Wed Nov 03 16:30:51 So you have two ways to go with your theory. First assume there is dark matter. You can then look to discover the properties of black matter, or look to where it might be most prevelant. Both would expand on the original assumption that there is black energy. You would be building on the truth. You could then make your claim about black holes and dark energy. If you looked into the properties of black matter you could then work to discover if those properties could exist in and around a black hole. Again expanding on the truth. Right now your claim about black holes and dark energy isn't considered truth. It is just an idea at this point ready to be proven or not. This is something that is provable or falsifiable if you want to go that direction. It isn't feasible just yet to expect it to be falsified or proven, but eventually it could be. Basically you need to expand your knowledge on both the properties of black holes and the properties of dark matter to test your idea. If you want to assume it is true then work to disprove it that is fine. If you want to work it from the other side that is also fine. It all amounts to the same thing. You will one way or the other provide more detail to the truth about dark matter and black holes. You may also prove false a popular theory or two along the way. That doesn't mean you are always fighting against the truth.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 03 16:52:04 Isaakson: "But how can a scientist know that evolution is true when he should look for what speaks against it" To falsify evolution, one need only say, find fossilised bunny rabbits in the precambrian rocks. How can we know it is true? Well, we can't, but it is the theory that is most consistent with the facts, and provides excellent predictive value. Remember, Darwin did not come up with evolution by looking at fossils, he did it by looking at finches beaks. From that we have evolution, and from that we expect that we can put fossils in order showing their evolutionay herritage. You would note expect such a detailed fossil record without evolution. The fossil record is a prediction of evolution, which gives greater confidence to the theory.
saiko Member	Wed Nov 03 18:37:28 "As a scientist you should look for what speaks against your theory." Or any theory at all. It is perfectly acceptable to advance science by looking for what speaks against someone else's theory.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: