- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What do you think it means to believe in science?
Posted on 1/31/17 at 5:07 pm to CptBengal
Posted on 1/31/17 at 5:07 pm to CptBengal
quote:
Science isn't about belief. It's about facts.
Meh, I know for a fact one of the scientific community's beliefs is wrong.
This post was edited on 1/31/17 at 5:08 pm
2
Posted on 1/31/17 at 5:10 pm to DawgfaninCa
Man that downvoter is fast.
My post couldn't have been up for more than 15 seconds and it was already downvoted.
My post couldn't have been up for more than 15 seconds and it was already downvoted.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 5:17 pm to Revelator
quote:
Science isn't about belief. It's about facts.
quote:
Until some new hypotheses is put forth dispelling the previous," facts!"
Or an alternative fact is put forth dispelling the previous "facts".
This post was edited on 1/31/17 at 5:18 pm
Posted on 1/31/17 at 5:44 pm to Gaspergou202
quote:
The simplest theory is always preferred in science.
In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic technique (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models, rather than as an arbiter between published models. In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.
The simplest explanation may be the preferred explanation by science but that does not mean it is the correct explanation.
Sometimes Occam's Razor is so dull it can't cut through melted butter.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 5:47 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
The simplest explanation may be the preferred explanation by science but that does not mean it is the correct explanation.
This is a common misunderstanding of Occam's Razor. It is not necessarily the simplest explanation, but rather the one which requires the fewest assumptions be made. That may sound trivial, but it practice it's a meaningful difference.
For instance, the simplest explanation of the Bible and the gospels is that they are true. We simply take them at face value. That is NOT the explanation which requires the fewest assumptions be made however.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 5:48 pm to DawgfaninCa
The razor is missing "all else being equal".
Posted on 1/31/17 at 5:51 pm to FreddieMac
quote:
Just think about null results. The idea is that most scientist will only publish those results that show significant results because that is what scientific journals want. There is not many journals for null results for experiments that did not produce the expected result.
This is blatantly false and bordering on absurdity. Every single year some of the most notable scientific publications are research and trials that produce unexpected results.
And I'm honestly not sure you understand the concept of a null hypothesis based on this post.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 5:52 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
Typically scientists dont like things they can't prove or test. It's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god or a higher being, so the idea of god doesn't mesh with the scientific mindset.
Therefore, the scientific community can't say for a fact God does not exist. They can only say God may or may not exist.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 5:53 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Meh, I know for a fact one of the scientific community's beliefs is wrong.
Is this the lie again about how science states for a fact "sea monsters" don't exist? Or the one about how most pedophiles are homosexuals?
It's hard to keep track of your web of insanity.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 5:55 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Or the one about how most pedophiles are homosexuals?
I thought his rhetoric was most homosexuals are pedophiles.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 5:55 pm to Roger Klarvin
This thread had so much potential along the way.............
Posted on 1/31/17 at 5:56 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Therefore, the scientific community can't say for a fact God does not exist. They can only say God may or may not exist.
Absolutely
Where religious people make a mistake is believing this gives them carte blanche to make any claim and cite science's inability to refute it. Science and history absolutely can refute claims religion makes about the physical universe.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 5:56 pm to Roger Klarvin
I love how "within X confidence limits" now is considered a fact.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 5:58 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The simplest explanation may be the preferred explanation by science but that does not mean it is the correct explanation.
quote:
This is a common misunderstanding of Occam's Razor. It is not necessarily the simplest explanation, but rather the one which requires the fewest assumptions be made.
I agree but I used "simplest" because the poster I responded to used the word "simplest".
Occam's razor is the most likely explanation is the preferred explanation by science.
However, the most likely explanation may be the preferred explanation by science but that does not mean it is the correct explanation.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 6:01 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
I agree but I used "simplest" because the poster I responded to used the word "simplest".
Occam's razor is the most likely explanation is the preferred explanation by science.
However, the most likely explanation may be the preferred explanation by science but that does not mean it is the correct explanation.
But it is the overwhelming majority of the time, especially when empirical evidence across many years/decades supports the most likely explanation.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 6:06 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Meh, I know for a fact one of the scientific community's beliefs is wrong.
quote:
Is this the lie again about how science states for a fact "sea monsters" don't exist? Or the one about how most pedophiles are homosexuals?
Since I never made the latter assertion that most pedophiles are homosexuals, you can conclude I meant the former assertion that the scientific community believes the existence of sea serpents is just a myth.
Are you asserting the scientific community does not believe it is a fact that the existence of sea serpents is a myth?
This post was edited on 1/31/17 at 6:22 pm
Posted on 1/31/17 at 6:07 pm to Ltown_tiger
quote:
A lot of science is based on theory.
I've never know anyone who was well founded in scientific thought or process to utter that absurdity.
You just demonstrated that you are unacquainted with science.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 6:08 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Therefore, the scientific community can't say for a fact God does not exist. They can only say God may or may not exist.
quote:
Absolutely
Be careful. You just agreed with someone who you claim is insane.
This post was edited on 1/31/17 at 6:15 pm
Posted on 1/31/17 at 6:08 pm to Ltown_tiger
quote:
A lot of science is based on theory.
All of science is based on theory. fricking inertia and gravity are theories.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 6:13 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Or the one about how most pedophiles are homosexuals?
quote:
I thought his rhetoric was most homosexuals are pedophiles.
I also have never said most homosexuals are pedophiles.
Obviously, you have me mixed up with another poster.
Page 7 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News