On 10-3-2017 20:45, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/10/2017 6:49 PM, Shay wrote:
>> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>>> On 3/10/2017 2:19 PM, Shay wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let's put aside all questions of bias and any reservations about the
>>>> shortcomings (and, in some areas, terrible track record) of
>>>> induction. Let us
>>>> accept, for the moment, "Science", not as a methodology, but as our
>>>> best-available equivalent of absolute truth.
>>>>
>>> I won't. Science is a methodology. And any "scientist" that talks about
>>> "absolute truth" is not worthy of the name. Whenever do you hear or read
>>> the phrase "to the best of our knowledge"? Because that is all we can
>>> say, in my opinion.
>>
>> "Best-available equivalent to absolute truth" vs "to the best of our
>> knowledge."
>> I think we're on the same page here.
>>
>
> Yes I think we are. I didn't realise that until the end of your post.
>
>> I put aside the distinction between science (the methodology) and one
>> of the
>> above in order to parse the phrase "science deny-er."
>>
>
> Again I didn't get that until I was writing my reply.
>
>
>> Of course, I put aside a lot more than that. I completely bypassed any
>> arguments
>> regarding the potential for corruption between "scientific results"
>> and "what is
>> presented as true 'to the best of our knowledge.'" That's where I was
>> going with
>> the "scientific" polling,
>
> True, there is too much to go into. Unless you don't mind TL;DR ;)
> But Scientists are human too and can worry about where the next project
> is coming from or they might be fundamentalists. Or as you say/imply
> they might have no morals.
> Personally I prefer engineering. 'Cause if you can't hit it with a
> hammer or a shifting spanner (monkey wrench). It won't stand up. ;)
>
>
>> but Thomas didn't seem interested, and applicability
>> is a stronger point besides.
>>
>
> Well I misunderstood your post to start off with and English is my
> native language. (Sae te speak. :) )
> We will wait until the morning to see.
>

I am only online a couple of hours each day, so most of the discussion 
is bypassing me so to speak.

Just to resume a few catch words that are dropped here: when speaking 
about science, terms of 'faith', 'believe', and such are irrelevant. 
Science is not a faith nor a believe; like a former colleague used to 
say: "models are to be used, not believed". I am afraid that many people 
think that 'science' is a kind of 'faith', which it is emphatically not. 
In short, I tend to avoid that kind of discussions. Other wise, I agree 
with what Stephen said earlier.

About "scientific" polling, I have not the slightest idea what that 
could be. In my view, polling is the application of statistical models 
based on assumptions and applied on what humans are thought to think ;-) 
I have never taken a serious look at any polling results in my life

Oh I forgot: "Do you eat junk food or charred meat? Watch
television within 1/2 hour of bedtime? Drink soda? Buy lottery tickets?"

The answers are: no, no, no, no, and no. :-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message