Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!
Neon_Ubermensch · 5175 days ago · link ·
I enjoyed the videos despite finding Mr. Cox's presentation a bit stiff at times. It seems ridiculous that we need a refined postulate as to why it is more appropriate for news outlets to give more credence to scientific consensus as opposed to lone crazies. Unfortunately, we seem to be at that point. Since the dawn of humanity science has existed essentially subject to the dominating field of theology; it has lived in religion's tolerating shadow. We are at a point where science is finally overtaking religion, superstition, etc. as the field behind the wheel of society instead of unscientific viewpoints, and some groups whose lives are dictated by the latter are resisting this actively. Religious powers have attempted to stifle and discredit science forever (I think Galileo would agree) but this appears to be a "last stand" of sorts where the scales may finally be tilted such that science is the dominating field and religious beliefs are marginalized. As an aside, Sam Harris does a great job explaining why he believes this is imperative in "The End of Faith." A great book to stimulate debate regardless of your viewpoint on the issue.
thenewgreen · 5178 days ago · link ·
"the scientist must never have an eye on the audience, for that would be to fatally compromise the process". -This statement is not just true of science but of most great achievement whether it be the arts or engineering.
–
There is a bit of disconnect here for me given the "pretty" definition of science and irrelevance of "philosophy of science" and "scientific" areas of research such as String Theory (which may never be testable.) I like Feynmann's definition but wouldn't that filter out a good chunk of what is (officially/academically) passing as "Science" these days?
–
I like Feynmann's definition but wouldn't that filter out a good chunk of what is (officially/academically) passing as "Science" these days?
In my sphere of biomedical research it isn't. But, I understand your point. I think the problem might be in the lack of distinction between the practice of science, especially the guessing part, and scientific evidence, that which has survived experiment. Feynman's definition puts String Theory somewhere between the guessing and the model, I think. IMHO, the philosophy of science is extremely useful, but it stops at step 2. Interpretation of experiment, which often requires philosophy, means the model is incomplete. More work to be done. Back to step 1. What bothers me about String Theory, is that it only half-heartedly intends to move to step 3. Astrology is guess and a model.