Anti intellectualism directed against science.

[Astrid]

Either that, or you have adopted a fixed (absolute) meaning of 'fact' .. in this case, that 'a fact' is something which must acquire its meaning by some process of 'proof', (which I agree, is not what the scientific process does).

So, .. where 'prove' has no meaning in science, then it would be inconsistent to use this as the criteria for distinguishing a 'fact' in science (as you seem to require).

The meaning of 'fact' within the context of science, would be something like the existing set of data produced by testing some theory. This data then establishes the baseline for comparisons with any predictions made from that theory.

Sure. They are then confusing science's meaning of 'theory' with the everyday meaning of that term.
See, if there's anything we can draw from Relativity its that 'truth' (or 'facts') are context (or observer) dependent. When 'fact' is used in science, it means something other than the proof concept, (which you have assumed above), is at play.
Proof is used in mathematics however, as it assumes the truth of its posits. Science doesn't work that way .. it works by inference and nothing is just assumed .. its all tested, or testable.

Supporting evidence for what you say re facts in science?

 

[SelfSim]

Facts in science:

The definition of a scientific fact is different from the definition of fact, as it implies knowledge. A scientific fact is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence. These are central to building scientific theories.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Cut to the chase .. you are referring to a specific instance .. climate change perhaps?
Generalisation from a specific case like that is just hyperbolizing.

It is a generalization. Scientists will tell you that their job is to craft and suggest solutions, not to implement them.

 

[SelfSim]

It is a generalization. Scientists will tell you that their job is to craft and suggest solutions, not to implement them.

So you think no scientist was involved in the implementation process of the LHC at CERN, or in the implementation of the science packages on either Curiosity or Perseverance rovers, etc? The list is virtually endless and what you're suggesting is absurd (because of the size of that list).

 

[Astrid]

Facts in science:

If you are satisfied that I can come back with a contrary view,
we can skip the dueling website ceremony and settle on different pov.
I think it's not satisfactorily rigorous to speak of facts
in science. But i guess its not so important.
I hold that sharks are not fish, and another says
they are. Of course, I am right on that one.

 

[SelfSim]

If you are satisfied that I can come back with a contrary view, we can skip the dueling website ceremony and settle on different pov.

All good with me ..

I think it's not satisfactorily rigorous to speak of facts in science. But i guess its not so important.

Its consistent though, where the context differs in the way I described.

 

[Astrid]

All good with me ..
Its consistent though, where the context differs in the way I described.

Rats. You leave me nothing i can disagree with

 

[sjastro]

The confusion between fact and scientific fact and how realism becomes enmeshed in the discussion.

Fact is an occurrence in the real world according to the Wiki definition, the definition of scientific fact is much more fluid depending on who you ask.
Murray Gell-Mann who won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1969 theorized quarks were the fundamental particles for hadrons but was adamant quarks were purely a mathematical construction.
Yet by the end of the 20th century all these theoretical quarks were discovered in particle accelerator experiments not in a free state but in combination as theory predicted.
The obvious question is how is something discovered when it is not real?

I'll leave it to Sabine Hossenfelder to deal with this conundrum.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So you think no scientist was involved in the implementation process of the LHC at CERN, or in the implementation of the science packages on either Curiosity or Perseverance rovers, etc? The list is virtually endless and what you're suggesting is absurd (because of the size of that list).

It was a general statement regarding science. Science basically sells or licenses their ideas to industry. Their strength is invention not production.

 

[SelfSim]

The obvious question is how is something discovered when it is not real?

What's being discovered there, is that some theory's prediction agrees with that theory's test results for that prediction.

The idea that some 'thing' exists independently from the same mind which devises that theory/prediction and test, (eg: Gell-Mann's quarks) and has been uncovered, or discovered, never gets tested.

I'll leave it to Sabine Hossenfelder to deal with this conundrum.

Good one there!
She really nailed it .. and very concisely!
(Let's see Amy M do that .. )

 

[SelfSim]

It was a general statement regarding science. Science basically sells or licenses their ideas to industry. Their strength is invention not production.

I am reminded of how deeply sorry I feel for 'old guys' I know (beyond CFs) who can only retell their own life's experiences about some situation they've repeatedly encountered in their lives .. and how inaccessible that is to anyone else who never shared (or even cares about) those same experiences.

The other observation is that they appear to be stuck in some kind of vicious circle where they always end up producing exactly the same outcomes in those or similar situations by following their own advice.

The very idea that one doesn't have to go back round that same circle every time that same situation arises, never seems to dawn on them and they reject completely the idea that different outcomes have always been accessible to them, if they'd actually bothered to consider that.

 

[sjastro]

What's being discovered there, is that some theory's prediction agrees with that theory's test results for that prediction.

The idea that some 'thing' exists independently from the same mind which devises that theory/prediction and test, (eg: Gell-Mann's quarks) and has been uncovered, or discovered, never gets tested.

Take the top quark as an example.
Theory tells us at high energies in proton/antiproton collisions there are two distinct pathways for the decay of top quark and top antiquark as shown.

Particle accelerator tests have confirmed the existence of the W⁺, W⁻ bosons, muons, neutrinos and the hadronic jets produced in the secondary decay of the bottom quarks and antiquarks.

A more ethereal property is the mass of the top quark which cannot be measured directly but inferred from the cross section of proton/antiproton collisions.
The cross section is basically the probability a collision will produce top quarks and antiquarks and is expressed as a dimension in barns (b).
The smaller the cross section the less likely top quark production will occur.
1 b = 10⁻²⁸m²; 1 pb = 10⁻¹² b.

Theory tells us for a hypothetical particle accelerator similar to Fermilab the cross section is related to quark mass according to the following graph.

The CDF and DΦ are the Fermilab experiments which measured the cross sections.
The CDF and DΦ results indicates for the three theoretical models the top quark mass was between 158 - 194 GeV/c².

Using the LHC which runs at much higher energies and increases the cross section of the proton/antiproton collisions has narrowed the mass range to 172.76 +/- 0.3 GeV/c²

Good one there!
She really nailed it .. and very concisely!
(Let's see Amy M do that .. )

Frankly I thought Sabine came across as a bit grumpy.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The other observation is that they appear to be stuck in some kind of vicious circle where they always end up producing exactly the same outcomes in those or similar situations by following their own advice.

It it works, don't fix it.

What does a scientist do? - CareerExplorer

 

[SelfSim]

It it works, don't fix it.

.. and yet real engineers (who you appear to be arguing in favour of throughout this thread), are reknown for embellishing, optimising, enhancing and improving their implementations. Yet all {I} get from your above response, is an argument in favour of how to maintain perpetual ignorance(?)

 

[Astrid]

.. and yet real engineers (who you appear to be arguing in favour of throughout this thread), are reknown for embellishing, optimising, enhancing and improving their implementations. Yet all get from your above response, is an argument in favour of how to maintain perpetual ignorance(?)

Funny how many engineers are fundamentalists

 

[SelfSim]

Funny how many engineers are fundamentalists

Engineering is built on fundamental principles .. called 'Physics' (or 'Chemistry', etc)!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

.. and yet real engineers (who you appear to be arguing in favour of throughout this thread), are reknown for embellishing, optimising, enhancing and improving their implementations. Yet all {I} get from your above response, is an argument in favour of how to maintain perpetual ignorance(?)

I sincerely don't know what you are talking about.

Science produces ideas that others turn into products, processes, and services. That's the way I understand it.

 

[SelfSim]

I sincerely don't know what you are talking about.

Science produces ideas that others turn into products. How hard is that to understand?

How hard is it to understand that engineers implement those products and then continually tweak them?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How hard is it to understand that engineers implement those products and then continually tweak them?

I'm neither a scientist or engineer and I tweak their products all the time. Sometimes the 'ignorant' consumer finds things that need tweaking.

Part of my job is mopping floors. I routinely have to shorten the mop strings slightly to get the perfect mop. Because those who design mops don't use them they are generally unaware of how to design the perfect mop. Fortunately for me someone designed scissors so I can correct the problem.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm neither a scientist or engineer ..

Yet you, somehow, implicitly know how they interact when going about their respective businesses, eh?

Your argument all boils down to one in favour of staying in perpetual ignorance.