Is Science defined as Truth-seeking?

[joinfree]

``the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you." John 14:17.

God is Absolute Truth and Truth is God. God is as well Love and Love is God. Just Love like Jesus Christ does. Jesus loves me, satan doesn't love me. Choose the side. One, who loves me, has time for me. Read then all and try to debunk it using own brain, not just trolling ``it is not top ranked human, so it must be wrong.'' Truth is God, Love is God. Therefore, the only valid goal of Science is to get know God, while loving own authors. A proof is the knowledge of the God's mind. Therefore to prove God to God is easy.

The demand for highest impact factor of the publishing journal (or the citation index of author) is the famous Fallacy of Authority. Not the authority is bad for science, but the fallacy occurs, when we replace Truth with Authority. More authority - more probability of correctness, but correctness always possible despite the authority. However a Hitler-like human, who has lost all authority, always says lies even saying 2+2 is 4, because the truth by definition must have reliable source - God of Truth. Thus, the satan and his evil spirits are total liars. ``When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." John 8:44.

The problems of Science are multiplying in exponential progression. Thus, something is wrong in basement of Scientific Building. Some father of Science said something stupid. And now we do not know the 95% composition of Reality (we called it Dark Energy and Dark Matter problems).

Truth can not be falsified. Thus, the Science is confirmable, not falsifiable in Popper's Scientific Criterion: the satan has twisted our mind, that if we would get to heaven, we will confuse it with hell. We even think, that death is natural; no, death is the name of satan and, thus, all human deaths are in causal connection: between the death beds is flying the Angel of Death - satan. Thus, his velocity is 0.08 c, much less than maximum of c. All human deaths are technically conducted by satan's hand: ``he was a murderer from the beginning" John 8:44, "When the devil had finished all this tempting, he left Him until an opportune time." Luke 4:13, “Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me.'' John 14:30.

 

[Kylie]

Truth can not be falsified. Thus, the Science is confirmable, not falsifiable in Popper's Scientific Criterion

I think you misunderstand what "falsifiable" actually means.

It doesn't mean that you have shown it to be wrong, it means that there is some conceivable result that could show it to be wrong. Science is still falsifiable even if that result never occurs.

For example, gravity is falsifiable quite easily, because there is some result to a test of gravity that would show that gravity doesn't exist. Specifically, I can test gravity by dropping objects and seeing if they fall towards the ground. This test is falsifiable because there is some result that would disagree with what we know about gravity - namely, I could drop something and it would just float there in mid air without support or buoyancy. That result never actually has to happen, but the fact that we can say, "This particular result would prove our idea is wrong," means that gravity is falsifiable.

As long as we can come up with that sort of thing for a scientific idea, that scientific idea is truly scientific. If there is any idea that is NOT falsifiable, then it isn't science. Nothing should ever be considered science unless it is falsifiable.

 

[joinfree]

I think you misunderstand what "falsifiable" actually means.

The problems of Science are multiplying in exponential progression. Thus, something is wrong in basement of Scientific Building. Some father of Science said something stupid. And now we do not know the 95% composition of Reality (we called it Dark Energy and Dark Matter problems).

 

[Kylie]

The problems of Science are multiplying in exponential progression. Thus, something is wrong in basement of Scientific Building. Some father of Science said something stupid. And now we do not know the 95% composition of Reality (we called it Dark Energy and Dark Matter problems).

This is just a bunch of buzzwords and slogans. Also, you have given absolutely nothing to support any of your claim. I don't think you understand enough about science to be able to participate in a discussion about it.

 

[joinfree]

This is just a bunch of buzzwords and slogans. Also, you have given absolutely nothing to support any of your claim. I don't think you understand enough about science to be able to participate in a discussion about it.

I can give you my top Scientist's CV. Just in private letter to dmart@hot.ee. You will be amazed of my top papers!

 

[section9+1]

Science is not truth-seeking. It is the universe's attempt to explain itself without looking outside of itself for any answers. It is self-contained and self-bound. It limits itself to itself and cannot transcend itself. So by cutting off a source of truth, it can only go as far as it allows itself to go. Truth remains untapped.

 

[joinfree]

Science is not truth-seeking. It is the universe's attempt to explain itself without looking outside of itself for any answers. It is self-contained and self-bound. It limits itself to itself and cannot transcend itself. So by cutting of a source of truth, it can only go as far as it allows itself to go. Truth remains untapped.

SOLIPSISM ACTIVITY:

Michael Slezak, Wave function gets real in quantum experiment, New Scientist 2015 on Nature Physics 11, 249-254 (2015);

Lauren Tousignant, The universe shouldn’t exist, according to science, New York Post (October 25, 2017);

Massimiliano Proietti, Alexander Pickston, Francesco Graffitti, Peter Barrow, Dmytro Kundys, Cyril Branciard, Martin Ringbauer, Alessandro Fedrizzi, Experimental rejection of observer-independence in the quantum world, arXiv:1902.05080 (2019).

And the final idea of seemingly meaningless life: "What If We Detonated All Nuclear Bombs at Once?"

COMMENT:

It is clear tendency of the Peer-Reviewed Science towards Absolute Solipsism. It is quite natural end of Scientific Endeavour of Methodological Naturalism, saying "No God, No Truth, No Love, No reality." But I must revert this motion.

 

[timewerx]

The same problems with organized religion exists in Science.

Mainly the established religious dogmas or scientific laws cannot be broken nor deemed false.

And qualification > knowledge/sound reasoning in both science and religion.

This is my sad experience with the world of science. I later proved them wrong when someone with the same qualifications as them prove my theory right.

They wouldn't accept my hypothesis back then because I am unqualified.

The same thing happens with organized religion.

Both science and organized religion isn't really equipped to seek the truth. Corruption and gross inefficiencies exist in the order.

 

[Brightmoon]

The difference being the science corrects it’s mistakes sooner or later . Religions rarely do . True believers tend to double down and punish the one who points out a falsity or an unfairness. The mistreatment of Galileo is a good example. The treatment of women asking for the right to vote in England and the USA during the 19th and early 20th centuries is another.

 

[joinfree]

The same problems with organized religion

There is Presumption of Guilt, and Presumption of Innocence. One is from satan - it is corruption of thought. Other is from God: "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?". Ezekiel 33:11. Nobody is wrong, until proven wrong. Truth can not be proven wrong. Truth can be confirmed. If something gets falsified, then it is not the Truth anymore nor in past nor in present, nor in future. That something has lost own Existence: falsehoods do not exist.

"Little Big Town - Happy People"

 

[section9+1]

Ecc. 7:13 Consider what God has done. Who can straighten what he has made crooked?

 

[grasping the after wind]

The difference being the science corrects it’s mistakes sooner or later . Religions rarely do . True believers tend to double down and punish the one who points out a falsity or an unfairness. The mistreatment of Galileo is a good example. The treatment of women asking for the right to vote in England and the USA during the 19th and early 20th centuries is another.

I find your conclusion to be incorrect. Religious practitioners come along and also correct their obvious mistakes eventually. Just like those engaged in scientific study eventually do . The entrenched interests however like to cling to what they believe in the face of contradictory evidence rather than question themselves they label others heretics or deniers.

 

[Brightmoon]

Science deniers ARE deniers . The evidence says that they’re wrong not the scientists .

 

[joinfree]

I find your conclusion to be incorrect. Religious practitioners come along and also correct their obvious mistakes eventually. Just like those engaged in scientific study eventually do . The entrenched interests however like to cling to what they believe in the face of contradictory evidence rather than question themselves they label others heretics or deniers.

The Church can not make mistakes, because God does not allow that. God and Church are in Unity. A man's knowledge is the knowledge of his God. Thus, the God and His Church has Absolute Authority. ``If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.'' John 20:23

 

[Paulos23]

The Church can not make mistakes, because God does not allow that. God and Church are in Unity. A man's knowledge is the knowledge of his God. Thus, the God and His Church has Absolute Authority. ``If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.'' John 20:23

Personal experience has shown me otherwise.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Christians; imperfect humans, are stumbling their way to heaven.
Unbelievers, imperfect humans, are stumbling their way to hell.

 

[section9+1]

Science deniers ARE deniers . The evidence says that they’re wrong not the scientists .

I would ten times rather be wrong when it comes to science than be wrong when it comes to God.

 

[HitchSlap]

I would ten times rather be wrong when it comes to science than be wrong when it comes to God.

It seems to me, that if something is ill defined or possibly non-existent, it'd be tough to be wrong about it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The most common phrase in science: "Oops, I didn't mean for that to happen."

 

[section9+1]

It seems to me, that if something is ill defined or possibly non-existent, it'd be tough to be wrong about it.

To be wrong about him is the business of the world. Which, by the way, is absolutely right.