Is Science defined as Truth-seeking?

[Paulos23]

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

Yes. That is how we learn. Because aft were that comes, "I wonder why it did that?" And then finding out.

 

[HitchSlap]

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

I had the god/s follower's in mind, they're the ones who seem to have differing understandings and agendas.

 

[Halbhh]

``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.

Ideally science is only and exactly simply the effort to understand nature and how nature works.

Not other stuff.

But many will try to use the prestige of science to make a claim outside of science, past simply observations or theories of how nature works. When these extraneous assertions about things beyond the scope of science occur, it's merely the opinion or assertion of the person. Very often in some of the 'soft' sciences we can hear theories or even new hypotheses presented as if strongly definite conclusions also, which is just an unawareness of how to best do science, which is to be skeptical even of one's favorite theory. Ideally in science the scientist is not attached to their current theory, but instead is seeking to test it, and possibly prove it wrong or seriously incomplete.

"Dark matter" and "dark energy" are only the current names for unknown things that are surmised to likely exist, because of unexplained effects like extra gravity or the acceleration of the expansion of space, but the exact causes of these are not yet understood in astrophysics, and the things causing them don't emit light/radiation we can simply observe (or not yet) so as to make more definite conclusions about.

It's merely not yet understood. Nothing that remarkable, in that the sciences have only a very partial, very incomplete understanding of nature generally (if one pays attention to field broadly). It's normal to have things that are not yet figured out. That's the normal situation through time.

 

[Strathos]

Science and religion use different ontologies. That doesn't make one superior to the other, it just makes them different.

 

[HitchSlap]

Science and religion use different ontologies. That doesn't make one superior to the other, it just makes them different.

Which is why Gould attempted to give theists a way out with non-overlapping magisteria. The problem is when theists assert what science can and cannot do.

 

[Jonathan Mathews]

``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.

Science is defined as "Knowledge". The word Science means "to know" or "knowing", just as Conscience means "with knowledge".

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Which is why Gould attempted to give theists a way out with non-overlapping magisteria. The problem is when theists assert what science can and cannot do.

Science has no moral imperative, as does religion. Most of the human problems humanity faces dumbfound science but would be easily addressed by behavioral changes. Science views morality as invisible 'dark matter' (they know it's there but can't quite figure it out) as it doesn't give rise to the problems that are grist for mill of science (social sciences). Therefore they don't look to morality for these solutions. Besides, there's no money for science in behavioral changes.

 

[Kylie]

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!

Why not post it here for all to see?

I think you've got nothing.

 

[Kylie]

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

Yeah, it's not like Albert Einstein did that when he showed that Newton's ideas of gravity were wrong...

Oh wait, yes he did...

 

[sjastro]

Yeah, it's not like Albert Einstein did that when he showed that Newton's ideas of gravity were wrong...

Oh wait, yes he did...

As a matter of interest here is what Einstein said of Newton's ideas of gravity.

Enough of this. Newton, forgive me; you found the only way which, in your age, was just about possible for a man of highest thought and creative power.
The concepts, which you created, are even today still guiding our thinking in physics, although we now know that they will have to be replaced by others farther removed from the sphere of immediate experience, if we aim at a profounder understanding of relationships.

 

[grasping the after wind]

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

There is no such thing as a science denier. That is a mythical character created by people who are incapable of defending their position when faced with evidence contradictory to their faith based beliefs.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Yeah, it's not like Albert Einstein did that when he showed that Newton's ideas of gravity were wrong...

Oh wait, yes he did...

Einstein was a science denier.

 

[tas8831]

Besides, there's no money for science in behavioral changes.

Lots o f money in church, though...

 

[tas8831]

There is no such thing as a science denier. That is a mythical character created by people who are incapable of defending their position when faced with evidence contradictory to their faith based beliefs.

No, there are deniers. And the deniers are those that choose to believe that they, despite having no relevant education or experience, have outwitted or know more than people with actual expertise in an issue.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, there are deniers. And the deniers are those that choose to believe that they, despite having no relevant education or experience, have outwitted or know more than people with actual expertise in an issue.

Having knowledge and applying knowledge are not the same thing. Most people have the knowledge to properly order their lives, but they don't possess the ability or desire to do so.

 

[HitchSlap]

There is no such thing as a science denier.

Flat earthers, creationists, anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers... just to name a few.

That is a mythical character created by people who are incapable of defending their position when faced with evidence contradictory to their faith based beliefs.

You have just described creationism. Hovind is famous for this.

 

[usexpat97]

In its purest sense, I think it is fair to define science as truth-seeking, since if someone wasn't interested in the truth we would say they are being unscientific.

The problem comes in the impurities, such as tobacco companies performing scientific research which proves smoking does not cause cancer. They are only interested in certain truths. Otherwise they are not interested at all. Likewise we have self-professed "scientists" who are only interested in the truths which suggest there is no intelligent Creator--since that is "obviously wrong."

 

[HitchSlap]

In its purest sense, I think it is fair to define science as truth-seeking, since if someone wasn't interested in the truth we would say they are being unscientific.

Yes, this is every professional creationist, ever.

The problem comes in the impurities, such as tobacco companies performing scientific research which proves smoking does not cause cancer.

Or, much like creationists who perform "research" and claim evolution doesn't exist.

They are only interested in certain truths. Otherwise they are not interested at all.

Nope, creationists can't be bothered by the facts.

Likewise we have self-professed "scientists" who are only interested in the truths which suggest there is no intelligent Creator--since that is "obviously wrong."

You're right, evidence suggesting an "intelligent Creator" is non-existent.

 

[Kylie]

Einstein was a science denier.

lol, you got a source to back up this ludicrous claim?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Flat earthers, creationists, anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers... just to name a few.
You have just described creationism. Hovind is famous for this.

Labelling people makes it easier to de humanize them.