I don't think you understood me. I am not against science in the slightest, I just understand that it's role as a tool is not to establish things are true with 100% undeniable accuracy. Things like Newtonian physics can be established to a very high degree of accuracy, but there is always the possibility that the universe will act in a way other than how we think it will and we will have to adjust our understanding. An important part of science is in trying to reject the null hypothesis, so when you start saying something has been establishing with 100% undeniable accuracy, then you've overstated your conclusion and stopped doing science.
Perhaps it would have been simpler if the opening post had only claimed that there was 100% undeniable evidence. In that case, I'd still object because that's not the role of evidence either. The point I was making with the people who still deny that the world is round is that we all interpret evidence in our own way, so it becomes silly to try to say that it is impossible for someone else to interpret evidence differently than how you do.
Hi,
When I was working, occasionally I had to use formal statistics, but that was rather rare, and I cannot remember a time when null hypothesis was ever discussed. So, I looked it up, and found it is a tool for statisticians. They call it this:
In
inferential statistics the
null hypothesis usually refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no difference among groups.
[1]
Science is never about using only statistics, and while I don't think you said that, I would still like to talk about that, as others some times think that is all scientists do.
The vast majority of work, is study, observation and then taking a guess, and trying to prove that guess is wrong. Maybe, informally that is trying to prove a null hypothesis. I just never used it that I know of, and no one else ever spoke of it, to my knowledge.
I remember when statistics came in to our area. I hated it. Then I learned to appreciate the use of that, in manufacturing and not just some research projects. What I really hated were sayings like Statistics can solve all problems.
It could not and cannot.
What it can do, is solve some problems that nothing else usually can.
As far as for 100% undeniable accuracy which perhaps is a shcool of Philosophy, some things can be said to be 100% undeniable, but without using one or other practical schools of Philosophy. And to not use any Philosophy in Science is to get more wrong answers. Philosophy light, is needed in Science. Religion is also needed and used in Science, but it is not talked about, as it is the new heresy.
Science to me, is merely finding out what God has done, if possbile, in our time frames. Science with God being the new heresy, defines science another way, but that is not how all science works, nor ever has worked. Rather, if God is used for a right answer, it is almost impossible to cite Him as a reference, now in this day and age. Once, that was my dilema.
Some of my work did result in 100% undeniable answers. They were 1:1 correlations. To be a 1:1 correlation, is to have all outliers understood, and accounted for. In fact most of my work, solving problems that no one else could solve, was usually solved in the 100% undeniable way. And, all it takes to solve problems no one else can, is just to use Standard to me, Research methods.
Outliers for correct answers seems to fit, your statement of the universe not acting in the way we think it will, for the available truths we have now. Once they are all accounted for, Newtons laws will still apply, so will Einsteins. Each will apply when the circumstances warrant their application.
On all projects, which had an answer, outliers helped to know even more, that I was 100% correct. By looking into the outliers and finding out why they existed, no proven item ever failed, rather it was only better understood, and I became even more of an expert in the area that I had just worked on. All outliers told me, is that I wasn't done yet, and oh my, I don't have a 1:1 correlation yet. Rather, I only thought I did.
Yes, you are incredibly right that evidence can be interpreted in only one way, accurately. Evidence, or the results of one experiment, are not subject to opinions. Thus people who would like to say, that interpretations are variable, in science are most wrong. All my work, is looked at by other scientists, and they also only interpret things one way, normally. Occasionally even there, there are those who lie. When I worked in upper level science, only about 15% of the so called researchers and workers were dishonest. But, we did have to weed those out or ignore them there. Your people who you confront that say, interpretations are left to the individual interpreter, perhaps are like those 15%.
I was impressed and pleased that I found God, and technically that means He caused me to look for Him. I am impressed and pleased that I was able to use science to do that. And I did go for a 1:1 correlation. It happened. That by the way, was my preferred method of working. I used a 1:1 correlation whereever possible.
In the case of my work, it was the controlled experiments, which in thinking might indeed be used to try and prove a null hypothesis, unknowingly, that gave me the proofs I needed, even though I was not looking for a proof. I was just doing my job, being as objective as humanly possible for me, and running some controlled experiments on The Bilble, as trying to prove it wrong, with a proof failed.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .
