Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, I am a certified professional geologist with 23 years of field experience. You?
You're a scientist. That doesn't mean you had to take philosophy of science. Most science programs don't require you take it. I'd imagine that good schools would.
Since you asked, I am a B.S.E Comp Sci graduate who is doing research on HCI and Cognitive Psychology (both at Princeton University). The latter being where I had to become acquainted with philosophy of science.
My real job is a business owner though.... but that doesn't relate.
You're taking this too seriously. Had you learned philosophy of science, you would understand the statement "Nothing in science is true. Otherwise, it wouldn't be science." It's telling you something about science and context. Scientists are typically too narrow-minded (at the fault of their universities) to understand this.
You're a scientist. That doesn't mean you had to take philosophy of science. Most science programs don't require you take it. I'd imagine that good schools would.
Since you asked, I am a B.S.E Comp Sci graduate who is doing research on HCI and Cognitive Psychology (both at Princeton University). The latter being where I had to become acquainted with philosophy of science.
My real job is a business owner though.... but that doesn't relate.
You're taking this too seriously. Had you learned philosophy of science, you would understand the statement "Nothing in science is true. Otherwise, it wouldn't be science." It's telling you something about science and context. Scientists are typically too narrow-minded (at the fault of their universities) to understand this.
The phrase is "nothing in science is proven true." Proven being the operative word. Science doesn't deal in proofs. As Stepehn J. Gould put it, "The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world." However, that being said, I am reminded of the line from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, which is probably what you are driving at, and implies a philosphically nuanced definition of "truth."
Quote:
Archaeology is the search for fact. Not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Doctor Tyree's Philosophy class is right down the hall.
You're a scientist. That doesn't mean you had to take philosophy of science. Most science programs don't require you take it. I'd imagine that good schools would.
Since you asked, I am a B.S.E Comp Sci graduate who is doing research on HCI and Cognitive Psychology (both at Princeton University). The latter being where I had to become acquainted with philosophy of science.
My real job is a business owner though.... but that doesn't relate.
You're taking this too seriously. Had you learned philosophy of science, you would understand the statement "Nothing in science is true. Otherwise, it wouldn't be science." It's telling you something about science and context. Scientists are typically too narrow-minded (at the fault of their universities) to understand this.
Not only did I take philosophy, I also took the history and philosophy of Science class (a requirement for a B.S. at my alma mater) at my college and won the annual competition for best term paper. That, of course, was years ago.
Science is based on empiric data, and as such, it's "truths" depend largely on that data, which as we all know, can change or otherwise be refined. That doesn't mean that there are no truths in science. If you believe otherwise, then I challenge you to stick your finger in a live light socket and see if my earlier statement is true.
Not only did I take philosophy, I also took the history and philosophy of Science class (a requirement for a B.S. at my alma mater) at my college and won the annual competition for best term paper. That, of course, was years ago.
Science is based on empiric data, and as such, it's "truths" depend largely on that data, which as we all know, can change or otherwise be refined. That doesn't mean that there are no truths in science. If you believe otherwise, then I challenge you to stick your finger in a live light socket and see if my earlier statement is true.
As I stated before, you're taking this too seriously. And apparently too literally.
The phrase is "nothing in science is proven true." Proven being the operative word. Science doesn't deal in proofs. As Stepehn J. Gould put it, "The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world." However, that being said, I am reminded of the line from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, which is probably what you are driving at, and implies a philosphically nuanced definition of "truth."
I'll have to go back and watch the Last Crusade. It's my favorite of them. It's always interesting to watch that and The da Vinci Code back to back. Two interpretations of the same biblical story. And I'm not even a religious man.
The speed of light is a constant in a vacuum. It is well known that it slows when it travels through other media. If it didn't, refraction wouldn't occur. Gravity varys depending on the mass of rock beneath our feet. This too is well known.
That's all in junior high textbooks of course, but if it's true that electromagnetism varies, then why are you certain of the constancy of gravity?
That's all in junior high textbooks of course, but if it's true that electromagnetism varies, then why are you certain of the constancy of gravity?
I didn't see that argument as one for constancy of gravity. But speaking of certainty, what exactly are we certain about with gravity besides the point he made?
Erm, where did I say that gravity is constant? What I said was this:
"Gravity varys depending on the mass of rock beneath our feet".
It's a long-standing belief that gravity is constant, so based on your statement I assumed you follow that logic. X depending on Y will be predictable. But if gravity is not constant, then much of what we have theorized (including general relativity) needs to be re-thought. I doubt that poster doesn't realize that gravity depends on matter, the question is if that relationship is constant.
There is very little that we actually understand about gravity.
This is speculative stuff but interesting nonetheless.
I didn't see that argument as one for constancy of gravity. But speaking of certainty, what exactly are we certain about with gravity besides the point he made?
We're certain of nothing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
