Hello,
Nothing shocking or disrespectful of one towards the other. EK spreads out a lot as usual and gives food for thought,
Who spoke of disrespect? This is the game of the cat and the mouse EK knowing very well or TB tries to bring it, but it is not the first time that it takes part in this kind of debate and it prefers to keep the hand on rather than getting caught in a dead end.
Mendax reframes it because it has imperatives to respect.
To crop EK you have to be strong, much stronger than "mendax"! (Which says "I spend my time interrupting my interlocutors which is rude, I know)
But he too wants to keep his hand and lead EK towards the question that itches: what is a pseudoscience. I quote :
(… 1h05 ') TB: do we have pseudo sciences? We have a lot of people with smoky theories: do we have pseudosciences, in quotes, installed and that we can call pseudo sciences on the question of origins in physics, chemistry, the functioning of matter or the universe?
EK:Okay, I know it's your specialty, but when a scientist talks, it's he who speaks.
Imagine what LA SCIENCE would say if it could speak, it's something no one is really capable of and therefore every time you comment on LA SCIENCE, you are probably saying something other than if SCIENCE could speak. So you could say that all scientific discourse is already a form of pseudo SCIENCE. It's just to tell you that it's not simple about what you can say when you talk about SCIENCE. (…) I often quote Wittgenstein, he is the one who alerted as a philosopher about language games and the fact that when we speak we say things that we don't really think about and that you carry with them a priori clandestine that we do not control and suddenly, even when you talk about time: is not your way of speaking of physical time contaminated by all the speeches that we hear that come from languages as we speak them daily. In other words, are you sure that you do not inject things that come from language and not SCIENCE into your discourse on SCIENCE? Here, in my opinion, a delicate question and as science was created in rupture with language. In his words Newton physical time is a time which has none of the properties that language attributes to time: it is independent of what happens in time, it does not change over time, its way of being time, you can't even put a qualifier on it, because it is the same for all phenomena, etc. (1h08'10 '')The rest is only personal interpretation and humor.
As stated by EK, above,
everything is only personal interpretation, obviously. On the other hand what he says, and he insists on this, is the fact that individuals want to take hold of SCIENCE, (like other of GOD), to manipulate this concept to make it stick to their limited concept of science and therefore this inevitably resulted in a form of pseudoscience. And that for real scientists, so scientists… .. them !!!!
And as usual, nothing to do with the subject
On the contrary, EK's thinking does not concern
a science or pseudo particular science, but rather everything that includes the word science in a discourse, which is parasitized by the culture of the language used. "
EK: Well, I know it's your specialty, but when a scientist speaks, he is the one who speaks. Imagine what SCIENCE would say if it could speak, it's something no one is really capable of and therefore every time you comment on SCIENCE, you are probably saying something other than if SCIENCE could speak. So you could say that all scientific discourse is already a form of pseudo SCIENCE. »
So is H a science? In the literal sense of the term: yes! since it explores part of the spectrum of knowledge that other sciences do not.
Science is the body of knowledge and studies of universal value, characterized by an object and a method based on objective verifiable observations and rigorous reasoning.Is Newtonian science a true science? Of course yes, having regard to the knowledge of the moment and yet it is different from the science of quantum mechanics which will come later. Allopathic science is also ONE science (among others) of the moment, called into question by another science which is closer to the quantum world than to the usual physical world which comes in weight doses. Without that the H knows neither why, nor how it works.
It is therefore Planck's wall of this science and the error, common to all those who want or pretend to know, is to give a rational "Newtonian" explanation to what, for the moment, cannot be explained through this channel.
based on objective verifiable observationsthis criterion is met by the millions of observations and reports from around the world. Observations made by
SES specialists, like astronomy is the fact of the observations of
proven astrophysicists, not by the local pork butcher. The latter can deny this science, of course!
and rigorous reasoningTo have a rigorous reasoning, it is necessary to have all the cards in hand, which, like all the new sciences, can be insufficient as Newtonian physics did not have the cards of quantum physics to explain everything about everything. And if it were necessary to have ALL the knowledge before deciding that such and such a thing is scientific, there would hardly be anything more catalogable.
Now there is no physical scientific explanation outside the field of the observable, otherwise it is only a hypothesis, not even a theory.
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré