Nothing shocking or disrespectful of each other. EK spreads as much as usual and gives pause,
Who spoke of disrespect? This is the game of cat and mouse EK knowing very well or TB is trying to bring him, but this is not the first time he participates in this kind of debate and he prefers to keep his hand on this one rather than being stuck in a dead end.
Mendax reframes it because it has imperatives to respect.
To reframe EK you have to be strong, much stronger than "mendax"! (Which says "I spend my time interrupting my interlocutors which is impolite, I know)
But he too wants to keep his hand and lead EK to the question that is itching: what is a pseudoscience. I quote :(... 1h05 ') TB: Do we have pseudo sciences? We have lots of people with smoky theories: do we have pseudoscience, in quotation marks, installed and we can call pseudo sciences on the question of origins in physics, in chemistry, on the functioning of matter or the universe?
EK:Well, I know it's your specialtybut when a scientist speaks, it's he who speaks.
Imagine what SCIENCE would say if it could speak, it's something that no one is really capable of, and so every time you comment on SCIENCE, you probably say something other than SCIENCE could speak. So we could say that any scientific discourse is already a form of pseudo SCIENCE. It's just to tell you that it's not easy on what we can say when we talk about SCIENCE. (...) I often quote Wittgenstein, it is the one who has alerted as a philosopher about the games of language and the fact that when we speak we say things we do not really think about and that you would cheat with her a priori clandestine that we do not master it and so, even when you talk about time: is your way of speaking about physical time not contaminated by all the speeches that we hear that come from languages as we speak them? daily. That is to say, are you sure that you are not injecting into your discourse on SCIENCE things that come from language and not from SCIENCE? This is, in my opinion, a delicate question and as science has created a break with language. In his words Newton, physical time is a time that 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, we can not even put a qualifier, because it is the same for all phenomena, etc ... (1h08'10 '')
The rest is only personal interpretation and humor.
As indicated by EK, above, all is personal interpretation
, obviously. On the other hand what he says, and he insists on it, is the fact that some people want to take hold of SCIENCE, (like other of GOD), to manipulate this concept to make stick to their limited concept of science and so this resulted in a form of pseudoscience inevitably. And that for real scientists, then scientists ... .. them !!!!
And as usual, no relation to the subject
On the contrary, EK's thinking does not concern a
a particular science or pseudo science, but rather all 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 talks, he's the one who talks. Imagine what SCIENCE would say if it could talk, it's something that no one is really capable of, and so every time you comment on SCIENCE, you probably say something else than if SCIENCE could talk. So we could say that any scientific discourse is already a form of pseudo SCIENCE.
So is the H a science? In the literal sense of the word: yes! since it explores part of the spectrum of knowledge that other sciences do not do.Science is the body of knowledge and studies of universal value, characterized by an object and a method based on verifiable objective observations and rigorous reasoning.
Is Newtonian science a real science? Of course yes, had regard to the knowledge of the moment and yet it is different from the science of quantum mechanics that will come later. Allopathic science is also a science (among others) of the moment, questioned by another science that is closer to the quantum world than the usual physical world that comes in doses by weight. Without the H knowing why or how it works.
It is therefore Planck's wall of this science and the error, common to all who want or pretend to know, is to give a "Newtonian" rational explanation to what, for the moment, is not explicable. by this channel there.based on verifiable objective observations
this criterion is filled by millions of observations and reports from all over the world. Observations made by SES
specialists like astronomy is the fact of the observations of proven
specialists astrophysicists, not by the butcher of the corner., the latter can deny this science, of course! and rigorous reasoning
To have a rigorous reasoning, one must have all the cards in hand, which, like all the new sciences, may be insufficient as Newtonian physics did not possess the cards of quantum physics to explain everything about everything. And if it were necessary to have ALL the knowledge before decreeing that such thing is scientific, there would hardly be anything so catalogable.
But there is no physical scientific explanation beyond the observable field, otherwise it is only a hypothesis, not even a theory.
"We do science with facts, as is a house with stones, but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" Exnihiloest