Science, pseudoscience, make the difference!

General scientific debates. Presentations of new technologies (not directly related to renewable energies or biofuels or other themes developed in other sub-sectors) forums).
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 11168
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 1900

Re: science, pseudoscience, make a difference




by Ahmed » 10/07/18, 20:03

When you ask: "... you do not believe in science?", I note however the use of the verb "to believe" ...
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."

User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6834
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 720

Re: science, pseudoscience, make a difference




by sen-no-sen » 10/07/18, 20:19

Janic wrote:For creationism, I have largely developed the subject and I therefore remind that I am not a religious creationist, but scientific creationist, only.


Beautiful oxymoron!
By definition there can be no scientific creationism, at best we could speak of philosophical creationism.


izentrop wrote:If you write scientist, is it that you don't believe in science?


Le science it is the fact of believing that science could explain everything, which does not make sense ... (see the Godel's incompleteness theorem).
The scientific study is not based on beliefs but on knowledge, so to believe that one could explain everything is a matter of faith and not of facts, one should not confuse desire and observation.
In essence, knowledge remains limited to our cognitive capacities which makes our understanding very limited, moreover scientific discoveries constantly open new doors constantly pushing back the frontiers of our knowledge.
One should not neglect the intuitive or contemplative knowledge, on this side there, in particular in the field of the study on the conscience, the spiritualist currents have much to learn with the scientists.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 16853
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 2288

Re: science, pseudoscience, make a difference




by Janic » 10/07/18, 22:02

Janic wrote:
For creationism, I have largely developed the subject and I therefore recall that I am not a religious creationist, but a scientific creationist only.

Beautiful oxymoron!
By definition there can be no scientific creationism, at best we could speak of philosophical creationism.
This only appears to be an oxymoron in a culture who considered the two concepts to be incompatible, but on what grounds? Like izentrop who would like to make science a kind of atheistic, rationalist and skeptical exclusivity.
Oxymore : Rhetor. Figure by which we unexpectedly combine two terms which are REGULARLY excluded.
usually :
Thirteenth century, ordinarily. Usually derived. Usually, usually, most often; commonly
http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/academie9/ordinairement

That is to say that usually, actually, this or that thing is most often put in a small, tightly closed box which should not disturb the good thinking of the moment.
As already seen, before atheistic rationalism replaced the "scientific rationalism" of religious scholars (who did not separate the two), science only served to observe the complexity and harmony of the physical and spiritual world. and to draw from it general laws and as Klein says if there are laws which are the beginning preceding their origin.
You should watch the interventions of Etienne Klein who declares himself a philosopher of science and who demonstrates that the separation of science, philosophy and faith are only cultural artifices, moreover providing no answer, due to the limits of current knowledge, with his questions on immanence or transcendence, for example, and to which no one can provide an answer, either scientific or philosophical.
However, all creation can be seen in the works that depend on it, just like a painting or a sculpture is not independent of their creator, all of this has already been seen and reviewed. But you do not adhere to it, it is your choice, as Izentrop does not adhere to the freedom of choice in terms of vaccines or unconventional care
0 x
"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
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6834
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 720

Re: science, pseudoscience, make a difference




by sen-no-sen » 10/07/18, 22:34

Janic wrote:Like izentrop who would like to make science a kind of atheistic, rationalist and skeptical exclusivity.

You're going to look too far for your arguments Janic!
Scientific creationism simply does not exist ... or you just invented it! : Lol:

Originally, creationists based their arguments on a literal reading of Genesis, however faced with the solidity of scientific facts, the latter were forced to derive their beliefs towards a more acceptable (and more vague, which is very practical) concept of intelligent design.
The idea is therefore to confront scientists on their land using common terminology with the dishonest aim of introducing a reasonable doubt which could lead a certain number of people to creationism through a veneer of science approach .
We are therefore faced with a strategy of conversion of psyches, not with science *.

You should watch the interventions of Etienne Klein who declares himself a philosopher of science and who demonstrates that the separation of science, philosophy and faith are only cultural artifices, moreover providing no answer, due to the limits of current knowledge, with his questions on immanence or transcendence, for example, and to which no one can provide an answer, either scientific or philosophical.


Don't tell Etienne Klein(which I have read the majority of books) what he did not say.
Overall your rhetoric is based on vagueness: you declare that there would be no more effective way than others to study the real, which is very practical to put science and pseudo-science in equivalence.
In short, an interpretation of Genesis would have the same value as 200 years of scientific study! :|

However, all creation can be seen in the works that depend on it, just like a painting or a sculpture is not independent of their creator, all of this has already been seen and reviewed.


Yes and I pointed out to you that your reasoning had no relevance ... : roll:




* Unless you consider the manipulation as such!
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 10700
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 942
Contact :

Re: science, pseudoscience, make a difference




by izentrop » 10/07/18, 23:23

sen-no-sen wrote:spiritualist currents have much to teach scientists.
Spiritualism is a philosophical current which affirms the ontological superiority of the spirit over matter, which is incompatible.
0 x

User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6834
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 720

Re: science, pseudoscience, make a difference




by sen-no-sen » 11/07/18, 00:08

izentrop wrote:
sen-no-sen wrote:spiritualist currents have much to teach scientists.
Spiritualism is a philosophical current which affirms the ontological superiority of the spirit over matter, which is incompatible.



Here is a most compelling argument ... you obviously confuse philosophical interpretations and science!
At the present time there is no formal proof of the superiority of the mind (what is it?) Over matter or of matter (what is it?) Over the mind.
Idealism, spiritualism and materialism are just possible philosophical interpretations within the sciences.
As an example the physicist David Bohm was considered to be part of the idealist movement, which did not prevent him from being considered as a very great scientist*.

Now explain me where is the incompatibility between meditators and scientists?
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0058244




* And they are numerous, we can especially point out Archibald Wheeler (one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century,Unitarian are)SirRoger Penrose [/ b] (a big name in physics!),Bernard d'Espagnat(not to be outdone either!) etc ... etc ...
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 16853
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 2288

Re: science, pseudoscience, make a difference




by Janic » 11/07/18, 07:46

janic wrote: Like izentrop who would like to make science a kind of atheistic, rationalist and skeptical exclusivity.

You're going to look too far for your Janic arguments!
It is not going too far to go further than ...! the thought is an immense web where each thing is connected to the others by held threads, and as for a spider web to move a thread makes move all the others at the same time
Scientific creationism simply does not exist ... or you just invented it!

It is your point of view that engages only this one, and therefore without more value than any other. Creationists, non-religious, of all stripes are not an innovation. All inventors are scientific creationists.
Originally the creationists based their arguments on a literal reading of Genesis, however faced with the solidity of the scientific facts its last were forced to make drift their beliefs towards a more acceptable concept (and more vague, which is very practical) of design clever.
Again, you're obsessed with wanting to take your discourse to one or more religions
Science, which is nothing but inclusive knowledge, is not private property belonging to a particular category of individuals. Creationism is not religious but belongs to the field of so-called scientific and philosophical observation.
Materialist science is only descriptive, nothing more and some want to limit it to this mechanistic aspect only and yet it is this mechanistic aspect which leads to support the thesis of creationism non religious.
Thus a table described by scientific methods will only explain that such or such pigment, that such or such working method was used, that certain geometrical forms are included there, etc… but it is unable to determine that this description is the work of an author, because it is not his role that is limited to how and not to who, where, when and therefore why and it is this last aspect that unites science and philosophy. Which philosophy makes it possible to recognize that this painting, this work, with these methods used, these forms, did not register alone on a canvas and therefore that they are the fact of an author, a creator. So science and philosophy come together at this precise moment.
The idea is therefore to confront scientists on their land using common terminology with the dishonest aim of introducing a reasonable doubt which could lead a certain number of people to creationism through a veneer of science approach .
We are therefore faced with a strategy of conversion of psyches, not with science *.
Because you think that your approach was not due to a conversion of psyches? This will have to be explained.
I refer you to this formulation: "Idealism, spiritualism and materialism are only possible philosophical interpretations within science.
You see, like Izentrop, you want to make science a private property, exclusive to a single category of individuals and of course with a negative value judgment that settles this postulate, while pretending the opposite (that's blurry !). By treating others with dishonesty it gives a veneer of honesty to those who defend this postulate precisely. But it doesn't work like that. Science is not a good acquired by and for some for their sole benefit, like all totalitarianism.
You should watch the interventions of Etienne Klein who declares himself a philosopher of science and who demonstrates that the separation of science, philosophy and faith are only cultural artifices, moreover providing no answer, due to the limits of current knowledge, with his questions on immanence or transcendence, for example, and to which no one can provide an answer, either scientific or philosophical.
Do not make Etienne Klein (whose majority of books I have read) say what he did not say.
I listened to his videos which are either conferences without sharing or even more interesting discussions because comparing various points of view and as everything is an object of interpretation (see above your formulation), I do not have, seems- he, perceived the same thing as you.
Overall your rhetoric is based on vagueness:
You mean like your blur?
you declare that there is no more effective way than others to study the real, which is very practical for equating science and pseudo-science.
I did not say that, it is only distorted interpretation! I say and repeat that it's all about interpreting the facts. Besides Nietzche said (it seems) that there are no facts, but just interpretations, a point of view that I fully share.
In short, an interpretation of Genesis would have the same value as 200 years of scientific study!
Let go of us with your anti-religious obsession. I have proposed to you, many times, to leave aside this aspect which is only one element of comparison among heaps of others because we are in a culture strongly marked by its history pro, but also anti religious and you It seems that you are in this second category of opponent on principle… just as religious when you refer to another discourse like Buddhism (against which I have no account to settle, any more than with any religion whatsoever.)
However, all creation can be seen in the works that depend on it, just like a painting or a sculpture is not independent of their creator, all of this has already been seen and reviewed.

Yes and I pointed out to you that your reasoning had no relevance ...
according to YOUR criteria.
But as your reasonings, which are only selective points of view, do not have either; so this makes it a point everywhere. :D
0 x
"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
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6834
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 720

Re: science, pseudoscience, make a difference




by sen-no-sen » 11/07/18, 10:47

Janic et Izentrop, open a book about epistemology and ontology rather than debate on the net something that obviously you do not understand ...
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 16853
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 2288

Re: science, pseudoscience, make a difference




by Janic » 11/07/18, 12:30

Janic open a book dealing with epistemology rather than debate on the net something that obviously you do not understand ...
fortunately that you are there, one wonders how the whole humanity could do without it. : Cry:
http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/%C3%A9pist%C3%A9mologie
EPISTEMOLOGY, noun. fem.
A. - Aged. Study of scientific knowledge in general:
... it is (...) epistemology which is solely competent to decide whether the frames of reference of the true correspond, yes or no, to the frames of the real ... Socio-treaty, 1968, p. 135 ..
It is beautiful as a definition and therefore thank you. So homeopathy "alone is competent to decide whether the frames of reference of the real correspond, yes or not, to the frames of the real ..." is what I have been saying from the start. : Cheesy:
B. - Usual. Part of philosophy which has as its object the critical study of the postulates, conclusions and methods of a particular science, considered from the point of view of its evolution, in order to determine its logical origin, the value and the scientific scope and philosophical (cf. philosophy * of science, empiricism * logic). just as beautiful and realistic. It just depends on who sets the criteria.
0 x
"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
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 10700
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 942
Contact :

Re: science, pseudoscience, make a difference




by izentrop » 11/07/18, 18:56

sen-no-sen wrote:Now explain me where is the incompatibility between meditators and scientists?
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0058244
They are able to act on their body temperature as others know how to move their ears, training question.

Even if it means sticking a label to me, I would prefer that of "zetetic".
0 x


 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Science and Technology"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 9 guests