Inference and its role in NS (General)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, January 16, 2011, 16:51 (4869 days ago) @ dhw

ROMANSH: I think you misunderstand what Matt/xeno and perhaps what I are trying to say.
> 
> Perhaps. Or perhaps you misunderstand me. Matt tells me that a scientific theory is one that has been repeatedly demonstrated to be true (verified) but will most likely turn out to be untrue (which apparently is different from its being an explanation whose truth has not been proved). In the meantime, farmers, doctors, teachers, governments may have acted upon these scientific theories (after all, they have been "repeatedly verified") ... sometimes with disastrous results ... but as science is an ongoing process, this according to both of you should NOT (your emphasis) be seen as a weakness but as a "huge strength". And according to Matt the public are to be blamed for their naivete in swallowing what the experts tell them, because they should know that science is not about coming up with final answers.
> -And that line I marked in red is absolutely NOT what I was trying to say. -What I was attempting to say, is that no scientific theory is sacrosanct. If and when a better explanation for something arrives, if it does its job well, it will displace the old explanation. (It might take an entire passionate generation to die first.) Romansh's demonstration of Newton is perfect--NASA uses Newton's mathematical equations to launch rockets. It turns out his explanation was completely off as to the cause of gravity, -> I have no dispute with you over the ongoing process. That's how it is, and that's how it has to be: as in all walks of life, we learn from experience. The gist of my complaint is hinted at in your closing parenthesis: "Scientists are not immune to being dogmatic". You can't separate science from scientists, scientists are as fallible as the rest of us, and they are as responsible as the rest of us for what they say and do. (I'd like to think that most scientists would agree.) The fact that the process is ongoing is both a weakness and a strength, and I would have thought this was obvious not only to agnostics but to theists and atheists as well! Advances, e.g. in technology and medicine, are triumphs for scientists; blunders over misinformation are disasters for scientists, and sometimes for the rest of us too, so let us praise scientists for what they get right, and damn them for what they get wrong.-Nietzsche laughs at scientists in "Beyond Good and Evil," more specifically Kant who asserted that the role of scientists should be to be as objective and dispassionate as possible. If you choose a field to study, it is precisely because you're passionate about it. Human beings are not good at doing things they are not passionate about. It is always important to remember the power of psychology over everything else... even if it is "wishy-washy."

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"