02-09-2015, 07:32 PM
|
|
|
StraightBro
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Monarch Beach, CA USA
Posts: 56,229
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo
Quote:
There are different schools of thought in philosophy of science. The most popular position is empiricism,[26] which holds that knowledge is created by a process involving observation and that scientific theories are the result of generalizations from such observations.[27] Empiricism generally encompasses inductivism, a position that tries to explain the way general theories can be justified by the finite number of observations humans can make and the hence finite amount of empirical evidence available to confirm scientific theories. This is necessary because the number of predictions those theories make is infinite, which means that they cannot be known from the finite amount of evidence using deductive logic only. Many versions of empiricism exist, with the predominant ones being bayesianism[28] and the hypothetico-deductive method.[29]:p236
Empiricism has stood in contrast to rationalism, the position originally associated with Descartes, which holds that knowledge is created by the human intellect, not by observation.:p20 Critical rationalism is a contrasting 20th-century approach to science, first defined by Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper.
Popper rejected the way that empiricism describes the connection between theory and observation. He claimed that theories are not generated by observation, but that observation is made in the light of theories and that the only way a theory can be affected by observation is when it comes in conflict with it.
Popper further claimed that there is actually only one universal method, not specific to science: the negative method of criticism, trial and error.
|
Science is inductive, not deductive.
I.E., science is very much trial and error.
no, very little is clear about the Universe. making assumptions and trying to pass them off as "clearly" obvious is dangerous in discovery.
So what are you stating here? That I am being religious instead of scientific because I can embrace the other side of the probability problem in the OP?
Let's be clear on something.
What difference does it make to come down on the side of we probably are alone instead of probably are not?
I mean really. WHat difference does it make? Let's say we are not alone and that's discovered. How does embracing the probability from the other side change anything?
IN fact, I think being open to all possibilities allows for more opportunity to learning and discovering, not being less open and assuming probabilities are clear. |
First you say science is inductive not deductive. You're high.
"Inductive reasoning is used to try to discover a new piece of information; deductive reasoning is used to try to prove it."
Then you asked 6 questions that are all over the place. If I took the time to genuinely answer all of them, you'd disagree and ask 6 more. I got you. You know I'm smarter then that. You just don't want me in this conversation because you know I'm right, and that's fine. I don't have the time anyway I'm shooting out of town in the morning, 4 shoots total tomorrow. Have fun in la la land 
__________________
Skype: CallTomNow
|
|
|