Iraq was preemptively destroyed as a potential threat (based on lies). They preemptively isolate us as potential COVID carriers (based on lies). Soon enough they'll preemptively execute people as potentially treasonous or whatev. Maybe we should prepreemptively organize some effective rev/solutions?

submitted by JasonCarswell from activistpost.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You are confusing the nature of science itself with the scientific process.

When you state "science is (...)" you are, willingly or not, describing THE NATURE OF SCIENCE itself. If you wish to talk about the scientific PROCESS, then you must state it explicitly or else there can be confusion.

Right now you are wording sentences as talking about the NATURE OF SCIENCE but while meaning to talk about THE PROCESS OF SCIENTIFIC research, discovery, etc.

Nature of a thing. Process of doing a thing. Not the same phenomena. You need to communicate more clearly. Reread what you wrote. Hopefully you can extricate yourself enough from what you MEAN to actually READ what is written (by yourself) a bit more objectively.

And there's nothing new-agey about the material, but I agree that a cursory look will yield that impression.

EDIT: Also, you begin by discussing the NATURE of Psience as an actual science, and as demonstrated in my example using Fermat's last theorem, you cannot discuss the scientific PROCESS of a science you know nothing about. Which leaves us discussing the NATURE of Psience as a hard science. And then you keep the wording as if you were discussing its nature as a science, but come back with retorts that I am not properly discussing the SCIENTIFIC PROCESS, which cannot be discussed between a practicioner of a science and a lay person.

That leaves us nowhere but you insulting my intelligence. Very cute, but extremely harmful to the quality of the conversation. But go ahead, accuse me of that. It's also cute.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Feel free to weigh in:
/s/AskSaidIt/comments/3y8v/saiditors_ive_debated_what_science_means_with_one/

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Ah, so cute! Going to go to the mob, see which one is more popular. Lovely. You must aspire to become a politician.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

If you say so. The mob is not always correct. The leader is not always correct. No one is always correct.

That's why science is never settled. Even IF climate change was actually supported by 97% of climate scientists (which it isn't) there is still room for research and further exploration.

I'm confident that I'll have the majority on my side, assuming anyone bothers to notice that post. Doesn't make me 100% correct, but it might make you think and maybe someone can explain it better to you. Or on the chance I'm wrong, maybe I can learn something.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh you are definitely wrong.

The scientific NATURE of a discipline is not the same concept as the scientific PROCESS as it applies within a discipline, using its fixed and unalterable laws.

That you fail to grasp this is the entirety of the whole argument closed in my favor. /thread.