I asked what the strengths and weaknesses of science might be. Offered a couple ideas about that.
Dogpiled and downvoted to oblivion.
These “people”. They refuse to offer any suggestions. They even refuse to even define the subject. They just attack and attack and attack. Then this morning I was banned.
It’s like arguing with 12th century religious zealots. They have no clue what science is but they sure bought the tshirt.
Did you not check the community rules here before posting?
Like, the instance is pretty friendly about bending such things, but the very first rule is about this community being for mod and admin actions, not votes.
Well I was banned, post removed and all replies deleted. Does that count as mod action?
Then that should have been your post, not whining about votes
Well “banned” is the first word in the title.
You accuse me of contradicting the community rules AND whining. I detect a pattern in your screed. Are you a bot?
Holy shit! Found one in the wild! No wonder you got banned
Can you define science?
Yes.
A method for crafting models characterized by a strong adherence to observation and use of peer-review.
There it is, the bailey. That definition is out of step with science as we commonly define it (the motte).
(Before you ask, plenty of better definitions of science are easily available online where you can read them.)
I checked just in case I was suffering a stroke.
Nope, it’s pretty right on with the classical definition.
But if you see an error then please point it out.
A stroke is not one of the things that women over age 30 suffer, eh?
You aren’t telling me what this error that you found is.
No, it’s not worth my time, since I know from past experience that it would do no good. I will be interested to see what your next schtick is.
Really, you see an error but you don’t want to tell me what it is. Well that doesn’t sound suspicious at all.
TBH you are not making a strong case for yourself here, OP.
It sounds like the thread was locked because the discussion got toxic, which indeed takes multiple participants.
But your presentation of your question, solely based on your own description and setting the actual topic aside seems… abrasive. And the replies here seem abrasive.
Yeah I got a little bitchy towards the end. I admit it. But if you saw the onslaught of bullshit I was subjected to you’d be impressed at my fortitude. And it was only when I started pushing back that I got banned. So fuck those guys.
…you’d be impressed at my fortitude…
Again, respectfully, this kind of argument is not going to win you sympathy.
I will point to the golden rule of the internet. If you are frustrated with other commenters:
Don’t feed the trolls.
You don’t have to engage in such threads.
YDI
I know the post you are referring to and it was deliberately argumentive and you were unable to support your claim.
What claim? It was a question. You know what a question is, right?
I do know what a question is. Which is why you were down voted to oblivion in a community about asking questions.
Ooh, cryptic. Don’t just speak plainly now.
As I recall your pro/con about it was
pro: we can do it on groups
con: it’s based on models
More aligned with a ‘stoner thoughts’ com than a serious discussion.
Those were examples of a strength and a weakness, as examples of what I was looking for, to clarify the question.
And they’re nonsensical, unless perhaps English is not your primary language, in which case you need a better translator, those are simply absurd statements.
Most activities can be done either in groups or solo, this has nothing to do with science
Based on models is similarly absurd, two key parts of the scientific method are the formation of a hypothesis and construction of an experiment, collectively these form a model hoping to prove or disprove the hypothised outcome. That’s not a weakness, it’s the core of discovery and advancement.
The fact that science can be done in groups gives us peer review. Peer review is an important part of science.
The fact that science relies on models gives us the loss of fidelity that occurs when observation is translated into model.
Correct me if I’m wrong but that doesn’t sound nonsensical.
Peer review isn’t unique to scientific fields, public critique exists in most any act so it’s pointless to cite it as being a ‘strength’ of science.
The only thing I can even interpret what you mean by the second is in not directly observing a specific result in each case that it somehow is meant to make things less accurate. The fact is that we have established certain things as fact and thus presume them true in all cases, to repeat these tests and document each particular interaction in a situation for the uncountable number of times it has happened before is wasteful and inefficient. Hydrogen is flammable and gravity exists in relation to mass, there is no reason to document the re-observation of established (modeled) facts
I don’t find your arguments compelling. Sorry. But my actual point remains. The question, what are the strengths and weaknesses of science? If you have a better one then say it. And if you don’t then say “science is perfect and invincible” or something.
