Originally posted by Bosse de NageDon't get me wrong. I think many people fall into that trap. Our friends here haven't yet provided a properly explicit reason on why we can, with some degree of certainty, rely on scientific knowledge for which we do not understand the details.
I should have put a 'lol' next to it.
Originally posted by Palynka…You do realize that the same argument could be said to justify things like astrology and cartomancy? . …
This is a completely wrong basis for belief. You do realize that the same argument could be said to justify things like astrology and cartomancy?
10 billion flies can be wrong.
How so? -I mean, exactly which technology wouldn’t work if astrology was false?
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhat I mean is that I can find you many people who'll tell you that astrology works and, more importantly, many people who call themselves experts and that would be able to cite you a vast amount references on which their knowledge is based on. You probably wouldn't be able to cite a single reference against it if you didn't google it.
[b]…You do realize that the same argument could be said to justify things like astrology and cartomancy? . …
How so? -I mean, exactly which technology wouldn’t work if astrology was false?[/b]
Does this mean you should believe these people about astrology? No.
Originally posted by PalynkaBut we are deep into it! You don't have to be a scientist in order to understand that the a-bombs exist;
Don't get me wrong. I think many people fall into that trap. Our friends here haven't yet provided a properly explicit reason on why we can, with some degree of certainty, rely on scientific knowledge for which we do not understand the details.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage…It's possible the technology was discovered by accident and the conclusions derived from it false. …
Perhaps. It's possible the technology was discovered by accident and the conclusions derived from it false. X-rays were discovered by accident.
You can make a lamp without fully understanding the properties of light. Just because 'computers work' doesn't mean there's nothing more to be discovered about particle physics.
It's immaterial -- you don't need faith in anything to live.
There would have to be a huge coincidence to explain this huge number of these happy accidence!
Every invention we know of complies to scientists understanding of physics and there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of such inventions -an amassing coincidence don’t you think? -an amassing coincidence that is if you assume scientists understanding is simply all false.
Don’t get me wrong -I am sure there exist somewhere an example of a technology was discovered by accident and the conclusions derived from it false. But if that was true for most of technology then it would be an amazing coincidence that most of it works,
Originally posted by PalynkaOk, you ask "why we can, with some degree of certainty, rely on scientific knowledge for which we do not understand the details.";
We're talking about the believing 'why' it works, not 'if' it works.
We can because there other people that understand them -not because they merely "believe" it but because it is their field, which they have study it in detail through aknowlegded procedures. One doesn't have to be a doctor in order to recpect this science, and is false not to respect it because he cannot comprehend it;
Originally posted by black beetleI think you're getting warmer. 🙂
Ok, you ask "why we can, with some degree of certainty, rely on scientific knowledge for which we do not understand the details.";
We can because there other people that understand them -not because they merely "believe" it but because it is their field, which they have study it in detail through aknowlegded procedures. One doesn't have to be a doctor ...[text shortened]... er to recpect this science, and is false not to respect it because he cannot comprehend it;
But how does that exclude my example of astrologists 'understanding' and 'validating' the details of other astrologists? After all, it is their 'field'.
Originally posted by PalynkaI 'm always worm Palynka dude🙂
I think you're getting warmer. 🙂
But how does that exclude my example of astrologists 'understanding' and 'validating' the details of other astrologists? After all, it is their 'field'.
It is well known that astrolody is not a science: for example the cycle of the zodiac which the astrologists take into account is false. Nowdays the Sun between Mar. 21 and Apr. 21 is not at the Aries but at Pisces, therefore the astrologists are original twisters and we must not take into account none of their quotes;
Originally posted by black beetle...everybody without a religion is considered equal to a worm🙂
I 'm always worm Palynka dude🙂
It is well known that astrolody is not a science: for example the cycle of the zodiac which the astrologists take into account is false. Nowdays the Sun between Mar. 21 and Apr. 21 is not at the Aries but at Pisces, therefore the astrologists are original twisters and we must not take into account none of their quotes;
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleBut that's just one claim. How can we file the entire field (and be justified in doing so) into the drawer of non trustworthy fields?
I 'm always worm Palynka dude🙂
It is well known that astrolody is not a science: for example the cycle of the zodiac which the astrologists take into account is false. Nowdays the Sun between Mar. 21 and Apr. 21 is not at the Aries but at Pisces, therefore the astrologists are original twisters and we must not take into account none of their quotes;
Anyway, my point is that the problem of dispersion of knowledge is solved (even if partially) via the existence of academic journals and peer reviews. The standards (and reputation) of academic journals are intimately related to the degree of trushworthiness given to its publications.
Originally posted by PalynkaIt is not just a claim because it is backed up by the science of astronomy.
But that's just one claim. How can we file the entire field (and be justified in doing so) into the drawer of non trustworthy fields?
Anyway, my point is that the problem of dispersion of knowledge is solved (even if partially) via the existence of academic journals and peer reviews. The standards (and reputation) of academic journals are intimately related to the degree of trushworthiness given to its publications.
On the other hand, in addition with your correct opinion regarding the scientific press, every scientific find is backed up with detailed bibliography, which is open to everybody that feels the need to cross-check it.
An entire trustworthy field cannot go down the drain along with the non trustworthy fields (and the non trustworthy fields are not scientific fields at all). "Trustworthy" is a field only when it promotes scientific finds, which they emerge due to specific procedures;
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleCan you rephrase this? I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by it...
An entire trustworthy field cannot go down the drain along with the non trustworthy fields (and the non trustworthy fields are not scientific fields at all). "Trustworthy" is a field only when it promotes scientific finds, which they emerge due to specific procedures;
Edit: In this time of the year, Halkidiki wouldn't be too bad either!