Re: Biochematics Video

Science is sorta speculation too...

Tell your friends:

Biochematics: Science is work in progress It must mold to what seems to an observable world If a scientific theory is wrong, it will collapse On the other hand, non-scientific theories do not have to mold to the observable world. Though it seems non-scientific theories can't be right or wrong, if they are wrong, we can never now it. Non-scientific theories have no feedback mechanism; they are not "forced to evolve"

Biochematics: Sorry for all the spelling errors - I can't do this at work anymore - its a rule!

hofisito: I hear ya... I really do think science has the great quality of being falsifiable but... to do anything with science, it requires the use of observations.... and well... we can't know that our observations are accurate, so we can't know that our science is accurate. I know that you say this ok because science "evolves" But evolution doesn't necessariliy mean improvement, it just means change.

hofisito: lol yea, I shouldn't do this at school either :)

otonanoC: I absolutely disagree that science is the "same thing" that 0ThouArtThat0 is doing. That's patently false. However, I would suggest that what he is doing is called the Philosophy of Science. In particular, he is engaging in *Prescriptive Philosophy of Science.* The other alternative is a **Descriptive Philosophy of Science,** which Biochematics would be drawn to. The latter says what "science does" rather than what it "should" be doing.

hofisito: Yea I'd agree that science isn't the "same thing" in every aspect to what thouartthat is doing. What I'm more trying to say, that since our observations aren't ever certainly true, then there's a sense of speculation to our theories based on the uncertain observations. Biochematics was saying that thouartthat's thoughts aren't good cuz they're "speculative" and well... I'm just trying to show that in a certain sense, so is science!

hofisito: if science weren't at least somewhat a speculation, then it wouldn't be changing as often as it does... Of course... I don't believe we shouldn't put our trust in science! (I'm not really a skeptic) We should definately trust science cuz it fits our best observations so far. Just cuz something is somewhat of a speculation doesn't mean it's not worth our attention. That's why I think we should leave room for talk of the "speculations" of metaphysics

otonanoC: **** If science weren't at least somewhat a speculation, then it wouldn't be changing as often as it does... **** Correct. And this is exactly the issues raised by Thomas Kuhn. Popper's Falsifiability Criterion was what Popper himself would like to have happen personally. This does not mean that I should or that I'm required to stay only in those bounds! But really you are trying to teach Philosophy-of-Science to me in Youtube comment boxes. Trust me -- I am already aware of it! 0_0

hofisito: oh I know... I'm more talking to biochematics. Popper's cool ;)

Author: hofisito; Uploaded: May 13, 2009; Duration: 3:40; Views: 30

Tags: science  truth  certainty  knowledge  reading festival recipes reiss reeds rains reed reuters renault republic real radio real madrid