The point of science is to solve problems, not to find the "objective truth". This is done by gathering data and describing patterns observed in nature. When you're in the lab, you're not thinking about finding an objective truth. You're thinking about how to solve a problem.
-
-
Show this thread
-
"Science requires evidence for all claims, except for the claim that science is the arbiter of objective truth." This is not an empirical statement, it's a philosophical one. Which is ironic considering how much NDT loves to shit on the humanities.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
“Solve problems”? No. This is neither historically or currently true about science. That definition ignores basic science altogether.
-
I could have phrased that better. Science is about coming up with good explanations, and good explanations are used to solve problems. We don't subscribe to a theory because we think it's the "objective truth", but because it has higher explanatory power than another theory.
-
In other words, scientific theories aren't a collection of objective truths. They are models that describe how nature works. Models don't have a binary truth value, only increasing or decreasing levels of explanatory power.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
in order to decode nature, one needs access to a time machine. else how to discern which supernova created the gold in my ring? science creates tentative models. limited in scope, temporary, but still useful. making a religion of science is pointless.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.