So how do scientists gain knowledge, if not by using the scientific method?pic.twitter.com/KaSVdLklhh
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
There’s a lot of truth to this; but science is genuinely different from (e.g.) theology, where “convincing other theologists” is the whole of it. No one has been able to find a hard-line test for what makes science different, but the differences are vital and worth investigating.
I think a proof actually does refer to...a shape, sort of, Out There, even if different people will write it up differently and disagree on what counts as "trivial" vs what needs more unpacking. There is a pattern in which write-ups will get graded as "proofs" vs. "not proofs".
Yes…. setting aside the unanswerable metaphysical questions, math is uniquely hard-edged in the sense that once a matter is settled, it virtually always stays settled. Whereas this is rare in the general case of convincing a group.
Science also needs to convince non-scientists at some point. Then again, theologians convince the laity. TBH I don't think there is an objective demarcation, it's just that we ourselves are no longer convinced by the theologians, but are still convinced by the scientists.
Theology can get quite rigorous. The problem is reliable access to the phenomena. People from different traditions are extremely talking past each other in an opaque way. A mathematician can point to a definition, a construction. A scientist can point to an experiment.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.