Agree Clemsy, this is my understanding too, that science constructs models based on observations and the usefulness of models in predicting outcomes is why we generally value these models. When I wrote;
Ah. Then I'll have to disagree. I think what you are describing is a cultural or societal issue, not one of science. Science doesn't argue truths. Science constructs models based on observations and measurements. The model may open to modifications as new observations and measurements arise, but no such relativism has anything to do with science.
Scientists play with facts and aren't that concerned with "truths". People will try to drag science into the realm of "truths" where arguments can take place. Note global warming and evolution. - Clemsy, p.63
‘ Ever since the era of postmodernism it is possible to argue just about anything’ I was exaggerating my stance on this issue for effect. Mea culpa. It is not just about anything that is possible to argue. Rather, it is possible to argue something and its opposite and keep getting funded for research. For instance, back in the 80’ the latest fad in treating women was hormone replacement therapy. By the 90’ many women complained about the negative side effects outweighing the positive effects while using Hrt, so a research found a link between Hrt and breast cancer. At first – during the 80’s – scientists said there is no evidence to support any causal link between occurrence of breast cancer and Hrt, but by the 90’s there was some evidence. Now, in 2012, I’ve just heard that there is yet another study claiming to find no evidence of Hrt causing breast cancer.
Yes.As scientific principles trickle down to the cultural narrative, people start to talk in terms of things being true. Like effects of gravity, electricity, radioactive material, etc. People do speak in terms of evolution being "true." But to science, it's all about the effectiveness of the model. - Clemsy, p.63
Precisely." Many religions consider perfect knowledge of all truth about all things ( omniscience ) to be an attribute of a divine or supernatural being. "
( This may be where a small part of the disconnect lies. ) “ - James p.64
Yes Romansh, indeed what science attempts to provide is what Postmodernism attempts to deny us. Science attempts to give workable models whereas Postmodernism attempts to convince us that absolutely nothing is certain.Ever since the era of postmodernism it is possible to argue just about anything. – Evinnra
Is not science the antithesis of postmodernism? – Romansh p.64
We are on the very same page Nandu.
IMO, the problem arises (partly) from seeing science as a way of arriving at the truth. It is nothing of the sort. Science is a methodology for establishing facts, with evidence. The difference between scientific fact and subjective truth is that the former can be verified by anybody, even without believing in it. For example, you may want to believe in a geocentric universe, but the earth goes around the sun just the same.
Science does not reveal the nature of "reality": it gives us a workable model of reality which can be used to explain and predict its behaviour. Sometimes the model has to be refined as the paradigm shifts: for example, from Classical to Relativistic to Quantum. But the model remains dependable (the key word) in the paradigm which it is used. – Nandu p.64
Let me second that!
Some natural disasters are Acts of People.
We, The People, in order to form a more perfect Union, created corporate persons whose greedy, selfish, short-sighted lies and corrupt propaganda have taken over our law, our life and our liberty.
So sayeth CarmelaBear. – p.64
It is high time we revise the global rules and regulations regarding how to play the capitalism game. IMHO, Capitalism can work but not without a Global Community making sure that it is played FAIR.