Nothingserious:
Your guys claim science is strictly empirical as against religion and philosophy that has elements of subjectivity.

This is where your error stems from. You fail to realise that Jesus Christ, the scientific opener of eyes, was practically preaching science.

“The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye is good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

Whole body means, your heart and soul and mind and being, which, if in darkness will stop you being able to ask and knock and seek.

Science is also the lesson of Eve in Genesis 3, where we read she tested if she would indeed surely die on the day she ate the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, only to find she did not die, and that it was good for gaining wisdom, and went on to free herself and Adam from naked slavery in the Garden of Eden and became self employed and lived for another 800 or so years during which they populated the earth with billions of humans who are now using science to go and populated Mars.

Unfortunately, most would rather believe and tremble like stupid enslaved believing non-scientific ignorant Adam who would rather not ask and knock and seek. Thankfully, in time, we will surely evolve from Adams into Eves.

Nothingserious:
Totally off point.

Are sciences done on strict empiricism and objectivity or are there elements of subjectivity in decisions on outcomes?

An individual might be subjective when doing science, and that might indeed determine their outcome, but other individuals are not guaranteed to have the exact same subjectivity and might have subjectivity of their own which may produce a different outcome and therefore not be a law.

Its why you provide scientific details of your experiment so others can see your method and replicate it. They will not replicate your subjectivity however, and if your experiment relys on your own subjectivity, your law will only apply to your very own subjective self.

budaatum:


An individual might be subjective when doing science, and that might indeed determine their outcome, but other individuals are not guaranteed to have the exact same subjectivity and might have subjectivity of their own which may produce a different outcome and therefore not be a law.

Its why you provide scientific details of your experiment so others can see your method and replicate it. They will not replicate your subjectivity however, and if your experiment relys on your own subjectivity, your law will only apply to your very own subjective self.

So what do you think has happened from the debates among the Nobel panelists on Niel Borh’s works and Einstein’s ?

I guess all the scientists had empirically and objectively reviewed the works but had to settle on some technicalities to award one in one year and the other in another year and on different areas different from the fields in contention?

Same played out that Planck, Heinsberg et al countered Bohr and Einstein still.

We have complex debates on matter and energy being discrete packets, being waves in Quantum physics.

If sciences are strictly empirical, then we wouldn’t have need for falsability in sciences.

See below SUBJECTIVITY ( not empirical) in decision making by scientists. By then Einstein was even no longer interested after waiting for long to use the money from the prize to settle his family issues.

“Nobel prizes often attract controversy, but usually after they have been awarded. Albert Einstein's physics prize was the subject of argument for years before it was even a reality”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2012/oct/08/einstein-nobel-prize-relativity

Nothingserious:


You have just been cursing up and down but failed repeatedly to make any sense.

You failed to take up the challenge on scientific proof for scientific laws but kept lazily asking for 5 scientists. Should it be hard for you to simply point out a single scientific law that has been scientifically tested?

Dummy the very article you quoted has already proved you're a dumbass.

To many, and to Einstein himself, this felt like a slap in the face. Hadn't Eddington proved the theory? Yes, but the trouble was Eddington's observations had not been perfect and he had discarded data he considered poor from his final analysis. To some, as related in Jeffrey Crelinsten's Einstein's Jury, this smacked of cooking the books in Einstein's favour. In reality it was just good scientific practice.

The magnitude of your dumbassery is outstanding.

budaatum:


An individual might be subjective when doing science, and that might indeed determine their outcome, but other individuals are not guaranteed to have the exact same subjectivity and might have subjectivity of their own which may produce a different outcome and therefore not be a law.

Its why you provide scientific details of your experiment so others can see your method and replicate it. They will not replicate your subjectivity however, and if your experiment relys on your own subjectivity, your law will only apply to your very own subjective self.

How were these scientists able to pull these frauds in history through? Almost everyone believed them for many years. Were other scientists not involved in the reviews?


“Pranks are generally limited to benign things like dumb Facebook status changes or stunts involving shaving cream. But there are some enterprising individuals that try to get one over on science, with varying degrees of temporary success.

Here's a rundown of some of the biggest scientific frauds in history — at least, the ones that have been exposed:”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theweek.com/articles/446787/10-most-incredible-scientific-hoaxes-all-time%3famp

Nothingserious:


So you concede there are elements and levels of subjectivity in scientific researches, outcomes and final decisions?

It was never the question in discussion. You claimed and are still claiming, even when the very evidence you provided is against you, that scientists have not proof of scientific laws. Never for once did I argue anything about empiricism or subjectivity with you.

LordReed:


Dummy the very article you quoted has already proved you're a dumbass.

To many, and to Einstein himself, this felt like a slap in the face. Hadn't Eddington proved the theory? Yes, but the trouble was Eddington's observations had not been perfect and he had discarded data he considered poor from his final analysis. To some, as related in Jeffrey Crelinsten's Einstein's Jury, this smacked of cooking the books in Einstein's favour. In reality it was just good scientific practice.

The magnitude of your dumbassery is outstanding.

Foolish boy, the text below is subjective with human arbitrariness written over it.

“There is also another way to read the Nobel caveat. Could it have been that the committee was leaving the door open for a second Nobel prize in the future, once relativity had been more rigorously tested? We will never know. As Einstein's fame spread, so he alienated himself from the physics community by refusing to accept quantum theory. A Nobel prize for relativity was never awarded.”

The situation reached crisis point in 1921 when, paralysed by indecision, the Nobel Committee decided it was better not to award a prize at all than to give it to relativity. The arguments raged for another year until a compromise was reached.

At the suggestion of Carl Wilhelm Oseen, Einstein would receive the deferred 1921 prize, but not for relativity. He would be given it for his explanation of the photoelectric effect, a phenomenon in which electrons are emitted from a metal sheet only under certain illuminations. The work had been published back in 1905.

It has been argued that this work, which introduced the concept of photons, has had more impact than relativity. I'm not sure. With relativity, Einstein gave us a way to understand the Universe as a whole. It was a staggering leap forward in our intellectual capability.

The Nobel citation reads that Einstein is honoured for "services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". At first glance, the reference to theoretical physics could have been a back door through which the committee acknowledged relativity. However, there was a caveat stating that the award was presented "without taking into account the value that will be accorded your relativity and gravitation theories after these are confirmed in the future".

Nothingserious:


Foolish boy, the text below is subjective with human arbitrariness written over it.

“There is also another way to read the Nobel caveat. Could it have been that the committee was leaving the door open for a second Nobel prize in the future, once relativity had been more rigorously tested? We will never know. As Einstein's fame spread, so he alienated himself from the physics community by refusing to accept quantum theory. A Nobel prize for relativity was never awarded.”

The situation reached crisis point in 1921 when, paralysed by indecision, the Nobel Committee decided it was better not to award a prize at all than to give it to relativity. The arguments raged for another year until a compromise was reached.

At the suggestion of Carl Wilhelm Oseen, Einstein would receive the deferred 1921 prize, but not for relativity. He would be given it for his explanation of the photoelectric effect, a phenomenon in which electrons are emitted from a metal sheet only under certain illuminations. The work had been published back in 1905.

It has been argued that this work, which introduced the concept of photons, has had more impact than relativity. I'm not sure. With relativity, Einstein gave us a way to understand the Universe as a whole. It was a staggering leap forward in our intellectual capability.

The Nobel citation reads that Einstein is honoured for "services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". At first glance, the reference to theoretical physics could have been a back door through which the committee acknowledged relativity. However, there was a caveat stating that the award was presented "without taking into account the value that will be accorded your relativity and gravitation theories after these are confirmed in the future".

Fuckwit, what part of "proved the theory" is giving your brain seizure?

LordReed:


It was never the question in discussion. You claimed and are still claiming, even when the very evidence you provided is against you, that scientists have not proof of scientific laws. Never for once did I argue anything about empiricism or subjectivity with you.

Then you have short memory span.

The main argument was on how science is strictly objective and empirical as against religion and philosophy that uses subjective methods.

I added that even scientific laws have not been scientifically proven.

Please go read all the conversation again.

Truthfully, no scientific law has been scientifically proven.

Truthfully elements of subjectivity and arbitrariness are involved in scientific data.

LordReed:


Fuckwit, what part of "proved the theory" is giving your brain seizure?

Idiot I thought you wanted to read the full text?

Nothingserious:

If sciences are strictly empirical, then we wouldn’t have need for falsability in sciences.

Science is done by subjective human beings, and that is precisely why falsification is a significant aspect of science.

Basically, a scientist makes a claim and other scientist refuse to believe your claim and spend a lot of time and effort trying to prove your claim is false, which they wouldn't do if they believed you.

Now imagine a pastor making a claim and tell me what believers do. It might make you see the difference between scientists and believers, even if they both are religious people.

Below is James telling you to test your faith instead of building on the sand of belief. The deeds is how you build on rocks, which is what science helps you do.

Nothingserious:
Here's a rundown of some of the biggest scientific frauds in history — at least, the ones that have been exposed:”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theweek.com/articles/446787/10-most-incredible-scientific-hoaxes-all-time%3famp

Would you like to show me where these pranks are scientific laws please, or scientists who believe them?

budaatum:


Science is done by subjective human beings, and that is precisely why falsification is a significant aspect of science.

Basically, a scientist makes a claim and other scientist refuse to believe your claim and spend a lot of time and effort trying to prove your claim is false, which they wouldn't do if they believed you.

Now imagine a pastor making a claim and tell me what believers do. It might make you see the difference between scientists and believers, even if they both are religious people.

Below is James telling you to test your faith instead of building on the sand of belief. The deeds is how you build on rocks, which is what science helps you do.

Aside from James, another part of the Bible said to test all spirits. Yes.

I am not arguing about falsability and tests done in science. I am saying there are levels of subjectivity and arbitrariness in choice of one or some among all the possible outcomes. And that’s done by subjective humans.

A body of scientific experts were ready to go extra mile to stifle Einstein’s work because he was a Jew and the Germans had lost the war.

Isn’t that subjectivity and arbitrariness?

What if they decided not to publish his works on relativity and photo electric effects? Wouldn’t the science community miss out from what he had to say?

But someone will come here and claim science is purely empirical and objective. That’s a bogus and false claim.

Nothingserious:


Then you have short memory span.

The main argument was on how science is strictly objective and empirical as against religion and philosophy that uses subjective methods.

I added that even scientific laws have not been scientifically proven.

Please go read all the conversation again.

Truthfully, no scientific law has been scientifically proven.

Truthfully elements of subjectivity and arbitrariness are involved in scientific data.

You are the one with a delusion factory for a brain, go quote where I said anything about empiricism or subjectivity.

Nothingserious:


Idiot I thought you wanted to read the full text?

Fuckwit the question again is, what part of "proved the theory" is giving your brain seizure? It is right there in the article you quoted or have you gone blind now?

budaatum:


Would you like to show me where these pranks are scientific laws please, or scientists who believe them?

I don’t understand . Is this your way of saying the article isn’t in science again?

Is that article on frauds in religion or sports?
Or on frauds on sciences?

Nothingserious:
See below SUBJECTIVITY ( not empirical) in decision making by scientists. By then Einstein was even no longer interested after waiting for long to use the money from the prize to settle his family issues.

What you've presented here is subjectivity in awarding a prize, and not subjectivity in the science itself.

The Nobel Prize is subjective by its very nature, and is not some body that defines scientific laws for the science community.

Nothingserious:


I don’t understand . Is this your way of saying the article isn’t in science again?

Is that article on frauds in religion or sports?
Or on frauds on sciences?

I am saying the frauds are not science! Not one credible scientist could have possibly accepted any of them as scientific facts for long.

You are however welcome to show me scientists who did, after all, scientist me is unlikely to believe you and will require facts and evidence that I can verify gor myself.

budaatum:


What you've presented here is subjectivity in awarding a prize, and not subjectivity in the science itself.

The Nobel Prize is subjective by its very nature, and is not some body that defines scientific laws for the science community.

We have a body of scientific experts who influence decisions on what is considered a law and a theory. And they have overbearing influences in the scientific community.

The same subject and arbitrary humans exert great influence on peer reviews.

I have seen scholars begging for their works to be peer reviewed. Some pay.Some use influences. Some use politics. Some donors even dictate how scientific works should come out.

All of these affect outcomes and publications

Nothingserious:

But someone will come here and claim science is purely empirical and objective. That’s a bogus and false claim.

Science and scientists are not one and the same thing, and using bad scientists to judge science is just plain lazy. Its the equivalent of using bad pastors to judge the Bible.

As some bad pastors have made the Bible a bad book and created opposers, so have some bad scientists given science a bad rap. I mean, see you disregarding all the achievements of science to concentrate on a few hoaxes while using the same scientific achievements to communicate it!

Have you not got electricity in your home, Nothing, and are you beating a drum to communicate with me over the long distance you are communicating over?

Science that is not empirical and objective is not science. If you build a house with it the rain will fall and the floods will come and the winds will blow and beat on your house and it will indeed fall because you had founded it on sand! Even faith that is not verified is useless, and those who have such faith tremble like demons.

Nothingserious:
We have a body of scientific experts who influence decisions on what is considered a law and a theory. And they have overbearing influences in the scientific community.

This is not true. The competition in the science community is far too fierce and dispersed for this to happen. There is no overarching church of science!

Nothingserious:
I have seen scholars begging for their works to be peer reviewed. Some pay. Some use influences. Some use politics. Some donors even dictate how scientific works should come out.

You are asking me to believe this without providing anything more than hearsay, and obviously I don't believe you. If your work was credible and of any significance, scientist thieves will even steal it from you if you don't properly secure ownership, so perhaps those scholars you claim to have seen "begging and paying for their works to be peer reviewed" did bad insignificant subjective science.

Science dictated by donors is biased and subjective and will eventually be seen for the lie it is. You may want to see the cost of bad science here, and here.

budaatum:


I am saying the frauds are not science! Not one credible scientist could have possibly accepted any of them as scientific facts for long.

You are however welcome to show me scientists who did, after all, scientist me is unlikely to believe you and will require facts and evidence that I can verify gor myself.

Keyword: scientific hoaxes.

https://www.famousscientists.org/10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-were-later-debunked/


https://www.google.com/amp/s/theweek.com/articles/446787/10-most-incredible-scientific-hoaxes-all-time%3famp

budaatum:

This is not true. The competition in the science community is far too fierce and dispersed for this to happen. There is no overarching church of science!


You are asking me to believe this without providing anything more than hearsay, and obviously I don't believe you. If your work was credible and of any significance, scientist thieves will even steal it from you if you don't properly secure ownership, so perhaps those scholars you claim to have seen "begging and paying for their works to be peer reviewed" did bad insignificant subjective science.

Science dictated by donors is biased and subjective and will eventually be seen for the lie it is. You may want to see the cost of bad science here, and here.

One popular move is to insist that science is right—full stop—and that once we discover the truth about the world, we are done. Anyone who denies such truths (they suggest) is stupid, ignorant or fatuous. Or, as Nobel Prize–winning physicist Steven Weinberg said, “Even though a scientific theory is in a sense a social consensus, it is unlike any other sort of consensus in that it is culture-free and permanent.” Well, no. Even a modest familiarity with the history of science offers many examples of matters that scientists thought they had resolved, only to discover that they needed to be reconsidered. Some familiar examples are Earth as the center of the universe, the absolute nature of time and space, the stability of continents, and the cause of infectious disease.
Science is a process of learning and discovery, and sometimes we learn that what we thought was right is wrong. Science can also be understood as an institution (or better, a set of institutions) that facilitates this work. To say that science is “true” or “permanent” is like saying that “marriage is permanent.” At best, it's a bit off-key. Marriage today is very different from what it was in the 16th or 18th century, and so are most of our “laws” of nature.


Some conclusions are so well established we may feel confident we won't be revisiting them. I can't think of anyone I know who thinks we will be questioning the laws of thermodynamics any time soon. But physicists at the start of the 20th century, just before the discovery of quantum mechanics and relativity, didn't think they were about to rethink their field's foundations, either.
Another popular move is to say scientific findings are true because scientists use “the scientific method.” But we can never actually agree on what that method is. Some will say it is empiricism: observation and description of the world. Others will say it is the experimental method: the use of experience and experiment to test hypotheses. (This is cast sometimes as the hypothetico-deductive method, in which the experiment must be framed as a deduction from theory, and sometimes as falsification, where the point of observation and experiment is to refute theories, not to confirm them.) Recently a prominent scientist claimed the scientific method was to avoid fooling oneself into thinking something is true that is not, and vice versa.
Each of these views has its merits, but if the claim is that any one of these is the scientific method, then they all fail. History and philosophy have shown that the idea of a singular scientific method is, well, unscientific. In point of fact, the methods of science have varied between disciplines and across time. Many scientific practices, particularly statistical tests of significance, have been developed with the idea of avoiding wishful thinking and self-deception, but that hardly constitutes “the scientific method.” Scientists have bitterly argued about which methods are the best, and, as we all know, bitter arguments rarely get resolved.
In my view, the biggest mistake scientists make is to claim that this is all somehow simple and therefore to imply that anyone who doesn't get it is a dunce. Science is not simple, and neither is the natural world; therein lies the challenge of science communication. What we do is both hard and, often, hard to explain. Our efforts to understand and characterize the natural world are just that: efforts. Because we're human, we often fall flat. The good news is that when that happens, we pick ourselves up, brush ourselves off, and get back to work. That's no different from professional skiers who wipe out in major races or inventors whose early aspirations go bust. Understanding the beautiful, complex world we live in, and using that knowledge to do useful things, is both its own reward and why taxpayers should be happy to fund research.
Scientific theories are not perfect replicas of reality, but we have good reason to believe that they capture significant elements of it. And experience reminds us that when we ignore reality, it sooner or later comes back to bite us.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-you-say-science-is-right-youre-wrong/#

budaatum:


Science and scientists are not one and the same thing, and using bad scientists to judge science is just plain lazy. Its the equivalent of using bad pastors to judge the Bible.

As some bad pastors have made the Bible a bad book and created opposers, so have some bad scientists given science a bad rap. I mean, see you disregarding all the achievements of science to concentrate on a few hoaxes while using the same scientific achievements to communicate it!

Have you not got electricity in your home, Nothing, and are you beating a drum to communicate with me over the long distance you are communicating over?

Science that is not empirical and objective is not science. If you build a house with it the rain will fall and the floods will come and the winds will blow and beat on your house and it will indeed fall because you had founded it on sand! Even faith that is not verified is useless, and those who have such faith tremble like demons.

Has science ever said anything ?
Has science ever spoken on God, religion, morality, miracles?
All the time secular scientists makes claims how science had disproved God?

Theists scientists also speak and say how science support the Bible.

Who are these scientists speaking?

Aren’t they same scientists that write the texts we read as science and form our opinions and further studies?

Is evolution not in our science texts? Wasn’t it an idea of human scientist?

Scientists will always speak as if science had said anything. It is same scientists who will come back years later to falsify what was originally empirical and objective.

Should empirical and strictly objective science change over time? Like the arguments in Quantum Physics and the nature of matter and energy.


From what I see here, science has been very helpful to humans but moral and religious issues seem to be more eternal and hardly change overtime.

budaatum:


I am saying the frauds are not science! Not one credible scientist could have possibly accepted any of them as scientific facts for long.

You are however welcome to show me scientists who did, after all, scientist me is unlikely to believe you and will require facts and evidence that I can verify gor myself.

But the title and the article is on frauds in science.

What should that article be on? Fraud in sports? In religion? In politics? In science.
Why are you debating this?

So give us an alternative theme for the article.

Nothingserious:


But the title and the article is on frauds in science.

That does not mean science is all fraud, Nothing. Its like say an article were titled fraud in church or religion. You would not be here claiming church or religion is fraud, I hope.

Nothingserious:

Scientists will always speak as if science had said anything.

I think you are the one who hears this because you are incapable of separating your subjective hearing from that which is objective. Its common with religious people to think scientist use words like religious folks do. They don't realise that their religious subjective lens blinds them to scientific objectivity.

Personally, even reading the Bible should be done objectively. It is what Christ meant where he is written to have said, "unless you become as a child". Basically, if you do not abandon your subjective beliefs you can't understand that which is of God's Kingdom, and would end up a mere believer instead of one who understands the God book they read.

You'd see me refering to ignorant Adam who believed he would surely die on the day he ate of the fruit he was forbidden to eat. And despite the fact that he lived an extra 800 or so years after eating it, many still believe he did surely die on the day that he ate it.

I personally can not help be amused that so many refuse to accept what they can clearly see and read for themselves. Unfortunately, such ignorance is precisely why the average life expectancy in nations full of such people is much shorter than in countries full of people who use their own senses to ask and knock and seek.

Nothingserious:
One popular move is to insist that science is right—full stop—and that once we discover the truth about the world, we are done.

And yet, scientist keep discovering new things that build and sometimes supersede what they previously did know.

Perhaps go read about Aelius Galenus. A lot of what he thought to be true has since been superseded and proven to be wrong, but his contributions to medicine are still recognised though not believed.

Nothingserious:


Keyword: scientific hoaxes.

https://www.famousscientists.org/10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-were-later-debunked/

The most genuine merit of science is probably its readiness to admit its mistakes (usually!). The theories in science are always being reconsidered and scrutinized. Modern research often rejects old ideas, hoaxes and myths.

Do I seriously need to read any further than the first paragraph when it is only repeating what I've repeatedly said here already?

Go read a Gospel. You'd find Jesus was repeatedly arguing with believers who were unwilling to reconsider and scrutinize their beliefs and rejects old ideas, hoaxes and myths. He so threatened them with his superior knowledge gained from his own willingness to reconsider and scrutinize (become as a child and ask and knock and seek), that they spat on him and nailed him to two by fours and stabbed him in the side till he died.

Nothingserious:


Lol!

Keep playing games.
I already suggested you read just read the flow of ideas before now. You will be able to understand what we are discussing.

Your guys claim science is strictly empirical as against religion and philosophy that has elements of subjectivity.

I have dropped so many facts indicating human elements, philosophy, worldview and some elements of subjectivity are involved in sciences.

I also pointed out that even scientific laws have not been scientifically proven but are assumed to be valid. That’s not empirical but we know them to be true.

Is this okay with you now?

Nothing is okay since you think I'm playing games...


I want to understand you but you're turning my statements upside down...

budaatum:




Do I seriously need to read any further than the first paragraph when it is only repeating what I've repeatedly said here already?

Go read a Gospel. You'd find Jesus was repeatedly arguing with believers who were unwilling to reconsider and scrutinize their beliefs and rejects old ideas, hoaxes and myths. He so threatened them with his superior knowledge gained from his own willingness to reconsider and scrutinize (become as a child and ask and knock and seek), that they spat on him and nailed him to two by fours and stabbed him in the side till he died.

You don’t have to go further than that.
I have stressed it over and again that what we call strict empirical data has elements of human interventions, whims, errors, prejudices, philosophical worldview that affect how scientists carry out their observations.

That is why errors are easily spotted even within a few years and falsified.

I have never said scientific theories were cast on stone. I had always maintained science had done very well in helping us TRY to understand a little about the universe.

If science were strictly empirical and objective, there would be no need to falsify every now and then. Murder is murder always. Rape is rape always. Kidnapping is kidnapping always. Genocide is genocide always. Terrorism is terrorism always. But we have been taught so many things about the nature of the atom and electrons with debates still raging.
Matter and energy debates have raged on: discrete packets, quanta, continuous waves, dual nature etc.
If everyone were strictly seeing same thing and if the matter had not changed, why should most people see different things?

Perhaps because the observations were really not objective, or the equipments used are different. If the equipment are different, then it implies with different equipment tomorrow, we would see a different picture while the matter perhaps had not changed.

Crystyano:



Nothing is okay since you think I'm playing games...


I want to understand you but you're turning my statements upside down...

I have said so many things.
I have replied you with additional facts.
You have seen the conversation going on within the thread.
I guess you already understand the discourse.
I don’t really know what you want me to type again here.

Please pardon me if you think I misunderstand you. No vex abeg