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:


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:


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

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?

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.

LordReed:


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

Idiot I thought you wanted to read the full text?

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:


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".

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

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

LordReed:


Facts that don't support your assertion that all scientists say there is no proof of scientific law. Even the article you quoted stated that Einstein's General Relativity had been proved by Haddington but your fuckwit brain didn't see that. What a dunce.

Meanwhile, you have mentioned Einstein, Bohr and other scientists several times but are yet to show a single place where any of them said anything about science not having proof of scientific laws. You are such a fuckwit.

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?

budaatum:


Sorry, Nothing, but you really don't know what you talk about.

Go through the thread and read Workch on the scientific method. It might help you understand science does not work with "untested and unverified ASSUMPTIONS" as you claim.

In fact, rigorous testing and verification needs to occur before other scientists accept anyone's scientific claims, and only after so doing are they accepted as laws with which actual physical things are built.

You wouldn't get very far building a simple phone on "untested and unverified ASSUMPTIONS", and if you built a house on "untested and unverified ASSUMPTIONS", 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!

Totally off point.

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

LordReed:


Produce where such a claim was made by me.

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

Crystyano:



I can't say yes or no until you give me examples of your strict empiricism.....

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?

LordReed:


Fucktàrd you're a loquacious fraud, your pathetic schemes won't help you.

I will continue to torment you with facts while you played around with mockery!

Why Einstein never received a Nobel prize for relativity

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

There was a lot riding on Einstein winning a Nobel prize. Beyond his academic reputation, and that of the Nobel Institute for recognising greatness, the wellbeing of his former wife and their two sons depended upon it.

In the aftermath of the first world war, defeated Germany was being consumed by hyper-inflation. The government was printing more money to pay the war reparations and, as a result, the mark went into freefall against foreign currencies. Living in Berlin, Einstein was naturally affected by the crisis.

He had divorced Mileva in 1919, several years after she had returned to Switzerland with the boys, Hans-Albert and Eduard. As part of the settlement, Einstein pledged any eventual Nobel prize money to her for their upkeep. As the hyper-inflation bit ever deeper, so he needed that cash.

By this time, Einstein had a decade's worth of Nobel nominations behind him. Yet each year, to mounting criticism, the committee decided against his work on the grounds that relativity was unproven. In 1919, that changed. Cambridge astrophysicist Arthur Eddington famously used a total eclipse to measure the deflection of stars' positions near the Sun. The size of the deflection was exactly as Einstein had predicted from relativity in 1915. The prize should have been his, but the committee snubbed him again.

Why? Because now dark forces were at work.

Antisemitism was on the rise in Germany; Jews were being scapegoated for the country's defeat in the war. As both Jew and pacifist, Einstein was an obvious target. The complexity of relativity did not help either. Opponents such as Ernst Gehrcke and Philipp Lenard found it easy to cast doubt upon its labyrinthine mathematics.

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".

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.

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 final twist in this story is that Einstein did not attend his prize giving. Despite being informed that he was about to receive the prize, he chose to continue with a lecture tour of Japan. Partly, this was because he no longer valued the prize and partly it was because he needed to disappear.

German foreign minister Walther Rathenau had been murdered by anti-Semites. In the subsequent investigation, the police had found Einstein's name on a list of targets. In the face of such a death treat, leaving Germany to spend months in the Far East, rather than a few days in Stockholm, must have seemed prudent.

In the end, perhaps the best thing that came out of Einstein's Nobel prize was the money. It went towards keeping Mileva and the boys secure, and became essential when Eduard developed schizophrenia as a young adult and needed to be hospitalised.

The 2012 Nobel Prize in Physics is awarded on Tuesday. This week's prize schedule is here. You can watch each announcement live in the viewer below.

Stuart Clark is the author of forthcoming Einstein novel, The Day Without Yesterday (Polygon)

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

Crystyano:



Where can you find strict empiricism?



I can't say whether it's true or false unless you state where YOU can find strict empiricism....


When you state where,
I will assess....


If my assessment is pointless to you,
Then we shall remain divided on a specific case......

Is science done by strict empiricism?
Or are they levels of subjectivity is deciding and outcome from various outcomes?

LordReed:


LoL look at this dunderhead. You claimed there is no scientific proof for scientific laws, you claimed that 2 scientists were award prizes for opposing views in the same year but you've been shown to be nothing but a loquacious fraud with little to no understanding of the material you looking at with your own eyes so now instead you shift the goalpost. Fuckarse. LMFAO!

I am just amazed at your tomfoolery!
You didn’t read those things right?
Na waoooo

Crystyano:



What is valid to you

What I have posted shows there are no strict empiricism in scientific decisions.
Sometimes human factors and philosophical considerations come in the way and add subjectivity to it.

True or false?

LordReed:


Dummy what has a the 1927 conference got to do with the 1921 and 1922 Nobel prizes for physics?

This foolish boy is misbehaving online.
Did you really understand what we have been discussing?
Strict empiricism in scientific data and influence of subjective decisions from possible outcomes.
It’s all written all over my posts but I don’t expect a narcissist kid like you to follow and grasp.

Keep clutching at straws and strawmanning yourself.

It pained you so much that I challenged you to show a single scientific law with scientific proof.
You have wasted many days dancing around 5 scientists even after I said ALL scientists know.

I had thought you would have dropped various links here showing I was wrong. I had also thought you would have shared statements made by your own scientists on it. Why is it so hard for you? I tell you that the book in your hand isn’t a book. Instead of you showing me it’s a book, you are asking me to bring 5 people who also said it’s not a book. Why won’t you show me why it’s a book? Or call your witnesses to help you think I may be crazy?

You are a disillusioned proud fool.

LordReed:


Let this sink into that delusion factory of yours maybe you'll better understand what is going on. Budaatum, truly the letter killeth, he quoted and still could not grasp the implications of what he was quoting.

These things are beyond you. You read your things upside down.
Please let reasonable humans look at the objectivity of scientific methods and the influence of personal preferences and philosophy in choice from possible outcomes.

A fool like you shouldn’t be disgracing himself online always. Again I am not responsible for your scholarship.

LordReed:


Bwahahahahaha! OMFD! Do you even read anything beyond whatever confirms your delusions? Einstein was awarded the prize in 1921 while Bohr was awarded the prize in 1922 so where did you get this dumb idea they were awarded the same prize in the same year for opposing views?


When you give me 5 scientists saying what you say they said, I will produce evidence for 5 scientific laws. We can see the alacrity with which you answered this particular question because you obviously gleaned it from a poorly written website but you can't find anything to back up your other dumbass take. LMFAO!

Characteristics of the nature of science

“Science education has defined tenets (characteristics) of the nature of science that are understandable by students and important for all citizens to know. William McComas and Joanne Olson analysed recent science education curriculum documents worldwide and identified 14 statements about the nature of science that are common to most curricula:

Science is an attempt to explain natural phenomena.
People from all cultures contribute to science.
Scientific knowledge, while durable, has a tentative character.
Scientific knowledge relies heavily, but not entirely, on observation, experimental evidence, rational arguments and scepticism.
There is no one way to do science – therefore, there is no universal step-by-step scientific method
New knowledge must be reported clearly and openly.
Scientists require accurate record-keeping, peer review and reproducibility.
Observations are theory laden.
Scientists are creative.
Over the centuries, science builds in both an evolutionary and a revolutionary way.
Science is part of social and cultural traditions.
Science and technology impact each other.
Scientific ideas are affected by the social and historical setting.
Laws and theories serve different roles in science – therefore, students should note that theories do not become laws even with additional evidence.
Simpler still

Some researchers have refined this list to the following five tenets:

Scientific knowledge is tentative (subject to change).
Science is empirically based (based on or derived from observation of the natural world).
Science is inferential, imaginative and creative.
Science is subjective and theory laden.
Science is socially and culturally embedded.

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/412-describing-the-nature-of-science

LordReed:


Bwahahahahaha! OMFD! Do you even read anything beyond whatever confirms your delusions? Einstein was awarded the prize in 1921 while Bohr was awarded the prize in 1922 so where did you get this dumb idea they were awarded the same prize in the same year for opposing views?


When you give me 5 scientists saying what you say they said, I will produce evidence for 5 scientific laws. We can see the alacrity with which you answered this particular question because you obviously gleaned it from a poorly written website but you can't find anything to back up your other dumbass take. LMFAO!

“Bohr disliked it because it made the choice of mathematical solution ARBITRARY. Bohr did not like a scientist having to CHOOSE BETWEEN EQUATIONS . This was perhaps the first real Bohr-Einstein debate. ... However, Einstein was right and Bohr proved to be wrong about light quanta.”

This is no hard-science. These are philosophical personal decisions on WHAT TO CHOOSE OUT OF POSSIBLE OUTCOMES.

LordReed:


Bwahahahahaha! OMFD! Do you even read anything beyond whatever confirms your delusions? Einstein was awarded the prize in 1921 while Bohr was awarded the prize in 1922 so where did you get this dumb idea they were awarded the same prize in the same year for opposing views?


When you give me 5 scientists saying what you say they said, I will produce evidence for 5 scientific laws. We can see the alacrity with which you answered this particular question because you obviously gleaned it from a poorly written website but you can't find anything to back up your other dumbass take. LMFAO!

“Does this mean classical mechanics is wrong? Certainly not; it means that classical mechanics is valid only within certain limits, and those limits happen to encompass everything we experience in our daily lives”

“These and other problems led to the defining development of twentieth-century physics: quantum mechanics. The great problem prior to quantum mechanics was that matter and light had been treated as fundamentally different phenomena: matter was interpreted as classical particles, while light was treated as waves. In quantum mechanics, this distinction is blurred: matter and light each exhibit characteristics of particles and waves. This concept does not exist within the limits of classical “



“Quantum mechanics emerged at the start of the twentieth century, and it was a concept that instigated a radical change in our understanding of the universe. As with any profound concept, its implications rippled from hard science into broader PHILOSOPHICAL issues.”

“The essential lesson of the Bohr-Einstein debate is that science, however rigorous and dispassionate, remains a thoroughly human process.

Some scientists are deeply religious, while others are atheists—just as might be found in any other profession or culture. Some scientists are conservative, while some are liberal. Although scientists are trained to judge evidence objectively, it is all too easy for these and other personal beliefs, or the career-long development of a given idea, to affect a neutral, objective evaluation of the da ta.

This is not to say that Einstein was religious and Bohr was not; that would be a gross oversimplification. The split between Einstein and Bohr centered on profound philosophical differences, and because they were two of the most brilliant minds of the twentieth century, they were each able to construct detailed arguments supporting their points of view. The debate was also respectful and civil; given Einstein and Bohr's respective achievements, there was no need for acrimony. Their debates about the nature of the atom and, by extension, of the underlying structure of the universe, remain one of the essential examples of rigorous testing and cross-examination of a new and controversial idea.”

https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/science-magazines/historic-dispute-his-classic-debate-albert-einstein-was-niels-bohr-correct-his-approach-interpreting

LordReed:


Bwahahahahaha! OMFD! Do you even read anything beyond whatever confirms your delusions? Einstein was awarded the prize in 1921 while Bohr was awarded the prize in 1922 so where did you get this dumb idea they were awarded the same prize in the same year for opposing views?


When you give me 5 scientists saying what you say they said, I will produce evidence for 5 scientific laws. We can see the alacrity with which you answered this particular question because you obviously gleaned it from a poorly written website but you can't find anything to back up your other dumbass take. LMFAO!

Stop acting like a kid. No point is scored for playing tomfoolery!


The 1927 conference on quantum mechanics was held to discuss how the many seemingly contradictory observations could be reconciled. Schrödinger and de Broglie showed up with their ideas. But the eight-hundred pound gorilla was Bohr. In what later came to be called the Copenhagen interpretation, Bohr proposed that wave equations described where entities like electrons could be, but, the entities didn't actually exist as particles until someone went looking for them. The act of observation caused existence. In Bohr's own words, the entities in question had no "independent reality in the ordinary physical sense."

Einstein wouldn't have any of it. An electron was an electron, and just because someone wasn't looking at it, it was still there — wherever "there" happened to be. Late in the conference, Einstein rose to challenge Bohr's views. But that was only the beginning. Until Einstein's death some three decades later, Bohr and Einstein entered into spirited debates — in print and face to face. The debates were gentlemanly. Bohr and Einstein were friends and had great respect for one another. But they were also stubborn.

"It is wrong to think the task of physics is to find out how nature is," said Bohr. Einstein disagreed. "What we call science," he said, "has the sole purpose of determining what is."

Through all its strangeness, Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation remains one of the most widely accepted worldviews of quantum mechanics.

Other common interpretations are seemingly even more bizarre. But they all point to one, simple fact. Our universe, as any physicist will tell you, is a mysterious place. It teases us with unimaginable facts then leaves us to make sense of them. Perhaps someday, we will. But until then, we'll just have to savor the great mysteries that surround us.

https://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2627.htm

LordReed:


Bwahahahahaha! OMFD! Do you even read anything beyond whatever confirms your delusions? Einstein was awarded the prize in 1921 while Bohr was awarded the prize in 1922 so where did you get this dumb idea they were awarded the same prize in the same year for opposing views?


When you give me 5 scientists saying what you say they said, I will produce evidence for 5 scientific laws. We can see the alacrity with which you answered this particular question because you obviously gleaned it from a poorly written website but you can't find anything to back up your other dumbass take. LMFAO!

Your foolishness makes you speak before thinking. I placed everything in there olodo!
Should I also be responsible for your scholarship?


“Einstein was actually awarded the 1921 prize a year late, due to a technicality.”

7. BOHR WON THE NOBEL PRIZE AT THE SAME TIME—AND IN THE SAME FIELD—AS ALBERT EINSTEIN.

Bohr and Einstein were not only contemporaries; they were good friends who partook in a series of conversations on physics over the course of decades, most notably at the 1927 Solvay Conferences now known as the Bohr–Einstein Debates. They argued two very different positions regarding the observations of electrons behaving as a particle in some experiments and a wave in others, even though an electron shouldn’t be able to be both. Bohr theorized the concept of complementarity to explain the phenomenon—that is, something can be two things at once, but we can only observe one of those things at a time. In establishing a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics, Bohr argued that the act of observation of particles brings them into existence, which is known as the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Einstein, on the other hand, argued that particles exist whether or not we actively observe them. (Imagine a very complex version of the “if a tree falls in the forest” question.) Even with their opposing theories, both were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922: Bohr for his atomic model, and Einstein for his work on the photoelectric effect (instead of his then-controversial theory of relativity). So how did the two physicists receive prizes for the same thing in the same year? Einstein was actually awarded the 1921 prize a year late, due to a technicality.

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/544594/facts-about-physicist-niels-bohr

Crystyano:



You haven't given examples of what you consider as empirical proofs

Pls follow the discussion.

I asked whether there are any scientific proofs for all our scientific laws? There are none. We work on the ASSUMPTIONS that they are valid. That’s all. That’s not empirical. If you have any contrary to what I said, present them.
You know what empirical data is when it comes to scientific observations, theories and laws.

Would you like to talk about the reasons strict empirical data change and lead to arbitrary decisions like in the case of Nuel Borh and Einstein? And then later Heinsberg and Junior Bohr. Everyone is using empirical data that should strictly provide a standard non-varying data yet all had varying opinions. Some of these opinions are yet to be agreed in on quantum physics, matter-energy-duality debates.

LordReed:


If we ask you to mention these scientists now you'll start another song and dance. LoL

Senior Borh and Einstein.

Note the word “arbitrary”. That’s not anything empirical. It comes down to philosophical decisions.

“Bohr disliked it because it made the choice of mathematical solution arbitrary. Bohr did not like a scientist having to choose between equations.”

“Even with their opposing theories, both were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922: Bohr for his atomic model, and Einstein for his work on the photoelectric effect (instead of his then-controversial theory of relativity). So how did the two physicists receive prizes for the same thing in the same year? Einstein was actually awarded the 1921 prize a year late, due to a technicality.”

Junior Borh was later awarded a Nobel for countering another concept by the Senior Bohr.

Why would empirical data change overtime?
And you want to use caring data to test eternal truths of God, the Bible and religion?

You still flopped at the scientific proofs challenge. I hope you keep that in ur subconsciousness inspire of your 5 scientists reggae music.

budaatum:

The key point is experimentation, as opposed to believing what you think might happen to the cup without testing your belief.

And yes, that is how science is done. You test your assumed beliefs so that you may actually know.


If you lump "philosophical and religious experiences" with scientific experimentation, serious people will not take you seriously at all.

In fact, religious experiences are not subject to scientific scrutiny, and if they were, belief is not the word you'd use to describe them. You would for instance never say, you believe your mother is your mother unless you are ignorant of whom your mother is. I am assuming you know who your mother is, of course. And after years of paying tithes so some pastor can fuel a plane, you are bound to recognise if it improves your own existence in earth or not. Unless you refuse to consider the evidence, of course.



That's the beauty of science, and why I so love my Bible. At its time, it was all that was known, and just as the scientists above were recognised for moving knowledge further than it hitherto was, so too would I have awarded the Nobel to the Bible. That does not mean one should believe it, but recognise it is the shoulder of giants on which others have stood to see much further.


If they had believed, they would not have continued searching, just as religious believers think they know so stop asking and knocking and seeking. If they did continue seeking they'd be the salt of the earth instead of ignorant believers.


Ask and knock and seek with all your heart and mind and being is not something that should stop. If it did, we'd be here banging drums to communicate with one another over the vast distance between us, and might forever remain naked and ignorant and in darkness like we are in Nigeria.

When we stop believing that which those who brought it to us have stopped believing, and instead ask and knock and seek till we understand, we will say, "Let their be Light", and Nigeria will enlighten the entire world.

In Jesus Mighty Name, Amen.

You contradicted yourself all through those write up.

You said no one will take me seriously for lumping religious and philosophical experiences with sciences. Why would I take anyone seriously for viewing religious/supernatural and philosophical experiences from the lens of natural scientific/empirical data? That leads to bad science and bad religion.


Why would scientists within same year award nobels to 2 scientists whose works are at variance with one another and whose work led to heated debates on who was right? Aren’t we looking at empirical data again? Should we find gray areas in empiricism? If there are gray areas, it implies science is hinged on philosophical decisions on ultimate decision.
Old Borh got a Nobel for saying matter existed in one form. Young Borh got another Nobel for countering the father. If the data used in all of this is strictly empirical, why would the data change after a while?

We have known trees for years. Any day any time they will always be trees. Why should we think they are no longer trees after say 100 years? So science is influenced by philosophical worldviews that make scientists BELIEVE in certain scientific results and CHANGE their beliefs after some time.

Again, observations on a falling cup are just as observations on the effect of my study of the Bible on my spiritual growth.
The cup falls and I see it. I grow in the knowledge of our Lord and Jesus Christ and I see it. Is that the empirical science ? That’s an observation that can be made in religion or philosophy.

And you didn’t really show me any scientific proof for scientific laws.

MRDEE01:
Let them give me Captain in the army lemme join this fight.
This news is becoming too much

Captain? Just like that?
You are funny. You will jump the other ranks abi?

LordReed:


The guy never answers anything only to start singing and dancing about. LMAO!

Do you know why I pick you and Kingxsamz ?
You guys are the weakest links of atheists I have seen on this forum. Two of you are just like jokers. So I catch cruise with the 2 of you cause nothing objective or logical comes from your responses.

kingxsamz:


How is it possible for someone to live that long?
That's the question. Maybe the way I put it is confusing you. How can a man live for more than 400 years? Answer. Don't chicken out. We're using logic here.

So we are done with Noah’s communication ant animal science skills?
I see you had no further objections.

As for the age of Noah, I had thought you said you read the Bible. If you looked at the Bible you are arguing from, you would see how many years people lived then.

Or were you around then but could not live up to 100?

LordReed:


Here's a challenge for you and your nonexistent magic sky daddy. When you post 5 scientists saying there is no proof for scientific laws, I will post evidence for 5 scientific laws. Let's if you and you magic sky daddy are up to the challenge. LMAO!

Sky daddy is not the name of God Yahweh.

You really don’t have any scientific proof for scientific laws.

I used to think you were really sensible but I was wrong. You are just another wannabe atheist