On 10/01/2021 18:12, Jim H wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:54:52 GMT, in
> , alister
>  wrote:
>
>> --
>> A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
>> making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually
>> die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
>>   -- Max Planck
>
>
> This was more the case in the 60s when science played a significant
> role in education at the HS level due to our push to catch up withthe
> Russians in space. But for many years now science has been given short
> shrift and whacky ideas have gained a strong foothold. And it's not
> "politically correct" to tell the whackos they're dumber than a bag of
> hammers and crazier than a ferret on crack... which they are despite
> the attempt to use "political correctness" to shield them.
>
And of course there is no such thing as a 'scientific truth'.

Einstein blew that to bits when he replaced Newton's invisible forces
with bent space instead, because it worked *better* . That was really
the end of classical science.

Physicists started to realise that physics wasn't about uncovering
truths so much as simply creating models that worked. Karl Popper
elucidated the whole position of science rather well in that respect.
And once you move science out of the realm of 'truth discovery' and into
the realm of 'model invention', you run into the Problem of Induction.

Unfortunately today most scientists are still stuck in a post
enlightenment mind set, and think science 'reveals truths', and when
confronted by Art Students who correctly state 'but you cant be sure'
instead of playing to sciences strengths - namely that it *works* -
they get all stupid and start wittering on about 'scientifically proven
truths', which proves they know as little *about* science as Max Planck.
And that you can be a scientist without ever understanding what it is in
fact you are doing.

And this is why science is in a state., because people *believe* in it
without *understanding it* which is why people with letters after their
names can spout appalling non scientific rubbish, and be believed
because they are *'scientists'*. We are taught, or we learn to think, in
one dimensional boolean logic: 'Newton was right, gravity exists, it's a
scientific fact, in the real world'

Except as Einstein showed, it wasn't, In fact *every one* of those
statements is ultimately false.

And that's the problem with externalising what are ultimately inductive
propositions.

It's very hard to move backwards from 'gravity is a fact in the world'
to 'gravity is an approximate model, in your mind, that kinda works well
enough to get you to the moon, but it may not be any more real than that'

And when the Art Student gets hold of sociology, the whole thing becomes
farcical.  They stick an -ism on the back of anything and call it 'real
objective fact'.

Dude, it's all in your fucking *minds* - socialism, communism, fascism,
sexism, racism, feminism....these aren't *real* -  they are very
approximate and very ill defined labels for patterns that may or may not
have any meaning whatsoever. And whose chief *use* seems to be to stir
up social conflict...

...


--
"Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and
higher education positively fortifies it."

    - Stephen Vizinczey

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05