- May 18, 2015
Has it occurred to you that scientists might be trying to eliminate philosophy and do proper emperical demonstrable scienctific study and eliminate bias?My point is there are even scientists that say philosophy is not needed anymore..... using philosophical arguments in the process but too blind to see what they are doing...... hawking was one such idiot I think.
They also in general casually fall back on philosophy while maintaining they are only using science.
You're a funny guy.hawking was one such idiot I think.
Wrong. Have you heard of the scientific method?At this point I only call the empirically proven fields science because "science" can be a very nebulous term. Anything methodical can be called science.
For a theory to qualify as scientific,[n 17][n 18] it is expected to be:
- Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations; see Occam's razor)
- Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used in a predictive manner)
- Empirically testable and falsifiable (potentially confirmable or disprovable by experiment or observation)
- Based on multiple observations (often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments)
- Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
- Progressive (refines previous theories)
- Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)
Also @saturnz if you want the definition of pure science, you'll find it above.
..WhoooshI'm sure they can find a movie where a fictional character will confirm their position in a mic drop sort of way, because science.
See above about the scientific method.Citation logic.... the same thing that legitimizes junk sciences like gender studies. Get enough people to agree with each other in a circle jerk publication and POOF..... it's science.