Chris Peterson wrote:Sputnick wrote:Kant's Philosophysing, Chris, was not testable until the big telescopes of the 1900s. I already posted that. You're very frustrating at times.
You're ignoring the earlier lessons about the nature of science. Testability of a theory doesn't require that it be immediately testable. It means that a viable, possible, and reasonable test can be suggested. The theory that nebulas were very distant compared with stars is trivially testable by measuring the actual distance to each. The fact that it took nearly 200 years to develop the necessary technology isn't important, it just means that there were several theories that couldn't be pruned until then. But they were perfectly valid scientific theories.
And
I'm the one who's been accused of making up rules as I go along? "Doesn't require that it be immediately testable" indeed.
The consensus was that the Milky Way WAS the universe.
=Chris Yes, that's what I said.
Perhaps I missed that and only read where you were trying to persuade me that the nebulae were thought to exist outside of the Milky Way in Kant's day.
Nebulae, Chris, not galaxies .. until Hubble saw Andromeda close up so to speak the foggy patches whether spiral or round or square were said to be Nebulae inside the Milky Way .. No problem with wording here .. no confusion.
Yes, the term nebula was used for all these fuzzy extended objects. What I'm calling galaxies were what they called spiral nebulas. That terminology is not the point of confusion, however.[/quote]
The terminology becomes a point of confusion when it's not used properly as you so often do. THE point of confusion here came when because of your opposition to philsolphy and immagination in science you tried to convince me using subtle nuances of language that Kant's philosophical musing were based on scientists of his day having concluded through telescope observations that spiral galaxies lay outside the Milky Way. Or perhaps you just need to use language a little more carefully, as I've said before, not subtly representing consensus for fact .. Big Bang as an example.
=Chris Keep in mind that the intellectual environment in Kant's time was very different from today. There was often less distinction between science and philosophy- scientists were sometimes called natural philosophers. Thinkers were still putting together the modern framework of scientific investigation. Kant wasn't arguing against a consensus as such; he was putting forth a hypothesis based on observation, and he was not taking a dogmatic position. That is, he was offering this as a possibility, not a fact.
But if I do that here I'm told I should provide all kinds of evidence .. write a paper .. etc .. but it seems to me only because I'm on 'the other side' of the Big Bang debate .. not part of the consensus.
You are criticized for offering possibilities without offering methods of testing or disproving them, and without offering reasons why they are better than current theory. That is the accepted way of doing things these days (and for about the last 100 years). When you fail to do so, you are being non-scientific, and that's a problem since this is a science forum.
And that is exactly why I opened the topic "what is science" - because I speak and write with the english language, and english dictionary terms do not agree with your definition of science, so I am more than justified to assume you set up these rules of what science is as you go along ..that setting up of rules which
I've been accused of doing, without anyone telling me how when I ask them why. I don't care a hoot about being accused of setting up rules .. but I have to tell it plainly as I see it.
What you don't seem to understand is that scientists, in general, are more open to new ideas than just about anybody else. Certainly more so than philosophers in general. These days, scientists are quick to adopt new theories and ideas. All it takes is a demonstration that the new idea is superior.
I know very well from my reading that scientists who are published seem to be open minded, and careful in language so as not to confuse readers by representing ideas as facts. That is generally not the case on this forum, though .. and when you say 'scientists are quick to adopt new theories and ideas .. all it takes is a demonstration that the new idea is superior' you are ignoring what I see as is obvious in that published scientists are open to new ideas before they are found superior .. that almost all ideas are worthy of consideration.
Philosophers and scientists (remember Einstien and instinct) work from what they can't observe as well - you can't observe dark matter.
=Chris You are flat wrong about that. We do observe dark matter, quite easily.
I think I begin to see another source of the problem between you and I. We both become tired while on this forum .. and we fail to communicate properly: you for instance should have said "We do observe the effects of Dark Matter quite easily" .. but even that would not be accurate as DM is a theory .. Page 75 of 'Origins' by Tyson published 2004 - "Either Dark Matter particles must wait for us to discover ... ... or Dark Matter might not consist of matter at all." You, Chris, believe Dar, Matter does exist, and you can't be scientific enough to admit they might not exist. Maybe we both need more rest.
Scientists may use intuition to begin the process of developing a theory, but it rapidly evolves to something that is testable. There is no such thing as a philosophical reasoning technique, rather there are many. Philosophical viewpoints frequently do not require testing, and may be developed by reason alone (and their degree of "truth" is a matter of subjective opinion, quite unlike science).
Yeah, right .. like Big Bang acquiring a 'consesus' so strong that it is repeatedly written up as fact despite seemingly insurmountable problems of proof. Where is the degree of truth in that?
