HumaShah
Sheril KirshenbaumScience isn’t “truth.” It isn’t simply a series of facts.
Science is an iterative process. We continue to test hypotheses & refine ideas.
Science is always changing as we learn more.
Billy SmithWe are always dancing with new ideas. :D
The Air WhispererI'm looking forward to
('campaigning for', really...)
Aerodynamics becoming a Scientific discipline.
At the current rate of traffic through my material, that could take some time...
Kevin in AlaskaI always liked Helen Longino’s argument that “science is social knowledge.” It’s a process of knowledge building that reflects the collective efforts of a community.
Science is always changing as we learn more *and* as we include more people in the community of scientists.
Barry Goldman@feelnotes @Sheril @lisamelton "always changing" but not changing THAT MUCH. i.e. it doesn't keep flipping back and forth.
it changes by, largely, expanding to more phenomena, and making DEEPER AND DEEPER connections between various observations, subfields and theories.
it's not chaos!
not about TRUTH but the goal is something like ~80% 95% etc.. agreement!
@barrygoldman1 @Sheril @lisamelton
Not sure what you mean by “flipping back and forth”…?
iwein@feelnotes @barrygoldman1 @Sheril @lisamelton flipping as in: "ooops we got astrophysics wrong"
There's charlatans pretending to be scientists. #flatearth #climatedenial
@feelnotes @Sheril @lisamelton i'll have to think about the difference between:
einstein ammends newtonian gravity
vs
oxidation totally flips idea of phologiston inside out.
i think most theories get amended, enhanced rather than totally debunked as wrong.
politics, fashion... art...theology philosophy flip back and forth and all over.
Violet@Sheril
What bugs me is the phrase "just a theory."
Thousands of results all pointing to a consistent conclusion doesn't merit "just" as a qualifier, and an opinion based on one person's mental gymnastics doesn't merit "theory" as a label.
Patrick Johanneson 🚀 🇨🇦@Sheril TRUTH is for the insecure, for children who rely on their parents.
science is for adults for whom 'good enough' IS good enough and we can move onward with life.
science does have a goal of reaching something like ~80% 90% agreement which IS remarkable and it is good enough.
the fact that the disparate observations theories and subfields grow more and more interconnected is remarkable.
hell... God of bible is HARDLY perfect either!
Truth is a fairy tale
Dźwiedziu@Sheril lim ( science(x) ) → truth
✨buff dog himbo✨@Sheril and that's why we also need arts and humanities
Sean Kleefeld@Sheril As Indiana Jones put it in The Last Crusade, "If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."
C.L. Who@Sheril The more we learn the more we know how little we know. The more we know how little we actually know, the more we know how much we need to learn.
PirateRo@Sheril a successive approximation of the truth - Sagan
One World One People@Sheril TWW: What you may know of and what you may learn are not the same. *What I try to show to young people is that ‘Science is opinion based on research.’ The better conceived and done your research is the more valued your opinion will be. It’s hard and often unrewarding work. Go out in the world and do science. OWOP
Internet Rando@Sheril yes!
I'm constantly saying this to other randos..
Religion *requires* faith. Belief is the armor of the faithful, where tradition does not stand up to scrutiny.
Science *requires* skepticism. Doubt and the persistent persuit of corroboration are the backbone of scientific endeavor.
Katy Swain@Sheril Also science isn't the only valid form of reason. We use many different approaches to make sense of the world, most of them to some degree intuitive, based on cognitive faculties whose workings are largely mysterious and wildly incommensurable with science.
Nobody uses science to guide 100% of their daily lives. You couldn't possibly get the funding, for a start.
BashStKid@Sheril Without coming over all Popperian, I like to say it’s mostly explanations, which gets away from ‘what do you mean by theory’
But interestingly, it is perhaps the first social, collaborative, participatory search for understanding. Even at the most reductive, it’s not science until someone else has checked your stuff, not to mention that nobody (not even Dirac) made all their advances in a vacuum.
But interestingly, it is perhaps the first social, collaborative, participatory search for understanding. Even at the most reductive, it’s not science until someone else has checked your stuff, not to mention that nobody (not even Dirac) made all their advances in a vacuum.
@Sheril Indeed. Astronomy is a classic case. The better the telescopes the more data is observed.
human curation@Sheril science is science, but funding shapes how it's interpreted.