What if God is weak?

[surreptitious57]

Do you think the scientific method should test ones own epistemology to absolute destruction ?

Yes absolutely it should but this is what it does anyway and so the question is rather academic
It is quite simply the most brutal methodology ever devised for investigating so called reality
It has only one weakness which is the scientists that do it it but the method itself is flawless

[TimeSeeker]

Yes absolutely it should but this is what it does anyway and so the question is rather academic
It is quite simply the most brutal methodology ever devised for investigating so called reality
It has only one weakness which is the scientists that do it it but the method itself is flawless

Then if any particular scientist masters the method and applies the method properly and consistently they don't have to worry about confirmation bias?

Falsification is the cure. If you go out of your way to prove yourself wrong then inter-subjectivity is not required?

[surreptitious57]

What if there is a mechanism for eliminating confirmation bias that does not require inter subjectivity ?

Were that mechanism as rigorous as inter subjectivity then it could and should be incorporated into the scientific method
But rather than eliminate the need for inter subjectivity it should be retained to make confirmation bias even less likely

[TimeSeeker]

Were that mechanism as rigorous as inter subjectivity then it could and should be incorporated into the scientific method

It is. Falsification.

But rather than eliminate the need for inter subjectivity it should be retained to make confirmation bias even less likely

That is a question of design. No longer a question of acquiring facts.

[surreptitious57]

If you go out of your way to prove yourself wrong then inter subjectivity is not required ?

You cannot rely on individual scientists to prove themselves wrong you have to be completely brutal with them
This involves testing everything to absolute destruction regardless of anything else because it is all that matters

Science is only concerned with just one thing and that is the study of observable phenomena
All other considerations including those of scientists themselves is of precisely no importance

It is very important that one does not confuse science / the scientific method with scientists as they are not the same

[TimeSeeker]

You cannot rely on individual scientists to prove themselves wrong.
This involves testing everything to absolute destruction regardless of anything else because it is all that matters

OK. That is demonstrably false. If YOU can't falsify my hypothesis and the next 500 scientists fail to falsify my hypothesis then... the first guy was right as he could be given current knowledge.

Science is only concerned with just one thing and that is the study of observable phenomena
All other considerations including those of scientists themselves is of precisely no importance

That's a contradiction AND a lie. Scientists are human. Human behavior is an observable phenomenon. My own behavior is an observable phenomenon. Therefore it is of interest to ME. And I am a scientist.

It is very important that one does not confuse science / the scientific method with scientists as they are not the same

It is also very important that one does not differentiate scientists from science. One doesn't WORK without the other

[surreptitious57]

Were that mechanism as rigorous as inter subjectivity then it should be incorporated into the scientific method

Falsification

Already a part of the scientific method so nothing new there

Although not all hypotheses are falsified and the ones that are not are supported by evidence
which no matter how extensive or rigorous can never be absolute because science is inductive

[TimeSeeker]

Already a part of the scientific method so nothing new there

You miss the point then.

The best person to falsify a hypothesis is the person who contrived it.
Because that person knows where their own gaps in knowledge are. They KNOW what ASSUMPTIONS they have made, and where their foundations are weak.

And so they can falsify their own hypothesis much easier than you can falsify their own hypothesis.

Because they KNOW what evidence THEY need to prove THEMSELVES wrong. And IF such evidence exists - they already know how and where to find it...

[surreptitious57]

If YOU cant falsify my hypothesis and the next 500 scientists fail to falsify my hypothesis

Even if every scientist alive failed to falsify your hypothesis that would not make it absolutely true only potentially true because
you could never be totally certain there was no evidence that existed that would falsify it that had simply never been discovered

[TimeSeeker]

Even if every scientist alive failed to falsify your hypothesis that would not make it absolutely true only potentially true because
you could never be totally certain there was no evidence that existed that would falsify it that had simply never been discovered

OK. The above is a truism. Future discoveries will always contradict past findings.

So is it fair to say then that 'facts' can never be absolutely true e.g facts are probabilistic ? Facts are approximations of the truth?

Therefore human KNOWLEDGE of the FACTS is not and never will be absolute?

[surreptitious57]

Science is only concerned with just one thing and that is the study of observable phenomena
All other considerations including those of scientists themselves is of precisely no importance

Thats a contradiction AND a lie. Scientists are human. Human behavior is an observable phenomenon
My own behavior is an observable phenomenon. Therefore it is of interest to ME. And I am a scientist

You are not observing yourself when doing science but a phenomena that is entirely independent from you
Your behaviour outside of the rigorous application of the scientific method is therefore of zero importance

[surreptitious57]

So is it fair to say then that facts can never be absolutely true facts are probabilistic ? Facts are approximations of the truth ?

Therefore human KNOWLEDGE of the FACTS is not and never will be absolute ?

Knowledge can never be absolute as science is inductive and there is only a finite time limit for human existence
We work with the limited knowledge we have to try and understand the Universe as this is all we can actually do
But some facts are known to be absolutely true : one and one is two / everything alive dies / the Universe exists

[TimeSeeker]

You are not observing yourself when doing science but a phenomena that is entirely independent from you
Your behaviour outside of the rigorous application of the scientific method is therefore of zero importance

You are not observing yourself when doing science but a phenomena that is entirely independent from you
Your behaviour outside of the rigorous application of the scientific method is therefore of zero importance

This is a caricature of science. A very narrow perspective - observation is not passive. It is an active, decision-making process.
I observe AND process the INFORMATION that my senses perceive.

Before the actual observation I need to design the experiment. Consider what is in and out of scope. I need to introspect and decide what observations are expected (prediction). Anything that doesn't fall in that category is an exception! And I must account for it.
DURING the observation I must observe my own emotional state, make sure that I am not anxious, agitated, frustrated. To ensure that my own brain is at its peak performance. I must ensure and VERIFY that all the variables I INTEND to control are indeed under my control! This requires self-check.

I must be able to RECOGNIZE predictions and RECOGNIZE exceptions (hits and misses). I must also recognize exceptions OF exceptions. Things I didn't even expet to unexpect!

Science requires incredible degrees of introspection and so the way my own mind works and applies the various methods/tools of science IS of the greatest importance to a scientist.

To exclude the scientist from the phenomenon/interaction that is science is a grave mistake!

[TimeSeeker]

Knowledge can never be absolute as science is inductive and there is only a finite time limit for human existence
We work with the limited knowledge we have to try and understand the Universe as this is all we can actually do
But some facts are known to be absolutely true : one and one is two / everything alive dies / the Universe exists

How do you get to absolute certainty with imperfect knowledge?

As I demonstrated falsification has disproportionate weight in science.

And so what is sufficient to disprove your claim is to provide a counter example.

1+1=2. Why not 1+1= 10?

Everything alive dies?
The universe exists?

Neither of the above meet the criteria for reproducibility. They are unscientific claims!

They do (hypothetically) meet the falsifiability criterion.

An undying alive thing would be sufficient to falsify your claim.
A non-existing universe would falsify your claim.

Since they are both YOUR claims then you MUST know where you would find the evidence to falsify your own claims?

So where would YOU look for a "undying alive thing"?
Where would YOU look for a "non-existing Universe"?

[surreptitious57]

Before the actual observation I need to design the experiment. Consider what is in and out of scope. I need to introspect and decide
what observations are expected ( predictions ) Anything that doesnt fall in that category is an exception ! And I must account for it
DURING the observation I must observe my own emotional state make sure that I am not anxious agitated frustrated. To ensure that my
own brain is at its peak performance. I must ensure and VERIFY that all the variables I INTEND to control are indeed under my control !
This requires self check

I must be able to RECOGNIZE predictions and RECOGNIZE exceptions ( hits and misses )
I must also recognize exceptions OF exceptions. Things I didnt even expect to unexpect !

Science requires incredible degrees of introspection and so the way my own mind works and
applies the various methods / tools of science IS of the greatest importance to a scientist

To exclude the scientist from the phenomenon / interaction that is science is a grave mistake !

All this is perfectly acceptable and is actually how every scientist should think and act when it comes to testing any hypothesis