swansont

When it comes to philosophy? I’d want the take of the philosophy crowd.

I would expect a lot of trial and error was involved, and some happy accidents along the way. I think the SM was developed over time and refined along the way. I don't think there would a be a sharp demarcation between non-science and science while that was happening.

I don't know. I didn't quote you.

I would argue that writing a textbook is. And is learning science the same as doing science? to wit Before they can do science they must learn science.

No, but perhaps not for the same reason that you are thinking

No, that's not where the period went. I also said "physics itself admits that it's making stuff up to make good models" I did not claim that this applies to all of physics. I clarified this several time. Rather than rebutting any of the examples I gave, you have built a straw man and attacked that.

Indeed. The desire to spend the money on a specific target colors the attitudes a great deal. Not so much the economic benefit, though the economic benefit narrative - often decoupled from the facts - can come into play. See e.g. trickle-down economics; even though direct benefits to the poor would have a much larger impact, these are the undeserving poor (from the narrative) so we must instead help the rich. But we could do that anyway. Instead, we get tax cuts for the rich.

How were those techniques developed, if not by methods that fall under experimentation? How does learning e.g. chemistry not fall under reporting? You're the recipient of that reporting.

Money spent goes into the economy Hypothetically When debt is only a problem when the other side is in power, then you know that the debt isn't really the problem.

I've asked the question about how philosophy is intended to help me align my laser, which seems on par with your butterfly measurement question. It seems to be couched more toward "how does philosophy extend its overlap" rather than "how does science extend its overlap" and I have no issue with that, but it does seem that people more adept at philosophy must answer it. It's not contra my view. Can you point to where I introduced any claims about cannonball trajectories? I'm trying to figure out if this is a comprehension issue or if you are being deliberately obtuse.(edit: or possibly a matter of simply not having an understanding of QM or some other areas of physics, so not being able to comment, but then, if you lack familiarity, how can you make a declaration with such certainty?) Some physics does not describe reality, does not mean all of physics does not describe reality. (and you might note that I never made any distinction between observable and non-observable. That goalpost was moved by you)

Good. Because there's lots of physics that are unobservable, as I have previously described. We see the effects of this. But, you disagreed with this. (well, sort of, since you never actually addressed my examples, and instead cherry-picked others) Here's an example of what I just talked about. The cannonball is what you brought up, not me. It's a straw man argument, and you should really stop doing this.

I didn't claim that you did. "reality" is only part of the sentence. Read the whole thing. You balked at my position, which I describe.

The order might be different in some cases, but you have hypothesis/theory, experiment/observation, and reporting, so I'm not sure what's missing.

How is this different from my position that science describes behavior (i.e. what we can observe) rather than reality. (something you balked at)

EldadEshel banned as a sock puppet of Eldad Eshel and Eldad Eshel 2

At some point it's a matter of QM and the uncertainty principle, because we would not be able to simultaneously measure the change in position and change in speed. But I agree gravity doesn't "kick in" at some threshold, according to what we know about gravity.

That doesn't really mean that someone is on to something. Crackpots hit a sore point with scientists, precisely for the opposite reason.

What kind if debt, whose debt, and why is this in ethics? If I take on debt to start up a business, how is this a loss of opportunity?

! Moderator Note Post not about this news article was split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/125738-climate-change-split-from-climate-change-tipping-points/

This is perfectly consistent with what you have been told, and does not say what you have claimed. "limited gravity" does not mean "no gravity"

! Moderator Note Threads merged. One per topic, please

The topic of the thread is the difference between science and philosophy, so the whole premise here is that there are distinctions between the two, i.e. we are looking at the bits that do not overlap. Pointing to science and calling it philosophy is not in keeping with that premise. Analogies are useful when you have a topic that cannot be easily conveyed and you want to present the information in a simpler format. But that's not the case here. I was asking for an example even before you stated "I believe a little delving into the philosophy of science would help scientists understand their own enterprise better" and an example would suffice. Instead you offer an analogy. One that I don't think is particularly apt, since I can envision scenarios where knowing history might help, and can't envision one where philosophy might help. Which is what prompted my request for an example. If all you have to offer is an analogy, it suggests you don't have an example, which then begs the question about the source of your belief. "Does not describe" and "does not try to describe" are very different things and AFAICT only one has been offered in discussion. But even if we take the obvious one: the cannonball trajectory is not reality, let me ask this: how do we know that the cannonball is not, in reality, moving in a twelve-dimensional space but it's just that we can only perceive three spatial dimensions, and the projection of those twelve dimensions onto our three-dimensional perception is a sphere moving along that trajectory? How can we be certain about this? And is there anything about Newtons laws of motions, used to derive the trajectory of the ball, that can be inferred as an attempt to confirm that the ball is or is not in a twelve-dimensional space?

How is that philosophy and not actual science? atomic interactions implies chemistry.

But is also asking about specific claims ("I’ve had a look at some of these claims, and I find them questionable.") without sourcing them, and then using regional data as rebuttal. The sourcing is important, because there is a difference between cyclone number and cyclone intensity (and related issues like rainfall); the former is given in the post but the latter is what the IPCC claim seems to be https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

You might note that the issue is global climate change, and a general rule, looking at local effects will not rebut the claim of global impact, unless the claim is that every place would see that impact. e.g. a claim that average temperature is going up is not a claim that the temperature is going up at every point on the globe, so finding a place that sees the temperature staying constant or even decreasing does not rebut the claim.