statue of baphomet in detroit - discuss civily

[Dannyalcatraz]

Trust me, Umbran: there's a reason why the basic degree in Econ is a BA, NOT a BS (though it really oughtta be).

Econ is too variable to truly be science...at least, at this point in time. This is one thing that fans of Albert Laffer's supply-side economic theory don't understand. While Economics uses the scientific method, terminology and even some of the high-end math of hard science, results can vary wildly and conform to more than one school. It has too many soft variables that cannot be controlled for, including human irrationality. It has more descriptive than predictive power.

 

[Scott DeWar]

I think of it this way...

We have science in physics. We have pretty solid theories there that cover wide realms of the world, that can predict the movement of . . . . . , sofas, . . . . .

I know many a married man that will contest this claim.

 

[reelo]

Concerning the discussion about understanding science and the "scientific method" in general, some smart man (whose name eludes me) once said:
"Believing is being content with not wanting to know."
I think this sums it up pretty well.
My wife is pretty religious (me being an atheist, and her a muslim) and whenever I *try* to explain certain things to her, she pretty much goes "lalalala" with her fingers in her ears. It's frustrating.
Of course, I feel her religiosity is a waste, and she thinks I'm damned to an eternity in hell.
Other than that, we do get along fine...

 

[Tonguez]

Scientific Method is the ultimate "verify, then trust", which is why some people treat it as a religion, they forget to "verify" - in a religion, "trust" is essential, but the "empirically verify with repeatable experiments" is not.
"

of course you have the whole end of therotical physics that features oscillating universes and quantum foam where the science is almost entirely speculative and based on trust and indeed faith rather than verifability.

or is Quantum not science?

 

[Staffan]

of course you have the whole end of therotical physics that features oscillating universes and quantum foam where the science is almost entirely speculative and based on trust and indeed faith rather than verifability.

or is Quantum not science?

At this point, the more advanced levels of quantum physics is at the relatively (heh) early stages of the scientific method: hypotheses have been made, those hypotheses are consistent with available data, but they have not been verified.

Basically, it's like saying that we can see this:


And based on that, that the world looks like this:


It could look different, but the current theory seems to be the one that best fits the available facts.

 

[Scott DeWar]

of course you have the whole end of therotical physics that features oscillating universes and quantum foam where the science is almost entirely speculative and based on trust and indeed faith rather than verifability.

or is Quantum not science?

[humor]Nope, its faith, not science. Mysticism I tell ya - MAGIC![/humor]

 

[Tonguez]

[humor]Nope, its faith, not science. Mysticism I tell ya - MAGIC![/humor]

well when sufficiently advanced it should be indistinguishable

afterall Newton was an Alchemist and Thoth was an engineer

 

[Umbran]

of course you have the whole end of therotical physics that features oscillating universes and quantum foam where the science is almost entirely speculative and based on trust and indeed faith rather than verifability.

or is Quantum not science?

Well, large parts of quantum mechanics are used... to make the computer you're reading this on work. So, it is definitely science.

And, you misunderstand the purpose and position of those speculative theories in the overall process of science. Those theories are put together for purposes of testing them. First, you work out to see if the math of your new theory fits already observed data. Then, you see if it predicts new things that other theories don't predict, that you might try to test. Then, sometimes your math is way ahead of what we have machines to test, and you have to wait. The recently discovered Higgs boson being a great example - the basic math of it was worked out in the 1960s. It took decades for them to be able to build a machine that would work at high enough energy to detect the darned thing!

There is no "trust and faith" involved in these - people in the business don't hold them up as the way the world actually works until such time as they have been tested.

 

[Morrus]

o
or is Quantum not science?

That sentence doesn't mean anything. There are areas of quantum physics which are used to build things right now. So if they're not science, you're not reading this. There are other (mathematically viable) areas which are hypothetical in nature and have yet to be tested, and nobody (except random quacks) claim they're anything but.

Some stuff becomes a theory, which means it has been peer reviewed, repeatedly tested, and used to predict things which have been shown to be true. And then they use it to build a microchip or a satellite. And folks then use that very equipment to claim the very science they're using is operating by 'faith' or some such.

 

[billd91]

Econ is too variable to truly be science...at least, at this point in time. This is one thing that fans of Albert Laffer's supply-side economic theory don't understand. While Economics uses the scientific method, terminology and even some of the high-end math of hard science, results can vary wildly and conform to more than one school. It has too many soft variables that cannot be controlled for, including human irrationality. It has more descriptive than predictive power.

I don't think it's really a question of being too variable to be a science. Rather, I just think, in the social sciences (my background is in poli sci), we're looking at extremely complex systems. That renders them more suited for historical analysis and description than prediction, sure, but I think understanding and measurement can be improved scientifically.