Reply To: Demon power ups
???
How exactly do you define science, if not through the use of the scientific method?
The scientific method is a method for studying observable phenomenon, measuring, quantifying, developing theories, testing theories with predictions and comparing results of future measurements to predicted measurements and then revising the theory.
That is science…that’s the definition. What do you call science?
And why I am bring it up is because we were talking about mutable reality, and whether “facts” are subject to revision or correction.
Here is a “Scientific Fact” that I can torture you with:
In the 1980’s, students taking classes in Astrophysics would have learned the “fact” that the observable universe was about 18 billion years old, 17-18B years.
Now today, you would expect that the current generation of such students would be taught the observable universe is 17 to 18 billion years old, plus 30 years.
However, they are instead given the “scientific fact” that the universe is really around 13 to 14 billion years old!!!
How is the universe getting younger, while the rest of us are getting older?
Well–obviously, it wasn’t the universe’s age that changed, it was human’s measurement techniques and their theories and estimates of the expansion of the universe.
So…my point is…I don’t believe in “Scientific Facts” there are no facts in science. There is simply empirically measurable evidence.
When the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence (as in certain courts of law) points to a particular conclusion, then people generally accept that conclusion of as a “fact.”
See “Global Warming” as a text book case for what I am talking about.
However, if the evidence changes, then the “facts” can change. Like the age of the universe.
Now that makes determining “facts” rather difficult, and this is what I think you don’t like.
But I will say, that while determining “facts” is difficult, determining “non-facts” is pretty easy. It’s much easier to rule out possibilities than to settle on a single truth.
Earth scientists may not be exactly sure on the age of the Earth. But they do know for a “fact” that it is NOT 5,000+ years old. There is a more than overwhelming preponderance of evidence and extremely well tested theory to categorically disprove the idea that the Earth is 5,000 years old.
How old it really is, can be a matter of some debate, but we have narrowed it down and excluded a lot of ages. 1) It’s not older than the Universe, 2) It’s not older than the Sun–probably–not if current accretion models of planetary development hold and 3) It’s definitely a lot more than a billion years.
Most likely 4.5 billion give or take.
[i][u][b]So anyway…you shouldn’t freak out about things on this website not being “hard facts” When you get to the core of reality (at the Quantum level) there are very few immutable facts. Reality is how we measure it, how we perceive it. Perceptions can change…
[/b][/u][/i]
PS
You know that bit about the universe being 13 to 14 billion years old?
Nah, that’s a bad measurement. It’s really 17.8695468 or so billion years old.
After all, I do know (roughly) how old I am.
:d/