causation (Introduction)

by romansh , Saturday, May 31, 2014, 01:41 (3611 days ago) @ GateKeeper

All of them are are more "real" than "fake" rom. 
> 
> "truth", you say that like it as an "absolute value". We don't know enough yet to state it like this. What we do have is the "best truth" we can have today. So would we follow "no truth" or "the best we have"?
So what?-We have proof beyond a reasonable doubt and on the balance of probabilties in the criminal and civil legal systems. -We should follow the best we have ... and that is an opinion and not the truth.
> also, science is not a "thing". It is a process. So you are kind of right. But science does not accept anything. "science" is the process of "data collection". Then "scientist" come in. Science and scientist is like accounting and accountant.
Agreed
Science is a process.
It is about explaining observations with hypotheses making more observations to see if they fit. If the hypotheses don't fit they are thrown out. there is no end point. There is no absolute truth, no stuff proven. There are observations that fit the current theories.-There is disproof.-Frankly proof is for amateurs, logicians and alcohol.-> I make this distinction because I feel people that are not "science" minded shy away from "SIENCE!!!!! says" because they don't feel they are up to it. I always tell them 'are you afraid of accounting?" Would you? could you? question an accountant? They answer "yes". Then I ask them what color is that wall? They tell me a "color" and I say there you just "did science". But then I tell them there is no color white. That is when the party starts.-And? ... people get it wrong. It is not a crime, though I would hope some people would know better.