Add to what Charles said - Science is observable, testable and repeatable.
Which means you can observe x, test your hypothesis of what (y) causes x and
you can + others can repeat y leading to x.
This means that for something like vaccination for which you have several
generations of scientific data, you had better come up with actual data
supporting a different hypothesis rather than a rational seeming request to see
all sides of a particular situation.
On 03/02/19, 2:08 AM, "silklist on behalf of Charles Haynes"
<silklist-bounces+suresh=hserus....@lists.hserus.net on behalf of
charles.hay...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 14:23, Srini RamaKrishnan <che...@gmail.com> wrote:
The goal of applied science is not the truth. Since world war 1 the goal of
> "science" has been subverted to find applications that can be monetized:
> this can be called technology or engineering but not science.
>
So you're saying the goal of technology or engineering is to make money, I
can agree with that. The "goal" of science is still to try to make testable
predictions about the observable world. Always has been.
> Those with the real scientific temper cannot accept a solution that still
> has open questions,
What you call "open questions" I would call "unexplained observations" or
"untested hypotheses."
> We largely don't fund "science", worldwide, we fund technology
development.
> We've hardly made any fundamental breakthroughs in understanding reality
in
> the last few decades
It's not at all clear that science "attempts to understand reality." The
idea that there is an underlying "reality" to be understood is an
interesting hypothesis, but it's sounds like "hidden variables" which has
been conclusively disproved.
In any case, while the claim is subjective, I'd argue that we've actually
made quite a few fundamental scientific breakthroughs, especially in
nuclear physics, astrophysics, medicine, and mathematics.
> Science is fundamentally about healthy disagreement and debate over the
> truth until it is conclusively found with no room for argument.
>
That's flat out wrong. Science *never* "conclusively finds truth." Not
ever. That's religion, not science. Science merely comes up with "the best"
explanation for current observations and makes predictions about the
results of future observations. Science *always* includes the possibility
of observations that contradict our current understanding.
> There's a club of 500 eminent researchers in the field and doctors
> including Nobel laureate Kary Mullis (the inventor of the PCR test) who
> insist, vehemently so, that there's no proof that AIDS is caused by HIV.
>
Kary Mullis has never actually done any scientific research in AIDS or HIV.
He also believes in Astrology.
> These are unquestionable experts in the field
>
They are not experts in the field of HIV or AIDS.
These are not crazy flat Earthers.
>
Actually they are. HIV as the causative agent of AIDS is solid science.
> Such open questions are routinely brushed under the carpet,
Nope. They've been addressed, and in the case of HIV/AIDS thoroughly
refuted.
> Science must also look seriously at the idea that there's no such thing as
> objective reality,
It does, depending what you mean by your definition of "objective reality."
The Copenhagen interpretation says that "reality" is created by
observeration. I'm personally not a fan of the Copenhagen interpretation
but it's certainly a part of mainstream science.
-- Charles
