Theme: Science

  • RT @JayMan471: When people ask why science arose in the WEIRD world, this is a b

    RT @JayMan471: When people ask why science arose in the WEIRD world, this is a big part of the reason why.

    The Chinese may have the intell…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-28 13:38:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1828789339217604772

  • RT @catturd2: We told the truth about COVID. We told the truth about masks. We t

    RT @catturd2: We told the truth about COVID.
    We told the truth about masks.
    We told the truth about lockdowns.
    We told the truth about Iver…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-27 18:50:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1828505417862852710

  • This question keeps coming up. And I’m not sure why. I keep a table of european

    This question keeps coming up. And I’m not sure why.
    I keep a table of european vs jewish intellectuals to illustrate the origin of pseudoscience in the jewish civilization. And in the list I put a star next to people who ‘crossover’. When referring to Wolfram I mean that he ‘crossed over’. And while I could address this subject very technically, yes, he does display the technique of using math as language, and yes he makes the same mistakes as einstien and bohr, but fundamentally his approach is sound – and he is a weak expositor of his frame of reference, and this is why he’s not understood.

    Reply addressees: @Hail__To_You


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-27 15:59:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1828462407514980352

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1828453412305846301

  • RT @ThruTheHayes: LIVING BY ACCIDENT Humanity lives currently by accident. We’ll

    RT @ThruTheHayes: LIVING BY ACCIDENT

    Humanity lives currently by accident. We’ll begin to live deliberately when we sufficiently integrate…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-24 02:07:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1827165921862918325

  • QUESTIONS OF META-SCIENCE “the science of science itself” We’re working on the d

    QUESTIONS OF META-SCIENCE
    “the science of science itself”
    We’re working on the definition of science and it’s relation to decidability and truth.

    PROMPT
    Can one perform science if one is not seeking to produce the testifiable (that which is testifiable by man) if given the spectrum of science from unfounded speculation through to incontestable law of a first principle: (Speculation > Conjecture > Hypothesis > Theory > Working Theory > Settled Theory > Law > Certainty), as defined in this excerpt?

    Summary: As such any claim of science requires the following three claims:

    1. Degree of Testifiability: A declaration of the categorical demarcation of the [???] of the claim:
    … … |Category of Testifiability (One)|: Speculation > Conjecture > Hypothesis > Theory > Working Theory > Settled Theory > Law > Certainty

    2. Constitution of the Substance: A declaration of premises of the dimensions of the claim one is testifying to:
    … … |Substance (All Appropriate)|:Theory of Existence (Metaphysics, Realism, Naturalism) > Theory of Causality (Operations) > Theory of Description (math or language or both) > Evidence (Measurements)

    3. Mandatory Due Diligence: A declaration of the dimensions of testifiability one has satisfied the demand for.
    … … |Mandatory Due Diligence (All, Promise)|: Explanatory Power > Survivability > Identity, Internal Consistency > Operational Possibility > Rational Choice > Reciprocity > Parsimony > Scope and Limits > Warrantability > Restitutability

    RESPONSE
    This is a challenging and nuanced question, and it strikes at the heart of what defines science and the boundaries of scientific inquiry. Let’s explore this by breaking it down:

    1. Core Definition of Science:
    Traditional Definition: Science is traditionally defined as a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Central to this definition is the concept of testifiability—the ability to subject a hypothesis, theory, or observation to empirical testing, and thus provide evidence that can be verified or falsified.

    2. The Spectrum of Scientific Inquiry:
    Speculation to Law: The spectrum you describe—from unfounded speculation to incontestable law of a first principle—represents a range of epistemic statuses within scientific inquiry. At one end is speculation, which may or may not be testifiable or grounded in empirical evidence. At the other end are laws or first principles, which are universally accepted as testifiable due to their empirical validation and logical coherence.

    3. Science Without Testifiability:
    Exploratory Science: In some cases, science can begin with exploratory or speculative phases where the aim is not immediately to produce testifiable results but to generate ideas, hypotheses, or frameworks that may later be subjected to testing. This exploratory phase is crucial for advancing new theories or concepts, especially in fields where empirical testing is currently limited or where the phenomena are not yet fully understood.
    Theoretical Science: Theoretical science often involves developing models, simulations, or mathematical constructs that may not be directly testifiable in the traditional sense but provide a coherent framework for understanding phenomena. Over time, parts of these theories might be tested as technology or methods advance.
    Conceptual Science: Some areas of science focus on refining concepts, definitions, or classifications that are foundational to empirical work. While these activities might not produce immediately testifiable outcomes, they are essential for the structure and coherence of scientific knowledge.

    4. Can It Still Be Called Science?:
    Depends on the Goal: If the ultimate goal is to produce knowledge that can eventually be tested, then these activities can still be considered part of the scientific process. In this view, science encompasses both the generation of ideas (which may initially be speculative) and their subsequent testing and validation.
    Pseudoscience: On the other hand, if the goal is to avoid or disregard testifiability—if there is no intention of producing knowledge that can be empirically verified—then this falls outside the bounds of science and into the realm of pseudoscience, philosophy, or metaphysics. Science, by definition, seeks to produce knowledge that can be tested and verified.

    5. Practical Examples:
    Quantum Mechanics: Consider early quantum mechanics. Initial ideas like wave-particle duality began as speculative but mathematically grounded concepts. Over time, these ideas were subjected to empirical testing, leading to their acceptance as foundational scientific principles.
    String Theory: String theory offers a more contentious example. It is highly mathematical and speculative, and many aspects are not currently testifiable. Some argue that it is still part of science because it aims to eventually produce testifiable predictions, while others criticize it for its current lack of empirical testability.

    6. Science as a Process:
    Iterative Nature: Science is an iterative process where speculative or theoretical ideas are refined, tested, and either validated or discarded. The process of moving from speculation to testifiable hypothesis to validated law is what characterizes scientific progress.
    Testifiability as a Guiding Principle: Even when the immediate goal isn’t testifiability, the broader scientific endeavor is guided by the principle that knowledge should, in the end, be testifiable. This commitment distinguishes science from other forms of inquiry.

    Conclusion:
    Science is fundamentally tied to the production of testifiable knowledge. However, the scientific process includes phases where testifiability is not immediately achievable—such as in speculative, theoretical, or conceptual stages.
    These phases are still part of science if they ultimately aim to produce knowledge that can be empirically tested. If the pursuit of testifiability is entirely absent or rejected, then the activity would likely be considered outside the bounds of science, possibly falling into pseudoscience, philosophy, or speculative metaphysics.
    The guiding principle of science is that, regardless of the stage in the process, the ultimate goal is to produce knowledge that is testifiable, verifiable, and falsifiable.

    Cheers
    CD


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-23 20:08:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1827075366034534402

  • Working on universal grammar with brad (meta-science) “The Graveyard of Fictiona

    Working on universal grammar with brad (meta-science)

    “The Graveyard of Fictionalisms”-Brad
    (It’s all humans can do, these dimensions: )
    1. Social -> Spiritual, anthropomorphic (others control)
    2. Mechanical -> Magical, Alchemical ( I control)
    3. Calculative -> Numerological presumption of knowledge from disorder beyond perception
    4. Verbal -> sophistry -> philosophy, idealism, (words refer to things that don’t exist, should or )

    “It’s where the sacred cows are all buried.”-Brad.
    “It’s the Afghanistan of empires of the mind”-Brad


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-23 00:47:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1826783242260742144

  • Well done. However, I am not publishing in a popular science magazine, but speak

    Well done. However, I am not publishing in a popular science magazine, but speaking to followers who know my work, it’s depth, and my reputation. Your position is understandable. However, in context it’s impractical. If you simply look at the scope of my work it’s not possible…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-22 02:25:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1826445454495695205

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1826441416442077335

  • It’s a reflection of his follower base – which consists of tech, engineers, scie

    It’s a reflection of his follower base – which consists of tech, engineers, science, finance, economics, and geostrategy (people who know something about the world). He’s a centrist. The right just appreciates that he tells the truth, and thinks truth is necessary for public…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-22 02:23:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1826445003293360384

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1826430623994839241

  • Q: Curt: “Is History a subject of Science? Are people holding Doctorates to be h

    –Q: Curt: “Is History a subject of Science? Are people holding Doctorates to be held accountable to the standards of Science? Asking for a Friend…”–

    😉 A friend answers: History SHOULD be a science, and we expect that it’s practiced as a science. But we have enough of a problem with mathematical, computational, and operational reducibility, and economic reducibility because of the complexity of causal density, categorical plasticity, point of view (participant, observer) and criteria for valuation (decidability) as well as the still (oddly) surviving debate over human nature and its limits (which we have solved), that while we can demand history be done scientifically, it hasn’t been possible until our work – and even then it only requires that, like our other work on the foundations of science, that the authors state their criteria at the opening.

    😉

    Reply addressees: @WerrellBradley


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-21 14:12:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1826261165384577024

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1826230506234810790

  • It’s not a schizo theory in general but the particulars are likely off. We know

    It’s not a schizo theory in general but the particulars are likely off. We know that the people of palestine lacked the metalworking that the Philistines brought with them. We know the locals feared them. Hard to make the writing claim because it’s the product of taxation and…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-17 13:32:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824801445612233149

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824479240219234684