Where I disagree is the use of models. To me, models are just tools to help understand theories. Models are not science, they are number crunching trying to take a systematic approach at achieving the best educated guesses possible. Take climate models. I don't recall the number, but there are something like 20 models used with climate predictions which all of them generally have different results. I'm not talking about times where they may converge, that's not typical. I'm saying that if we have 20 models, you're guaranteed that 19 are wrong... and that 20th one may be right due to luck.
To me, the result of science is provable theorems. And in this regard, the best results of science are mathematical proofs. Those are the things that are truly known in our universe are the universal proofs of theorems, and universal constants that are proven.
If the idea cannot be proven mathematically, with sound mathematics, then it's just an idea, or a postulate that can be, and must be challenged regularly. This is why when somebody says that "climate change is undeniably true" is one of the most anti-science statements that can be said. I'm fine with "we believe it to be true."
Models help understand though, that's absolutely for sure. As best as they can.
As an aside, It's amazing what can be proven if science allows for breaking the law that a number can be divisible by zero.
The result of science is models, not answers.
Those models may or may not be useful. Do more science if unsure.
If you want answers, chat with theologians and philosophers.
Where I disagree is the use of models. To me, models are just tools to help understand theories. Models are not science, they are number crunching trying to take a systematic approach at achieving the best educated guesses possible. Take climate models. I don't recall the number, but there are something like 20 models used with climate predictions which all of them generally have different results. I'm not talking about times where they may converge, that's not typical. I'm saying that if we have 20 models, you're guaranteed that 19 are wrong... and that 20th one may be right due to luck.
To me, the result of science is provable theorems. And in this regard, the best results of science are mathematical proofs. Those are the things that are truly known in our universe are the universal proofs of theorems, and universal constants that are proven.
If the idea cannot be proven mathematically, with sound mathematics, then it's just an idea, or a postulate that can be, and must be challenged regularly. This is why when somebody says that "climate change is undeniably true" is one of the most anti-science statements that can be said. I'm fine with "we believe it to be true."
Models help understand though, that's absolutely for sure. As best as they can.
As an aside, It's amazing what can be proven if science allows for breaking the law that a number can be divisible by zero.
there's a difference between a statistical model and a theoretical model
how the universe works: F = ma
how kelly in room 406 thinks the weather will look today: f(x, y, z, w, v, u, t, r) + g(x, y, z, w, v, u, t, r) + h(x, y, z, w, v, u, t, r) + ....
You have a beautiful mind. I agree with you, 100%.