Science isn't true. Nor is the process true. See bias and sampling error.
The scientific method is the process of eliminating as much bias to as closely approximate the truth as possible. Then by repeated hypothesis testing we confirm the truth of the conclusion.
See launching rockets into space, treating a disease or Democrats being fucktards.
But this is all besides the point because Special Needs Tyson just reworked an old sound bite of hus "The good thing about science is thay it works, whether you belueve in it or not" which is a much smarter statement. But he's running out of material so he said something stupid.
This. The first thing a good economics class teaches you (and idc about anyone's opinion on it because, yes, econ is still a social science at the end of the day that employs the scientific method to accept or reject null hypotheses) is that every model is wrong. Some are more correct than others, but at the the of the day they're wrong. Because a model that's correct won't tell you anything useful ("you will likely die at some point" well yeah no shit). The best any science can do is approximate the truth.
Because a model that's correct won't tell you anything useful
I'll disagree there. It's very useful to know certain things to be able to plan around and for them. Using your example, I know I'm going to eventually die so I'll take steps to account for that. I also know that gravity exists, which allows me to do certain other things with confidence that they will occur.
Knowing something will happen doesn't mean it's not useful and if that's what your Econ teacher tried to tell you then they were shit at explaining the point of certainties.
No not really. The test proves it true or not. Even if the axiom is the opposite of the hypothesis.
Axiomatically people believed the earth to be flat and the sun to revolve around the earth.
They believed in a wrong axiom. And were proven to be incorrect by a hypothesis that when tested returned the same results.
If the earth is flat then shadows would not curve at different angles at different latitudes at the same time. They do. As demonstrated by some Greek smart ass.
I think you meant that people have to agree on fundamental truths like observing reality is even possible. Then yes you are correct. See the Social sciences for how that turns out.
Science isn't true. Nor is the process true. See bias and sampling error.
The scientific method is the process of eliminating as much bias to as closely approximate the truth as possible. Then by repeated hypothesis testing we confirm the truth of the conclusion.
See launching rockets into space, treating a disease or Democrats being fucktards.
But this is all besides the point because Special Needs Tyson just reworked an old sound bite of hus "The good thing about science is thay it works, whether you belueve in it or not" which is a much smarter statement. But he's running out of material so he said something stupid.
This. The first thing a good economics class teaches you (and idc about anyone's opinion on it because, yes, econ is still a social science at the end of the day that employs the scientific method to accept or reject null hypotheses) is that every model is wrong. Some are more correct than others, but at the the of the day they're wrong. Because a model that's correct won't tell you anything useful ("you will likely die at some point" well yeah no shit). The best any science can do is approximate the truth.
I'll disagree there. It's very useful to know certain things to be able to plan around and for them. Using your example, I know I'm going to eventually die so I'll take steps to account for that. I also know that gravity exists, which allows me to do certain other things with confidence that they will occur.
Knowing something will happen doesn't mean it's not useful and if that's what your Econ teacher tried to tell you then they were shit at explaining the point of certainties.
Bias elimination and empiricism, and nothing else.
Especially not quasi-religious dogma.
all hypothesis start from an axiom that all people must agree IS the truth
otherwise there's no point in arguing about anything
No not really. The test proves it true or not. Even if the axiom is the opposite of the hypothesis.
Axiomatically people believed the earth to be flat and the sun to revolve around the earth.
They believed in a wrong axiom. And were proven to be incorrect by a hypothesis that when tested returned the same results.
If the earth is flat then shadows would not curve at different angles at different latitudes at the same time. They do. As demonstrated by some Greek smart ass.
I think you meant that people have to agree on fundamental truths like observing reality is even possible. Then yes you are correct. See the Social sciences for how that turns out.
you ACCEPT an axiom to be true in order to build the foundations for debate on things that are built on that assumption
if the axiom is proven false then you accept something else as true and start over
NOTHING is universally true. to claim such would be like saying you know for fact that the fundamental axiom WILL NEVER CHANGE
no one makes that claim. they only say that given what we know. this is the truth we accept
Can we observe reality?
It's a simple yes or no. If you hold that statement as not true then we can't even start a debate. As it would be pointless.
If you answer yes. You have asserted no truth about the nature of anything except that it can be understood using your senses.
This is an axiomatic fundamental for even engaging in empiricism.
Yeah that's exactly it. It's like saying a ruler is true. It doesn't make any goddamn sense.