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.
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.
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