Famous astronaut: - Aliens are visiting us?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kasse
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Aliens Astronaut
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
65 replies · 13K views
Proton Soup said:
i'm not confusing a thing. i didn't say axioms were data, i said data were things that are not axioms, that is, "everything else".

now, any time you make an observation, you're relying on your senses. even the things we can't sense directly are sensed indirectly with tools that were forged by humans all the way up the chain. everything we "know" about the universe is fundamentally based on how our bodies interact with it. in the end, all those facts are perceptions. we can all agree that most of us perceive the same thing most of the time, but that's as good as it will ever be.

Again, empirical sciences don't have axioms. Data are quantifications of observations. A leaking faucet is not an axiom and is not a datum, it is a fact. If you measure the rate of flow of the faucet, this is a datum.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
CEL said:
Again, empirical sciences don't have axioms. Data are quantifications of observations. A leaking faucet is not an axiom and is not a datum, it is a fact. If you measure the rate of flow of the faucet, this is a datum.

all faucets leak.
 
Proton Soup said:
all faucets leak.

If this is true, it is a fact, not an axiom.
 
CEL said:
If this is true, it is a fact, not an axiom.

well, that's not really what i was getting at, but simply to point out that we are not seeing the problem the same way. i think it's unlikely that any faucets don't leak, but rather it's a matter of how fast they leak. faucets that leak at extremely slow rates simply do not appear to leak because of evaporation.

and this is part of why axioms and mathematics matter here. the way you and i view things depends on the logic we use. that reasoning is mathematics. and that mathematics is based on our assumptions, or axioms. now, if you wish to say something is a fact, that is a value that you've placed on a piece of data, a conclusion you've come to. you're applying logic to data. your facts are based on your assumptions, and no one else's.
 
Something may be a fact, but if it can't be peer reviewed, it is only a fact to you. This is the same problem had by people who honestly report UFOs, or ghosts, or anything that they don't understand and that can't be replicated on demand. We know that people could come from all over the world and confirm that you have a leaky pipe. But if all that I have is your word, then it is just another leaky pipe story. How do I know if it's a fact or not?
 
When I read a report on an UFO siting, I like to read it as reported. It may be a load of old rubbish, or delusion, but it may also be true. At that time, I do not need to apply scientific proofing.

Let's take an established science, one that has passed all of the tests, and is an undisputed science. Meteorology.

So what is the weather going to be like tomorrow? Nobody really knows if it is going to rain. One TV channel tells us that it will be 'sunny with perhaps the occasional shower' while the other side tells us it will be 'intermittent showers with the occasional bright spell.' I am surprised that there are enough English words to juggle around so that whatever happens, they can say, 'We were right.'

Despite the fact that almost all of the weather reporting and forecasting comes from Bracknell, with their 200 million pounds computing equipment, all the meteorologists can tell us is (a) what the weather is right now, and (b) what will probably happen tomorrow - but no guarantees.

One of the purposes of this science called meteorology is to forecast - and it cannot do it with any degree of accuracy. ...so, is meteorology a science at all?