[DRAFT] Abortion Limitation Act

[Godular]

Science is not always right. Scientists can filter evidence from one side, keep the other to make new "evidence", and then live off of it.

OOC:

From Merriam Websters Dictionary:

1
: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2
a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
b : something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge

3
a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena

4
: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws

How can a system of of knowledge and observation be wrong? Science itself is purely objective by nature. If an individual scientist is wrong, it simply means that they failed to cover all their variables or applied faulty or invalid logic to their observations. If an individual scientist is fudging the numbers, then their data isn't even scientific in nature as it did not come from observation or experimentation.

I disagree on the idea that science is purely objective. It works to reduce the subjectivity of the inquiries related to it, but it cannot fully eliminate it. This is why scientific theories change over time. Though a theory might have a vast amount of evidence to support it, refinements must be made as more evidence is collected and discrepant events arise. Scientific knowledge progresses by proving the last person's ideas wrong, and presenting a better explanation.

That being said: for a certain conclusion to be properly scientific in nature, it must be able to consider all of the evidence (including evidence used by previous theories), or provide good reasons for disregarding other evidence. Failures to properly account for such things will eventually be borne out in time as others repeat the experiment in order to confirm the findings.

It is on this latter point that Dobrobyt's honorable ambassador demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific methodology: one does not simply hoard evidence for later use like some form of savings account. If a position does not account for all of the evidence as previously stated, I believe the proper phrase is 'YER NOT DOIN' IT RIGHT'. If one wishes to base an opinion on the idea that 'science can be wrong', it is incumbent upon the person making such a claim to provide direct evidence that it actually is incorrect.

So while we may disagree on the idea of objectivity in regards to science, I also believe that if the ambassador from Dobrobyt wishes us to accept their position that science might be wrong...

I believe the phrase is 'You brought it up, you back it up'.

[Radicaster]

One does not simply repeal a resolution I support.

[Wolfhawk]

so against

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

All OOC:

OOC:

From Merriam Websters Dictionary:



How can a system of of knowledge and observation be wrong? Science itself is purely objective by nature. If an individual scientist is wrong, it simply means that they failed to cover all their variables or applied faulty or invalid logic to their observations. If an individual scientist is fudging the numbers, then their data isn't even scientific in nature as it did not come from observation or experimentation.

I disagree on the idea that science is purely objective. It works to reduce the subjectivity of the inquiries related to it, but it cannot fully eliminate it. This is why scientific theories change over time. Though a theory might have a vast amount of evidence to support it, refinements must be made as more evidence is collected and discrepant events arise. Scientific knowledge progresses by proving the last person's ideas wrong, and presenting a better explanation.

Honestly, thinking about it, applying terms like objective and subjective to science itself is incorrect. As I previously stated, science is a system of knowledge and observation. It is incapable of holding a viewpoint on its own. But individual scientists can be objective and subjective, and theories are based on the observations and existing knowledge. To use the standard model of the universe as an example, it's true as far as we know. But that doesn't mean someone could come around, successfully disprove a fundamental part of it such as thermodynamics, and bring the entire model crashing down on the heads of the entire scientific community. Not that it's likely that will happen at this point in time.

That being said: for a certain conclusion to be properly scientific in nature, it must be able to consider all of the evidence (including evidence used by previous theories), or provide good reasons for disregarding other evidence. Failures to properly account for such things will eventually be borne out in time as others repeat the experiment in order to confirm the findings.

Oh, definitely. That's what happened to the supposed discovery of Tachyons.

It is on this latter point that Dobrobyt's honorable ambassador demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific methodology: one does not simply hoard evidence for later use like some form of savings account. If a position does not account for all of the evidence as previously stated, I believe the proper phrase is 'YER NOT DOIN' IT RIGHT'. If one wishes to base an opinion on the idea that 'science can be wrong', it is incumbent upon the person making such a claim to provide direct evidence that it actually is incorrect.

Exactly.

So while we may disagree on the idea of objectivity in regards to science, I also believe that if the ambassador from Dobrobyt wishes us to accept their position that science might be wrong...

I believe the phrase is 'You brought it up, you back it up'.

I'm more of a fan of "put your money where your mouth is". But then again, my family motto, originating from ancient times in Ireland, translates to "I strike him!", so you can kinda see where that comes from.

[Godular]

I disagree on the idea that science is purely objective. It works to reduce the subjectivity of the inquiries related to it, but it cannot fully eliminate it. This is why scientific theories change over time. Though a theory might have a vast amount of evidence to support it, refinements must be made as more evidence is collected and discrepant events arise. Scientific knowledge progresses by proving the last person's ideas wrong, and presenting a better explanation.

Honestly, thinking about it, applying terms like objective and subjective to science itself is incorrect. As I previously stated, science is a system of knowledge and observation. It is incapable of holding a viewpoint on its own. But individual scientists can be objective and subjective, and theories are based on the observations and existing knowledge. To use the standard model of the universe as an example, it's true as far as we know. But that doesn't mean someone could come around, successfully disprove a fundamental part of it such as thermodynamics, and bring the entire model crashing down on the heads of the entire scientific community. Not that it's likely that will happen at this point in time.

Aye. It's getting harder and harder to make a 'revolutionary' discovery.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Honestly, thinking about it, applying terms like objective and subjective to science itself is incorrect. As I previously stated, science is a system of knowledge and observation. It is incapable of holding a viewpoint on its own. But individual scientists can be objective and subjective, and theories are based on the observations and existing knowledge. To use the standard model of the universe as an example, it's true as far as we know. But that doesn't mean someone could come around, successfully disprove a fundamental part of it such as thermodynamics, and bring the entire model crashing down on the heads of the entire scientific community. Not that it's likely that will happen at this point in time.

Aye. It's getting harder and harder to make a 'revolutionary' discovery.

OOC: Well, I wouldn't say it's harder. But it's definitely more involved and you're more likely to encounter opposition from people who either are afraid of what that discovery could cause, don't want money diverted from their projects, or just don't like you.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Well, I mean, we could either believe in a great conspiracy amongst scientists trying to keep out the real revolution. Or it could just be the case that we happen to know the laws of physics and other natural sciences quite well and are quite, nay, extremely confident that in the generalities or broad strokes, not to put too fine a point on it, science as a whole is correct.

It's harder to make revolutionary discoveries because, from a Popperian perspective on science, it has become harder to disprove things – simply because amongst the variety of hypotheses to be tested, (1) those which are easy to test have already been disproven and corrected or confirmed over countless experiment, and (2) those which are hard to test are so definitionally.

[United Massachusetts]

How about the following replacement for GAR #286 instead:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=420809

[Separatist Peoples]

How about the following replacement for GAR #286 instead:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=420809

Don't pimp your drafts in other players threads.

[United Massachusetts]

How about the following replacement for GAR #286 instead:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=420809

Don't pimp your drafts in other players threads.

My apologies

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

OOC: Since the repeal of GA#286 is most likely going to fail, I'd honestly recommend letting go of this.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Well, I mean, we could either believe in a great conspiracy amongst scientists trying to keep out the real revolution. Or it could just be the case that we happen to know the laws of physics and other natural sciences quite well and are quite, nay, extremely confident that in the generalities or broad strokes, not to put too fine a point on it, science as a whole is correct.

It's harder to make revolutionary discoveries because, from a Popperian perspective on science, it has become harder to disprove things – simply because amongst the variety of hypotheses to be tested, (1) those which are easy to test have already been disproven and corrected or confirmed over countless experiment, and (2) those which are hard to test are so definitionally.

OOC: Just noticed this. Anyway...

I'm not calling conspiracy. What I mean by "afraid of what the results might mean" is that many scientific models are so complex and have so much work put into them, so much time, effort and money, that if something fundamental to that model were to be disproven it would be like fully assembling a complete T-Rex skeleton for display only to find out the museum wants it facing the other way. A revolutionary discovery would be, well, revolutionary.

There's a lot of pushback against the White-Juday experiment because, if proven to work, warp drive technology violates the common interpretation of the law of causality (even though causality could easily be reworked to allow for such things by simply noting that you still arrive at your destination AFTER you leave your point of origin and it just so happens that you managed to overtake a few photons - after all, you don't experience relativistic effects when you're not actually moving relative to the space around you). Similarly, there's a lot of opposition to the EM-Drive simply because it appears to violate thermodynamics to someone who's not familiar with the concept of radiation pressure (which seems to be a lot more common in the scientific community than you'd think). What may seem to be a fundamental disagreement may really just be a misunderstanding of how the established model works.

As for "not wanting funding to be diverted", it's kinda self-explanatory. Money can be a limited resource, and every scientist has their own priorities as to what's important. I know I wouldn't want my research to lose funding simply because the medical department at the same facility claimed they can develop a cure for cancer if they had my funding diverted to them, especially if they keep using the same reasoning to do so.

And as for "just hate you", well, this is a tu quoque, but scientists are still human like anyone else. If you manage to make an enemy of one of your contemporaries you can expect them to want to prove you wrong every chance they get.