science can test the hypothesis that astrology is accurate in various ways
This is true
theory is able to accurately predict the world around us then it is still a good theory
This is also true
The moment you start making absolute statements based on the above, no matter how unanimous the evidence, you have left the realm of science and your brain begins to succumb to the rot. If we treated well supported models as gospel, we’d still be using the Newtonian gravitational model.
The entire point of science is to admit the fundamental uncertainty of all human knowledge, and develop the tools to develop better models. Yes, every model is wrong. Some allow us to make very accurate predictions, but they are all imperfect approximations.
Yeah but you dismiss things without providing any counter evidence, science is always willing to change but that has to be backed up by empirical evidence, which there isn’t much of to back up astrology. “SCIENCE IS NEVER CERTAIN.” Is a cop out dismissal used by people who don’t understand science but think because they half listened in science class during the part about scientific method they don’t need to provide evidence to back up claims they make.
Edit: If you have empirical non anecdotal evidence to back up your claims I’m all ears btw.
Yeah but you dismiss things without providing any counter evidence
When did I do that?
“SCIENCE IS NEVER CERTAIN.” Is a cop out dismissal used by people who don’t understand science but think because they half listened in science class during the part about scientific method they don’t need to provide evidence to back up claims they make.
It is also a factual statement by people who do understand science and are tired of seeing scientific fundamentalism instill a smug sense of certainty in people who claim to be scientific.
I never claimed that astrology is true. All I said was that absolute statements are unscientific.
If you don’t understand the difference between saying that something is true, and saying that there is a possibility of something being true, you offer no value in scientific discourse.
Says the person who thinks a single data point with no control is a “test”, to someone who is a well published Doctor of Chemistry and has been practicing science for the last 15 years.
Yeah buddy, you go ahead and say I’m the one offering no value to scientific discourse. How many peer-reviewed papers have you published?
This guy’s a nut job his whole argument is that 100% truth cannot be known while admitting that science is a great tool for knowing 99% of the truth he’s actually proud of being 1% correct. 😅
Yeah, Newtonian gravity is 99% correct. It’s extremely useful most of the time, but it’s wrong. Forgetting that fact is a slippery slope to more damaging assumptions.
Bro, theories are rarely proven “wrong” it’s more that they are built upon when studies come along that shed more light on a specific phenomenon. It’s better to say that science tries to become more correct than to say it is proven wrong. I’m open to new empirical evidence changing my view but you only have your annecdotal story to back up your claims. I’m not forgetting that fact you are.
Since we’re doing appeal to authority, fewer than John von Neumann, who had the humility to believe as I do that “Truth… is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations”
I approximate that astrology is bullshit based on nothing. So far the data backs me up and no one has found any positive data in it’s favour. Astrology is conman crap, always has been.
Are you going to start telling me evolution doesn’t exist, because it’s just a theory next?
Buddy, I don’t believe in astrology. I do believe in evolution. These are personal beliefs based on an overwhelming mountain of evidence.
However, I would never say astrology is absolutely false, or evolution absolutely true because, as I’ve said, that’s brain rot. Absolute certainty is a poison. Sure, it seems justified with something like astrology, but once people get into the habit of declaring absolutes based on present evidence, that balloons into pernicious bullshit like astrology. It’s bad practice.
I don’t oppose tending towards the evidence, I overwhelming support it. I don’t make decisions in my life based on astrology. What I do oppose is promoting bad cognitive habits like absolute declarations about reality.
Evolution is basically a scientific certainty at this point because every single test has shown it to be true, and no one has every been able to disprove it. We don;t understand every single nuance and mechanism of evolution, but the fact evolution is occurring and has occurred in the past is a certainty.
Gravity is a certainty at this point. Again we don’t fully understand the exact causes of gravity, but the fact it exists is certain.
And every test to try and show any validity to astrology has failed, astrology is nothing but a scam.
Again, I tested it, I found some evidence of success. You can say that that test isn’t statistically significant, you can question my methodologies, but you cannot say that every test has failed.
This conversation isn’t about astrology, I don’t believe in astrology. This conversation is about mental hygiene, and the creeping fundamentalism that stifles scientific progress. Certainty is unscientific.
Astrology on the same hand I’m not so sure about. I’m not so sure about anything, because being so sure is brain rot at best and narcissism at worst.
“Scientific consensus is absolute truth” is the antithesis of science. Truth is fundamentally unknowable. Science is absolutely by far the best method we have for approximating truth, but it can only ever be an approximation. An extremely consistent, useful, and accurate approximation of course, good enough to make important decisions with. But it is epistemologically ridiculous to declare absolute truth.
Once you start letting that kind of absolutism in, you’re lost. That’s why scientific papers don’t say “we proved that X causes Y”, they say “we observed a strong correlation between the presence of X and the result Y”.
That’s the brain rot I’m talking about. You are conflating overwhelming consensus with absolutes. If everyone believed as you, we’d still believe in alchemy and humors. Absolute certainty is the greatest conceit. These “truths” and “facts” you speak of are only such in the colloquial sense. It is imperative that a serious scientist remembers that. Brush up your epistemology.
This is true
This is also true
The moment you start making absolute statements based on the above, no matter how unanimous the evidence, you have left the realm of science and your brain begins to succumb to the rot. If we treated well supported models as gospel, we’d still be using the Newtonian gravitational model.
The entire point of science is to admit the fundamental uncertainty of all human knowledge, and develop the tools to develop better models. Yes, every model is wrong. Some allow us to make very accurate predictions, but they are all imperfect approximations.
No scientific model justifies absolute certainty
Yeah but you dismiss things without providing any counter evidence, science is always willing to change but that has to be backed up by empirical evidence, which there isn’t much of to back up astrology. “SCIENCE IS NEVER CERTAIN.” Is a cop out dismissal used by people who don’t understand science but think because they half listened in science class during the part about scientific method they don’t need to provide evidence to back up claims they make. Edit: If you have empirical non anecdotal evidence to back up your claims I’m all ears btw.
When did I do that?
It is also a factual statement by people who do understand science and are tired of seeing scientific fundamentalism instill a smug sense of certainty in people who claim to be scientific.
I never claimed that astrology is true. All I said was that absolute statements are unscientific.
You did say astrology could be true:
But really you just fell for the Barnum effect.
If you don’t understand the difference between saying that something is true, and saying that there is a possibility of something being true, you offer no value in scientific discourse.
Says the person who thinks a single data point with no control is a “test”, to someone who is a well published Doctor of Chemistry and has been practicing science for the last 15 years.
Yeah buddy, you go ahead and say I’m the one offering no value to scientific discourse. How many peer-reviewed papers have you published?
This guy’s a nut job his whole argument is that 100% truth cannot be known while admitting that science is a great tool for knowing 99% of the truth he’s actually proud of being 1% correct. 😅
Yeah, Newtonian gravity is 99% correct. It’s extremely useful most of the time, but it’s wrong. Forgetting that fact is a slippery slope to more damaging assumptions.
Bro, theories are rarely proven “wrong” it’s more that they are built upon when studies come along that shed more light on a specific phenomenon. It’s better to say that science tries to become more correct than to say it is proven wrong. I’m open to new empirical evidence changing my view but you only have your annecdotal story to back up your claims. I’m not forgetting that fact you are.
deleted by creator
Since we’re doing appeal to authority, fewer than John von Neumann, who had the humility to believe as I do that “Truth… is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations”
I approximate that astrology is bullshit based on nothing. So far the data backs me up and no one has found any positive data in it’s favour. Astrology is conman crap, always has been.
Are you going to start telling me evolution doesn’t exist, because it’s just a theory next?
Buddy, I don’t believe in astrology. I do believe in evolution. These are personal beliefs based on an overwhelming mountain of evidence.
However, I would never say astrology is absolutely false, or evolution absolutely true because, as I’ve said, that’s brain rot. Absolute certainty is a poison. Sure, it seems justified with something like astrology, but once people get into the habit of declaring absolutes based on present evidence, that balloons into pernicious bullshit like astrology. It’s bad practice.
I don’t oppose tending towards the evidence, I overwhelming support it. I don’t make decisions in my life based on astrology. What I do oppose is promoting bad cognitive habits like absolute declarations about reality.
Yet every time astrology is tested it has failed.
Evolution is basically a scientific certainty at this point because every single test has shown it to be true, and no one has every been able to disprove it. We don;t understand every single nuance and mechanism of evolution, but the fact evolution is occurring and has occurred in the past is a certainty.
Gravity is a certainty at this point. Again we don’t fully understand the exact causes of gravity, but the fact it exists is certain.
And every test to try and show any validity to astrology has failed, astrology is nothing but a scam.
Again, I tested it, I found some evidence of success. You can say that that test isn’t statistically significant, you can question my methodologies, but you cannot say that every test has failed.
This conversation isn’t about astrology, I don’t believe in astrology. This conversation is about mental hygiene, and the creeping fundamentalism that stifles scientific progress. Certainty is unscientific.
“Gravity im not so sure about, astrology on the other hand…”
Astrology on the same hand I’m not so sure about. I’m not so sure about anything, because being so sure is brain rot at best and narcissism at worst.
“Scientific consensus is absolute truth” is the antithesis of science. Truth is fundamentally unknowable. Science is absolutely by far the best method we have for approximating truth, but it can only ever be an approximation. An extremely consistent, useful, and accurate approximation of course, good enough to make important decisions with. But it is epistemologically ridiculous to declare absolute truth.
Once you start letting that kind of absolutism in, you’re lost. That’s why scientific papers don’t say “we proved that X causes Y”, they say “we observed a strong correlation between the presence of X and the result Y”.
Honestly, that is truth. The word truth has been bastardized by common use, but in science a theory is truth.
And there are also established facts in science, you keep forgetting about those.
That’s the brain rot I’m talking about. You are conflating overwhelming consensus with absolutes. If everyone believed as you, we’d still believe in alchemy and humors. Absolute certainty is the greatest conceit. These “truths” and “facts” you speak of are only such in the colloquial sense. It is imperative that a serious scientist remembers that. Brush up your epistemology.
That is not a scientific test. I’ve already told you, you fell prey to the Barnum effect.
And no, the only unscientific thing in this conversation is you insisting a data point of 1 with no controls is you somehow testing it.