>>11585591>pop-sci btfo>https://aeon.co/essays/post-empirical-science-is-an-oxymoron-and-it-is-dangerous>Jim Baggott is an awardwinning British popular-science author, with more than 25 years’ experience writing on topics in science, philosophy and history. He is the author of Quantum Space: Loop Quantum Gravity and the Search for the Structure of Space, Time, and the Universe (2018) and Quantum Reality: The Quest for the Real Meaning of Quantum Mechanics – A Game of TheoriesYou're the one citing popsci authors
>I, for one, prefer a science that is rational Aesthetics play a role in shaping the development of theories and models.
>and based on evidence, Evidence can be hard to come by and could take centuries to appear.
>a science that is concerned with theories and empirical facts,Beyond a point, "empirical facts" become subjective as you are only truly getting empirical readings. The interpretation of what your measuring and observing can't be definitively link to what you think it is.
>a science that promotes the search for truth, no matter how transient or contingent. Science was never about "truth". "Truth" is impossible to obtain outside of pure mathematics.
>I prefer a science that does not readily admit theories so vague and slippery that empirical tests are either impossible or they mean absolutely nothing at all.So I take it he refuses to accept the theory that the laws of nature are the same everywhere in the universe.
>But isn’t science in any case about what is right and true? No.
>Surely nobody wants to be wrong and false? They do when it's convenient and useful. Literally every time someone does a Taylor series.
>Except that it isn’t, and we seriously limit our ability to lift the veils of ignorance and change antiscientific beliefs if we persist in peddling this absurdly simplistic view of what science isBecause rational logical people would never have beliefs other than mine own if only they had the proper scientific education. /cringe
