public

Kierkegaard's Wounds of Negativity

Wrong but not incorrect. The difference is ethical. A "true" scientist is a fallacy unless it's a simple observation, in comparison to others, any in-group/out-group separator has a very polarizing effect. Good, bad or indifferent the "true" scientist is an ideal and an excellent one at that!

3 months ago

Latest Post Republic by Plato (REVIEW) by Daniel Sanderson public

Kierkegaard's Wounds of Negativity

There are sadistic scientists who hurry to hunt down errors instead of establishing the truth.

- Marie Curie (1867-1934)

There's Lots Wrong With This Statement - A planksip Honorable Mention

There's Lots Wrong With This Statement - A planksip Honorable Mention

Kierkegaard's Wounds of Negativity

Inspired by Marie Curie (1867-1934)'s quote, "There are sadistic scientists who hurry to hunt down errors instead of establishing the truth.". The titled responsion is

Wrong but not incorrect. The difference is ethical. A "true" scientist is a fallacy unless it's a simple observation, in comparison to others, any in-group/out-group separator has a very polarizing effect. Good, bad or indifferent the "true" scientist is an ideal and an excellent one at that!

There is a myth that a true scientist is someone who has no faults or quirks and that they are always right. While this sounds reasonable, it is not the reality of how science works.

A true scientist is someone who does not have a bias. In the scientific method, one must look at the data objectively and use logic and reasoning to come up with an analysis that is accurate. One cannot say that a particular observation or result is false unless it can be proven. In some cases, if the data can be shown to be incorrect, the conclusion must also be incorrect. For example, if you find a fossilized dinosaur bone with a broken tooth, it does not mean that the dinosaur died of an accident or was abused by humans, you must show that the tooth was a natural occurrence or was intentionally broken.

The results of observations will often change one's mind on whether or not the hypothesis is correct. This is because human beings are prone to fallacies such as assuming that everything that seems to fit the data is true. As with any type of science, there is a lot of room for debate in this area.

In real science, there are many different opinions, but a consensus of a consistent view among scientists is reached by a vote. In many cases, a scientist may have multiple viewpoints and then choose to follow one of them. This process may take many months and years to reach a consensus on something, and often there is the potential for conflict in the scientific community if there is an argument for one side that is not represented.

Many scientific theories are based on theories that have never been scientifically proven. If a hypothesis cannot be tested, then it is not true and is considered false. If you were to find a new theory for gravity, for instance, that has never been experimentally proven, it would be considered a fallacy. In fact, the theory of relativity, which states that space, time, and matter are relative and not absolute, has not been experimentally proven either.

This is just one example, there are many others where there has not been any real proof of a hypothesis and yet, it has been accepted by most scientists. Most scientists will not consider a hypothesis without a simple observation that can prove or disprove it. There are so many different theories out there and it takes a huge amount of work and testing to determine if a certain theory actually is true. It is not always so simple though.

The scientific method is not a perfect system. There is always room for error, and there are always cases where a hypothesis cannot be tested, which means that the conclusion is false. There have been many false theories put forward in the history of science. There are also theories that have been proven wrong. Scientists are willing to accept the fact that there are no sure-fire methods of arriving at a conclusion.

There is a misconception that a true scientist must know all there is to know about the world around them. In the end, a scientist has to make their own decisions and must be willing to accept that mistakes can occur.

Scientists are expected to be able to look at data objectively, regardless of what that data might tell them. It is impossible to be 100% objective when there is only so much data available, and because of that, there are going to be times when a scientist must look at data from multiple angles in order to draw any conclusions.

Scientists are always looking to make new scientific theories. They are always looking for new ways to test their theories and see if they hold up to further testing. As scientists, it is always important to be open-minded and flexible. We can't ever predict what will happen next.

The scientific method is not a simple observation based system and there will always be instances where a false theory cannot be proven or disproved. There are always new discoveries, however, because there are always new theories and new things that are being discovered. If a scientist will not change with the times, then he is bound to fail.


Marie Curie

Published 3 months ago