Quote:
Originally Posted by slowmover
“Science” will find the results it is paid to find. Who funds, and who publishes, are the pertinent questions. Adjustments are only a matter of re-phrasing questions to fit an agenda.
What’s “true” hasn’t ever been the province of investigation. Or, observation. Predictability is highly dependent on definitions.
Language constricts choice.
Thus, law.
That’s what’s on the table.
Who owns the legislatures and the courts?
.
|
I defend your right to your opinion,however I don't subscribe to your thesis.
Peer-review would reveal any misconduct on the part of the investigator.Cold fusion bombed because no other investigator could reproduce the original results of the inventor's claimants.
You'll find now higher degree of specificity than in scientific discourse.
The scientific agenda is to test a hypothesis and see if the results support the claim or not.The very act of the research typically reveals more questions than answers,which lead to further research and refinement.
'Truth' is not the province of science.Their concerned with facts and probabilities.Most all scientific results are a function of the highest levels of statistical analysis.Signals emerging from background noise.
As to language,I would offer that vocabulary limits thought.If you can't conceptualize asymmetricadimethylhydrazine,then it doesn't exist in your universe,while it does exist in the mind of a chemist.
As to 'law',I would say that it's been adulterated by special interests.There's a vast body of bonafides to support that notion.
I'd say that the US Senate is bought and paid for by lobbyists,only because that's what some senators say.