Tesla could do what he did because he knew how things worked. He didn't expect reality to conform to his beliefs.
He understood the nature of electricity well enough to do what he did. It wasn't because he indulged in pie in the sky crap and expected the world to conform to his beliefs. He learned from the world well enough to do what others thought impossible because others didn't have his depth of understanding.
How did he learn what he did? Well, I think attending to reality might have something to do with that, don't you?
Getting from point a to point b by doing what is necessary is a result of being grounded in reality, and I see nothing wrong with that.
Faune,
Changes occur in science. Yes. This means that science is continually updating its body of knowledge. Would you prefer a scientist to simply decide on an answer and then stick to it no matter what? That's more like faith, not science.
In the cases of drugs like Vioxx, it's obvious that these drugs are not being tested well enough. This is not a problem with science. This is a problem with the drug industry's influence and the policies of the FDA. I think you're confusing issues here and missing my point.
I know what the topic of the conversation is about, and my points were intended to address it.
Science is an empirical system. Hypotheses are tested against reality. The criteria for accuracy of an idea involve testing the idea against what is, not some well formedness conditions based on criteria that have nothing to do with the real world.
Studies that are biased are unscientific, by definition.
A scientist does not set out to prove a hypothesis, he or she sets out to see if he or she can disprove it in order to learn more about the world. This kind of interaction with reality is the basis of most of the progress we have seen in the world.
It's not subjective.
To the extent that subjectivity creeps into science you have bad science. Get it? Otherwise, science is just what you want it to be, and things just don't work that way. Water isn't going to boil at 60 degrees fahrenheit at sea level just because you want it to. You see? If science were subjective, it would say, sure, if you feel like it, man, sure water boils like that. But it doesn't, because science is based on objective facts.
My reality is no different from yours. We both live in the same world. Gravity and the laws of thermodynamics work the same for you and I because we both inhabit the same reality. While our reality is the same, our PERCEPTIONS of it are different. While two people may have different reactions to a piece of art, the piece of art remains the same. It is an object outside of the two individuals. Saying my reality is different from your reality is like saying that the two people are looking at different works of art. No. They are looking at the same work, it's just that their experiences of it are different.
You can say that, well, since their reactions are so different you *might as well* say that they are looking at two different works of art, but you'd be wrong. You'd be neglecting the facts. They're both looking at the same thing even though their reactions are completely different.
This is an important distinction that a lot of people just don't seem to make.
Our "realities" are the same. There are no realities, plural, there's just reality singular. Our perceptions of reality are different. Our perceptions of reality do not change the very nature of reality itself. Reality remains constant. Part of being alive and maturing as individuals and as a species involves being able to learn more and more about the world so that we can survive and pursue our goals.
Last edited by babayada; 10/22/06 06:40 PM.
