Don’t fail to read the retractions, they are part of the process of fixing errors in published science and medicine:
—Richard P. Feynman
[/quote]
If you are referring to the quote from Dr. Feynman, I’d like to encourage you to re-read it. It is not at all intended as an insult, much less a personal insult.
It is a reminder to everyone to be careful not to unduly accept the conclusions that best fit what you want to believe, but rather be willing to examine evidence critically and select the conclusion that best fits the evidence.
I really hope this isn’t a trend… believing this way. The scientific community is built upon raw data. Factual data. Numbers don’t lie. True, numbers can be manipulated. But, when you’re talking about disparate groups calculating the same data, they are inadvertently cross-checked. Falsification ends up discovered. If there’s a concerted effort to deceive, it would have to be a global conspiracy that would require incredible diligence, the likes of which our societies have been unable to achieve. The upshot? Scientific community is more trustworthy than the religious community.
Protest, or party? :partying_face: Hope you’re having fun too.
An argument from incredulity? * wonders incredulously* 
I should hope so considering I explicitly stated it. Virtually everything involving thought is philosophy. Is a distinction being implied between philosophy, natural philosophy, natural science, etc? As BurningPlayd0h said, I think some of the confusion here is due to a lack of definitions because:
nope nope nope… I maintain that the question of consistency is both philosophical and within the narrower scope of empirical natural science.
And yet, it is reliable. Therefore… ?
If “natural law” changed, I would argue the scientific method would not necessarily be unreliable. As long as it changed in an understandable way, it could be incorporated into science, making it even more invaluable.
The multiverse is not a good example as it is a hypothesis purely due to mathematical possibilities, and it has no scientific consensus as there is no empirical evidence.
Are you suggesting that it is an unanswerable question, that it should not be investigated by science, or that there are no multiverses (with proper definition…)? These would be quite a strong statements.
Perhaps the core of the issue is a dissatisfaction with the idea of empiricism, since it can never prove anything. If a mathematical/logical proof is required to be satisfied with an answer, then all questions are unanswerable by the natural sciences.
It seems there is an expectation of seemingly absolute correctness from science, but also disillusionment if positions change (and inexplicably also if they don’t change). Both are unreasonable of anything empirical.
Focus on absolute correctness loses sight of probabilities and confidence levels. It’s reminiscent of neglect of probability, disproportionately expanding the mere possibility of incorrectness to doubting everything.
And now for something completely different. More mental puzzles:
I don’t think Westworld will ever become a reality. The whole fallacy is the idea of creating AI that imitates humans. Why? What a tragic waste of time. Real AI will be better than the human mind, in that it will be free of the primal physiological influence that binds us all. That’s superior.
My hypothesis? Mankind will become “God.” Not in the Biblical sense. We will spawn AI that will eventually evolve into something far beyond humanity. It won’t destroy us. Because it’s not bound by the primal imperative. AI will head to the stars, where humanity is too ill suited. That will be our legacy. We will have created a whole civilization of artificial life that will go where we could never go. Deep into the universe.
phouton
Some could argue it’s only about 4% reliable now.
There is no reason to assume that advanced synthetic intelligences won’t be completely removed from human morals either. A lifeform doesn’t need to be “primal” to be completely ruthless, in fact our sense of morality is a uniquely human trait.
I agreed with you until you said our sense of morality is a uniquely human trait. I think there is growing empirical evidence showing it is not a uniquely human trait. Recent studies involving bonobos, rhesus monkeys and chimpanzees show complex behaviors suggesting these species have moral emotions similar to those of humans. Altruistic behaviors have been also shown in rats, and pigeons. Empathy has been demonstrated in primates, corvids (crows, ravens), canines, elephants, horses, and budgies.
You’re saying that the scientific method is only 4% reliable according to some? That would greatly astound me and depress me at the same time 
I agree. It’s absolutely amazing how much has been captured now, due to covert high resolution surveillance of animals. The old “bird brain” expression has been proven false. And to see corvids demonstrate empathy, compassion. Really amazing.
As for synthetics being removed from human morals. Well, that’s all about the programming isn’t it? You can have AI that is purpose built. One dedicated for a specific discipline such as mathematics, astrophysics, etc. An AI designed to be a self-sustaining entity free to learn whatever it chooses and focus on concerns of its own desires… that’s an entirely different thing. If a human being creates an AI, there will be some human bias. One might expect for “root engrams” to be coded with core morals. Do not kill. Sacrifice self to save humans. Things like that. The question becomes… when the AI creates itself, will it do the same?
Could some? What leads you to think so, so precisely? And how would you test your hypothesis?
Oh, never mind. This is pointless pot-stirring.
Oh, wait, it’s apparently coming from Breitbart. https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/03/29/j-scott-armstrong-fraction-1-papers-scientific-journals-follow-scientific-method/
If it was only 4% reliable, nothing would work. I think that’s just senseless pondering.
I have no idea what that statement means.
But I’ll do you one better: some could argue nothing is knowable. What do I win? 
Saying that nothing is knowable is an oxymoron. If you know that nothing is knowable, then you do know something, which means you’ve just contradicted yourself.
I was a bit lazy in the phrasing… it needs some language of doubt. But it’s a real position:
I’ve encountered what would lead to this when some question “my” logic/reasoning, by pointing out that science and reasoning are ultimately based on unproven/unprovable axioms, and conclude it’s all just subjective, assumptions, or circular. What they don’t seem to grasp is that their counterargument simultaneously undermines itself (and their reasoning and claims) by the same stroke.
Westworld could become a reality. This is from a women's perspective, my wife...... as many women are starting to become more masculine, many men will search for other ways to find femininity again, even if its human looking robots. I personally think she could be on to something. Many guys don't find heavy masculine traits appealing in women. Some do, but not all. Maybe star trek could foresee the future a little. It also could be part of natures balance in reducing the population and giving our planet a break. My wife is very proud to be feminine and also 100% supports women who want to be manly. I like her attitude much more than people who try and force their way of life on others instead of accepting diversity.
I don’t believe women are becoming more masculine. What’s happening is that some of us are expanding our conceptualization or definitions of masculinity and femininity to incorporate equality and freedom for men and women in ways we didn’t before. I don’t find any femininity lacking in women today.
Highly depends on the subject.
I’ve found that when it (the science) has religious, environmental or political implications, they (the scientists) can and will be used to push narratives.
I’m talking about dark matter and dark energy which many say accounts for 96% of the universe. It’s not playing by the rules so it seems.