Slept Late (Not Ashamed)
Aug. 20th, 2021 06:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
degringoladeHarlem Renaissance (New Negro Movement) / William H. Johnson/ Moon Over Harlem
Gonna try something new today since I overslept (sleeping has been really good since the temperature went down, I didn’t want to chance not getting my share of zzzz’s in.
Here’s Michael:
Maybe the main problem with much of what is called science, is that it is not really science.
What is a scientific report?
Typically, it refers to and applies science, but the point of the report is to suggest that certain scientific results mean something in relation to something beyond the abstraction that applies to the science itself.
Regardless of how the argument in the report is made, or what other science is used to support the argument, the report is not science. The report is called science, and unfortunately accepted as science, because an argument is made by applying science. This does not make the report scientific; in fact, it guarantees it is not, unless the report simply presents the data and says no more. A report that contains science data is not a scientific report if the science is applied to predicting a result other than a repeat of the same experiment or the identical conditions that produced the science.
People will say this is ridiculous because the application of science always goes beyond the science itself. True, but as soon as predictions are regarded as scientific, anything can be called scientific. And this is what happens. Why? Because things that are not scientific are less convincing and sell for less.
A scientist does not make up science. The application of science is not science. Consensus about science is not science. If consensus were scientific, there would be a formula/pattern for consensus other than killing or punishing those who do not consent.
Maybe this means that many who are called a “scientist”, produce non-scientific reports. So? The name of an occupation does not change the definition of science. Maybe what needs to be changed, is the name of the occupation. How about “Marketing”? That sounds pretty accurate.
