A real scientist explains how science is always right

   I'm sorry but your secret is out. You are not a scientist, you are not a teacher. You are a soldier. You are fighting for what you believe is science against what you believe is religion. You do not understand either science or religion. You are a just a grunt like others on this board.

   You miss the real beauty and elegance of relativity. What is so remarkable about relativity is how many people believe in it who could not possibly have seen any proof of it. The difference between the path of Mercury with and without relativity is so trivial it is quite beyond the means of measurement available to even most of the top laboratories.

   It is funny watching you criticize religion for believing things for which only a very few people have seen the proof, then doing exactly the same thing yourself. You're just a stupid grunt, repeating things you could not begin to understand, but it's a bit cute.

It's their way of twisting a grapefruit in our faces.  An actor was playing the role of a scientist named Dr. Rodney McKay.  The other two were just playing the roles that they always play.

Science is right until its proven wrong.


Which happens a lot



Of course when it comes to religion vs science than science is always right.

Scientists do say a lot of stuff about philosophy that is just complete bull and dress it up as scientifically proven.

Take the "expanding universe hypothesis". The universe is not expanding, a region of space is just taking over another. Sort of like how nations take over other nations.

First my reaction before I watched the video:

Explains how science is always right? The only way someone could say that is if they didn't at all understand the most rudimentary philosophy of science ideas. One of the primary ideas of science is to pursue a counter-dogmatic epistemology. Claiming that something is "always right" certainly isn't counter-dogmatic.

Further, a core tenet of the sciences is that scientific claims are falsifiable. When you falsify a scientific claim, including theories, you do indeed disprove them. Those claims are then replaced with new, provisionally-verified (in lieu of falsification) claims. Entire approaches to scientific claim can be replaced in that way, too, a la a pardigm shift.

Okay, now checking out the video:

So, DeGrasse-Tyson is wrong that something that has been provisionally verified (and it's by definition always provisional) can not later be falsified (be shown to be false). At best, under instrumentalism, and a la a bit of a logical positivist bent, you could say that the earlier provisionally verified claim(s) have instrumental utility in the context wherein the provisional verification occurred. That can't be "erased" somehow.

However, he's right to counter the idea that science is kind of wishy-washy and arbitrary, which is what people are talking about when they complain that "first they said this, now they say that" (which is especially an impression people get about medical claims).

He's also right to stress that further qualifications of earlier claims are not falsifications.  But that doesn't mean that earlier claims can not be falsified.  Phlogiston as the mechanism of combustion is a traditional example of falsification of earlier claims.  We didn't just further qualify or refine our phlogiston theories.  We threw the idea of phlogiston into the bin.

   Suppose you tell me what you think first.  That way I won't have to start from scratch and might only need to make a few trivial adjustments, if any.

   What about the frequency of light?  Is it not usually dependent on the specific (quantum) energy difference between electron orbital levels?

   I respect Galileo for being a starting point for Newton.  I respect Newton for formulating the laws of universal gravitation and  for providing useful, widely repeatable methods of verifying them.  I appreciate Einstein for the awesome elegance of relativity despite its being inappropriate for repeatable demonstrations.  I rather obviously do not care one whit what you think about any of these things.

   I suspect you're dodging the fact that you're having difficulty reconciling your various beliefs of the velocity, relative velocity, and frequency of light.

   I'm sorry, Einstein is contemporary as I can get for respected scientists.  I suppose Jonas Salk was clever enough, but just an expansion on Edward Jenner really.

   What an ineffective bad attitude you have.