The Green Rules -- Objectivity and Subjectivity

[Helio]

Some may find the following helpful, though perhaps not. I have been attempting to have something like this to help give clarity to what science is and isn't. Metaphysics, pseudscience, philosophy, religion all need to be separated from hard science. Understanding how the subjective and objective elements work together to form a range of ideas from supposition to advanced theories requires this understanding.

They are green to give it a colorful name, and it's my favorite color.

I present them in hopes others will give it greater clarity and perhaps tweak it in a way that will make them attractive enough to use.

1) The measurable objective elements of any subjective claim are always open to scientific scrutiny.

2) Science has influence upon subjective claims in proportion to the weight science can bear upon the objective elements within them. This weight is a product of the veracity that science has in that respective field and the amount of exposure the objective elements have for any given subjective claim.

3) Subjective claims have no direct influence on science.

 

[rod]

Helio, where is the word *falsifiable* here?

 

[Jim DeMaio]

Measuring tools are severely limited. To exclude what goes beyond them is short sighted. Be open to the convergence of the new physics with ancient metaphysics. Be not afraid to let go of your premuses

 

[Catastrophe]

Some may find the following helpful, though perhaps not. I have been attempting to have something like this to help give clarity to what science is and isn't. Metaphysics, pseudscience, philosophy, religion all need to be separated from hard science. Understanding how the subjective and objective elements work together to form a range of ideas from supposition to advanced theories requires this understanding.

They are green to give it a colorful name, and it's my favorite color.

I present them in hopes others will give it greater clarity and perhaps tweak it in a way that will make them attractive enough to use.

1) The measurable objective elements of any subjective claim are always open to scientific scrutiny.

2) Science has influence upon subjective claims in proportion to the weight science can bear upon the objective elements within them. This weight is a product of the veracity that science has in that respective field and the amount of exposure the objective elements have for any given subjective claim.

3) Subjective claims have no direct influence on science.

Subject to more time to digest, my first impression is entirely positive.

Cat

 

[Jim DeMaio]

The convergence of the new physics with ancient metaphysics is unavoidable.

 

[rod]

Measuring tools are severely limited. To exclude what goes beyond them is short sighted. Be open to the convergence of the new physics with ancient metaphysics. Be not afraid to let go of your premuses

"with ancient metaphysics" is there a source reference here? I am familiar with Hittite accounts, Egyptian, Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, etc. and have access to many translated texts as well as cuneiform renderings too in my Logos library.

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio

How does this fit your rules? I am not clear on this?

"a consensus of accurate perceptions"
equals
"a consensus of accurate measurements".

Cat

 

[rod]

When it comes to *rules*, here is a definition of science from a court trial.

Here are five points that science must meet according to a 1982 Fed court and judge ruling.

The essential characteristics of science are:

1. It is guided by natural law;
2. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
3. It is testable against the empirical world;
4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word;
5. It is falsifiable.

A good example of the above is Galileo and his telescope observations of the tiny lights moving around Jupiter that shocked the geocentric astronomy teachers. Eventually all of his telescope observations could be described by natural law and are testable even today using telescopes so his observations has withstood the test of time here too.

 

[Catastrophe]

For starters:

natural law
noun

1. 1.
   a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.
   "an adjudication based on natural law"
   
   
2. 2.
   an observable law relating to natural phenomena.
   "the natural laws of perspective"

Which does your definition use?

Cat

 

[rod]

For starters:

natural law
noun

1. 1.
   a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.
   "an adjudication based on natural law"
   
   
2. 2.
   an observable law relating to natural phenomena.
   "the natural laws of perspective"

Which does your definition use?

Cat

It was a well published trial over creation in the public schools in USA so #2, natural law as it relates to nature like gravity and the Galilean moons orbits around Jupiter and Jupiter moving around the Sun as seen in Jupiter's motion along the ecliptic and fixed stars and constellations Jupiter passes by.

 

[Catastrophe]

QUOTE
What Is Natural Law? Natural law is a theory in ethics and philosophy that says that human beings possess intrinsic values that govern our reasoning and behavior. Natural law maintains that these rules of right and wrong are inherent in people and are not created by society or court judges.24 Nov 2020
Quote

Cat

 

[rod]

QUOTE
What Is Natural Law? Natural law is a theory in ethics and philosophy that says that human beings possess intrinsic values that govern our reasoning and behavior. Natural law maintains that these rules of right and wrong are inherent in people and are not created by society or court judges.24 Nov 2020
Quote

Cat

You are obfuscating what I said about the trial. The trial used a specific definition of natural law like the universal law of gravity developed by Newton, not the religious or philosophical definition.

 

[Catastrophe]

It was a well published trial over creation in the public schools in USA so #2, natural law as it relates to nature like gravity and the Galilean moons orbits around Jupiter and Jupiter moving around the Sun as seen in Jupiter's motion along the ecliptic and fixed stars and constellations Jupiter passes by.

Seems quite a few different opinions?

Cat

 

[rod]

Seems quite a few different opinions?

Cat

Not really Cat. It depends upon your source and search used. Here is MS BING again

[Scientific laws (also known as natural laws) imply a cause and effect between the observed elements and must always apply under the same conditions. In order to be scientific law, a statement must describe some aspect of the universe and be based on repeated experimental evidence.]

This is the definition in the 1982 trial. Appeals to the new physics and ancient metaphysics by some, at present are not considered natural law like Kepler's planetary elliptical laws, or the laws of motion or gravity. Kepler developed his elliptical orbit model based upon extensive Mars observations by Tycho Brahe who attempted to overthrow Copernicus but failed. Prior to this circles were used, including Copernicus original heliocentric solar system to describe planet motion around the Sun.

 

[Catastrophe]

QUOTE
is a theory in ethics and philosophy
QUOTE

QUOTE
body of unchanging moral principles
QUOTE

QUOTE
an observable law relating to natural phenomena.
QUOTE

 

[rod]

QUOTE
is a theory in ethics and philosophy
QUOTE

QUOTE
body of unchanging moral principles
QUOTE

QUOTE
an observable law relating to natural phenomena.
QUOTE

Cat, I searched for meaning of natural law using the definition as described in science so #3 is what I use.

 

[Catastrophe]

This is going nowhere.

*******************************

Cat, I searched for meaning of natural law using the definition as described in science so #3 is what I use.

Selective thinking?

 

[rod]

The convergence of the new physics with ancient metaphysics is unavoidable.

*ancient metaphysics*

Sometime a source reference is needed. What is the oldest extant manuscript containing this information, what language was it written, Akkadian for example like the Amarna Letters, etc.

 

[rod]

This is going nowhere.

*******************************


Selective thinking?

This means we cannot agree on defining science now.

 

[IG2007]

3) Subjective claims have no direct influence on science.

Here is one thing I am completely against. Everything in this universe is of direct influence to Science. As everything in the universe is directly under the sphere of Science.

 

[Catastrophe]

This means we cannot agree on defining science now.

Explain that unwarranted assertion.

 

[rod]

Here is one thing I am completely against. Everything in this universe is of direct influence to Science. As everything in the universe is directly under the sphere of Science.

the sphere of science must use the scientific method and testing standards so claims about the universe can be sorted out as correct or error.

 

[IG2007]

the sphere of science must use the scientific method and testing standards so claims about the universe can be sorted out as correct or error.

Yes, so I mean to say, that any claim, whether subjective or objective, is under the sphere of influence of Science and therefore has direct influence on Science.

 

[rod]

Explain that unwarranted assertion.

It means I provided 5 points from a 1982 Federal court trial that used natural law in defining science (against creationists), you seem to obfuscate the 1982 definition in my view.

 

[IG2007]

I guess I am derailing your conversations, Cat and Rod but I guess I should add a point to it. Sir Isaac Newton's most famous book's name was "Philosophiae Naturalis: Principia Mathematica" or, if translated to English, "Natural Philosophy: Principles of Mathematics."