Though Phil and I disagree on a lot of things, he is correct in that there are problems with current scientific theories, expressions, and definitions. I offer up this thread as a discussion area of these potential problems. As proof of my unbias nature, and as a proving ground for other’s.
Nothing implied here should lead anyone to the conclusion that I think we should discard science or scientific process. These are just my own difficulties (I believe inherant ones) which I find in the process of scientific analysis. I still find the system to be the only valid system deduction yet created.
One inherant peice of difficulty in my mind lies in the definition of the word fact. As interpreted by a scientist this means,(paraphrased to be sure) that which is most likely due to application of ocham’s razor, combined with insight gained through scientific experimentation. To the rest of us a fact is “that which is true” a very simple definition. The problem that I encounter is that scientists when talking to laymen use the word “fact”, when it means something different to their audience than they intend.
There are other difficulties I have with science… but definitions, and the ease of thier misinterpretation is one of my larger issues. I will bring up more as I can think of them.
