I was reading up on the comments of a great post from two days ago by Hive account@kyriacos and I found myself beginning to respond at length to one comment thread. I was more or less agreeing with Hive account@lemouth, but I was expanding upon the concept of TRUTH. After writing several paragraphs I realized I should likely be writing this as a blog post.

In general the article was discussing how we have many things that are called science when looked at really are not. This is a true statement. It also hinted at how science is becoming much like a religion. This too is true and I have written about it before myself in many round about ways(1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9). Yet it is not the fault of science. It is also not being done by all scientists.

Here is a screen grab of the conversation thread I wished to respond to from that other post.

My Response

There are indeed a lot of people that throw the word science, and scientist around a lot these days. It is especially prevalent within politics. It is often used like a bludgeoning word to silence criticism much like the word faith, blasphemy, pagan, heretic, etc are used within religion. This does not make science the culprit. It does not make the people who are claiming to be scientists actual scientist. There is no crime for impersonating a scientist. Anyone can claim to be one. That does not meant they ARE one.

In reality to be a scientist all you need to do is follow the scientific method. If you do that you ARE a scientist. You may not be an expert in a specific field, but you are one who practices the scientific method. The degrees you have to back you up may or may not be relevant depending upon the field, and the quality of the university you attended. Likewise, not having a degree does not mean you do not have a mind. A person can be a scientist without any formal training beyond the scientific method. A scientist needs to understand how it works and why it is there.

Source: Wikipedia

Yet when a scientist refers to something as a THEORY that is not the same as them saying THIS IS THE TRUTH. Instead that is them saying this is the most probable explanation to explain and predict the observations that we have at this time. As soon as a person starts using absolutes, or attempting to simplify a situation down into a binary choice of YOU AGREE WITH ME or YOU DON'T, and I AM RIGHT, YOU ARE WRONG then they are no longer practicing science and it is indeed analogous to religion. In reality, most situations are much more complex than that. There are far more choices and possible states than just two. Yet for some reason we as humans really like to simplify everything down into binary choices. Quantum States themselves I believe have more than two states from the little I know.

A theory is not the end in the search for the truth. It is simply a tool to hopefully predict and explain observations. As part of the scientific method it should be challenged. Most theories I am aware of have flaws. These flaws are things that scientists look at and try to come up with a new theory that will address the flaw and still be able to accurately model what the previous theory could. That does not make the theory worthless. It is simply the best predictor for the observations we have at the time.

My OPINION is that we will always be seeking the truth. The truth is infinity. Every knew thing we learn opens a window or door to new questions. Science is not really about absolutes. It is about probabilities. Most things referred to as a theory have a high degree of probability of correctly modeling the observations. Until we find flaws, and begin seeking something to improve those probabilities.

Thus, theories are not the truth. They simply are the tools that explain and predict observations with the highest degree of accuracy at the time.

Astrobiology

Hive account@kyriacos was right in singling this one out. This one really cannot CURRENTLY be considered a field of scientific endeavor due to lack of sufficient information, subject matter to test, and observations. It is almost completely speculation. There are exceptions when it comes to strange substances raining from the sky that they postulate came from space, or organisms found on the windows of stations and orbitals in our orbit that are alive and well. There are rocks we hypothesize came from Mars and they find evidence of "life" in them. Yet, until there is more data to work with, and things we can reliably observe and test, this is indeed a pseudoscience. The term pseudo for those unfamiliar means false.

Conspiracy Theories

I want to throw this into the mix since it is an emotionally charged and conditioned phrase with words that have largely been hijacked to again be bludgeoning words to silence people.

What people refer to as conspiracy theories are in fact closer to Conspiracy Hypothesis. They are speculations based upon observations. They are not the TRUTH. Yet, that does not mean there is anything wrong about hypothesizing. The scientific method next would propose formulating a test, experiment to test this hypothesis. It would then require reviewing the test, and having others recreate the test. If it passed these tests then it would become a theory.

Therefore conspiracy theories are in fact simply conspiracy hypothesis. There is nothing wrong with people speculating and considering things. Often the OFFICIAL stories themselves are no more than hypothesis or conspiracy hypothesis as the necessary information to make it a theory is unavailable. The only difference to the OFFICIAL story and OTHER stories in such cases is the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. It doesn't matter if the source is OFFICIAL or not. If they had no way to take it beyond the hypothesis stage then the fact they are in an "official" capacity is meaningless when it comes to Truth and science.

Truther

This term came largely from the 9-11 truth movement. It has been conditioned just like the phrase conspiracy theorist, heretic, pagan, etc to be a derogatory and negative thing that shuts down people's minds. The conditioning is used to make people stop listening, and close their mind. They fail to recognize the conditioning.

Hypothesizing and speculating are where everything starts. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing it unless someone claims a hypothesis IS the truth without testing it, and as I stated before the truth by our knowledge is not absolute. We only get glimpses of the truth. The truth AS WE KNOW IT.

I consider myself a truther. I seek the truth. I am only interested in the truth. I want the truth even if it is uncomfortable. I do not approach things any longer as I AM RIGHT, YOU ARE WRONG. I am often wrong. I learn so much more, and it has opened my mind to so many more ideas once I stopped trying to defend every idea that I have as the truth.

The best I have to work with is probabilities based upon the information I have at the time. Theories that are good at modeling things at the time and are scientific increase the probabilities of things being closer to the truth.

String Theory

I am uncertain this is the proper use of the term either. Should this not be String Hypothesis?

Steem On!