>It's not formal. It's the most common definition.
There's many many definitions going along the gradient of formality from informal to formal. The science you're referring to is more on the formal end where there's data gathering that's written down, a hypothesis is made and what not. Additionally we tend to use statistics to numerically quantify the information.
At the most informal end, data is simply gathered through observation, a hypothesis is made intuitively. We still did science in the sense that it's possibly still valid. Do you need formal science to prove there's ground beneath your feet before you jump off your bed?
>Look, if you can't actually use your theory to predict with any modicum of success, it's not science, it's philosophy. Which isn't bad per se, but it shouldn't be used for any real life application.
science in it's most technical form can only falsify a hypothesis. When a theory is successful it means science only failed to falsify that hypothesis.
Philosophy as a whole is a bunch of BS. It's a bunch of conjecture that they try to formalize stuff that can be formalized and made up stuff that can never really be formalized. It's a mishmash of everything and is therefore nothing. You have the philosophy of science which is good by itself, but when you have something like the philosophy of morality side by side with the philosophy of science and Logic as if these things are equal... it becomes pure BS.
>If you are familiar with psychology, then you are aware of the damage Freud ""theories"" that showed to be extremely unreliable. To me, that's the real danger of mixing philosophy with science. People confuse what they think is correct with reality.
Freud made up his theories and verified it with his limited anecdotal data. It's much faster and is sometimes right. Formal Science is much more accurate but is slow.
>If you aren't ready to read it with a critical eye, then you'll fall for the PR in it. The point of the newcomer guidebook is to sell new guys on the benefits of organization, and push away people who don't fit that mold.
Doesn't mean what you said is even remotely true. Like freud this type of prediction needs a bit more "formality" to back up what you said.
>That's the extreme point of your statement. And you confirmed it. To me, that crosses several ethic and formalism bridges.
Not even close. In it's most extreme form people go to jail. This is far from that and uncalled for.
>Even if it wasn't utterly immoral to do that test, it wouldn't give you any usable knowledge because of confounding factors.
No it gives you knowledge of the test and what happens in the presence of confounding factors. It also indicates the possibility that the same results could happen without the confounding factors.
>I made an offhand remark, that it's quite literally the anti-anti-rape slogan. And I discarded that, so why are you still going about it?
Because it's extreme and unnecessary language that increases the hostility of the conversation and the accusation. I'm telling you that your response is over the top.
There's many many definitions going along the gradient of formality from informal to formal. The science you're referring to is more on the formal end where there's data gathering that's written down, a hypothesis is made and what not. Additionally we tend to use statistics to numerically quantify the information.
At the most informal end, data is simply gathered through observation, a hypothesis is made intuitively. We still did science in the sense that it's possibly still valid. Do you need formal science to prove there's ground beneath your feet before you jump off your bed?
>Look, if you can't actually use your theory to predict with any modicum of success, it's not science, it's philosophy. Which isn't bad per se, but it shouldn't be used for any real life application.
science in it's most technical form can only falsify a hypothesis. When a theory is successful it means science only failed to falsify that hypothesis.
Philosophy as a whole is a bunch of BS. It's a bunch of conjecture that they try to formalize stuff that can be formalized and made up stuff that can never really be formalized. It's a mishmash of everything and is therefore nothing. You have the philosophy of science which is good by itself, but when you have something like the philosophy of morality side by side with the philosophy of science and Logic as if these things are equal... it becomes pure BS.
>If you are familiar with psychology, then you are aware of the damage Freud ""theories"" that showed to be extremely unreliable. To me, that's the real danger of mixing philosophy with science. People confuse what they think is correct with reality.
Freud made up his theories and verified it with his limited anecdotal data. It's much faster and is sometimes right. Formal Science is much more accurate but is slow.
>If you aren't ready to read it with a critical eye, then you'll fall for the PR in it. The point of the newcomer guidebook is to sell new guys on the benefits of organization, and push away people who don't fit that mold.
Doesn't mean what you said is even remotely true. Like freud this type of prediction needs a bit more "formality" to back up what you said.
>That's the extreme point of your statement. And you confirmed it. To me, that crosses several ethic and formalism bridges.
Not even close. In it's most extreme form people go to jail. This is far from that and uncalled for.
>Even if it wasn't utterly immoral to do that test, it wouldn't give you any usable knowledge because of confounding factors.
No it gives you knowledge of the test and what happens in the presence of confounding factors. It also indicates the possibility that the same results could happen without the confounding factors.
>I made an offhand remark, that it's quite literally the anti-anti-rape slogan. And I discarded that, so why are you still going about it?
Because it's extreme and unnecessary language that increases the hostility of the conversation and the accusation. I'm telling you that your response is over the top.