Real Clever Science

My name is Ari Einbinder. This is the journal of my travels into the realm of science and science education.
I've worked at science museums in NY (NYSCI and AMNH) and across Europe. Currently I'm studying "museology" (aka museum studies) at UW in Seattle, WA. I'm also one of Tumblr's Science Section editors.

I discuss anything that fascinates me, but popular topics include evolution, transhumanism (e.g BCI), futurism, psychology, quantum computing, climate change, sustainability, genetic engineering and occasionally politics - to name a few.

Enjoy!

~~~

Talk To Me


For a quick glance at previous posts, check out the Archive

Visit my website: RealCleverName.com
Tue Jul 17
Very well summarized.
Reminded me of this hopefully not too controversial thought:It also relates to how science doesn’t usually discuss “facts” bc, who knows, our information or understanding can change - even if it often seems nearly impossible. Still, science is humble like that. Instead, we usually talk about theories and what’s great about them is that they needn’t necessarily be facts as long as they actually explain the phenomenon and provide a working framework for new discoveries. In other words, even if, say, atoms didn’t exist - and we discover some bizarre alternative explanation in 1,000 years from now - it wouldn’t matter so much to science bc our current explanation works. It gets results. And inasmuch as we can’t really prove things with 100% certainty, then knowledge is less about platonic truths than it is about practical truths, even if the platonic truths exist bc, afterall, we can’t know them for certain. So, basically, truth is about what actually works, which is how science works. Other systems of thought describe truth as absolute certainty, even if not providing results; science describes truth as what provides results, even if it lacks absolute certainty. 
IMHO.
Commence the angry messages. =]

Very well summarized.

Reminded me of this hopefully not too controversial thought:
It also relates to how science doesn’t usually discuss “facts” bc, who knows, our information or understanding can change - even if it often seems nearly impossible. Still, science is humble like that. Instead, we usually talk about theories and what’s great about them is that they needn’t necessarily be facts as long as they actually explain the phenomenon and provide a working framework for new discoveries. In other words, even if, say, atoms didn’t exist - and we discover some bizarre alternative explanation in 1,000 years from now - it wouldn’t matter so much to science bc our current explanation works. It gets results. And inasmuch as we can’t really prove things with 100% certainty, then knowledge is less about platonic truths than it is about practical truths, even if the platonic truths exist bc, afterall, we can’t know them for certain. So, basically, truth is about what actually works, which is how science works. Other systems of thought describe truth as absolute certainty, even if not providing results; science describes truth as what provides results, even if it lacks absolute certainty. 

IMHO.

Commence the angry messages. =]

(Source: atheistjack, via thedragoninmygarage)