From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12233
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

uwot wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:32 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:24 amSo what exactly is an FSK? Is each bit of knowledge part of one or many of these FSK things? Please explain properly how they work.
It's just a narrative/model/paradigm/philosophy. People take their favourite axioms, stitch them together and pretend they've solved a problem they've made up. As a moral theory it works because it has clearly taken Mr Aequitus a long time to brew, which is all time he wasn't out robbing banks and being a baddie.
How come you are so intelligent on this matter while PantFlasher is struggling with it?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:40 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:53 am
The point is you think what my objection was about but you missed the target and spewed the wrong stuff.
That is what is happening again with the below.


You missed my point again.

I stated the truth that Joseph James DeAngelo was legally and officially CONVICTED as a murderer in a court in the USA is a 'legal truth' from within a legal framework and system FSK.
How did they arrive at that legal truth that Joseph James DeAngelo was the murderer?
The conviction was based on loads of evidence but the evidence with the greatest weight as the DNA evidence.

The DNA [scientific knowledge] as evidences in the legal FSK are not legal knowledge, rather they are scientific truths that are input into the legal FSK to enable the legal FSK to make its final decision which is then a legal truth specific upon that legal FSK.

I stated the DNA as evidence in that legal decision has the greatest significance in contributing to the above legal truth, i.e. that Joseph James DeAngelo was legally and officially CONVICTED as a murderer in a court in the USA.

Btw, the DNA is not only the scientific truth [various forensic science evidences] that is input into the legal FSK, while they are relevant they are not critical with the greater weightages.

My point is if scientific truths are relied upon by various FSKs, e.g. the legal FSK to enable the legal truth, why not the moral FSK relies upon scientific evidences and others to arrive at its moral truths.
In my case, I am referring to the DNA, evolutionary science, neurosciences, etc. as evidences to support my moral truths [facts].
So what exactly is an FSK? Is each bit of knowledge part of one or many of these FSK things? Please explain properly how they work.
It is very unfortunate you cannot infer from what is meant by a framework and system of knowledge.

I have repeated a '1000' times, all scientific knowledge are conditioned upon the scientific framework and system.

I believe if you are familiar with the Philosophy of Science you would be familiar with the concept that Science is conditioned upon a specific framework and system.
  • 1 Introduction
    1.1 Defining science
    1.2 Scientific explanation
    1.3 Justifying science
    1.4 Observation inseparable from theory
    1.5 The purpose of science
    1.6 Values and science
    2 History
    2.1 Pre-modern
    2.2 Modern
    2.3 Logical positivism
    2.4 Thomas Kuhn
    3 Current approaches
    3.1 Naturalism's axiomatic assumptions
    3.2 Coherentism
    3.3 Anything goes methodology
    3.4 Sociology of scientific knowledge methodology
    3.5 Continental philosophy
    4 Other topics
    4.1 Reductionism
    4.2 Social accountability
    5 Philosophy of particular sciences
The framework set the boundaries of science [the limitations, boundaries, the assumptions, principles, etc.] and the systems [scientific method, peer review, etc.] are the processes that enable the discovery and confirmation of scientific knowledge.

If you understand the general principles of the above re Framework and System of knowledge [FSK] then you can apply them to all sort of knowledge, beliefs, and opinions [where applicable].
No. Let's assume for the sake of argument that I find your approach to this question haphazard. Tell us something about how this thing you go on about so much actually works. This legal fact of some guy's conviction is conditioned on how many frameworks? What determines which framework some knowledge belongs to? And what resolves matters if two frameworks have competing knowledge and so on?

When we've got through that, we can probably consider some actual complicated questions, but we should stick to the simple stuff to begin with I think.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by uwot »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:40 amI believe if you are familiar with the Philosophy of Science you would be familiar with the concept that Science is conditioned upon a specific framework and system.
I am familiar with the philosophy of science and I can tell you that very few philosophers or scientists think there is a specific framework. However much people try to introduce certain rules or restrictions, the basic criterion is 'does it work?' I'll post a link to an article I wrote for Philosophy Now. (My apologies to the old timers who have seen me blab on about my own work so often it's like squirting lemon juice into their eyes.)
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:43 amHow come you are so intelligent on this matter while PantFlasher is struggling with it?
As it happens, I haven't read anything PantFlasher has written that I don't broadly agree with.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:02 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:40 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:10 am
I don't get your point, it is too messy convoluted.
You familiar with K.I.S.S?
So step by step.

(1) You'd say that the evidence either
(a) doesn't exist independently of our minds, or
(b) at least can't be known or observed as something independent of our minds, correct?
I did not state the above as unqualified.

As qualified, I stated [as in another post to you];

1. Common and Conventional Sense
The evidence exists independently of our mind and can be known [acquainted] as something independent of out minds.

2. In the Ultimate sense of reality
The above in 1 is ultimately subsumed within the human conditions.
Therefore the independence of 1 above is ultimately entangled with the human conditions that ultimately is not independent of the human conditions.
What the hell does "in the ultimate sense of reality" even refer to first off?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:48 am It is a legal truth within a legal FSK, Joseph James DeAngelo [aka Golden State Killer] was convicted of 12 homicides, 45 rapes, and 120 home invasions in the 1970s and ’80s in California..
Each case of conviction itself is a legal-FSK truth within the specific legal FSK.

Investigators had collected loads of related physical and other evidences, but it was the DNA evidences that nailed them after >30 years as cold cases.
Note there are many such cold cases of serious murders and other crimes which were resolved CONCLUSIVELY beyond reasonable doubts many years after the crime, based on scientific-FSK DNA evidences.
DNA testing and a genealogy database reportedly provided police with a breakthrough in the infamous Golden State Killer case.
Joseph James DeAngelo, 72, was arrested Wednesday by the Sacramento Sheriff on charges of murder. Police link the alleged Golden State Killer to 12 homicides, 45 rapes, and 120 home invasions in the 1970s and ’80s in California.

Investigators sequenced DNA from crime scenes that had been stored for decades and plugged the genetic profile of the suspected assailant into an online genealogy database. Officers found distant relatives of DeAngelo’s and traced their DNA to his front door, The New York Times reported.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... cience-spd
From the report above it was the DNA evidences that nailed the cases with the various convictions, i.e. the legal case.
The DNA evidences [scientific-FSK truths] in these cases are the critical and significant evidence which I believe can be rated with a weightage of 90/100 in convincing the jury and confirming the conclusion of the conviction.

So what we have with the above legal-FSK truth,
is that the scientific-FSK truths [of 90% weightage] were input into a legal-FSK to enable the emergence of legal-FSK-truth via a legal FSK.
Agree?

So what is wrong with,
scientific-FSK truths of 90% weightage being input into a moral FSK to enable the emergence of moral-FSK truths via a moral FSK??
This is the post of a desperate man.
I shall tell you exactly what is wrong.
The abreviation "FSK" is utterly redundant.
You have not defined what "FSK" is, nor would that be important since it has no bearing on rest of information in the post.
Were you to remove it and references to it, and only if you were to remove it would the post make sense.
But since you seem to have put it there with some intention I assume that you think "FSK" means something.
That being the case your failure to define what you mean by it invalidates the entire thread.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Sculptor »

So what has the Free State Kitchen to do with the Night Stalker???

http://freestatekitchen.co.uk
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Sculptor »

A Frequency Shift Keyring has little to do with Criminology.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10 ... 004-e-2116
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12233
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

uwot wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:57 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:40 amI believe if you are familiar with the Philosophy of Science you would be familiar with the concept that Science is conditioned upon a specific framework and system.
I am familiar with the philosophy of science and I can tell you that very few philosophers or scientists think there is a specific framework.
However much people try to introduce certain rules or restrictions, the basic criterion is 'does it work?' I'll post a link to an article I wrote for Philosophy Now. (My apologies to the old timers who have seen me blab on about my own work so often it's like squirting lemon juice into their eyes.)
There is a specific framework and system to science is specific in the sense that science cannot be theology, history, arts, and others which are considered non-science and to the extent science-proper can be differentiated from pseudo-science.
I believe philosophers and scientists will agree with the above.
While the philosophers of science will attempt to abstract a specific framework and system for science, the active scientists will not give a damn about it.

As such, there is a universal specific framework and system that is common to science in general while the specific fields of science [Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc.] will have their specific sub-FSK.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12233
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:24 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:02 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:40 am
So step by step.

(1) You'd say that the evidence either
(a) doesn't exist independently of our minds, or
(b) at least can't be known or observed as something independent of our minds, correct?
I did not state the above as unqualified.

As qualified, I stated [as in another post to you];

1. Common and Conventional Sense
The evidence exists independently of our mind and can be known [acquainted] as something independent of out minds.

2. In the Ultimate sense of reality
The above in 1 is ultimately subsumed within the human conditions.
Therefore the independence of 1 above is ultimately entangled with the human conditions that ultimately is not independent of the human conditions.
What the hell does "in the ultimate sense of reality" even refer to first off?
As usual you are unable to infer what is common philosophical knowledge because you are dogmatic and don't bother to reflect more deeply and widely.

1. When we look at rocks, common sense of reality will represent them as solid physical things which is easily observable with the senses directly.

2. At the conventional senses, the reality of the rocks are represented by their various features in terms of molecules, atoms.

3. At the more refined level of reality, that solid physical rock could be comprised of waves or particles and other sub-atomic particles.

4. At the penultimate level of reality, as Russell implied, perhaps there is no physical rocks at all.

5. At the ultimate [not absolute] level of reality, what is solid rocks and all levels of reality are subsumed within the human conditions [collectively].

Hope you get it?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12233
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:39 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:48 am It is a legal truth within a legal FSK, Joseph James DeAngelo [aka Golden State Killer] was convicted of 12 homicides, 45 rapes, and 120 home invasions in the 1970s and ’80s in California..
Each case of conviction itself is a legal-FSK truth within the specific legal FSK.

Investigators had collected loads of related physical and other evidences, but it was the DNA evidences that nailed them after >30 years as cold cases.
Note there are many such cold cases of serious murders and other crimes which were resolved CONCLUSIVELY beyond reasonable doubts many years after the crime, based on scientific-FSK DNA evidences.
DNA testing and a genealogy database reportedly provided police with a breakthrough in the infamous Golden State Killer case.
Joseph James DeAngelo, 72, was arrested Wednesday by the Sacramento Sheriff on charges of murder. Police link the alleged Golden State Killer to 12 homicides, 45 rapes, and 120 home invasions in the 1970s and ’80s in California.

Investigators sequenced DNA from crime scenes that had been stored for decades and plugged the genetic profile of the suspected assailant into an online genealogy database. Officers found distant relatives of DeAngelo’s and traced their DNA to his front door, The New York Times reported.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... cience-spd
From the report above it was the DNA evidences that nailed the cases with the various convictions, i.e. the legal case.
The DNA evidences [scientific-FSK truths] in these cases are the critical and significant evidence which I believe can be rated with a weightage of 90/100 in convincing the jury and confirming the conclusion of the conviction.

So what we have with the above legal-FSK truth,
is that the scientific-FSK truths [of 90% weightage] were input into a legal-FSK to enable the emergence of legal-FSK-truth via a legal FSK.
Agree?

So what is wrong with,
scientific-FSK truths of 90% weightage being input into a moral FSK to enable the emergence of moral-FSK truths via a moral FSK??
This is the post of a desperate man.
I shall tell you exactly what is wrong.
The abreviation "FSK" is utterly redundant.
You have not defined what "FSK" is, nor would that be important since it has no bearing on rest of information in the post.
Were you to remove it and references to it, and only if you were to remove it would the post make sense.
But since you seem to have put it there with some intention I assume that you think "FSK" means something.
That being the case your failure to define what you mean by it invalidates the entire thread.
The problem is you never read my posts or had bad memory.
Note this which I had repeatedly linked many times.

What is a Framework and System of Knowledge? [FSK]

What is a Moral Framework and System? [FSK]

Note this from Richard Feynman on "Framework" at 1.38 onwards
https://youtu.be/MO0r930Sn_8?t=96

Note also
Model-dependent realism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism#
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by uwot »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 3:59 amThere is a specific framework and system to science is specific in the sense that science cannot be theology, history, arts, and others which are considered non-science and to the extent science-proper can be differentiated from pseudo-science.
I believe philosophers and scientists will agree with the above.
Many scientists have believed they are revealing god's handiwork. If you don't know the history you have to start from first principles every time and you simply don't understand art or science if you don't think concepts as basic as force, energy, space and time are creative, to say nothing of the pictures you can paint with them.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 3:59 amWhile the philosophers of science will attempt to abstract a specific framework and system for science, the active scientists will not give a damn about it.
Because there isn't a specific framework. But if 'active scientists' don't give a damn about frameworks, why do you think active moral agents will?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 3:59 amAs such, there is a universal specific framework and system that is common to science in general while the specific fields of science [Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc.] will have their specific sub-FSK.
If I cannot lead you to the article, I shall bring the article to you:
Even as Popper was developing his theory of falsifiability, scientists were already pointing out that actually, that’s not how scientists work. Ludwik Fleck, a biologist, introduced the idea of a ‘thought collective’ – a group of scientists who share some common theory and working practices, their scientific method, and who collaborate to develop that research structure to its fullest potential. Michael Polanyi, a professor of chemistry, made a similar point. Science, in his experience, was not a single objective method that could simply be prescribed and followed; rather scientists put into practice the philosophy and methods they have been taught by other scientists. Essentially, once they have been initiated into a thought collective, they contribute to that collective. The physicist Max Planck, like Einstein, never fully accepted the interpretations of quantum mechanics given by younger scientists; but he observed that “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” So a prominent biologist, chemist, and physicist were all saying that in their professional experience, science did not work as philosophers such as Popper thought it should, and there isn’t one scientific method, there are many.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:09 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:24 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:02 am
I did not state the above as unqualified.

As qualified, I stated [as in another post to you];

1. Common and Conventional Sense
The evidence exists independently of our mind and can be known [acquainted] as something independent of out minds.

2. In the Ultimate sense of reality
The above in 1 is ultimately subsumed within the human conditions.
Therefore the independence of 1 above is ultimately entangled with the human conditions that ultimately is not independent of the human conditions.
What the hell does "in the ultimate sense of reality" even refer to first off?
As usual you are unable to infer what is common philosophical knowledge because you are dogmatic and don't bother to reflect more deeply and widely.

1. When we look at rocks, common sense of reality will represent them as solid physical things which is easily observable with the senses directly.

2. At the conventional senses, the reality of the rocks are represented by their various features in terms of molecules, atoms.

3. At the more refined level of reality, that solid physical rock could be comprised of waves or particles and other sub-atomic particles.

4. At the penultimate level of reality, as Russell implied, perhaps there is no physical rocks at all.

5. At the ultimate [not absolute] level of reality, what is solid rocks and all levels of reality are subsumed within the human conditions [collectively].

Hope you get it?
That doesn't help. Re 1, 2 and 3, aside from the fact that "comprised of waves" would be incoherent (waves have to be a processual function of some sort of material(s)), those three views are not forwarding anything different ontologically. (Sub-atomic) particles in dynamic relations are what atoms, molecules, etc. are comprised of, and atoms/molecules in particular dynamic relations, with particular properties, is what solidity is.

Making a jump from that to 4 and/or 5 is a non-sequitur, where 4 is also incoherent (the very notion of nonphysical existents is incoherent) and 5 is just gobbledygook.
Last edited by Terrapin Station on Sat Apr 17, 2021 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:22 am
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:39 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:48 am It is a legal truth within a legal FSK, Joseph James DeAngelo [aka Golden State Killer] was convicted of 12 homicides, 45 rapes, and 120 home invasions in the 1970s and ’80s in California..
Each case of conviction itself is a legal-FSK truth within the specific legal FSK.

Investigators had collected loads of related physical and other evidences, but it was the DNA evidences that nailed them after >30 years as cold cases.
Note there are many such cold cases of serious murders and other crimes which were resolved CONCLUSIVELY beyond reasonable doubts many years after the crime, based on scientific-FSK DNA evidences.



From the report above it was the DNA evidences that nailed the cases with the various convictions, i.e. the legal case.
The DNA evidences [scientific-FSK truths] in these cases are the critical and significant evidence which I believe can be rated with a weightage of 90/100 in convincing the jury and confirming the conclusion of the conviction.

So what we have with the above legal-FSK truth,
is that the scientific-FSK truths [of 90% weightage] were input into a legal-FSK to enable the emergence of legal-FSK-truth via a legal FSK.
Agree?

So what is wrong with,
scientific-FSK truths of 90% weightage being input into a moral FSK to enable the emergence of moral-FSK truths via a moral FSK??
This is the post of a desperate man.
I shall tell you exactly what is wrong.
The abreviation "FSK" is utterly redundant.
You have not defined what "FSK" is, nor would that be important since it has no bearing on rest of information in the post.
Were you to remove it and references to it, and only if you were to remove it would the post make sense.
But since you seem to have put it there with some intention I assume that you think "FSK" means something.
That being the case your failure to define what you mean by it invalidates the entire thread.
The problem is you never read my posts or had bad memory.
Note this which I had repeatedly linked many times.
yes... and you are STILL wrong.

What I said still stands.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12233
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

uwot wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 3:59 amThere is a specific framework and system to science is specific in the sense that science cannot be theology, history, arts, and others which are considered non-science and to the extent science-proper can be differentiated from pseudo-science.
I believe philosophers and scientists will agree with the above.
Many scientists have believed they are revealing god's handiwork. If you don't know the history you have to start from first principles every time and you simply don't understand art or science if you don't think concepts as basic as force, energy, space and time are creative, to say nothing of the pictures you can paint with them.
How many % of scientists are theists?
Even if they are theists, their hypothesis will still have to qualify within the 'scientific framework and system independent of a God' before their peers accept their theory, e.g. theists like Newton, Mendel and others/
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 3:59 amWhile the philosophers of science will attempt to abstract a specific framework and system for science, the active scientists will not give a damn about it.
Because there isn't a specific framework. But if 'active scientists' don't give a damn about frameworks, why do you think active moral agents will?
As stated, the majority of scientists are not too bothered with a specific scientific framework and system, but those of philosophers of science do and well as some scientists.
Note, here is a quickie [.. I am sure there are more]
Understanding Science conceptual framework
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/allgoals.php

In other cases of Framework and Systems of Knowledge they are fundamentally bounded by their explicit constitution, ideology, manifesto, etc.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 3:59 amAs such, there is a universal specific framework and system that is common to science in general while the specific fields of science [Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc.] will have their specific sub-FSK.
If I cannot lead you to the article, I shall bring the article to you:
Even as Popper was developing his theory of falsifiability, scientists were already pointing out that actually, that’s not how scientists work. Ludwik Fleck, a biologist, introduced the idea of a ‘thought collective’ – a group of scientists who share some common theory and working practices, their scientific method, and who collaborate to develop that research structure to its fullest potential. Michael Polanyi, a professor of chemistry, made a similar point. Science, in his experience, was not a single objective method that could simply be prescribed and followed; rather scientists put into practice the philosophy and methods they have been taught by other scientists. Essentially, once they have been initiated into a thought collective, they contribute to that collective. The physicist Max Planck, like Einstein, never fully accepted the interpretations of quantum mechanics given by younger scientists; but he observed that “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” So a prominent biologist, chemist, and physicist were all saying that in their professional experience, science did not work as philosophers such as Popper thought it should, and there isn’t one scientific method, there are many.
Regardless of the variations of views re the scientific practices, there are various generic principles that are intrinsic that are fundamental to what is Science.
Example all scientific knowledge are fundamentally empirical-based even for scientific speculations.
Note some of the common features of Science in the above link, i.e.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/allgoals.php
Post Reply