Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-26-2019 1:04 PM
26 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, PaulK, PsychMJC, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,058 Year: 7,094/19,786 Month: 1,635/1,581 Week: 14/443 Day: 14/34 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5678Next
Author Topic:   What does life do outside of science?
tsig
Member (Idle past 1050 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 46 of 112 (243129)
09-13-2005 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by PurpleYouko
09-12-2005 3:51 PM


Re: I don't get it at all
IMO "outside of science" is a meaningless concept.

Thank you. I didn't know that Ben had used my remark to start a new topic so there were 45 responses before I saw it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by PurpleYouko, posted 09-12-2005 3:51 PM PurpleYouko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 9:10 PM tsig has not yet responded
 Message 54 by PurpleYouko, posted 09-14-2005 10:17 AM tsig has not yet responded

    
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1763 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 47 of 112 (243130)
09-13-2005 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by tsig
09-13-2005 9:04 PM


Re: I don't get it at all
Sorry about that; next time I'll remember to respond to your comment and say I'm opening a PNT. That was dumb of me.

Glad you made it over.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by tsig, posted 09-13-2005 9:04 PM tsig has not yet responded

    
tsig
Member (Idle past 1050 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 48 of 112 (243134)
09-13-2005 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Silent H
09-13-2005 1:43 PM


no need
Do you believe a person would not develop a moral system of some kind without others to interact with?

Why would they need it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2005 1:43 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
tsig
Member (Idle past 1050 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 49 of 112 (243135)
09-13-2005 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Ben!
09-13-2005 8:39 PM


What are they?
There are lots of things outside the scientific method.

Yay!


If these 'things" are outside the scientific method, then they are unknowable by any ordinary application of the mind. Why should we care about them?

ps. please tell me the next time you use one of my responses to start a thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 8:39 PM Ben! has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by robinrohan, posted 09-14-2005 12:38 AM tsig has not yet responded
 Message 63 by cavediver, posted 09-15-2005 5:44 AM tsig has not yet responded

    
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 112 (243195)
09-14-2005 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by tsig
09-13-2005 9:28 PM


Re: What are they?
If these 'things" are outside the scientific method, then they are unknowable by any ordinary application of the mind. Why should we care about them?

Most of what we care about is outside the scientific method. Does my wife love me, or not? Can we do a mind-probe on her and find out for sure?

Is the work I do worth a damn? Can we put that in a lab and find out?

Am I a good person? Any way to quantify that?

Have I done anything worth while on this earth?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by tsig, posted 09-13-2005 9:28 PM tsig has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by robinrohan, posted 09-14-2005 12:58 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 112 (243202)
09-14-2005 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by robinrohan
09-14-2005 12:38 AM


More unscientific questions
Have I done right by my children?

Should I take this job or not?

Am I a fool?

What should I cook tonight?

Do I look good in this outfit?

Should I attend this meeting?

Why don't I have any luck?

Am I attractive?

Should I vote for this candidate?

Is life really worth living?

Should I pull the trigger, or not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by robinrohan, posted 09-14-2005 12:38 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by tsig, posted 09-14-2005 6:25 PM robinrohan has responded
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2005 7:37 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3961 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 52 of 112 (243235)
09-14-2005 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by PurpleYouko
09-13-2005 4:18 PM


Re: I don't get it at all
What I am saying is that any action taken in the real world has to be the result of stimuli of some kind. Whether that stimuli is a single neuron firing or whether it is the final piece of data in 20 year long investigation, it still has an effect on the things we do, the things we know and the decisions we make based on those data.

This model appears to break down at the quantum level. You are aware of that, yes?

In any case, I can agree that for the most part the natural world influences things in the natural world. That seems to be what you are saying.

You can't really claim that they walk around "without science" though can you? Theye were designed by scientists and would not exist without science.

They could not exist except that humans with scientific aptitude reached a level of material and physical engineering they could construct the robots. This is true. But they could continue to walk regardless if the scientific enterprise sank into the sand tomorrow.

Don't you think the baby learning to take his first steps is able to visualize himself walking? What is that if not a scientific process. Observation --> Create a model --> test the hypothesis --> fall down --> modify the model --> try again.

No, I do not believe this accurately represents a child's attempts to walk. Why not simply ask a person who was injured in a way that forced them to learn to walk again, or use prostheses? They might use visualization but that is different than "knowing" the model of how walking is accomplished. Indeed that level of info would likely reduce one's accomplishments.

Here is an example. I was in martial arts. While we learned skills, there was no scientific study of exactly how a block would deflect a blow. One could do this of course, but it was not necessary to properly block a blow. And thinking about blocking a blow could simply make things worse. Thinking seemed to be death to a martial artist.

The main thing was feeling and allowing one's body to react quickly. You trained muscles and nerves to react in specific ways (whether you knew why or not) until they built up memory. You trained your senses to be more alert than they usually are (not hindered by analysis). Then you let them go.

In many cases it is a state of the body doing exactly what it will and can do. One interesting experiment for you would be to find a young child and see if you can get it to understand the concept of volume. It is known that no matter how you try, the child is incapable of understanding until a certain formation in the brain occurs. Then the child gets it. No amount of scientific investigation is linked to form this understanding, yet much scientific investigation hinges on this understanding.

Hmmmmmm.

But any stimuli (such as the closure of a contact switch) results in an influx of information. Information equates to knowledge and according to definition 1 Knowledge == Science. You just can't get away from it. If you have knowledge of something then that IS, by definition, science.

So a reflex action is considered knowledge and science? In fact, according to this info all creatures on this planet are conducting science at every moment. Don't you see how weak this makes your def?

I might add once again, it even places a bunch of gaybashers or a lynch mob in the category of scientists (social sciences I guess). That is a bit odious.

Our eyes, ears and other senses are detectors. If we can't hear, feel or see it then it might as well not be there anyway.

Are you kidding me? Go get yourself a bar of uranium and set it a few feet from you. You will never see, hear, feel, or smell any of the particles coming off of it that will most certainly kill you. Many people cannot detect the smell of cyanide (which you also cannot see, feel, or hear) until you drop dead.

I don't know how many numbers of tiny things you cannot sense, as well as vast things you cannot sense, that there are in the universe. Maybe somebody has a list. You realize there are whole ranges of EM that you cannot sense and never will directly?

So to sum up Science is exactly equal to Knowledge.

Wrong. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, a form of epistemology devoted to natural phenomena. It may even (at a stretch) refer to the products of that pursuit. Scientific method is the most advanced set of rules we have crafted toward that end.

Here is a link to Science at Wiki.

There are most definitely things that are outside of "The scientific method" but outside of science?

I would have said that's what Ben was trying to get at, but I see he already did.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by PurpleYouko, posted 09-13-2005 4:18 PM PurpleYouko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by PurpleYouko, posted 09-14-2005 10:33 AM Silent H has responded

    
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 53 of 112 (243296)
09-14-2005 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Ben!
09-13-2005 8:39 PM


Re: I don't get it at all
If you look at the OP, I think I was really specific about what I meant by science:

me writes:
It's not a science board. I really hope we don't turn it into one. Science is a way to argue inductively. That's it. Life contains many things outside of it.

That was my 4 word summary of the scientific method. Was it too unclear, maybe?

Anyway, I hope this means that we actually agree. There are lots of things outside the scientific method.

Yay!

Yes we agree that there are lots of things that do no involve active use of the scientific method.
However I don't think your OP was specific enough to lock in your actual meaning. I was actually being a little pedantic in attacking your meaning with a "naturalistic" definition.

To be quite honest I was a little surprised when I went looking for definitions of "science". It wasn't anywhere near as focussed as I expected it to be. I really didn't try to find one that backed up my argument. That was simply the first one that came up in Google.

I still contend that everything is subject to eventual explanation by science but that is a admittedly different subject.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 8:39 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 54 of 112 (243297)
09-14-2005 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by tsig
09-13-2005 9:04 PM


Re: I don't get it at all
Thank you. I didn't know that Ben had used my remark to start a new topic so there were 45 responses before I saw it.

You're most welcome. :)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by tsig, posted 09-13-2005 9:04 PM tsig has not yet responded

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 55 of 112 (243299)
09-14-2005 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Silent H
09-14-2005 4:59 AM


Re: I don't get it at all
So a reflex action is considered knowledge and science? In fact, according to this info all creatures on this planet are conducting science at every moment. Don't you see how weak this makes your def?

That is exactly what I have been saying. ANY change (increase) in knowledge (information) is science. It doesn't matter if it is an animal searching for food or a microswitch in your refrigerator that turns on the light when you open the door.
This doesn't weaken my argument. This IS my argument.

I don't claim that any of this stuff is the "Scientific method" but it IS science.

Are you kidding me? Go get yourself a bar of uranium and set it a few feet from you. You will never see, hear, feel, or smell any of the particles coming off of it that will most certainly kill you. Many people cannot detect the smell of cyanide (which you also cannot see, feel, or hear) until you drop dead.

But you CAN measure all these thing even if not with our own direct senses. You expect me to list every single measuring device known to man in every instance. Come on.

So to sum up Science is exactly equal to Knowledge.

Wrong. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, a form of epistemology devoted to natural phenomena.


Not by the definition that I posted, complete with links.
If you claim that Websters dictionary has it wrong then take it up with them.

There are most definitely things that are outside of "The scientific method" but outside of science?

I would have said that's what Ben was trying to get at, but I see he already did.


I know full well that was what he was getting at but it wasn't what he actually said.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Silent H, posted 09-14-2005 4:59 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Silent H, posted 09-15-2005 8:02 AM PurpleYouko has responded

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 1050 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 56 of 112 (243454)
09-14-2005 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by robinrohan
09-14-2005 12:58 AM


Re: More unscientific questions
Have I done right by my children?

Should I take this job or not?

Am I a fool?

What should I cook tonight?

Do I look good in this outfit?

Should I attend this meeting?

Why don't I have any luck?

Am I attractive?

Should I vote for this candidate?

Is life really worth living?

Should I pull the trigger, or not?

Almost all of your questions center on"I", therefore you are the only one who can answer them. You may use science, an old book or whatever else meets your desires.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by robinrohan, posted 09-14-2005 12:58 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by robinrohan, posted 09-14-2005 7:27 PM tsig has responded

    
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 112 (243486)
09-14-2005 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by tsig
09-14-2005 6:25 PM


Re: More unscientific questions
Almost all of your questions center on"I", therefore you are the only one who can answer them

That makes them unscientific. Otherwise, anyone with scientific knowledge could answer them. Nonetheless, such questions cover a large area of our lives.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by tsig, posted 09-14-2005 6:25 PM tsig has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by tsig, posted 09-14-2005 8:32 PM robinrohan has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 112 (243493)
09-14-2005 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by robinrohan
09-14-2005 12:58 AM


Re: More unscientific questions
Oddly enough, these are questions that, when they arise in my life, I often approach with an empirical methodology. Consider all the evidence, draw the most reasonable conclusion with the least amount of untestable assumptions.

Scientific? No; I don't publish or peer-review. But a kind of low-fidelity scientific method? Sure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by robinrohan, posted 09-14-2005 12:58 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by tsig, posted 09-14-2005 8:18 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 1050 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 59 of 112 (243507)
09-14-2005 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by crashfrog
09-14-2005 7:37 PM


Re: More unscientific questions
Oddly enough, these are questions that, when they arise in my life, I often approach with an empirical methodology. Consider all the evidence, draw the most reasonable conclusion with the least amount of untestable assumptions.

Scientific? No; I don't publish or peer-review. But a kind of low-fidelity scientific method? Sure.

Yes, if we didn't do this we would spend a lot of time walking into closed doors.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2005 7:37 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
tsig
Member (Idle past 1050 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 60 of 112 (243513)
09-14-2005 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by robinrohan
09-14-2005 7:27 PM


Re: More unscientific questions
That makes them unscientific. Otherwise, anyone with scientific knowledge could answer them. Nonetheless, such questions cover a large area of our lives.

Then how do you answer such questions?

I do it by fact-checking.

Does my wife love me? Well the fact that she filed for divorce is an indicator.

Am I raising my kids right? Well the oldest is doing time for murder.

see?

No real facts were used in writing this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by robinrohan, posted 09-14-2005 7:27 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by robinrohan, posted 09-14-2005 9:11 PM tsig has responded

    
Prev123
4
5678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019