Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 46/109 Hour: 3/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The definition of science: What should it be?
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2539 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 29 of 100 (321552)
06-14-2006 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rob
06-08-2006 11:41 PM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
As a side note--there's a difference between stupidity and ignorance. You just happen to be ignorant about what evolution is, or some of the other stuff (like the definition of science). I don't think you're stupid.
Ignorance can be altered, stupidity cannot (as far as I know).
If you are willing to learn about things you do not know, then you are not stupid, just in a moment of ignorance.
Stupidity is like refusing to accept that the earth is round, or that jumping off of a thousand foot cliff without a bungee or parachute is good for you (that came out wrong. That last clause means that the stupid person thinks that doing that activity is good for you, which isn't evident the way I wrote it).
In the end, you seem to be willing to learn, from all your posts that I've read. Would that I could say the same for some (like a certain person who refuses to debate with me in the Showcase forum)

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Rob, posted 06-08-2006 11:41 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Rob, posted 06-15-2006 2:51 AM kuresu has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2539 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 41 of 100 (322448)
06-16-2006 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Rob
06-16-2006 9:37 PM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
No true scientist will find it disappointing that science is not a "truth", in that anything in science can be absolute. However, when you say:
I find it interesting that all assumptions act (even if they are tentative) as fact (i.e. truth) or in other words, absolute fact!
The science theories are based on the facts we see around us. Fact, there is a huge variety of life on earth. Fact, this life changes. Theory--evolution explains these facts.
Fact, a more dense mass attracts less dense objects.
Theory--newtonian gravity explains why these facts are. However, theory of general relativity does a better job, and is current gravity theory. It soon may be string or M, but I'm no physicist, so ask them.
While the facts may not change (but some do, like the age of earth--it was once a fact that it was no more than 12000 yrs, now it is a fact that it's roughly 4.5 by old.), theories can and do.
These theories are also not assumptions--well, not the scientific ones at any rate.
ABE: I can't type. It should be "not a truth", not "a truth" in the first sentence.
Edited by kuresu, : I can't type

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Rob, posted 06-16-2006 9:37 PM Rob has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2539 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 44 of 100 (322547)
06-17-2006 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Rob
06-17-2006 11:22 AM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
Percy never himself says that science seeks the unachievable truth. He states that others think of science in that manner. he finds it more like an attempt to best explain the world around us.
Why pursue what is not achievable?
You've apparently never heard of putting up a good fight, huh? I may never be able to change the fuel economy to one based off of hydrogen, but you know what, I'm still going to try. And even though science will most likely never figure everything out, it's still worth the journey of trying to.
one last note:
If science cannot find truth, yet continues to search for it, then I maintain that our concept of science is systemic contradiction.
The only people who truly think that science is the truth, or is seeking for the truth, are people who aren't too familiar with the more basic concepts of science--what may look like a "truth" today in science could well be a different "truth" tomorrow. The perfect example would be the fat crisis in America, and all the conflicting studies. First its true that this is good, and then it is bad, and another thing is good, but then its bad. The best solution is excercise and diet, but even that is not a "truth" in science.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Rob, posted 06-17-2006 11:22 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Rob, posted 06-17-2006 12:57 PM kuresu has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2539 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 50 of 100 (322614)
06-17-2006 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Rob
06-17-2006 12:57 PM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
Odd, I don't see how I'm advancing your position?

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Rob, posted 06-17-2006 12:57 PM Rob has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2539 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 64 of 100 (323616)
06-19-2006 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ringo
06-19-2006 10:14 PM


I find it quite typical that whenever we say stuff along crash's line, that the creationists (and others, no doubt) throw out Hitler and other despots who killed a lot of people, because they were supposedly "being" "objective", and "scientific". If Hitler was so damn smart then why didn't he allow "judenpysic" (or whatever it's spelled).

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ringo, posted 06-19-2006 10:14 PM ringo has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2539 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 81 of 100 (327352)
06-28-2006 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Rob
06-19-2006 11:14 PM


why not kill off the weaker and troublesome among us for the betterment of the greater good. It is a huge logical moral dilemma for the naturalist.
Only for those naturalists with a skewed view of what "survival of the fittest" means. Hitler took it the wrong way.
See, humans thrive off of being social, and part of being social is having a set of rules, standards, morals. You want to keep the people who . . .well, screw it. You're gonna take it the wrong way if I type this. Point is, there is no moral dilemma for naturalists in regards to evolution--that is, for those who properly understand it.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Rob, posted 06-19-2006 11:14 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Rob, posted 06-28-2006 11:50 PM kuresu has not replied
 Message 83 by Rob, posted 06-28-2006 11:53 PM kuresu has not replied
 Message 84 by jar, posted 06-29-2006 12:06 AM kuresu has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024