Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2019 8:00 PM
19 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (4 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,001 Year: 5,038/19,786 Month: 1,160/873 Week: 56/460 Day: 56/91 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Author Topic:   What does life do outside of science?
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 112 (243529)
09-14-2005 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by tsig
09-14-2005 8:32 PM


Re: More unscientific questions
Then how do you answer such questions?

I do it by fact-checking.

That's common sense, not scientific method.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by tsig, posted 09-14-2005 8:32 PM tsig has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by tsig, posted 09-14-2005 9:30 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 1016 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 62 of 112 (243540)
09-14-2005 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by robinrohan
09-14-2005 9:11 PM


Re: common sense
That's common sense, not scientific method.

Hi RR,

I think science is just common sense with notes.

Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by robinrohan, posted 09-14-2005 9:11 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1750 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 63 of 112 (243705)
09-15-2005 5:44 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?

What about self-awareness? I cannot imagine any scientific enquiry that could make any headway here. How do you test for it? I know I have it, but basing my evidence on the rest of EvC, I'm not so sure about anyone else ;)

But surely we don't just ignore its existence, and refuse to discuss its origin, nature and possible meaning?

[edit to remove extraneous statement]

This message has been edited by cavediver, 09-15-2005 05:49 AM


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

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3926 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 64 of 112 (243725)
09-15-2005 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by PurpleYouko
09-14-2005 10:33 AM


Re: I don't get it at all
This doesn't weaken my argument. This IS my argument.

Check again. I did not say it weakened your argument. I said it weakened your definition.

You can have it of course, but it is spread so thin that it is almost meaningless for use and will actually result in confusion. We also already have a term for it... sensory experience.

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.

Perhaps I misunderstood your question. I said we could use our senses or detectors, then I thought your response was questioning what couldn't be sensed such that we'd need detectors.

If you want me to come up with something that is not detectable by detectors, then I will end up in a sort of circular argument. I can tell you there is certainly the possibility of things that we cannot even detect now, and perhaps never.

Subatomic particles are a great example. There have been many stages where new ones are proposed but no tech to examine them. We can reach a stage where no new technology is possible for us to measure a theorized entity. That will not mean it does not exist.

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.

Well now your just being disengenuous. Your def for science did not say "knowledge". On top of that I supplied you with an encyclopedia-like examination of the term science.

If I wanted to cut to the chase I suppose I should just ask you to define what knowledge is. Then you will end up having to discuss epistemology and rules for knowing... which is what I was talking about. But if you can discuss knowledge without that, please feel free to suprise me.


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 55 by PurpleYouko, posted 09-14-2005 10:33 AM PurpleYouko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by PurpleYouko, posted 09-15-2005 9:09 AM Silent H has responded

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


Message 65 of 112 (243747)
09-15-2005 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Silent H
09-15-2005 8:02 AM


Re: I don't get it at all
This doesn't weaken my argument. This IS my argument.

Check again. I did not say it weakened your argument. I said it weakened your definition.


Sorry! You are right. I must have read it wrong.
I don't deny that it is a pretty thinly spread definition but like I said to Ben, it was just the first one that I found when I googled it. It surprised me a little.

If you want me to come up with something that is not detectable by detectors, then I will end up in a sort of circular argument. I can tell you there is certainly the possibility of things that we cannot even detect now, and perhaps never.

Subatomic particles are a great example. There have been many stages where new ones are proposed but no tech to examine them. We can reach a stage where no new technology is possible for us to measure a theorized entity. That will not mean it does not exist.


I am not quite willing to write off future improvements in technology or even brand new technologies, which might allow us to measure these things but I admit that there are theoretical things that we can't measure right now.
But where does this leave those theoretical things?
Right smack in the middle of theoretical science. That's where. These things are most definitely NOT outside of science.

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.

Well now your just being disengenuous. Your def for science did not say "knowledge". On top of that I supplied you with an encyclopedia-like examination of the term science.


Actually it did say precisely that. Here it is again

quote:
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

come to that, your own link at wiki said pretty much the same thing.

quote:
Science is knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method. Scientific knowledge relies heavily upon logic.

I think there most likely should be a comma after "a system of knowledge" for this to read better. That would make it read.

1) Science is knowledge covering general truths
OR
2) Science is a system of knowledge covering general truths.

Right now it actually says.

1) Science is knowledge
OR
2) Science is a system of knowledge covering general truths.

As I see it, even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and there is a typo in the def, it still pretty much agrees with Websters and the def that I posted.
If there is no typo then it exactly agrees.

Also note that it goes on to say that "scientific knowledge relies heavily on logic"
That confirms that logical deductions of things that are not actually
measurable are still covered by the term "science"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Silent H, posted 09-15-2005 8:02 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Silent H, posted 09-15-2005 5:11 PM PurpleYouko has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3926 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 66 of 112 (243899)
09-15-2005 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by PurpleYouko
09-15-2005 9:09 AM


Re: I don't get it at all
But where does this leave those theoretical things? Right smack in the middle of theoretical science. That's where. These things are most definitely NOT outside of science.

They are outside the realm of empirical knowledge and so outside the reach of the scientific method, and so outside of modern science. It will be touched on by scientists engage in theoretical speculation, not in practicing modern science.

Actually it did say precisely that. Here it is again

I thought Ben criticized you for doing this, but in case he didn't I will...

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

Guess what you don't get to do with definitions? Single out words an pretend they are the single most important part of the definition. The above definition does not mean science = knowledge. If it meant that then it would simply say "knowing" or "knowledge". There is a reason it says "THE STATE OF knowing" and then adds "knowledge AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ignorance etc".

Science is a form of epistemology meant to define and then delineate knowledge from not knowing.

Science is knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method. Scientific knowledge relies heavily upon logic.

You decided it would read better with a carefully placed comma, and it sure would if it said what you wanted it to say. The wiki article went on to say more which should have straightened out exactly want it meant.

But I want to point out what should have been obvious. Look at that last sentence. If science and knowledge are the same, identical, then the first phrase of that last sentence is redundant. "Knowledgific knowledge" "Scientific Science"

I would argue what was likely meant in that first sentence was...

Science is knowledge, especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method.

Science contains a specific type of knowledge... not all knowledge.


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 65 by PurpleYouko, posted 09-15-2005 9:09 AM PurpleYouko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by PurpleYouko, posted 09-16-2005 10:28 AM Silent H has responded

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


Message 67 of 112 (244118)
09-16-2005 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Silent H
09-15-2005 5:11 PM


Re: I don't get it at all
They are outside the realm of empirical knowledge and so outside the reach of the scientific method, and so outside of modern science. It will be touched on by scientists engage in theoretical speculation, not in practicing modern science.

So what you are saying is that something proposed by theoretical science is not a part of science? That is patently ridiculous.
I am sure that all the theoretical physicist who are researching M Theory will be SOOO pleased that you don't consider them to be scientists at all. You have just casually wiped out a large proportion of the scientists in the world with that statement.

Science is knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method. Scientific knowledge relies heavily upon logic.

You decided it would read better with a carefully placed comma, and it sure would if it said what you wanted it to say. The wiki article went on to say more which should have straightened out exactly want it meant.


If you actually read my comment on the missing comma you would realize that without it, the statement in your def backs mine up much better than with it. By assuming its addition, I gave you the benefit of the doubt by weakening my own definition.
I would be happy to leave the sentence the way it is. It just makes my point stronger.

What does it matter what else the article said. Words have loads of different possible meanings. I just highlighted one as an exercise in pointing out the incorrectness of saying "Something is outside of science"

You can read what you like into the definitions but to me both yours and my original one both show a clear and direct connection between the words "Science" and "knowledge". You are just going by what you believe that science means and not by the written definition. I admit that there are alternative definitions that back you up but as long as there is one officially recognized definition that backs up my argument then I have made my point. Now I have two independent sources that do just that and no amount of reading hidden meanings into them is going to change what they clearly say.

I thought Ben criticized you for doing this, but in case he didn't I will...

Ben said it was a weak and wishy washy definition. I agreed with him. What's your point?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Silent H, posted 09-15-2005 5:11 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Silent H, posted 09-16-2005 2:05 PM PurpleYouko has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3926 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 68 of 112 (244173)
09-16-2005 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by PurpleYouko
09-16-2005 10:28 AM


Re: I don't get it at all
So what you are saying is that something proposed by theoretical science is not a part of science? That is patently ridiculous.I am sure that all the theoretical physicist who are researching M Theory will be SOOO pleased that you don't consider them to be scientists at all.

A theoretical physicist remains a theoretical physicist regardless of whether or not an entity within a theory (or a theory itself) the physicist speculates on can eventually become a part of scientific knowledge.

A theoretical entity does not have to remain theoretical and much work by theoretical scientists is not about stuff that can never be detected. Its about stuff that may not be detectable now, and they try and figure out ways to bring it inside the realm of science through possible experiments... duh.

So that you can understand this better here is a Wiki page on theoretical physcis. Take note on what it says regarding what they do, and what they propose. The final section on fringe theory denotes what happens to entities which cannot entire science.

I stand corrected on the definitional connection between science and knowledge. Apparently it can be used synonymously. I have never heard it used that way before, appears less than useless to me, and again makes terms like scientific knowledge redundant in the hands of a person who claims to use that definition of science.

It seems doubtful to me that you actually stick with that definition in real life. For example, when you walk into a book store I feel confident you don't wonder which section you'll find a book on physics, or if you ask an employee and they say "science section" that you argue that everything beyond fiction should be the science section.


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 67 by PurpleYouko, posted 09-16-2005 10:28 AM PurpleYouko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by PurpleYouko, posted 09-16-2005 3:37 PM Silent H has responded
 Message 72 by b b, posted 09-26-2005 2:49 AM Silent H has responded

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


Message 69 of 112 (244192)
09-16-2005 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Silent H
09-16-2005 2:05 PM


Re: I don't get it at all
It seems doubtful to me that you actually stick with that definition in real life. For example, when you walk into a book store I feel confident you don't wonder which section you'll find a book on physics, or if you ask an employee and they say "science section" that you argue that everything beyond fiction should be the science section.

You are most definitely right. I certainly don't follow this exact definition of science in everyday life. As we have established by now it is way too loose to really main much.
I think my everday definition is significantly more lax than the one you are holding up though. For instance I would definitely consider "proposed theories" (as defined in your very interesting wiki link) to be scientific. Maybe Protoscience woud be a more accurate term.
Bet I would find these proposed theories in that science section though :)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Silent H, posted 09-16-2005 2:05 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Silent H, posted 09-16-2005 4:16 PM PurpleYouko has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3926 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 70 of 112 (244199)
09-16-2005 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by PurpleYouko
09-16-2005 3:37 PM


Re: I don't get it at all
For instance I would definitely consider "proposed theories" (as defined in your very interesting wiki link) to be scientific.

I would agree that proposed are in the realm of science, as long as there is work being done to try and find how they can move beyond proposed, to working theory.

As soon as it becomes obvious that it will always have to remain proposed, then it appears to move to proto, and in some sad cases pseudo, science.

That's where things like God and ID end up landing pretty quickly. The nature of such theory seems to presuppose never actually moving from proposal to working theory... except by fiat.

Bet I would find these proposed theories in that science section though

Unfortunately ID is in the science section, and I don't mean the books debating the issue.


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 69 by PurpleYouko, posted 09-16-2005 3:37 PM PurpleYouko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by PurpleYouko, posted 09-16-2005 4:37 PM Silent H has not yet responded

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


Message 71 of 112 (244212)
09-16-2005 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Silent H
09-16-2005 4:16 PM


Re: I don't get it at all
Unfortunately ID is in the science section

It is?
Can't say I have ever gone looking for books on that subject really.

Whatever is the world coming to?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Silent H, posted 09-16-2005 4:16 PM Silent H has not yet responded

  
b b
Member (Idle past 4238 days)
Posts: 77
From: baton rouge, La, usa
Joined: 09-25-2005


Message 72 of 112 (246441)
09-26-2005 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Silent H
09-16-2005 2:05 PM


Re: I don't get it at all
A theoretical entity does not have to remain theoretical and much work by theoretical scientists is not about stuff that can never be detected. Its about stuff that may not be detectable now, and they try and figure out ways to bring it inside the realm of science through possible experiments... duh.

Well God is detectable and maybe some theoretical scientist should try to find him. Prayer is the only way at this point. When God comes back, will scientist ask him to prove himself? After all the evidence through the years I don't think he will explain. He'll prove it by destroying all who don't believe. Then science will be satisfied with facts, too late though.

If creation is wrong and I die then nothing happens-I lived a good life for nothing. If scientists are wrong about God and die then they are eternal candles-Less to lose with creation even if it is wrong huh? That's the obvious choice for me hands down.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Silent H, posted 09-16-2005 2:05 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Annafan, posted 09-26-2005 5:35 AM b b has not yet responded
 Message 74 by Silent H, posted 09-26-2005 7:17 AM b b has responded
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 09-26-2005 8:02 AM b b has responded

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 2686 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 73 of 112 (246458)
09-26-2005 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by b b
09-26-2005 2:49 AM


Re: I don't get it at all
I really wished we could free you from all the fear that is behind your 'faith'.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by b b, posted 09-26-2005 2:49 AM b b has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3926 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 74 of 112 (246470)
09-26-2005 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by b b
09-26-2005 2:49 AM


Re: I don't get it at all
Well God is detectable and maybe some theoretical scientist should try to find him.

If God is detectable, then why don't you be the scientist to show this to be true?

After all the evidence through the years I don't think he will explain.

Don't you mean "they"? There is evidence over the years to support pretty much all systems of religious conviction, especially if one does not press too hard for literal interpretations.

He'll prove it by destroying all who don't believe.

How do you know this? And if this is true, doesn't this suggest a rather ridiculous God? First of all it will prove nothing to those that are destroyed, and those observing the destruction already believe anyway so what's the point?

If creation is wrong and I die then nothing happens-I lived a good life for nothing. If scientists are wrong about God and die then they are eternal candles-Less to lose with creation even if it is wrong huh? That's the obvious choice for me hands down.

This is known as Pascal's wager. It is flawed in that it works for every religion. Also choosing one specific creation story out of all of the possible religions to believe in may even be counterproductive as most religions allow for mistaken doubt, but do not sanction belief in another system.

To be honest, honesty in one's own ignorance is the best bet... if one bases faith on gambling propositions.


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 72 by b b, posted 09-26-2005 2:49 AM b b has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Phat, posted 09-27-2005 8:29 AM Silent H has not yet responded
 Message 78 by b b, posted 09-28-2005 2:28 AM Silent H has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 112 (246475)
09-26-2005 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by b b
09-26-2005 2:49 AM


Re: I don't get it at all
If creation is wrong and I die then nothing happens-I lived a good life for nothing. If scientists are wrong about God and die then they are eternal candles-Less to lose with creation even if it is wrong huh? That's the obvious choice for me hands down.

Unless you've got it backwards, and God wants people to be atheists. Seems pretty likely to me, actually. And you don't really know, do you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by b b, posted 09-26-2005 2:49 AM b b has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by b b, posted 09-28-2005 2:47 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019