Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
29 online now:
AZPaul3, GDR, Tanypteryx (3 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,466 Year: 18,502/19,786 Month: 922/1,705 Week: 174/518 Day: 48/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The definition of science: What should it be?
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4133 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 46 of 100 (322565)
06-17-2006 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by crashfrog
06-17-2006 12:40 PM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
Because a half truth is better than an all lie.

Half truths are the most enticing, clever, deceptive, tempting, corruptable, and deadly lies of all...

The onlything we should seek is the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That means science is not the tool...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2006 12:40 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by fallacycop, posted 06-17-2006 2:49 PM Rob has not yet responded
 Message 51 by ramoss, posted 06-17-2006 3:52 PM Rob has responded
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2006 5:13 PM Rob has responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 47 of 100 (322566)
06-17-2006 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Rob
06-17-2006 11:22 AM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
Percy writes:

science seeks truth but understands that it is unachievable

Why pursue what is not achievable?


Mostly, scientists are pragmatists. They seek what works. And what works need not be truth.

As an example, consider the ideal gas laws. These are important in physics. Yet every physicist knows that, technically, the ideal gas laws are false for real gases and true only for an imagined ideal gas. Nevertheless, the ideal gas laws are an excellent approximation, and using them works in terms of making pretty good predictions about the behavior of gases.

When Percy says "science seeks truth", you should take that as a metaphor. Scientists would certainly prefer that their laws are all truth. But if they are good approximations that work very well, then scientists will find those useful enough, and will develop their science on the basis of such approximations. If they are later able to get even better approximations, then so much the better.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Rob, posted 06-17-2006 5:02 PM nwr has not yet responded
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 06-17-2006 6:36 PM nwr has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4133 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 48 of 100 (322567)
06-17-2006 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by kuresu
06-17-2006 12:27 PM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
In case you are wondering why I don't argue with you. I only argue with people who are not advancing my own points...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by kuresu, posted 06-17-2006 12:27 PM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by kuresu, posted 06-17-2006 3:00 PM Rob has not yet responded

    
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3804 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 49 of 100 (322602)
06-17-2006 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Rob
06-17-2006 12:55 PM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
Rob writes:

The onlything we should seek is the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That means science is not the tool...


That's a tall order. With such high standards you are very likely not to acomplish anything on life. What good is in that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Rob, posted 06-17-2006 12:55 PM Rob has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 797 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 yet responded

    
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3122
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 51 of 100 (322628)
06-17-2006 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Rob
06-17-2006 12:55 PM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
Really?

Why?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Rob, posted 06-17-2006 12:55 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Rob, posted 06-17-2006 4:58 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4133 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 52 of 100 (322650)
06-17-2006 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by ramoss
06-17-2006 3:52 PM


Re: Ontological vs methodological

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ramoss, posted 06-17-2006 3:52 PM ramoss has not yet responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4133 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 53 of 100 (322651)
06-17-2006 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by nwr
06-17-2006 12:56 PM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
Sorry nwr, I'm not going to argue with you. There is no point. I am eagerly awaiting Percy's reply when he is available again. I find that he is honest...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by nwr, posted 06-17-2006 12:56 PM nwr has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 100 (322659)
06-17-2006 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Rob
06-17-2006 12:55 PM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
The onlything we should seek is the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That means science is not the tool...

So you say, but here we are using computers to access the internet, you from California and me from Missouri, thanks to the study of physics, chemistry, and mathematics. I'm sure you're nowhere near as old as your avatar (I'm certainly not as green and leggy as mine) but you probably know people who are; they're still alive because of advances in medicine and biology.

It certainly wasn't religion that brought us any of those things. The fact that science is the tool for approaching truths and developing models about the natural world is obvious to the most casual observer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Rob, posted 06-17-2006 12:55 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Rob, posted 06-17-2006 9:22 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18870
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 55 of 100 (322682)
06-17-2006 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Rob
06-17-2006 11:22 AM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
Rob writes:

science seeks truth but understands that it is unachievable

Why pursue what is not achievable?

The way you quoted this made it seem like I was claiming that "science seeks truth". I wasn't. I said:

Percy writes:

Anyone who came here claiming science represented truth would find himself the recipient of many rebuttals. About the closest anyone here comes to this is saying that science seeks truth but understands that it is unachievable.

The people who phrase it this way intend it as analogous to striving for perfection or trying to never sin. Both are unattainable, but we strive for them all the same.

Rob writes:

The reason for tentativity is human fallibility, both intellectual and perceptual

Which is why philosophically, only the Word of God can be true (by definition).

Well, yes, of course. Science is a human activity, and people aren't perfect. Our best expression of reality will always fall short. Only God knows the full truth.

Most of the rest of your post is about God and Jesus, but this thread is about the definition of science.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Rob, posted 06-17-2006 11:22 AM Rob has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18870
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 56 of 100 (322684)
06-17-2006 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by nwr
06-17-2006 12:56 PM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
nwr writes:

When Percy says "science seeks truth"...

Percy no say science seeks truth. Rob say Percy say science seeks truth. Rob no speak truth. :D

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by nwr, posted 06-17-2006 12:56 PM nwr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Rob, posted 06-17-2006 8:44 PM Percy has responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4133 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 57 of 100 (322723)
06-17-2006 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Percy
06-17-2006 6:36 PM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
Percy no say science seeks truth. Rob say Percy say science seeks truth. Rob no speak truth.:D

You be funny man... And upon careful examination of the evidence, I find your correction to be valid... ;)

I am satisfied by the end of this discourse about science vs. truth; particularly between Percy and myself.

Very interesting, and confirming.

Ps. I have a response for you about the amount of information and the relavance to lifes complexity. I just have to find the thread. If you see this before you see that response, please direct me to the right thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 06-17-2006 6:36 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 06-17-2006 9:27 PM Rob has responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4133 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 58 of 100 (322727)
06-17-2006 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by crashfrog
06-17-2006 5:13 PM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
The onlything we should seek is the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That means science is not the tool...

Allow me to correct myself... 'That means science is only one of the tools needed. To take the single line of science in the search for truth, would be to block out other necessary angles.'

If we look at the evidence without seeking an interpretation, then we are only examining random and useless facts that contain no relavance to a search.

If there is a meaning and purpose for life, then any imperical evidence must be looked at through the lens of that meaning or purpose to find it. If it does not fit, then there is a problem with the lens.

The facts are objective, and only exist in obedience to their purpose. If we look at it any other way, we will not find the truth.

All of us argue that our lenses fit the evidence. I think it is those who admit they have a bias and agenda that are the most trustworthy. Those who interpret the evidence and deny that their sought meaning or purpose is knowable, give away a deeply disturbing prejudice that claims itself to be non-judgemental.

I know of no answer or argument that will tame you Crash. I do not pretend to be a savior. Only the truth can posess such a quality. Therefore I will speak what I believe to be the truth with prophetic clarity. It will either soften your heart or harden it. That is up to you...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2006 5:13 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 06-18-2006 4:36 PM Rob has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18870
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 59 of 100 (322729)
06-17-2006 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Rob
06-17-2006 8:44 PM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
Rob writes:

Ps. I have a response for you about the amount of information and the relavance to lifes complexity. I just have to find the thread. If you see this before you see that response, please direct me to the right thread.

If you're referring to a thread you've posted to in the past, then just click on your name and you'll get a list of all the threads you've participated in in date order of your last post to each thread.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Rob, posted 06-17-2006 8:44 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Rob, posted 06-17-2006 9:31 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4133 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 60 of 100 (322731)
06-17-2006 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Percy
06-17-2006 9:27 PM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
Yep, I found it. But I have to take my boys on a motorcycle ride, so I'll be back later with my thoughts...

Rob

It was this one... www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=688&m=180#180 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=688&m=180#180">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=688&m=180#180


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 06-17-2006 9:27 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019