The definition of science: What should it be?

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...

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.

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

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

Odd, I don't see how I'm advancing your position?

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Really?Why?

EvC Forum: The definition of science: What should it be?Because anythings possible!

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...

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.

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

Percy no say science seeks truth. Rob say Percy say science seeks truth. Rob no speak truth. --Percy

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.

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...

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

Yep, I found it. But I have to take my boys on a motorcycle ride, so I'll be back later with my thoughts...RobIt was this one... http://EvC Forum: Evolution Logic -->EvC Forum: Evolution Logic