[Cold Iron]

This is not the religion subforum. Do not talk about god here.

stone monkey, on Mar 23 2009, 02:27 AM, said:

Cold Iron, on Mar 22 2009, 01:46 AM, said:

Illuyankas, on Mar 22 2009, 03:06 AM, said:

Science.

I love it.

That statement is nonsensical, science is not an entity unless you are looking at it spiritually

/troll

Whilst I know you're only looking for an argument which I have neither the time nor the inclination for at this particular moment and this thread would not be the place for it anyhow, I really can't let that particular utterance pass.

Your statement is really the one that doesn't make sense. I do understand that in your worldview everything is subjugated to the spiritual realm, and I'll agree to disagree with you on that one, but, strictly speaking an entity is something that, much like a mathematical set, is able to be held in the mind as such (which I know sounds a little tautological, but there you go). Science is a concept and concepts are entities; whether you're choosing to look at it spiritually or not.

A collection of conclusions drawn from a specific method is not a concept. If you look at these conclusions collectively and call it science you are creating a concept that is categorically not the same as the collection of conclusions. Indeed, it is contrary to it.

[frookenhauer]

Cold Iron, on Mar 22 2009, 11:38 PM, said:

This is not the religion subforum. Do not talk about god here.

stone monkey, on Mar 23 2009, 02:27 AM, said:

Cold Iron, on Mar 22 2009, 01:46 AM, said:

Illuyankas, on Mar 22 2009, 03:06 AM, said:

Science.

I love it.

That statement is nonsensical, science is not an entity unless you are looking at it spiritually

/troll

Whilst I know you're only looking for an argument which I have neither the time nor the inclination for at this particular moment and this thread would not be the place for it anyhow, I really can't let that particular utterance pass.

Your statement is really the one that doesn't make sense. I do understand that in your worldview everything is subjugated to the spiritual realm, and I'll agree to disagree with you on that one, but, strictly speaking an entity is something that, much like a mathematical set, is able to be held in the mind as such (which I know sounds a little tautological, but there you go). Science is a concept and concepts are entities; whether you're choosing to look at it spiritually or not.

A collection of conclusions drawn from a specific method is not a concept. If you look at these conclusions collectively and call it science you are creating a concept that is categorically not the same as the collection of conclusions. Indeed, it is contrary to it.

Wat?

[bubba]

you beat me too it frook.......
















god

[HoosierDaddy]

What is science?

Well, momma always told me that science is like a box of chocolate: You create a working hypothesis, conduct experiments that either prove or disprove the hypothesis, refine the hypothesis, and conduct more experiments.



















Spaghetti.

[Mezla PigDog]

--> I found this interesting this week <--

Otherwise, don't fuck with my baby!

[Mentalist]

Is it time for Butcher's "Science is a religion" speech yet?

[Cold Iron]

Thanks for the link Mezla, I will post some cool pix in your thread for you

If the OP was a little obtuse my point is this, science must surely be defined by the scientific method. Using this method, certain conclusions can be drawn about observable reality. You can categorise all conclusions formulated using the scientific method and call it "science". If you then take this collection of conclusions and infer anything at all that is not directly supported by the scientific method such as the conclusion that all of reality can be described by science and thus an aspect of the entity "science" regardless of it's current state of scientific inquiry and thus attempt to raise science beyond the truth of what it has acheived you are not only committing a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid you are also reducing the wonder that science truely is by falsely attributing properties that it clearly does not need or have.

Not that illy was necessarily doing this.

This post has been edited by Cold Iron: 23 March 2009 - 02:34 AM

[stone monkey]

Arguably by that particular argument any unsupported hypothesis about anything that is unexplained is not scientific even when that hypothesis suggests a way of investigating its claims... which is entirely scientific if you ask me.

What you seem to be suggesting is that science stick only to the things for which it has evidence and not go beyond that to speculating about those things for which it doesn't have evidence, despite the Method supporting that. Say I have a hypothesis, that hypothesis is unproven until I gather evidence, by observation and/or experiment, your statement seems to imply that that those experiments or observations should not be attempted, that no one should even dare to think of extending the things that are known. Scientists, I suggest, have to think that reality can be explained scientifically or there would be no reason for them to do any science at all.

So what you appear to be saying (insisting upon, even) is that the search for a rational (naturalistic) explanation of certain things shouldn't even be attempted. Presumably, it would appear, because you believe that those things are inherently unexplainable that way. That's as may be, but given these things would have to be investigated naturalistically before it's possible to even suggest that, it would, I think, be certifiably insane of a scientist to go into that investigation with the belief that their question cannot be answered. btw just because they think the question is answerable doesn't mean it is, but that's the whole point of looking in the first place, to find that out. Otherwise you might as well just not ask. You can't find the limits of what is knowable without first attempting to go beyond them.

This stated position imo is anti-knowledge in the very worst way imaginable. It's almost as if you're saying "Don't look here, because I say you can't know this." So what, we need to find out whether or not we can know these things, not take your word for it.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 23 March 2009 - 03:52 AM

[Cold Iron]

Oh delicious analog! You have taken the evidence I have presented to you in the form of textual communication and inferred a set of conclusions that are in no way supported by said evidence.

If only pots, terez, bottle, dman, dm and dw were here to shout me down for that!

[Sir Thursday]

Cold Iron, on Mar 22 2009, 11:38 PM, said:

A collection of conclusions drawn from a specific method is not a concept. If you look at these conclusions collectively and call it science you are creating a concept that is categorically not the same as the collection of conclusions. Indeed, it is contrary to it.

I fail to see how the idea of taking a collection of conclusions and saying "These conclusions have withstood the rigours of the scientific argument up to this point in time" is contrary to the scientific method, nor do I see a problem with relabelling these conclusions as 'Science'. It is a simplistic, catchall term, yes, but it is effective as a descriptor in certain situations.

Cold Iron said:

If the OP was a little obtuse my point is this, science must surely be defined by the scientific method. Using this method, certain conclusions can be drawn about observable reality. You can categorise all conclusions formulated using the scientific method and call it "science". If you then take this collection of conclusions and infer anything at all that is not directly supported by the scientific method such as the conclusion that all of reality can be described by science and thus an aspect of the entity "science" regardless of it's current state of scientific inquiry and thus attempt to raise science beyond the truth of what it has acheived you are not only committing a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid you are also reducing the wonder that science truely is by falsely attributing properties that it clearly does not need or have.

Can you give me an example of this actually happening?



Sir Thursday

[Skywalker]

Gentlemen, you have too much time. Or perhaps you're like me and in spite of not having much time feel compelled to hang out here. Eitherways...

@Stonemonkey - Science is an entity in that it is a method of rational inquiry (experimentation or fact finding) followed by an attempt to reconcile the observations thereof with a description of phenomenon (from the very basic to the foundations of reality). Said description is oftentimes mathematical or empirical, predictive or confirmative (is that a word?), with the predictive stuff often leading to further experimentation/ observation.

Quote

A collection of conclusions drawn from a specific method is not a concept. If you look at these conclusions collectively and call it science you are creating a concept that is categorically not the same as the collection of conclusions. Indeed, it is contrary to it.

Agreed... that collection/ set you are talking about are the products of science and not science itself; science is instead this method you allude to (or the set of methods... ooh my head spinneth)

/rant

@CI - never argue with a spiritualist, he will drag you onto another plane and you'll lose touch with reality

[Cold Iron]

Sir Thursday, on Mar 24 2009, 04:32 PM, said:

Can you give me an example of this actually happening?

I'm referring to any attitude that uses a misunderstanding of science as an excuse to deny the relevance of teachings that really have nothing to do with science, including but not limited to religion, alternative medicine, fortune telling, channeling the dead etc.

Now, I have my own opinions on each of these things and their validity, purpose and benefits, and these opinions are based on logical and scientifically based reasoning. This basis often leads me to conclude that there can be scientific explanations to these fields that are commonly looked upon with scorn. That "science" is used as an excuse for this scorn is proof only that the person has actually not bothered to put any critical thought into the matter and is probably following the perceived attitudes of certain authority figures rather than forming their own opinions.

This attitude extends to science itself and we end up with certain accepted viewpoints becoming ingrained and unquestioned despite evidence to the contrary.

The big bang is well supported by good evidence. There is also good evidence to support other theories like the steady state universe. To the lay public the impression is often that "science supports the big bang" and to question this is to be some kind of moron. This has caused an unnecessary tension in society and has real effects on peoples lives, both directly on our own opinions and decisions and indirectly through government policies influenced by other people in our communities.

[dktorode]

Lamp.

I love It.

[Cause]

Few points

First one should not confuse the failing of people with the failures of science. If people want to believe that alternative medicing is hogwash because it sounds crazy thats their doing not sceinces. If they want to believe its hogwash after conducting a double blind srudy in whcih its found that patients treated with crystals had no more liklihood of recovery than those treated with nothing than thats science.

Second science is knowledge and a systematic means to discover knowledge. It does include its own observations and discoveries in itself

[Sir Thursday]

Cold Iron, on Mar 24 2009, 11:17 AM, said:

Sir Thursday, on Mar 24 2009, 04:32 PM, said:

Can you give me an example of this actually happening?

I'm referring to any attitude that uses a misunderstanding of science as an excuse to deny the relevance of teachings that really have nothing to do with science, including but not limited to religion, alternative medicine, fortune telling, channeling the dead etc.

Now, I have my own opinions on each of these things and their validity, purpose and benefits, and these opinions are based on logical and scientifically based reasoning. This basis often leads me to conclude that there can be scientific explanations to these fields that are commonly looked upon with scorn. That "science" is used as an excuse for this scorn is proof only that the person has actually not bothered to put any critical thought into the matter and is probably following the perceived attitudes of certain authority figures rather than forming their own opinions.

This attitude extends to science itself and we end up with certain accepted viewpoints becoming ingrained and unquestioned despite evidence to the contrary.

The big bang is well supported by good evidence. There is also good evidence to support other theories like the steady state universe. To the lay public the impression is often that "science supports the big bang" and to question this is to be some kind of moron. This has caused an unnecessary tension in society and has real effects on peoples lives, both directly on our own opinions and decisions and indirectly through government policies influenced by other people in our communities.

Your example is not a very good one, I'm afraid. The Steady State Hypothesis does not match the data we have. For example, under a steady state hypothesis, the Cosmic Microwave Background should not exist, or at least not with the degree of homogeneity that has been observed. The reason why the Standard Cosmological Model is elevated above other theoretical models is because there is such an overwhelming body of evidence to support it. Most new cosmological theories are merely small modifications of that model because time and again, the core of the Big Bang Theory stands up to testing. Should people who feel there is an alternative theory that explains it better, they should not be discouraged from trying. But in order for any alternative explanation to attain the necessary credibility to unseat the Big Bang Theory, it would have to fit the data better than the standard model does - a very tall order indeed.


Sir Thursday

[Cold Iron]

dktorode, on Mar 24 2009, 11:11 PM, said:

Lamp.

I love It.

Listen here you.

Cause, on Mar 25 2009, 01:10 AM, said:

Few points

First one should not confuse the failing of people with the failures of science. If people want to believe that alternative medicing is hogwash because it sounds crazy thats their doing not sceinces. If they want to believe its hogwash after conducting a double blind srudy in whcih its found that patients treated with crystals had no more liklihood of recovery than those treated with nothing than thats science.

Second science is knowledge and a systematic means to discover knowledge. It does include its own observations and discoveries in itself

Agreed and agreed, my beef is clearly not with science but with it's use as an excuse to dismiss traditional knowledge.

Sir Thursday, on Mar 25 2009, 02:00 AM, said:

Your example is not a very good one, I'm afraid. The Steady State Hypothesis does not match the data we have. For example, under a steady state hypothesis, the Cosmic Microwave Background should not exist, or at least not with the degree of homogeneity that has been observed. The reason why the Standard Cosmological Model is elevated above other theoretical models is because there is such an overwhelming body of evidence to support it. Most new cosmological theories are merely small modifications of that model because time and again, the core of the Big Bang Theory stands up to testing. Should people who feel there is an alternative theory that explains it better, they should not be discouraged from trying. But in order for any alternative explanation to attain the necessary credibility to unseat the Big Bang Theory, it would have to fit the data better than the standard model does - a very tall order indeed.


Sir Thursday

I disagree. There are huge holes in the standard model that are plugged with extremely tenuous inventions, two in particular: inflation, and dark energy. In order to fit the prevailing theory with the observed data, we have invented one scalar field powerful enough to cause a violation of special relativity and another with the power to reduce the force of vacuum energy by a factor of 120 with no other supporting evidence. In addition, the entire standard model is based on the assumption that the univers is homogenous and isotropic, which it demonstrably is not, indeed as we approach what should be the upper limit of anisotropy we instead find that superclusters are arranged in fractal structures.

Now I'm not saying that the standard model is not the best explanation we have. It is. What I'm saying is that it is not valid to use it as a basis from which to ridicule anyone with an alternate explanation. Obviously the debate between big bang and steady state is not what I was referring to when I said there is tension in society caused by this attitude. The tension is created by people who have not bothered to investigate the science assuming it is the whole truth and anyone who disagrees is some kind of religious nutcase.

[Gem Windcaster]

I don't have the slightest idea what you guys are talking about, and I'm not talking about science (because obviously that is obvious...obviously...err...).

I think the question and the reason why someone is asking it, is more interesting than the definition of science, which is pretty clear cut.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 25 March 2009 - 09:29 PM

[Cold Iron]

Gem read the thread, it's relevant to your interests.

[Gem Windcaster]

If you want a definition of science that goes beyond how for instance wikipedia defines it, you will need an understanding and analysis of the ideas that led to it and the philosophical views and it's counterparts that fostered it. I don't think you guys are ready for that kind of advanced agreeing that requires, no offense. The fact that the question is even asked says alot. Science as definition can't be viewed as set apart from history, and all the things done in the name of science. There's a difference between what you want science to be and what science is.

It is unfortunate that definitions of science ignores the context, because context explains it.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 25 March 2009 - 10:31 PM

[Cold Iron]

You didn't read the thread did you.