What is Science?

Off Topic
121

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]TD54 wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:
Science is the formulation of hypotheses, and the subsequent testing/proving of those hypotheses.[/quote]

yea yeah we know that definition. We were all told that in the 4th grade
[/quote]

Were you taught Occam’s Razor in 8th grade? That the simplest definition is usually correct?

No need to write a paragraph explanation when a sentence answers the question. Just because it’s simple doesn’t mean it’s wrong, or that there’s a better way to say it by writing more words.[/quote]

Kind of, it is the hypothesis that explains with the fewest new assumptions, with all being equal.

However, I would like to point out that the man that came up with Occam’s Razor was Fr. William of Ockham, a Franciscan Friar in the Catholic Church. You know, just in case someone doesn’t want to use a “religious” idea.[/quote]

Thanks to religion we have biology! It’s now in no way connected to religion, but the catalyst was man wanting to understand god through his creation (much like Taoists believe).[/quote]

I’m only ribbing people. As a Catholic, it is never been how do I prove God, if God is truth then the proof will be there, and even the early Father’s pointed out (specially Aquinas and Augustine) that not looking for the truth because you’re scared that it will dismiss God is not being faithful to God at all. So, all people should be in search of the truth, and of course that points to God and His holy Catholic Church. :wink:

I’m hungry.

122

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]TD54 wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:
Science is the formulation of hypotheses, and the subsequent testing/proving of those hypotheses.[/quote]

yea yeah we know that definition. We were all told that in the 4th grade
[/quote]

Were you taught Occam’s Razor in 8th grade? That the simplest definition is usually correct?

No need to write a paragraph explanation when a sentence answers the question. Just because it’s simple doesn’t mean it’s wrong, or that there’s a better way to say it by writing more words.[/quote]

True. I was just being a dick. Probably should have added some humor to it by posting a captain obvious pic or something

123

[quote]Humbert wrote:
My point: Are we using science to advance civilization or not? I believe we could do a lot better job, but we don’t do it right.[/quote]

Yes, of course we are. But you can’t conduct scientific research in genetics or high-energy physics, for example, without funding. Funding requires government and business to invest money, and that means convincing greedy idiots who don’t understand anything that they should do something worthwhile.

And your example of Facebook is completely ludicrous. Mark Zuckerberg is not a scientist and Facebook is not a product of scientific research any more than a Geocities page is.

124

[quote]Humbert wrote:
Wow. Pretty hostile. I only wanted to put forth a non-religious opposing view. I clearly stated that sccience has done some good. I also said that man’s greed and avarice are partly responsible for science’s shortcomings. I feel REALLY sorry for the fool that tries to put forth a religious view.

And Legendaryblaze, that’s nice how you decide what kind of person I am ahead of time and refute statements I haven’t even made. That’s REALLY good science. The reality is, we’re all headed for trouble with the current state of ecology/power/disease/war. World conditions are not improving, regardless of the advances of technology and medicine and science in wealthier countries.

IMHO, good science should advance human civilization, not luxuries for select countries(eg, I can watch porn on my phone while thousands of infants worldwide die of diarrhea–see the discrepancy?).

Why is this thinking SO offensive?[/quote]

You’re sitting there saying WELL SCIENCE HASN’T DONE THIS AND THIS AND THIS while conveniently ignoring everything it HAS done. You think it’s all frivolous? You can only argue your point because of science.

It’s a truly sad day when someone says science should advance human civilization and act like it already hasn’t.

125

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]TD54 wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:
Science is the formulation of hypotheses, and the subsequent testing/proving of those hypotheses.[/quote]

yea yeah we know that definition. We were all told that in the 4th grade
[/quote]

Were you taught Occam’s Razor in 8th grade? That the simplest definition is usually correct?

No need to write a paragraph explanation when a sentence answers the question. Just because it’s simple doesn’t mean it’s wrong, or that there’s a better way to say it by writing more words.[/quote]

Kind of, it is the hypothesis that explains with the fewest new assumptions, with all being equal.

However, I would like to point out that the man that came up with Occam’s Razor was Fr. William of Ockham, a Franciscan Friar in the Catholic Church. You know, just in case someone doesn’t want to use a “religious” idea.[/quote]

Stop trying to lay claim to everything, it’s just sad.

126

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I’m only ribbing people.[/quote]

No you’re not. You’re proselytizing.

127

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]TD54 wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:
Science is the formulation of hypotheses, and the subsequent testing/proving of those hypotheses.[/quote]

yea yeah we know that definition. We were all told that in the 4th grade
[/quote]

Were you taught Occam’s Razor in 8th grade? That the simplest definition is usually correct?

No need to write a paragraph explanation when a sentence answers the question. Just because it’s simple doesn’t mean it’s wrong, or that there’s a better way to say it by writing more words.[/quote]

Kind of, it is the hypothesis that explains with the fewest new assumptions, with all being equal.

However, I would like to point out that the man that came up with Occam’s Razor was Fr. William of Ockham, a Franciscan Friar in the Catholic Church. You know, just in case someone doesn’t want to use a “religious” idea.[/quote]

Thanks to religion we have biology! It’s now in no way connected to religion, but the catalyst was man wanting to understand god through his creation (much like Taoists believe).[/quote]

I’m only ribbing people. As a Catholic, it is never been how do I prove God, if God is truth then the proof will be there, and even the early Father’s pointed out (specially Aquinas and Augustine) that not looking for the truth because you’re scared that it will dismiss God is not being faithful to God at all. So, all people should be in search of the truth, and of course that points to God and His holy Catholic Church. :wink:

I’m hungry.[/quote]

Science is a process whereby you come up with an idea and try your best to prove it. However, once you succeed the agreement is that everyone else will try their best to disprove it, Which is where religion and science differ.

128

1196×1080 455 KB

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]TD54 wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:
Science is the formulation of hypotheses, and the subsequent testing/proving of those hypotheses.[/quote]

yea yeah we know that definition. We were all told that in the 4th grade
[/quote]

Were you taught Occam’s Razor in 8th grade? That the simplest definition is usually correct?

No need to write a paragraph explanation when a sentence answers the question. Just because it’s simple doesn’t mean it’s wrong, or that there’s a better way to say it by writing more words.[/quote]

Kind of, it is the hypothesis that explains with the fewest new assumptions, with all being equal.

However, I would like to point out that the man that came up with Occam’s Razor was Fr. William of Ockham, a Franciscan Friar in the Catholic Church. You know, just in case someone doesn’t want to use a “religious” idea.[/quote]

Stop trying to lay claim to everything, it’s just sad.[/quote]

Don’t be mad Mak, you can stop making false claims about me and the Catholic Church.

129

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I’m only ribbing people.[/quote]

No you’re not. You’re proselytizing.[/quote]

I don’t think you know what that word means.

Repent and be Baptized Mak, come to the Lord and do His will. <— Proselytizing.

130

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]TD54 wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:
Science is the formulation of hypotheses, and the subsequent testing/proving of those hypotheses.[/quote]

yea yeah we know that definition. We were all told that in the 4th grade
[/quote]

Were you taught Occam’s Razor in 8th grade? That the simplest definition is usually correct?

No need to write a paragraph explanation when a sentence answers the question. Just because it’s simple doesn’t mean it’s wrong, or that there’s a better way to say it by writing more words.[/quote]

Kind of, it is the hypothesis that explains with the fewest new assumptions, with all being equal.

However, I would like to point out that the man that came up with Occam’s Razor was Fr. William of Ockham, a Franciscan Friar in the Catholic Church. You know, just in case someone doesn’t want to use a “religious” idea.[/quote]

Thanks to religion we have biology! It’s now in no way connected to religion, but the catalyst was man wanting to understand god through his creation (much like Taoists believe).[/quote]

I’m only ribbing people. As a Catholic, it is never been how do I prove God, if God is truth then the proof will be there, and even the early Father’s pointed out (specially Aquinas and Augustine) that not looking for the truth because you’re scared that it will dismiss God is not being faithful to God at all. So, all people should be in search of the truth, and of course that points to God and His holy Catholic Church. :wink:

I’m hungry.[/quote]

Science is a process whereby you come up with an idea and try your best to prove it. However, once you succeed the agreement is that everyone else will try their best to disprove it, Which is where religion and science differ.[/quote]

Maybe for some religions, but not all. I would say you are more referring to skepticism or rationalism and wanting to know the truth. As well, the unquestioning of religion has only been a recent phenomenon. I do slip into it sometimes, but most of the time my bullshit detector is going on 24/7.

131

[quote]pch2 wrote:
I’m doing some research on the nature of science, like what do people in general think science is, and was wondering if you all had some thoughts on it. It’s one of those thing I’ve been thinking about that seems simple, yet after a while isn’t at all. I know there is quite the range of people on here, so thought I’d get some opinions.

So, what’s science? [/quote]

I’ll take a stab at this. Being a career research Scientist, I might even get some of it right.

First off, let’s get clear why we have subjects (like Chemistry, Biology, etc.) but examining what discussions were like beforehand. For example, in the Middle Ages, a piece that attempted to investigate some phenomenon would lurch all over the place. This was fine as long as the result was “correct” meaning that it was understood to be consonant with whatever theology was accepted. You find this same mode of investigation in Ideologically-based writings, e.g., plants can grow in the Arctic Circle since Marxism tells us that the proletariat will overcome all hardship for a just society. An awful lot of really trendy academic writing in the Humanities is like this today still.

Subjects give us

  • scope - the ability to tell what is/is not part of the subject
  • methodologies to pose then investigate questions
  • standards of proof to know if we have found an answer OR invalidate one

Truth is congruence between reality and our thoughts, to paraphrase DesCartes. There is an external world, but how should mid-sized primates go about understanding it? It is far to easy to have social bonds get in the way (“you’re wrong because we don’t like you”). Science (from Latin “scire” = to know or understand) is a system therefore for evaluating ideas about the external world.

When people talk about Science as being a belief system, they have so missed the point it is almost impossible to even know where to start. No. Period. Postmodernists generally make these sorts of claims and end up sounding very stupid. Take the case of Bruno Latour, a famous pundit and critic of “Science as a belief system”. Now, Robert Koch discovered the tuberculosis bacteria in 1886 or so. A Pharaoh who died roughly 3,000 years ago was diagnosed as having it a few years ago back and Latour, true to his thinking, publicly stated this was impossible since Science hadn’t invented tuberculosis then. Um, right.

People make very silly comments about Scientists being vain or having other personal foibles but so what? This is to be expected since they are human. It is the methods of Science that determine if the results they come up with are really worth remembering. We should not require Botanists to photosynthesize any more than we should require Physicists to be saintly.

Just making chit-chat…

– jj

132

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Maybe for some religions, but not all. I would say you are more referring to skepticism or rationalism and wanting to know the truth. As well, the unquestioning of religion has only been a recent phenomenon. I do slip into it sometimes, but most of the time my bullshit detector is going on 24/7. [/quote]

There’s only one question that really matters when it comes to religion, because we’re all going to die anyway and decompose, and that is: what does it do for you? IOW Have you explored more or less of life because of it? Are you living in the present moment or are you limiting your experience now because you’re trying to live a certain way for a future after death which may never happen?

“As well, the unquestioning of religion has only been a recent phenomenon.”- Bullshit.

133

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I’m only ribbing people.[/quote]

No you’re not. You’re proselytizing.[/quote]

I don’t think you know what that word means.

Repent and be Baptized Mak, come to the Lord and do His will. <— Proselytizing.[/quote]

You’re going the backhanded route and trying to be subtle about it. Failing though.

134

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]PB Andy wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]PB Andy wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:
scientific method.

[/quote]
nonono can’t use part of the definition to explain the word.[/quote]

That applies in most cases, but in this one she’s naming a set of steps by saying “scientific method” which is different than the word “science”.

You can’t say “What is cold? Well this room is cold.”

But you could say “what is jack hammering? Well, it’s when you use this thing called a jack hammer to hammer with.”[/quote]
I can’t believe I got a serious response for this.

Sorry for wasting your time Leenerz.[/quote]

I think I come across as far more serious than I am because I type a lot and stick to a topic until it’s hashed when in actuality I’m quite amused by most of what goes on here.[/quote]
Cool then, I can actually see that from your post… back to SAMA we go? :smiley:

135

[quote]Theface wrote:

Clarification on the life expectancy- you can’t attribute that completely to medicine, a vast majority of that is due to public works/sanitation initiatives, and the fact that we actually realize that feces and drinking water don’t mix.

Cool stuff about the AIDS patient, I heard something similar to that with Magic Johnson, that his T-cell levels are near the levels of a 'healthy" individual[/quote]
This is incorrect.
It used to be said, way before any of us were born, that you could tell the experienced doctors from the new ones by their coat.
The experienced doctors had been in so many operations that their white coats would turn an odd color and would be so stiff from the dried blood and puss that they could stand on their own.
Read about John Snow, the physician. Germs had not even been contemplated until the mid 19th century. That’s barely two centuries!!
People used to drink and bathe from the same river.
Sterilization of medical tools only came about the 19th century as well.
That is not a very long time. People had to be told, by scientists who ‘discovered’ germs, to not shit and drink in/from the same water.
In many, poorer, parts of the world, this concept is still not understood.

Your waste treatement facilities are massive, extremely complexe feats of engineering that compromise a multitude of steps. You are given vaccinations at a young age for this very reason; to fight illnesses.
During birth and operations, you are hooked up to machines and given a cocktail of chemicals.
People in the wild who cut themselves in a rainforest or otherwise are very likely to succumb to a variety of diseases and illnesses, simply due to the magnitude of bacteria that reside in those area.
Hell, even being scratched by a lion could give way to amputation due to the bacteria under those claws.

As for people doing ‘science’ for financial reasons, I must ask, how many of you got drunk on weekends, every weekend for several weekends through out college? How many of you did not go to parties, social events or otherwise because you had to stay home to study? How many of you had to work extremely hard, for hours a day, on complicated subjects, that tend to be beyond the interest and mental capabilities of most individuals, for years? How many of you had to maintain this for years, while (trying to) maintaining an extremely elevated GPA?
It takes 8 years to become a doctor. Years to get that PhD so you can do research. Engineers in Canada have 4-5 years of undergrad, and then have to work as a junior engineer for 4 more years until they become professional engineers.
People who do this super complicated shit need it all to be worth while. By the time you get that piece of paper, or enter your profession of choice, it has taken you almost a third to half of your current life time.
No one does shit for free. Doing this shit day in and day out, for years (until you get to do what you enjoy), can become a little tiring.
I am in no way one of those people. I’m fucking lazy as hell, but I do work/study more than your average student. I do know people that are like that though. They work HARD. They deserve every penny they get.
Get off your high horses.

Also, many experiments need ridiculous funding.
Derp.

136

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]TD54 wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:
Science is the formulation of hypotheses, and the subsequent testing/proving of those hypotheses.[/quote]

yea yeah we know that definition. We were all told that in the 4th grade
[/quote]

Were you taught Occam’s Razor in 8th grade? That the simplest definition is usually correct?

No need to write a paragraph explanation when a sentence answers the question. Just because it’s simple doesn’t mean it’s wrong, or that there’s a better way to say it by writing more words.[/quote]

Kind of, it is the hypothesis that explains with the fewest new assumptions, with all being equal.

However, I would like to point out that the man that came up with Occam’s Razor was Fr. William of Ockham, a Franciscan Friar in the Catholic Church. You know, just in case someone doesn’t want to use a “religious” idea.[/quote]

Thanks to religion we have biology! It’s now in no way connected to religion, but the catalyst was man wanting to understand god through his creation (much like Taoists believe).[/quote]

I’m only ribbing people. As a Catholic, it is never been how do I prove God, if God is truth then the proof will be there, and even the early Father’s pointed out (specially Aquinas and Augustine) that not looking for the truth because you’re scared that it will dismiss God is not being faithful to God at all. So, all people should be in search of the truth, and of course that points to God and His holy Catholic Church. :wink:

I’m hungry.[/quote]

Science is a process whereby you come up with an idea and try your best to prove it. However, once you succeed the agreement is that everyone else will try their best to disprove it, Which is where religion and science differ.[/quote]

Maybe for some religions, but not all. I would say you are more referring to skepticism or rationalism and wanting to know the truth. As well, the unquestioning of religion has only been a recent phenomenon. I do slip into it sometimes, but most of the time my bullshit detector is going on 24/7. [/quote]

The unquestioning of religion isn’t a recent phenomenon, it exists back to the time Mesopotamian mythology. And before that it probably existed with ancient African cultures that took part in ritualistic practices 70,000 years ago.

137

…

138

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]pch2 wrote:
I’m doing some research on the nature of science, like what do people in general think science is, and was wondering if you all had some thoughts on it. It’s one of those thing I’ve been thinking about that seems simple, yet after a while isn’t at all. I know there is quite the range of people on here, so thought I’d get some opinions.

So, what’s science? [/quote]

I’ll take a stab at this. Being a career research Scientist, I might even get some of it right.

First off, let’s get clear why we have subjects (like Chemistry, Biology, etc.) but examining what discussions were like beforehand. For example, in the Middle Ages, a piece that attempted to investigate some phenomenon would lurch all over the place. This was fine as long as the result was “correct” meaning that it was understood to be consonant with whatever theology was accepted. You find this same mode of investigation in Ideologically-based writings, e.g., plants can grow in the Arctic Circle since Marxism tells us that the proletariat will overcome all hardship for a just society. An awful lot of really trendy academic writing in the Humanities is like this today still.

Subjects give us

  • scope - the ability to tell what is/is not part of the subject
  • methodologies to pose then investigate questions
  • standards of proof to know if we have found an answer OR invalidate one

Truth is congruence between reality and our thoughts, to paraphrase DesCartes. There is an external world, but how should mid-sized primates go about understanding it? It is far to easy to have social bonds get in the way (“you’re wrong because we don’t like you”). Science (from Latin “scire” = to know or understand) is a system therefore for evaluating ideas about the external world.

When people talk about Science as being a belief system, they have so missed the point it is almost impossible to even know where to start. No. Period. Postmodernists generally make these sorts of claims and end up sounding very stupid. Take the case of Bruno Latour, a famous pundit and critic of “Science as a belief system”. Now, Robert Koch discovered the tuberculosis bacteria in 1886 or so. A Pharaoh who died roughly 3,000 years ago was diagnosed as having it a few years ago back and Latour, true to his thinking, publicly stated this was impossible since Science hadn’t invented tuberculosis then. Um, right.

People make very silly comments about Scientists being vain or having other personal foibles but so what? This is to be expected since they are human. It is the methods of Science that determine if the results they come up with are really worth remembering. We should not require Botanists to photosynthesize any more than we should require Physicists to be saintly.

Just making chit-chat…

– jj[/quote]

Good post. I never meant to say that the scientists didn’t know what they were doing. As I said to Xiaonio, I respect what researchers are doing and count more than a few as friends. My meaning is that, as a race, we’re not equipped to deal with the information that science is rendering. We learn to split an atom, and then make bombs as fast as we can. We’re like little kids playing with God’s chemistry set. Only a matter of time before something blows up, because we, all of us, are trying to take our limited scope of existence and apply it to everything in the universe. So maybe all I’m saying is that we’re not smart enough to acknowledge our limits.

But people get really upset by this.

139

[quote]Humbert wrote:
My meaning is that, as a race, we’re not equipped to deal with the information that science is rendering.[/quote]

I’d say a lot of this could be helped if people actually took the time to learn some science. But only nerds do that.

140

[quote]XiaoNio wrote:

[quote]Humbert wrote:
My meaning is that, as a race, we’re not equipped to deal with the information that science is rendering.[/quote]

I’d say a lot of this could be helped if people actually took the time to learn some science. But only nerds do that.[/quote]

It’s sad what little use our 12 year education system is. The 4 year one is only a little better.

Part of the problem is people’s attitudes; they want to get in and get out as fast as possible so they can log onto their facebook and play itunes or whatever else it is they do for the rest of the day. Very few people care about what they’re learning.