what is science..the word..the system..your view

[el_draco (Rom)]

I could mirror several posts here in terms of the technical description of the Scientific Method but, from a philosophical viewpoint, I see Science as the one thing that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom, but only just. Some species can think and experiment but we do it on a grander scale and for reasons beyond basic evolutionary advantage.

I suspect that Science is the unwilling villain in much of our endeavor and possibly our ultimate savior. For me personally, its the reason for existence because it allows us the possibility of comprehending the impossible without resorting to "blind faith".

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

The Royal Society was founded in 1660 to discuss and practise and promote "Physico-Mathematical Experimental Learning", which is as good a short definition of science as I have ever heard of.

The word "science" itself is a very new one, and it is not particularly helpful, in that it means very little in and of itself. Physico-Mathematical Experimental Learning, is an accurate one sentence definition, and it sounds like a much more exciting thing to be doing .

[xelasnave]

The little I know of your life Bert makes me feel mine was wastef. I wanted so much to be a chemist I loved it at 11 yxks.
But taking art cut me out later on maths 1 and 2 so later I could only do combined sciencers I knew high school chemistry because I just read everything..had cousins teachers and I would grab their books.. Anywaysit is a privledge to talk to you and the other wonderful people here.brst wishes alex

[xelasnave]

Thank you for input Robert Your views would be missed if you fsiled to post. thank you very much

[avandonk]

Monty Python's take on philosophy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_WRFJwGsbY


Bringing up pedantic linguistic arguments is just what philosophy is all about. It is still not science!

Bert

[avandonk]

No life is ever wasted if lived to the best of one's abilities Alex. Life is really wasted when young men and many civilians die in absolutely futile wars.

Bert

[julianh72 (Julian)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Monty Python's take on philosophy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_WRFJwGsbY


Bringing up pedantic linguistic arguments is just what philosophy is all about. It is still not science!

Bert

"Do all philosophers have an "s" in them?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa0bCzwSNA0

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by avandonk

No life is ever wasted if lived to the best of one's abilities Alex. Life is really wasted when young men and many civilians die in absolutely futile wars.

Bert

Thanks Bert I always did my best always won so thats wonderful teally. I read re THEGREAT WAR as they happily called it..says somethimg abput the sad mentality. It eas so sad so many gpne brothers many brothets all taken as say waste..folk miss our point unfortunately ..you know what I mean I know it.

[Steffen]

Then there is mathematics, of course. No testable hypotheses, just axioms, and derivation rules, and isomorphism everywhere the eye looks

Cheers
Steffen.

[xelasnave]

I propose a convention mmm a week on the gold coast to discuss the matters raised mmm hotel food luxury all to clear all this up.
Funded by the inteligent design crew.. tell them is an I D convention and send the plate around....

[xelasnave]

Are you guys reving me up? If so I say this General Relativity is our best theory of gravity and that model suggests that there is unobservable matter out the which explains annomolies in the rotation curves of galaxies and various observation showing gravitational lensing... The observed expansion of the universe is consistant with the existence of an unseen energy which causes the expansion. Both dark matter and dark energy are consistant with the predictions of General Relativity. That is mainstream view at this time.. now honest injun..were you baiting me either of you..or Fred are you offerring critisism of mainstream without a new theory that may support the coyncerns you express..Alex

[bkm2304 (Richard Brown)]

Originally Posted by julianh72

So why do pretty well all professional scientists have a Doctor of Philosophy as their main honorific?

And Newton's great work is known as "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" ("Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy").

And The Society for Natural Philosophy nourishes specific research aimed at the unity of mathematical and physical science.

And if you study at Oxford, Cambridge or Dublin University (among other "traditional" universities), you will graduate as a Bachelor of Arts, WHATEVER field you study.

"Philosophy" has been defined as "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline".

I think "Science" can be considered to be a subset of "Philosophy" - but use of "the scientific method" means that strict rigour must be applied, to an extent which is not always evident in "the liberal arts" and "social sciences", for example.

The philosophy appellation is a hangover. It has its meaning in Greek and translates to "lover of knowledge" though I'm sure the classical scholars have a tighter translation.

I have a PhD and this is an inheritance for the British Oxbridge system of study. I was fortunate to do my PhD the old way - a supervisor, a vague plan of investigation and three glorious years of trying stuff. My old supervisor used to say, " Richard, you don't have to win the Nobel Prize with your thesis son, so calm down and learn a bit along the way about how the scientific method works, and - more importantly -where it does NOT work."

The Scientific method is a wonderful technique for stripping back nature and then making sense of it and sometimes even making use of the way the universe works , say electricity or gravity.

As it is only a method for doing this it is limited and therefore folly to try and answer the Big questions around religion and meaning and the like. It just isn't able to do that and many people arguing for say, an intelligent designer of the universe, immediately disqualify their question from the method; they are trying to use the method where it simply doesn't work.

Far and away, the grossest abuse of the method lately is of course climate change denial. The same lollies who "question the science" - and who knows how they can do this- are the first to submit willingly and unquestioningly to their medical treatment. Apparently the science behind medicine can be believed but that behind climate change can't - which is of course utter bollocks and shows ignorance rather than any measured judgement. So in the end the deniers are abandoning the scientific method to then scrutinise the science- sorry that's also bollocks.

Richard.

[bkm2304 (Richard Brown)]

Originally Posted by el_draco

Some species can think and experiment but we do it on a grander scale and for reasons beyond basic evolutionary advantage.

I dispute that - my chooks have just commissioned their own LHC out the back..... Er that's Large Hen Collider....

Richard

[Steffen]

Originally Posted by bkm2304

As it is only a method for doing this it is limited and therefore folly to try and answer the Big questions around religion and meaning and the like.

That's right, science doesn't deal with the untestable, unknowable. That's the realm of faith (aka needful metaphysical belief without good evidence).

Apparently the science behind medicine can be believed but that behind climate change can't - which is of course utter bollocks and shows ignorance rather than any measured judgement.

I think it's rather more than that, it's a firm agenda, and lots of dollars at stake for some people. Just look at who bankrolls the climate deniers.

Cheers
Steffen.

[xelasnave]

So why cant ID fill the place folk want it to.. does it matter if the masses are given something allowing them to blame something and abdigate personal responsibility.
Of course the arguement that random cant produce complexity seems short sited as information one would think would be binary even in nature and so random rules.

[avandonk]

About thirty years ago Alex I was at a lunch with my group and a few visitors. Two of these visitors happened to be Nobel Laureates. The discussion turned to creativity and insight. I put forward the proposition that the human brain must work at some sort of quantum level.

The immediate response was 'what makes you even think that?'

My answer was that very often when I was faced with a very difficult technical problem a solution would materialise in my mind from seemingly nowhere!

I had no real proof only conjecture from my own experiences. These very wise men said 'collect some evidence to prove your hypothesis'. I still do not have any decent testable evidence. Metaphysical Inspiration from a higher plane just does not prove anything in reality.

My niece is working on building quantum computers or at least the components that could possibly build one. She is doing a PhD after getting a Masters in Astrophysics.

We will know when an advanced quantum computer is finally built what it is really capable of.

Bert

[xelasnave]

Thank you Bert.. I have devil dgr I am being nice to..keep peace is better for me than gettimg frustrated by mmm what do ypu call it and remain polite
alex

[xelasnave]

He was discharged an hour ago so no more problems. Being polite can be a dtrain.
I cheered a lady up and she thought I was sent by the ID himself if ypu get my drift.

ANYWAYS....
wonderful input but we are still like the blind men describing an elephant

Who will add to the mix.. can we add to the mix.

[xelasnave]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0714104103.htm

Thought you may be interested..

[avandonk]

Alex here is a brief overview article linking quantum effects in biological systems.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2839811/


Photosynthesis relies on quantum tunnelling for charge transfer from the photosynthetic site. This is at room temperature! So plants 'knew' about quantum mechanics a few hundreds of millions of years before us!

Roger Penrose has also postulated that the human brain and others may have a quantum mechanical mechanism for its function.

And many more including enzymes.

All of chemistry is just quantum mechanical interactions.


Bert