Jump to content
Science Forums

Jway

Members
  • Content Count

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Jway got a reaction from DivineThought in S.u.m.e.r. K.o.l.c.a.k. = god of infinity   
    I think only about 92% of it is whacky. There's a good 8% that I would fully support if you would just stop bogarting that joint.
     
    Btw, I've only read 18% of it.
  2. Like
    Jway got a reaction from DFINITLYDISTRUBD in Bare chested women?   
    In our puritanical culture (both West and East, it seems to me), I think such a statement as one in this thread is unlikely to make progress, and more likely to regress. Saying that men are allowed to go bare chested, why not women? - I think that will lead to movement that says, "yeah, why are men allowed to go bare breasted. We shall change that!"
     
    Anyone who leans pro-nudity is hardly (that's what she said) going to give you a sincere argument. I can't think of anything OP has conveyed that strikes me as outside of how I wish the world was set up. We've had 3000 years (or more) to work through this pubescent approach to our own naked bodies, and we still seem to be around square 1.5. People who are anti-nudity are, IMO, going to (ahem) penetrate the argument by advocating for change in what you say is being allowed now - i.e. cloth men's bare chest before we even consider for a second unclothing women's chest region. And that wouldn't be all that hard to change. I already feel like the "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy is why I don't go into Starbucks displaying my upper region. (Well that and because my man boobs might scare the kids.)
     
     
    Are you Peter North? :hihi:
  3. Downvote
    Jway got a reaction from JMJones0424 in Natural Science - Simple point?   
    Saying things that are artificial (man made) are equal to unnatural would be the equivocation fallacy. As a human, I made a table. Therefore it is unnatural.
     
    I'm not saying that all natural things are man made. I'm not equating all man made things to all natural things.
     
    What I am saying is akin to all things made/processed by birds are natural.
     
    That's the direct version. Or how about, all numbers are symbols? All computers are devices?
     
    Man made phenomenon could be (theoretically) more than natural, they are just not excluding of what is natural.
     
    Nice try though.
  4. Like
    Jway reacted to Turtle in Fake repuation system   
    one technical aspect, the neg reps count ~ 1/2 the positives.
     
    now some technimagical points:
    beyond that, the effect of a particular member repping you, call it rep power, is a calculated result of among other things the number of posts and rep they received. although new changes have balanced things, the change does/did carry over what went before. long story short i have, justly so or not, acquired a grip of power & can perform "magic" that few others can. do i deserve it? let's just say it's debated. :hihi: anyway, i liked your post today as well as several recent & i didn't like those red boxes next to them because they struck me as dissonant & since i could do something about it i did. didn't hurt to hurry me either to work my spell that i saw you were posting to this thread and figured i knew jolly well why. :D
     
    now don't any of the rest of you blackguards go thinkn' i gone soft or i'll have yer gizzards to sup. :eek: one thing's for sure here, a little sense of humor goes a long way. now if you pardon me i'm late for my saturday megalomaniac therapy group . :D :doh:
  5. Like
    Jway got a reaction from pamela in Fake repuation system   
    My preference is to discuss it out here because it seems like community issue, more than say issue with just an isolated few. But if it means my rep is at stake, then PM might be better route. Since you are saying not to put too much weight in the rep system, then I just assume have discussion out here.
     
    Having posts that skirt with site rules, and how that leads to -4000 points seems lopsided. I've reviewed by 110+ posts to date, and I think I found 5 to 10 that were in vein of "religious." I use your word, because I see that is how I am perceived, but IMO, it is not religious speak that is (overtly) affiliated with any particular religion. Let's go with 10 posts on the liberal side, and let's say then that 9% of my first posts here were ones that skirted with site rules. Not understanding how points are assessed, the -4000 seems lopsided. My infractions got me -2 points. So, comparing that to the larger number and it seems like you can never make it up, no matter how "good" you are.
     
    But then today, I made up over 5000 points with one post that doesn't really feel that much different from the 91% of the other posts I had on this site in the early going.
     
    To cap it off, and perhaps to my detriment, I don't regret my "religious" posts. If I could have rational person, who is open minded, go through and review those posts, perhaps context would matter on this "skirting the rules" claim you make, as it seems to me, honestly, that I was not skirting the rules in a way that is "out of the ordinary" and within context of philosophy and theology forums. But I do recognize that if I "push" this argument that I'm making in this paragraph, I stand to lose here on this site. For sure lose rep points, and possibly get infractions by people with itchy trigger fingers, that I see as coming from bias through the neg rep system.
     
     
    It's the neg rep system and the comments from those, plus the perceived weight (that I gave them) that had me feeling unwelcome. Perceived weight coming from -4000 points, and not understanding how that was arrived at. But as I review my neg rep comments, they are me having to deal with bias, rather than say accuracy or forum rules. And even if they were on forum rules, the weight accorded to the negative seemed grossly lopsided. Again, I had 5 green squares, 4 red squares, and I was far more in the negative than positive.
     
    As I traced my early history here, I saw me after say 30 posts venturing into areas of the site where I thought I might be more comfortable (philosophy and theology). And to this moment, I truly believe I followed both site rules and guidelines for those areas. I don't expect everyone to agree with me on my take on this, but it is how I feel. That my infractions are expired and I have very few, makes me realize this wasn't a big deal as far as me moving forward on this site. But until today, the -4000 points seemed like reason why I might be hesitant on moving forward, and for possibly a long time to come.
     
    With nature of philosophy and theology discussions, I'm thinking the rules could be more lax. IMO, this would help things. To have a place on site, where the rigid rule of "back up what you're saying" isn't so rigid. I'm not saying abandon the rule, I'm saying make it less rigid. I pride myself on backing up what I say, being honest about it, covering the bases, etc. But having to deal with the brute bias of an atheist in Theology forum, who seems to have "preaching" agenda in that area, and who can bust into ad hom and off topic rhetoric at just about any post, it can become confusing for people not familiar with culture here.
     
    My sound bite response to all this (that I don't really favor) is if discussions of theology and philosophy aren't warmly welcomed, I would suggest shutting those areas off. It invites an "element" to the site, and that can spill over to areas that are less lax with site rules, i.e. Psychology.
     
    Anyway, I'm still a bit hesitant about posting (which isn't a bad thing), I do feel more welcomed after making up 5000 points (magically) in one post today, but I'm still in place where other areas of the world wide web hold more appeal for me. I like coming here. I learn stuff each time. People seem respectful and considerate. So, it's perhaps now more a matter of preference than confusion of protocols here on this site (as it was earlier for me today), but what I've said in this post hopefully helps you all understand perspective of this 'newbie.'
     
    Cheers,
    J
  6. Like
    Jway got a reaction from freeztar in Fake repuation system   
    My preference is to discuss it out here because it seems like community issue, more than say issue with just an isolated few. But if it means my rep is at stake, then PM might be better route. Since you are saying not to put too much weight in the rep system, then I just assume have discussion out here.
     
    Having posts that skirt with site rules, and how that leads to -4000 points seems lopsided. I've reviewed by 110+ posts to date, and I think I found 5 to 10 that were in vein of "religious." I use your word, because I see that is how I am perceived, but IMO, it is not religious speak that is (overtly) affiliated with any particular religion. Let's go with 10 posts on the liberal side, and let's say then that 9% of my first posts here were ones that skirted with site rules. Not understanding how points are assessed, the -4000 seems lopsided. My infractions got me -2 points. So, comparing that to the larger number and it seems like you can never make it up, no matter how "good" you are.
     
    But then today, I made up over 5000 points with one post that doesn't really feel that much different from the 91% of the other posts I had on this site in the early going.
     
    To cap it off, and perhaps to my detriment, I don't regret my "religious" posts. If I could have rational person, who is open minded, go through and review those posts, perhaps context would matter on this "skirting the rules" claim you make, as it seems to me, honestly, that I was not skirting the rules in a way that is "out of the ordinary" and within context of philosophy and theology forums. But I do recognize that if I "push" this argument that I'm making in this paragraph, I stand to lose here on this site. For sure lose rep points, and possibly get infractions by people with itchy trigger fingers, that I see as coming from bias through the neg rep system.
     
     
    It's the neg rep system and the comments from those, plus the perceived weight (that I gave them) that had me feeling unwelcome. Perceived weight coming from -4000 points, and not understanding how that was arrived at. But as I review my neg rep comments, they are me having to deal with bias, rather than say accuracy or forum rules. And even if they were on forum rules, the weight accorded to the negative seemed grossly lopsided. Again, I had 5 green squares, 4 red squares, and I was far more in the negative than positive.
     
    As I traced my early history here, I saw me after say 30 posts venturing into areas of the site where I thought I might be more comfortable (philosophy and theology). And to this moment, I truly believe I followed both site rules and guidelines for those areas. I don't expect everyone to agree with me on my take on this, but it is how I feel. That my infractions are expired and I have very few, makes me realize this wasn't a big deal as far as me moving forward on this site. But until today, the -4000 points seemed like reason why I might be hesitant on moving forward, and for possibly a long time to come.
     
    With nature of philosophy and theology discussions, I'm thinking the rules could be more lax. IMO, this would help things. To have a place on site, where the rigid rule of "back up what you're saying" isn't so rigid. I'm not saying abandon the rule, I'm saying make it less rigid. I pride myself on backing up what I say, being honest about it, covering the bases, etc. But having to deal with the brute bias of an atheist in Theology forum, who seems to have "preaching" agenda in that area, and who can bust into ad hom and off topic rhetoric at just about any post, it can become confusing for people not familiar with culture here.
     
    My sound bite response to all this (that I don't really favor) is if discussions of theology and philosophy aren't warmly welcomed, I would suggest shutting those areas off. It invites an "element" to the site, and that can spill over to areas that are less lax with site rules, i.e. Psychology.
     
    Anyway, I'm still a bit hesitant about posting (which isn't a bad thing), I do feel more welcomed after making up 5000 points (magically) in one post today, but I'm still in place where other areas of the world wide web hold more appeal for me. I like coming here. I learn stuff each time. People seem respectful and considerate. So, it's perhaps now more a matter of preference than confusion of protocols here on this site (as it was earlier for me today), but what I've said in this post hopefully helps you all understand perspective of this 'newbie.'
     
    Cheers,
    J
  7. Like
    Jway got a reaction from Turtle in Is Health Insurance Socialism?   
    Back at it again.
     
    The thing that prompted me to come to this site 3.5 months ago, as cited in post #125 of this thread, has finally moved to place of resolution. I had coverage claims denied, due to medical rider (pre-existing condition = pec) that eventually got paid off by insurance company, for the most part (had some out of pocket costs).
     
    I'm still convinced current system is socialistic. Not 100% in vein of socialism, but IMO, it is more socialistic than free-market at work. The amount of bureaucracy I had to go through, as paid member of private insurance, made me really (really) believe that the government version cannot be worse. It could be equal, but if it means coverage for all, I truly see it as better.
     
    I came close to not renewing insurance, but given that things turned out okay to well, I went for it. For me, it is just covering myself against catastrophic case, and really not much more. I truly wish it was, even just a little bit, more.
     
    While discussing renewal with agent that works in call center of my insurance company, there was a very interesting revelation that I thought I would share here. IMO, it validates just how bureaucratic things have become in the industry. For me, it justifies why I may show up at doctor's office for scheduled appointment, and claim to them, I do not have insurance, when in fact I do.
     
    In my experience (twice in 2009), I had appointments with medical providers that ended up triggering my pec. If someone is curious on details, I can elaborate. But suffice it to say, one of my 2 appts, ought not to have triggered pec based on layperson understanding of healthcare. Essentially, I went in for physical / check-up, and the whole claim was denied because pec was triggered. The other appt. is one where I can see why pec was triggered. But at end of that one, insurance ended up paying for whole thing, minus co-pay.
     
    So, I asked the agent recently, how can I handle situation where I'm in office of medical provider, and they ask for my health issues, and I mention anything remotely related to my pec, doing the thing called being honest with my doctor? There was a little bit of discussion on this with the agent (very respectful dialogue on both ends), and he essentially said, there is no way around this. That it wouldn't be prudent to lie to a doctor about my health history, and that if I do mention it, it is likely that it will trigger pec based on what doctor must note in his/her records.
     
    And so, I'm at a point where I don't feel I can go to a doctor for ANYTHING without it triggering my pec, and thus my claims being denied (initially). IMO, this is a bizarre predicament to be in. And given this as reality, I would much prefer to go to post office or DMV than to a doctor's office. IMO, it's a no brainer.
     
    And there are 2 things about my recent experience, that have me even more thinking the system is set up in socialistic way. Perhaps this is the same point, but one is that I find that the system (provider's front desk / billing dept. + insurance company) treats you much different if you have insurance card. Without it, it is like you are stripped of power. With it, there is assumption (by provider initially) that all costs will be covered. Like if there was governmental plan, and I walk in with my (hypothetical) health I.D. card, I'm guessing there would be assumption that regardless of the reason I'm there, my costs will be covered. No need for me to really get into the details of how much things are costing me or the provider, because it's all taken care of. I really believe (like without a doubt) that this is how providers treat individuals who present them with an insurance card.
     
    The 2nd thing is that I find it next to impossible to either find out about costs on the front end and/or attempt payment on the front end, unless they see me as uninsured. And in my opinion (to me this is fact) the rates are adjusted if you have insurance, compared to if you don't. Thus, I don't think they can actually come up with costs for an appointment, if you have insurance, cause I don't think on front end they know. Thus, no free market at work. I don't think this is automatically socialistic, but in age of sound bites, if it ain't free market, it must be socialism (right?).
     
    If anyone reading this has ways around the issues I'm bringing up, please respond either here on thread or in PM. As things stand now, because of the bureaucracy of the system, I cannot see why I would go to doctor for ANYTHING routine or what ails me in non-emergency way, and present to them my insurance card, thinking that I will be covered. So, I refrain. Which I've gotta to believe is exactly where insurance company would love for me to be. If I do go, I am very tempted to be ultra assertive in finding out costs before any work is done. I would agree with anyone that says, "well that's just common sense" to find out costs, but IMO, we don't live in that world. Instead, we live with healthcare system that is more socialistic than free market, and where costs are not even a little bit advertised up front, thus making competition something I find to be void in the system.
  8. Downvote
    Jway got a reaction from Mercedes Benzene in Turning a killer on himself...   
    Evidently you don't understand prayer as you linked to something so outdated, it makes me yawn. :singer:
     
    I took on WWGHA forums and found it (the simplistic logic) too easy to overcome, and then left the site when I saw it was mostly, but of course not only, ad hom after ad hom after ad hom 'logic' at work.
     
    Would like to see your proof or rationale that prayer leads to loss of life and/or loss of dignity in this case. Oh that's right, you don't have any. Fail!
  9. Downvote
    Jway got a reaction from Moontanman in Turning a killer on himself...   
    Evidently you don't understand prayer as you linked to something so outdated, it makes me yawn. :singer:
     
    I took on WWGHA forums and found it (the simplistic logic) too easy to overcome, and then left the site when I saw it was mostly, but of course not only, ad hom after ad hom after ad hom 'logic' at work.
     
    Would like to see your proof or rationale that prayer leads to loss of life and/or loss of dignity in this case. Oh that's right, you don't have any. Fail!
  10. Downvote
    Jway reacted to freeztar in S.u.m.e.r. K.o.l.c.a.k. = god of infinity   
    I couldn't read all of it. That black text made my head hurt.
  11. Downvote
    Jway reacted to CraigD in Scientists who (may) believe in God   
    The author of this webpage, Rich Dean, begins it with a side text beginning


    Is belief in the existence of God irrational? These days, many famous scientists are also strong proponents of atheism. However, in the past, and even today, many scientists believe that God exists and is responsible for what we see in nature. This is a small sampling of scientists who contributed to the development of modern science while believing in God.From this, I’d summarize the thesis, or central claim, of his web paper to be essentially two part:
    In the past, many scientists believed that God exists and is responsible for what we see in nature.
    In the present, many scientists believe this.

    In critically reading anything containing the qualifier “many”, it’s important to determine what’s meant by it. In this case, when applied to a cohort – a sample identified by a common characteristic, in this case being a scientist – I’d tend to think of “many” as meaning a fraction of the total cohort greater than a certain value, such as 1/4th.
     
    A good next step in a critical reading process is to look for reliable data pertaining to the claim. Data about what people believe is difficult to obtain further back than about a century, but on the question of scientists belief in god, we’re fortunate to have good quality data on the question from a survey written by James H. Leuba and taken by him in 1914 and 1933 and by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham in 1998, with the following results:

    BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD 1914 1933 1998 Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0 Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2 Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8 BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY 1914 1933 1998 Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9 Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7 Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3
    - source: Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God"* July 23, 1998 (free access); original nature.com article (payment or subscription required)
     
    Note that the surveys defined “scientist” as “leading” or “great” scientists, selecting them by their in inclusion in American Men of Science (1914 and 1933) and the (US) National Academy of Science (1998)
     
    So the correctness of the second part of Dean’s thesis – that many present-day scientist believe in God – appears to depend on whether you consider 7% to be “many” scientists. Personally, I don’t.
     
    For natural philosophers of Newton’s time and earlier (the term, and to some extent, the concept of a “scientist” was not used and recognized as it is today), I believe there’s a general consensus among science historians that the belief in a personal God was a much higher fraction than in the 20th century, as in many countries, such as England, most educated and recognized natural philosophers were actually clergy, this being a condition and the nominal purpose of their education.
     
    So the correctness of the second part of Dean’s thesis – that many scientists believed in God – is, I think, historic fact, supported by much writing by many scientists, in particular Isaac Newton, demonstrating strong belief in God.
     
    As with any statement about God, however, I think it’s important to consider critically what a particular writer actually means by “God”. From my reading of Newton’s theological writing, I believe he believed in the existence of the God described by traditional Church of England dogma, but a famous contemporary of his, Baruch Spinoza, wrote of a God (to which Albert Einstein famously and explicitly subscribed) so disagreeable to his religious dogma (Spinoza was Jewish) and those of other Europeans that he was excommunicated (issued a writ of cherem), and his writings banned by both Jewish and Christian authorities.
     
    I’m not familiar with the religious beliefs of all of the 12 scientists on Dean’s list, but like previous posters, think the inclusion of Einstein is a poor choice, as his concept of god is essentially pantheistic, which I believe most readers would not consider to be “belief in God” in a usual or traditional sense.
  12. Downvote
    Jway reacted to Michael Mooney in Scientists who (may) believe in God   
    Jway:
     
    "Scientists who believe in God"
    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=scientists+who+believe+in+god&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&fp=leBsIIJAIN0
     
    Also, along the same lines:
     
    "mystic scientists"
     
    Google
     
    Also "science and mysticism" has a lot of refs on the subject.
     
    Google
     
    I once gleaned quotes from 23 scientists, both famous and merely well credentialed who were also mystics or merely religious. "Published" the piece in "Myspace" a few years ago. I'd retrieve it if I were any good at search techniques... but I'm tech-challenged as an old fart who got my first computer in 'oo... and not too keen on learning all the them new-fangled tech-niques.:lol:
    Thanks.
    Michael
  13. Downvote
    Jway got a reaction from Galapagos in What is Science?   
    Never?
     
    American Atheists | About
     
    Fascinating and filled with assumptions.
     
    Are you working up a theory? :cup:
  14. Downvote
    Jway got a reaction from InfiniteNow in Same-sex Marriage   
    Actually, I am not.
     
     
    I have made the point previously of how this is related to marriage. Please quote that if you are having issues with how this was brought in.
     
     
    I disagree. They are being discussed here. You are apparently incapable of discussing them here.
     
     
     
    And again, a very common perception among humans in I think just about every society I am aware of, in most eras, is that child rearing is an aspect of WHY persons get married. It is not the only aspect. That you fail to see it as an aspect is on you, and so far, on you alone in this thread.
     
    I am not addressing fertility nor fecundity in what I am bringing up. Or if I am it is secondary. Perhaps you would be wise to quote what I am saying.
     
    So, I'll repost what I said earlier that is I believe furthering the discussion. If you feel it is not, you are welcome to not participate. If you feel my topic is misguided, then please bring up with moderator and we will go from there. I said in post #48:
     
    I think we live in a (world) society where norms are in place with regards to how child rearing looks within family unit. It seems to take place in animal kingdom as well. I find that there are plenty of exceptions to the norms, but also that there is consistency in idea of the norms. One consistent idea is that when couples reproduce, this is good social reason for them to marry. Again, there are several exceptions to this norm, but some of those exceptions show up, I believe, as common dysfunction, i.e. deadbeat dad. And again, I feel like there are work arounds to many, perhaps all, of these social dysfunctions. But intellectual honesty tells me that they do exist and I believe they do have impact on child rearing.
     
    To see this as me making a case that a couple is required to reproduce in order to be married would be, how you say, misguided. If you can find the words, and/or implication of "requirement" in my post, then perhaps I will believe your spin is accurate.
     
    Marriage creates roles. This is part of the norm. At the most basic level, it creates the role of "spouse." People who are not married, are incapable of being a spouse, by the norms we have set up.
     
    Not all marriages produce children. I could state that 14 times, but not sure if that would be enough for some persons reading this thread. Some marriages do include children. In my estimation, that is a the vast majority of marriages. I would say at least 80% of marriages in all areas of this planet, in all eras of human history. Not all couples who bear children, while in a relationship, are married. Again, I could state this 14 times, and not sure if some people on this thread would hear this.
     
    I am suggesting that marriages produce roles (norms), and in some marriages (I believe vast majority), the role of "parent" occurs. I am claiming that this role has impact on child rearing. And that depending on the type of marriage, the type of coupling, I believe it could have noticeable impact. In a same-sex marriage, I believe the impact would be noticeable. Whether that is "good" or "bad" impact is not what I am alluding to. Perhaps that is inescapable, but I am furthering discussion on this thread by making light of what I believe is one of the main reasons why humans marry. Again, not all humans marry for this reason, and not all humans who bear children, get married.
  15. Like
    Jway got a reaction from GAHD in What is Science?   
    OP of this thread, originally asked in Q&A, "what is science?" This is not all that OP did in first post, but the question is still there.
     
    By my count, of all the people to respond to this thread, 6 posters have so far elected to offer a response to that question. I am interested in gathering those responses together in this post.
     
    I find that those who elected to respond directly to the question, have a post that is worded as "science is" and is primarily what I am looking for as I (ahem) gather and organize the data.
     
    In post #1, SidewalkCynic, provides the first definition on this thread:
    > science is merely the defining of information.
     
    In post #3, Infinitenow, provides the second definition:
    > Science is a process by which well-defined and falsifiable predictions are put forth to explain the behavior of the natural world, where those predictions are tested, false hypothesis discarded, and every idea scrutinized. These predictions are consistent and repeatable by others with differing views.
     
    In post #5, enorbet2, provides the third definition:
    > It (science) is a testable system of gathering and organization of data that rejects cruft and places odds on reliability to allow the best possible conclusions of understanding the world.
     
    In post #6, yours truly - Jway, provides the fourth definition:
    > science is the discipline of observing, testing and forming theories based on axioms.
     
    If viewed strictly, science is a discipline that must follow previously agreed upon methodology.
     
    In post #11, lemit, provides the fifth definition, which lemit sources as "Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary."
    > "What is science?" "[T]he state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding."
     
    In post #14, SidewalkCynic, restated his/her definition. I would say this is same as first definition presented on this thread:
    > I defined science as the behavior/action DEFINING information
     
    In post #16, InfiniteNow, presented comprehensive definition, the sixth one on this thread, which he/she sourced from Wikipedia:
    > Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.
     
    In its more restricted contemporary sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.
     
    In post #26, while I typed up this post, GAHD provided 7th definition:
    > Science is a structured approach towards gaining information.
     

    ____________


     
    Okay, so we have seven definitions. And at risk of being redundant, I'm going to restate them here again, minus who said them, or what is the source. I am making ever so slight modifications to some, and if anyone disagrees with these modifications, I'm sure you will let me know.
     
    #1: science is the behavior/action defining information.
    #2: Science is a process by which well-defined and falsifiable predictions are put forth to explain the behavior of the natural world, where those predictions are tested, false hypothesis discarded, and every idea scrutinized. These predictions are consistent and repeatable by others with differing views.
    #3: Science is a testable system of gathering and organization of data that rejects cruft and places odds on reliability to allow the best possible conclusions of understanding the world.
    #4: Science is the discipline of observing, testing and forming theories based on axioms. If viewed strictly, science is a discipline that must follow previously agreed upon methodology.
    #5: Science is the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.
    #6: Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice. In its more restricted contemporary sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.
    #7: Science is a structured approach towards gaining information.
     
    And there you go. If anyone wishes to add another definition in this thread, feel free to copy and paste the 7 above and add yours next, sequentially. More to say, I have, but will do that in another post.
  16. Like
    Jway reacted to enorbet2 in What is Science?   
    I'm having a problem with equating science with "merely" the "defining of information" and I'm shooting for utilizing the Scientific Method (testing for "necessary and sufficient") to explain that problem, perhaps even with an eye to the Bonus..
     
    First, let's define terms since all we have on a forum is language and it is essential in the scientific method to be certain any involved in a discussion are actually referring to the same bits if a useful conclusion is to be remotely possible:
     
    "defining" (from Miriam-Webster's online dictionary)
    < 1 a: to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of>
     
    "information" (ibid)
    < 2 a (1): knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction>
     
    Defining does not necessarily imply determining whether "essential qualities" has any bearing on a given problem or even if it actually exists in reality (we can agree on a definition of a "frumious bandersantch" or a "light sabre" but only for amusement and curiosity's sake) so at best in scientific terms it is merely observation or fantasy conclusion that ends there with little room for hypothesis, experimentation, prediction, or experimentation - garbage in, garbage out (no offense intended to Lewis Carroll or Star Wars fan boys).
     
    Information is even a little more difficult and less precise since not only does it often, and understandably, get confused with "data", with which it may overlap slightly, but especially "obtained from instruction" presents grave problems since garbage can and has been taught and still is. Witness the "Intelligent Design" poppycock still seeking validity despite deserved cynicism from within and from without.
     
    It seems to me that Science is far more than mere definition or mere information. It is a testable system of gathering and organization of data that rejects cruft and places odds on reliability to allow the best possible conclusions of understanding the world. It is an ever-evolving, recursive and self-correcting process, not simply a string of accepted facts.
     
    Your "child walking down a staircase" is a good example of how no conclusion can be scientifically made with such limited "defined information". It's like asking "How long is a string?".
     
    Assuming it is the child's first time navigating stairs, hopefully he/she has observed others walking down stairs and carefully noted the details required to be successful, maybe even seen an example of someone not paying attention and paying the price. Hopefully this child has even noticed that leaping several steps requires longer legs and greater balance than they yet possess. It would be best if they had closely observed and processed the event of another similarly sized and experienced child holding on the railing and proceeding slowly and with great caution as to balance.
     
    Throwing out useless, even dangerous information, while keeping high reliability pertinent information is essential, implying the facility to draw such conclusions perhaps by predicting that a fall down a full flight is an unacceptable risk and experimenting on a two step stair first, before concluding that the likelihood of successfully navigating a full flight of stairs will result in triumph, not tragedy. Having confidence in the reliability of both one's ability to create an unbroken line of logic, relying on no great leaps of faith, as well as the ability to execute such a plan boldly instead of unreasoned paralyzing fear is fairly essential to such a process as well. If instead, the child simply throws himself at the stairs trusting only in "if they can do it, I can do it", it isn't science, from the perspective of the child, unless that almost inevitable fall is analyzed for "what I did wrong and how can I avoid that in the future?".
     
    So my opinion for the answers to your questions is that I have demonstrated the scientific method, which is already standardized requiring no further discussion, which is not dependent on "already defined methods" since I think people discover or are capable of discovering the means to reliable conclusions with no training (it simply gets more refined with such input) because of trial and error experimentation and the way our brains are wired, and permeates everything reliable such as Mathematics, Business, Infrastucture, the rules of evidence in crime scene investigation and the nature of Justice, to name only a few.
     
    An example of Science's involvement with the unknown, the undefined, or not well defined is here, from Georges Charpak: hardwired for science - CERN Courier
     
     

     
    An example of how we are wired is here We?re hard-wired for basic geometry - Science Mysteries- msnbc.com
     
    and some of the argument on the nature of hardwiring here Are We Hardwired?: The Role of Genes ... - Google Books
     
     
    As for the last question I am admittedly uneasy about the term "science industry" since it seems to me to imply some static product churned out by some well-defined, agenda driven, profit seeking organization for mass consumption and I see no evidence of such a thing. Therefore, until I see some evidence, it doesn't exist for me and can't be answered.
     
    I am even more concerned with "atheist peer group" (you suppose utter homogeneity?) and "offended, because the (your) definition does not meet their satisfaction" since a measuring ruler is useless if we don't agree on the length of an inch or a centimeter. How can you expect to talk Math with Mathematicians if you don't accept that a triangle always has three sides?
  17. Like
    Jway got a reaction from arkain101 in [Q] what contains universe?   
    I like to construct the phrase as statement, rather than (only) seeing it as question and thus matter of doubt. Such as:
     
    What lies beyond the Universe. Any (and all) ideas.
     
    It has taken me several years to understand it from this perspective, even while I thought I got it the first time from just reading the words. I'm still "getting it."
     
    I find that questions sometimes answer themselves, when looked at just below the surface.
     
    I also find asking the questioner, "what do you think?" goes a long way toward mutual learning / mutual teaching.
  18. Like
    Jway got a reaction from sanctus in Just thought I'd stop by   
    Hi all,
     
    I'm updating my intro. I'm now around 55 posts on this site and perhaps it's time we know a little bit more about this Jway character. But not too much. (Gotta leave them wanting more.)
     
    I've been on this site about 1 week. I like it here. I'm still doing what I can to fit in and contribute in meaningful ways. I originally stumbled upon Hypography via Google search - on terms of "is health insurance socialistic?" And that popped up this thread, I think as top hit on search.
     
    I tend to enjoy good, respectful, thought provoking discussion, regardless of the topic. My interests (as far as topics go) are too diverse to list. Philosophy and spirituality would be broad categories that interest me, and I believe both are significantly related to science, regardless of what the materialists believe.
     
    Thanks to the members on this thread and those members especially, on this site, who took time to reach out directly to me so far. To help me feel welcomed and like I might have a place here.
     
    I intend to update this intro post periodically, and will bump this thread sparingly. Currently, I only intend to bump the thread once, while I intend to update it along the lines of:
    - after 100 posts, I'll share a few more tidbits about my interests and background
    - after 500 posts, I'll indicate where I live on planet earth, and my age
    - after 1000 posts, I'll offer up my first name
    - after 10,000 posts, I may offer up my last name, and the name of my unborn child
    - after 100,000 posts, I'll reveal to this community that I am a transvestite, or as we like to be called nowadays, "neocons"
     
    Anyway, thanks for taking time to read about me and please come back.
     
    - Jway
×
×
  • Create New...