What is Science?

[Larv]

In a sense, because science and engineering are human constructs. But for better understanding, what does science claim the spider is doing, or how it "knows" how to do it?

 

I think the child exercises both science and engineering when walking. Isn't engineering applied science?

Do you think a child knows anything more about the science and engineering of walking than a spider does?

[Rade]

Then I suppose it should follow that a spider exercises engineering when it builds its web.

Yes, of course it does. A little investigation into the concept of "ecosytem engineers" used in Ecology will give you more information about the concept of animals that "build" things.

 

The more important question is, does the spider do science when it exercises engineering ?

[Larv]

Yes, of course it does. A little investigation into the concept of "ecosytem engineers" used in Ecology will give you more information about the concept of animals that "build" things.

Do you think any animal knowingly applies engineering principles to build whatever it builds? Do think it knows about the principles of gravitation, triangulation, vertical compression, and linear flexibility? And do think that animal could pass a PE exam?

 

The more important question is, does the spider do science when it exercises engineering?

 

Does a spider initially ask a question? Do background research? Construct an hypothesis? Experimentally test that hypothesis? Analyze the data? And communicate the results? If a spider does not do any of those things then it is not doing any science because it isn’t practicing the scientific method. Case closed.

[lemit]

This thread is becoming strange.

 

No, on second thought, it's just becoming strange in a new way. It's always been strange.

 

Keep at it, Larv. Maybe someday one of us will be able to explain the difference between science and motor responses in a way that even an adult will be able to understand. (As you can see, i've given up on getting people to see that there is no implication of motion in the original question. Life is too short.)

 

I have a question. Is a Hypography member on a staircase practicing science? How do we differentiate between that Hypography member, the child, and the spider (assuming the spider happened to be on the stairs).

 

The answer, as far as I know, is that Pyrotex would be practicing science, as I have to when my postpolio gives me partial paralysis. Then I have to try to figure out how to get my muscles to do the things my brain is trying to tell them to do.

 

Maybe that's the reason I know the difference. I occasionally have it thrust upon me.

 

--lemit

[lemit]

Oh, what the hell. Where is the suggestion of motion in the original question? The child could be having a tea party on the staircase for all we know. Since we've decided to fantasize ascent or descent (I'm not sure which, since I got left out of the fantasizing process), why not try have the child traversing the stairs, sitting on the stairs, or sleeping on the stairs? Is the child practicing science while it's falling down the stairs?

 

Is a Hypography member typing this post practicing futility?

 

--lemit

[SidewalkCynic]

Do you think any animal knowingly applies engineering principles to build whatever it builds? Do think it knows about the principles of gravitation, triangulation, vertical compression, and linear flexibility? And do think that animal could pass a PE exam?

I think we measure this in different psycho-analysis fields - there are subjects about the psychology of animals

 

 

Does a spider initially ask a question? Do background research? Construct an hypothesis? Experimentally test that hypothesis? Analyze the data? And communicate the results? If a spider does not do any of those things then it is not doing any science because it isn’t practicing the scientific method. Case closed.

it doesn't appear to be - so it must be majic, or memes, or religion, or dogma, or something. :lol:

[Rade]

....Does a spider initially ask a question? Do background research? Construct an hypothesis? Experimentally test that hypothesis? Analyze the data? And communicate the results? If a spider does not do any of those things then it is not doing any science because it isn’t practicing the scientific method....

Well, the spider species discussed below has behavior that suggests it may well be doing some of the things on your list....

 

Dichotomistic logic - do spiders have a mind

 

Keep in mind, there are only two ways to 'know' anything: (1) from inside the thing, (2) from outside the thing. Do not assume that you "know" anything that goes on inside the brain of the spider, you know only what the spider allows you to know from observation of its behavior.

 

Science is not a list of activities done or a method of such activities, science is the process of having "uncertain knowledge" of that which exists. Spiders show all the behaviors of having such knowledge of their surroundings.

[Larv]

Well, the spider species discussed below has behavior that suggests it may well be doing some of the things on your list....

 

Dichotomistic logic - do spiders have a mind

Metaphors can be mighty intoxicating, as in (from your link): "Luckily Portia has brains. In fact it is the veritable Einstein of the arthropod world." But I seriously doubt that little Portia qualifies as being either a scientist or an engineer.

 

Keep in mind, there are only two ways to 'know' anything: (1) from inside the thing, (2) from outside the thing.

I didn't know that.

 

Do not assume that you "know" anything that goes on inside the brain of the spider, you know only what the spider allows you to know from observation of its behavior.

Then I'm confused about how you know that spiders are scientists and engineers.

 

Science is not a list of activities done or a method of such activities, science is the process of having "uncertain knowledge" of that which exists. Spiders show all the behaviors of having such knowledge of their surroundings.

I think it's OK to say, by way of metaphor, that spiders seem to "know" things and do "science" and "engineering." But it's important to remember that humans have a knack for anthropomorphizing and resorting to teleology when trying to explain animal behavior. Indeed science is in the business of filtering out such nonsense.

[SidewalkCynic]

Please ..., what description does science use for explaining why a spider does what it does?

 

"Instinct"???

[Larv]

Please ..., what description does science use for explaining why a spider does what it does?

 

"Instinct"???

I've already addressed this in post #156

[SidewalkCynic]

All you provided was an argument that a spider does not practice science.

 

I want to know what science describes as the animating force of the spider to do what it does?

[Larv]

All you provided was an argument that a spider does not practice science.

 

I want to know what science describes as the animating force of the spider to do what it does?

Science knows of no such "animating force." And Occam's Razor shaved off that whisker called "elan vital" long ago.

[enorbet2]

AFAIK Science has yet to provide a good description or even a good evolutionary reason for consciousness, in that it disappears when we sleep and is nearly instantly re-manufactured complete with an intact and coherent personality, a binding thread, if you will, upon awaking. Please don't get me wrong I am not seeing this as any kind of failure on the part of Science but rather some shared by the provincial conceit of being human ("What a piece of work is man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving- how express and admirable, in action - how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god!" - Hamlet via Willy) and lack of the appropriate technology. It disturbs me some how we write off so-called lower creatures, especially Porpoises and Whales, as possessing only instinct when they can have more neural connections per volume, more brain mass, etc etc. It pleases me somehow that our very description of Life has had to be altered by so-called "extremophiles".

 

In any case, regarding spiders weaving webs, I wonder how our definition of instinct applies when the manner in which they build webs can be so similarly affected by administering psychoactive drugs. Here are some informative links and one really fun interactive video.

 

Spiders On Drugs

 

Effects Of Drugs And Alcohol On Spider Webs • VideoSift: Online Video *Quality Control

 

Spiders On Drugs

 

It pleases me most that imaginative scientists have begun to actively imagine how other lifeforms may exist even among the higher clouds of Jupiter, or in the methane seas of Titan. I sincerely hope that life is discovered on Mars soon, and especially if it is not DNA based (or even carbon based) that 1) we recognize it as life, and 2) we get the implication that Life is essentially ubiquitous, something that chemistry just tends to do over a sufficient length of time.

[modest]

I want to know what science describes as the animating force of the spider to do what it does?

 

I'm not entirely sure what this sentence means. Nonetheless,

 

The forces which animate a spider are no different from the fundamental forces of physics. Not long ago (mid-19th century) scientists believed that living matter was different from non-living matter in that it had protoplasm which was capable of its own impetus. Many believed that life was a property of this protoplasm.

 

Pharmaceutical journal: A weekly ... - Google Books

 

It is now more widely held that life is an emergent property of matter—needing no special impetus or force of animation beyond the normal laws of chemistry and physics (Materialism).

 

The study of how and why animals move is called biomechanics. To specifically study insects or to explain an insect with science is called entomology which is a field of zoology which is a branch of biology.

 

~modest

[Larv]

I'm not entirely sure what this sentence means. Nonetheless,

 

The forces which animate a spider are no different from the fundamental forces of physics. Not long ago (mid-19th century) scientists believed that living matter was different from non-living matter in that it had protoplasm which was capable of its own impetus. Many believed that life was a property of this protoplasm.

 

Pharmaceutical journal: A weekly ... - Google Books

 

It is now more widely held that life is an emergent property of matter—needing no special impetus or force of animation beyond the normal laws of chemistry and physics (Materialism).

 

The study of how and why animals move is called biomechanics. To specifically study insects or to explain an insect with science is called entomology which is a field of zoology which is a branch of biology.

 

~modest

A much better response than mine. Mine was flapjack; yours is educational. As a biologist, though, I still struggle with understanding this allegedly emergent property called life. Am I to understand it as something like the emergent property of, say, liquid water from the oxidation of hydrogen? I think declaring something an emergent property is a bit of a cop out. It's like using another word for magic. And there, precisely, may be where the metaphysicians gain a foothold.

 

Do you think science alone is adequate for explaining life? I think it has to be, but we seem a long way from explaining it in any meaningful way that enables us to make it from scratch in the laboratory. And I think there are some HUGE principles we haven't yet discovered.

[SidewalkCynic]

I'm not entirely sure what this sentence means. Nonetheless,

I think you describe what I am looking for here...

The study of how and why animals move is called biomechanics. To specifically study insects or to explain an insect with science is called entomology which is a field of zoology which is a branch of biology.

 

~modest

I'm looking forward to reviewing this and a couple of other subjects I have been directed to in this and other threads, so my dance card is full, right now, and I am trying to go over it all, and keep up with my project, as well. Thanks.