What is Science?

[SidewalkCynic]

You? You're sitting in a New York City library pretending that you know better than everyone else because you dislike reality!

No. I'm sitting in a library knowing that I know better, because I have devised the better revision of the Dewey Decimal system. I know what reality is, and for the purposes of this discussion I would suggest that those of you, especially science types, who are completely confident that you know how knowledge arranges in society, that you devise your taxonomy of all of human knowledge, so as to contribute to benefit of the better evolution of Mankind.

 

It took me seventeen months, all by myself, only consulted about better understanding of algorithms, here, a couple of months back. It should not take a team of scientists more than a month to put together a better rendition of the taxonomy of knowledge - so don't let an old short-order cook, Navy veteran, Republican, humanist Cynic, homeless, art school drop-out, show you up.

 

Once you have a full rendition of the taxonomy, you will then be able to locate science.

[SidewalkCynic]

Huh? Are you serious? You're not kidding me, per chance?

No, I am not kidding you. You need to realize reality.

 

Since when did we need "theist oversight"? Who assigned that role to the theists?

Always have because Atheists are not seeking to form their own community.

 

Why would the atheists want to form a community?

To progress the better evolution of mankind, without interference from the compromises made with the theists

 

 

This is on par with expecting everybody who never had their spleens removed to form a community. Why would the fact that both you and I have our spleens form common ground for the formation of any kind of "community"? Are you for real?

You are playing the straw man argument, because you have no understanding of social organization. Although, it is possible to organize a community based on anything except pessimism, social organization requires a full rendition of a philosophical system, and theists have been very diligent, although, erroneous, in providing such necessary elements. The problem has been, and you are a victim of it, is that logic systems have been compromised in secular societies. And if Atheists were to form their own communities, they would begin to recognize that their disagreements are differring logics that need to be sorted out and isolated, so as to discover their worthiness to society (politics).

 

Atheists can work well with anybody within the parameters of the job at hand. I honestly don't see any point in your last post.

As far as you can identify the parameters of a job - I say the Dewey Decimal system is a chaotic system, and Atheists, especially scientists, should have identified it as such, and fixed it a long time ago. Obviously, enough someones don't know the parameters, or the consequences, of erroneous information classification in the public sector.

 

Or, do you believe it makes no difference?

[alexander]

Sorry i am still reading through the posts (and i will post when i am done) but i needed to get an argument out of the way.

 

The whole atheism/atheist/theism/theist argument. (most of your guys definitions are not quite complete)

 

In linguistics, we have a very well defined history and definition of the term based on its roots, yes all of these words exist, yes they all describe people or beliefs, all of them are nouns.

 

theist - derives from the greek "theos" which means god and the addition of the suffix ist. The original meaning of this word is "one who believes in a transcendent god, but denies revelation", this was later fitted to a similar term deriving from Latin "deus" god, and became deist; tern theist gaining the belief in revelation.

 

All that means (this is specifically addressed to Sidewalk) that the term theism (noun) is a real well-defined term meaning "the belief in god, without rejecting revelation", theist is a person who has theism (i.e. believes in god without rejecting revelation), the term atheist is person who does not believe in god and rejects revelation. All well-defined terms that have NOTHING to do with science, scientific thought, scientists or relating to any questions that you have posted above other then implying that scientists are all atheist (an incorrect (what i believe to be) fidimplicitary idea you seem to be pushing).

 

Also (countering that argument), of anyone its the religious community that has problems with self-definition, and its not that they don't know what to call themselves, the opposite, they all cant agree on some details of the same concept, so they create names to distinguish themselves from the main group and call everyone else atheists or heretics. They call each other atheists and or heretics (most of the time incorrectly using either of the terms) because they "somehow know" that the others don't pray to the same invisible being as they do, no logic, just know...

 

Another problem i have with people like sidewalk (not implying that sidewalk is like those people, just gathering from what i have read so far) is that time and time again they show ignorance when an argument is presented (simply ignoring a presented argument and saying something else), no real knowledge of what they are arguing about (as simple as saying "Do you really believe in evolution?"), and also for the often lack of logic or simple research to back their opinions...

[SidewalkCynic]

Sorry i am still reading through the posts (and i will post when i am done) but i needed to get an argument out of the way.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

So are you suggesting that we, especially me, need to get in allignment as to how you think? Where do I apply for this brain washing? Is it pain free?

 

Is it approved by the AMA, and FDA, and what ever else?

[alexander]

So are you suggesting that we, especially me, need to get in allignment as to how you think? Where do I apply for this brain washing? Is it pain free?

Absolutely not, I'm the first person here who will fight so that everyone is entitled to think whatever the hell they want, including you; and I, nor anyone else should "force" any oppinion on you, thus everyone looking at information (word you like so much) should make their own opinion as to what they think about it.

 

As to the "Blah..." part, that shows further ignorance, its a psychological defensive maneuver, i would not be surprised that you would be sitting in front of your monitor (made possible because of people like Boerseun, Pyro and Gahd), reading posts with your arms or legs crossed, which indicated a mentally defensive stature thus only getting out of their reading what you want to get out of it, and only the top meaning, with a natural reaction to disagree with everything everyone says that does not portray your point. And just when you start running out of arguments that you have probably acquired in a discussion with someone, you start throwing in metaphysical arguments equating yourself to some sort of a supernatural being. e.g.

You need to realize reality.

 

It's not uncommon, i see that quite often in discussions where someone just does not have the ground to prove that they are right using logic, especially if there are more then one person not believing their point, so they try the supernatural approach to perhaps elevate themselves to a higher level being in the eyes of the opponents or observers. Heck, that's how religion got started in the first place, simple inability to describe something forced people to make up supernatural explanations, and then when enough people believed in those explanations, they position themselves closer to the "supernatural spirit" and try to control people.

 

Thus, please spare the brain washing of this community and aggravation, it wont work here as well as you hope it might. Many have tried, and have failed.

[SidewalkCynic]

Absolutely not, I'm the first person here who will fight so that everyone is entitled to think whatever the hell they want, including you...

And what do we do then with all these conflicting opinions?

 

We're living in it - isn't it tranquil?

[alexander]

If a need for a discussion arises we should discuss things like adults, following simple debate format, its been around for what over 2 milleniah and it seems to prove itself time and time again in the intellectual community, here's how it all goes (this is my short internet debate version):

 

Objective:

The Proposition side must convince the judging side of their argument before the end of the debate, presenting arguments that will support their objective and defend their objective.

 

Before the Debate:

The Proposition side must have a thorough understanding of the subject matter they are going to present, have a clear understanding of their goals.

 

The First Part:

The first part of the first post in a thread should focus on introducing the subject matter and stating the goals that are to be achieved in the debate.

 

The Debate:

For each argument

10 Firstly the Proposition presents a constructive argument

20 Secondly the Opposition presents a constructive argument

30 Thirdly the Proposition presents a rebuttal argument

40 Fourthly the Opposition presents a rebuttal argument

Goto 10

 

Constructive and Rebuttal Arguments:

Introduction of new arguments is only allowed during the constructive argument phase

One may not introduce new arguments in rebuttal stages except that the proposition rebuttalist may introduce new arguments in his or her rebuttal to refute arguments that were raised in the opposition constructive argument. New examples, analysis, analogies, etc. that support previously introduced arguments are permitted in rebuttal speeches.

 

References:

During the argument, any debater can request a reference from which the information was obtained. The person presenting the information has to provide the point of reference, otherwise the information presented is rejected from the argument, and the argument based on that information is also rejected from the debate.

 

Interjections:

Anyone can interject into the debate, it is up to the primary debaters to honor the interjection and allow the person to present their point, or to ignore it and continue with their own debate...

[alexander]

I should say the goal of a discussion is to come to a mutual conclusion, or none at all, one does not force an opinion on another by calling supernatural phenomena, but one can convince another that their view is correct by presenting arguments in such a way that no doubt exists about the rightness of the others view which then causes the opposition to perhaps take the point of the proposition or visa-versa. Either an understanding is reached, or it is not (no grey area)

[SidewalkCynic]

I should say the goal of a discussion is to come to a mutual conclusion, or none at all, one does not force an opinion on another by calling supernatural phenomena, but one can convince another that their view is correct by presenting arguments in such a way that no doubt exists about the rightness of the others view which then causes the opposition to perhaps take the point of the proposition or visa-versa. Either an understanding is reached, or it is not (no grey area)

Sounds good, and I am sure many will agree with you, but does it ever occur with socially transforming results?

 

I think it is all, pretty much, pie in the sky. Communities have to be formed in the pursuit of progressing specific logic. I'm sure your peers understand bio-logic, and geo-logic, and astro-logic, and physi-logic; and have developed them accordingly. The problem is that society is intertwined with many differing logic systems: Cynicism, Christianity, Islam, Atheism, Utilitarian, Epicurean, etc.

[Pyrotex]

So are you suggesting that we, especially me, need to get in allignment as to how you think? Where do I apply for this brain washing?...?

Snarky, sarcastic and obtuse.

Please don't be that way.

 

You do not have to agree with someone to know what you're talking about.

 

Demonstrating knowledge and intelligence is not the same as being brain-washed.

 

If anything, Sidewalk, YOU manifest the symptoms of being "brain-washed" more than anyone else in this thread.

 

Question: why do you think that knowing something about science will somehow reduce your ability to criticize science? :hihi:

[InfiniteNow]

Well, I would normally say that this is off-topic and not thread relevant, but who really cares? This whole thread topic seems to be, "Hey look at how the troll gets people talking about ridiculous nonsense which has nothing to do with the threads stated purpose in the OP."

 

I suppose that's pretty inclusive, so here I go.

 

 

Actually, one who rejects beliefs is an agnostic. Atheism is a dogmatic religion...

As has been amply demonstrated already by fellow members, quite simply, you're wrong. You seem to be referring mostly to the hard atheist stance, which states flat out that there is no god.

 

While I concede that with each passing day I do, in fact, get closer to that position, I am at my core a person who ascribes to the tenets of science. More specifically, I hold dear the fact that we can never know anything with absolute certainty.

 

With that said, however, your inclusion of the term "agnostic" implicitly seems to suggest that these are people who feel that the chance of gods existence or nonexistence is 50/50 either way. This is also false, as there are different levels of agnosticism.

 

The most common description is one of a 7-point scale. The number 1 represents extreme certainty that there IS a god, and the number 7 represents extreme certainty that there is NOT a god, and the various other numbers on that scale represent differing inclinations one way or the other.

 

So, for example, a priest would probably be a 1, as would many of his flock. Some would probably be a 2, if they strongly believed in god, but left room for the possibility that he did not exist. Now, on the atheist side, most are probably a 6, not willing to make that final step of absolute. This is the smart thing to do. Of course I cannot be SURE that there is no god, so I wouldn't label myself as a 7. It's simply really. Nothing is ever 100%.

 

However, I'm quite confident that there is no god, abundantly confident, in fact, so I'd say I'm more of a 6.999 on that scale.

 

I leave room for the possibility, which directly negates your claim that I am following some sort of dogmatic religion. If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color. It' just a lack of belief in cosmic dictator, and in the books which were written by barely literate tribal peoples during the bronze age.

 

I simply reject theism for lack of evidence in its favor, in much the same way that I reject santa claus, the tooth fairy, and the easter bunny for lack of evidence. Same thing, just like you reject Thor, and Zeus, and Apollo, and any of the other thousands of god lying dead in the graveyard which is human mythology.

 

When people call themselves an atheist, it's just short hand. It tells you nothing about who that person is or how they approach the world, as it's NOT an ideology. The only descriptive power it has is that the person being ascribed with that label is not theist and doesn't believe in the magic sky pixie. That's it.

 

When theists call OTHERS atheist, it's most commonly so they can attack an easy label and put a bunch of diverse people into a single ideological bucket instead of defending their own beliefs. You don't do it with "non-racists," so why do it with "non-theists?"

 

 

I now return you to your regularly scheduled program of off-topic trolling and pointless posting of responses to said troll.

[Jway]

Science is the process whereby information is used to derive conclusions which can be used to make predictions with - based on certain rules of what is allowable and what not, not unlike the rules of admission of evidence in law.

 

Thus, the guy fixing the Hubble telescope is not doing science, he's applying the results of prior scientific experiments - you turn a nut clockwise, you tighten it.

 

According, to Wikipedia definition of science, he may be doing science.

 

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.[1]

 

As I read your explanation on "how to tighten a nut," it seemed to me, based on knowledge of a practice with predictable outcomes. The guy, or gal, fixing the Hubble telescope is performing a highly skilled technique.

 

Though what constitutes "highly skilled" is, IMO, vague. Thus, I am prone to say any skilled technique or practice, with a predictable outcome.

 

But Science, itself, is an unambiguous process. Before an experiment is conducted, the methodology is carefully noted. And if the methodology does not comply to the rules and allows ambiguous results to slip through because of it, then that experiment wasn't scientific, and the results aren't "science" - even if the people involved were under the impression that it was.

 

Could you please present "the rules" here for all to see, and hopefully to agree upon?

As I ask this question, I'm thinking that perhaps you mean the rules are the methodology noted by the experimenter, and thus are not based on a standard. (?)

 

I don't think there's a lot of confusion as to "what" might be considered "science", and what not.

 

Personally, I believe there is. Especially with how you have it worded here, "what might be considered science." That leaves a lot open (to consider). I almost can't think of a human endeavor that would not be subject to "might be considered science." Like, while typing this post, I'm thinking about sports. I was thinking soccer initially (for some reason), but feel more comfortable talking baseball. Hitting a ball is a highly skilled endeavor. To do the thing called, "hit a homerun," I can easily see individual(s) experimenting with the tools and knowledge of the exercise, to as to produce a) predictable results and :hihi: to advance human knowledge on this subject. I'm around 95% sure that MLB franchises do approach this as "a science."

 

Again, I almost cannot think of an endeavor that would not apply to science, and will in this post address some of those which have been raised in this thread.

 

Originally Posted by Jway:

How about if you are replacing the gears in the car, so you can drive to the space lab, and maneuver Hubble to look around and discover phenomenon in space?

Mercedes Benzener responded:

No. That would not be science. That's not actually participating in something that expands knowledge. That's doing something that will allow you to go to where you can expand knowledge.

 

Thus you are participating in something that involves expanding human knowledge. This is perhaps not directly related to how I started this post, but I do feel it is for sure on the same tangent. Mainly because "replacing the gears in the car" is a (highly) skilled endeavor. It is "highly skilled" from where I'm sitting.

 

I think a possible divide within this thread is that some of us are saying science is only utilized for (non-profit) research. Thus it isn't really a skill / technique as Wikipedia states. And others are saying, science is research and application of skill that has predictable outcome(s). Such that, when you demonstrate or apply the skill, you are essentially reinforcing the principles of the ascribed theory. And if you are astute, or aware, you are essentially conducting ongoing scientific experimentation. Also, because we allow for persons to observe experiments and not necessarily be active participant, then science can be occurring, even while a person (or animal or plant or whatever) participating in the experimentation may not be aware that scientific research is being conducted.

 

I believe I fall in the latter camp on this thread, and believe those in the former camp will wish to rebut my logic on this. Just a prediction. Let's test it out!

 

Qfwfq wrote:

John is in the bathroom urinating, so as to relieve the discomfort which was preventing concentration on his research work. He can then return to the lab and resume his chemistry analysis. So, is urinating in the bathroom science?

 

I admit this is a tough one (for me). Why didn't John urinate while he was experimenting without going to the bathroom? Is it because John was aware of a predictable outcome, based on previous knowledge, that directed him, in a sensible way, to urinate in the bathroom? On the other hand, urinating doesn't strike me as 'highly skilled,' while urinating in the bathroom, presumably standing up (or maybe sitting) near a device to capture the (you know what) does entail some skill. It is something we do teach to our offspring.

 

Therefore, I lean toward - urinating in the bathroom is science (applied).

 

SidewalkCynic wrote (note the following is presented out of chronological order in which the statements were made):

I say the Dewey Decimal system is a chaotic system. I have devised the better revision of the Dewey Decimal system....

It took me seventeen months, all by myself, only consulted about better understanding of algorithms, here, a couple of months back.... to put together a better rendition of the taxonomy of knowledge

 

- The (predictable) outcome is - rendition of the taxonomy of knowledge.

- Seems obvious that this could advance human knowledge. Might not, but for sure plausible.

- Builds upon knowledge that has come before it.

- While I have questions and potential criticisms of "better understanding" and "better rendition," I don't believe that takes away from the work that is purported to have been done.

- I would say this is scientific research.

 

>> And in last few pages, that's about all I could find pertaining to the topic. There was one earlier that I feel like taking up:

 

SidewalkCynic wrote:

does a child exercise science when walking - down a staircase?

 

Or put another way, "does a child exercise a (highly) skilled practice when walking down a staircase?

 

It's a tough one. Like the urination example. I think this might be tougher, though I earlier said, "yes" on this thread, and do lean in that direction, because walking is a skill, albeit not something I'd call "highly skilled" and walking down staircase could lead to a predictable outcome (that the walker will reach bottom of the stairwell), that could be tested by anyone and everyone. Does it advance human knowledge? That depends, and while we may not know factors involved in this case, I feel that doesn't mean we assume that human knowledge wouldn't be advanced by studying something as simple as a child walking down a staircase. And I am prone to assume that this could be the work of researchers (be they children or adults) somewhere in the known universe.

 

Thanks for reading,

-Jway

[alexander]

Ok, now that we are FINALLY back on track, and we shall hopefully follow the rules of a debate, (thanks Jway).

 

What is science?

 

I think we have bloated that question beyond where it was intended to go. Asking what is science is kind of asking what is life, while we can describe life in different terms we dont quite have a definition that does not have philosophic hooks that can lead to a discussion just like this one.

 

That said, i think we have taken a leap from defining science, to describing it. Science is not an action, it is not a skilled practice, science is merely knowledge of principals and causes. It may have been accumulated over time, systematized, formulated with respect to discovery. It may be an observation, like earth is spherical or a general law that nature seems to follow, like relativistic energy-momentum relationship [math]E^2-(pc)^2=(m_0c^2)^2[/math] It may relate to physical world, it may follow the scientific method. But Science is just the knowledge of principals and causes, and only those are science which are an ascertained fact... KISS

[Pyrotex]

...What is science? ...science is merely knowledge of principals and causes...

Alexander,

good try, but I think you are only halfway there.

 

Richard Feynman once said, "Science is the accumulated wisdom of knowing how to NOT trick ourselves."

 

As humans, it is so very easy to trick ourselves, to persuade ourselves to believe almost anything. Look around you. Yes, the FIRST HALF of Science is the accumulation of knowledge, principles and causes. But the OTHER HALF of Science is the wisdom of knowing HOW to acquire knowledge, demonstrate principles and verify causes in such a way that we do not trick ourselves with wishful thinking and flawed reasoning.

[Boerseun]

As I read your explanation on "how to tighten a nut," it seemed to me, based on knowledge of a practice with predictable outcomes. The guy, or gal, fixing the Hubble telescope is performing a highly skilled technique.

Okay. My analogy might have been a bit too simple. But consider this: When the guy is presented with a nut and a bolt for the first time in his life, he "scientifically interrogates" is by turning it a few times to see what it does. That's science. Afterwards, turning it clockwise to tighten it, is applying what he knows from prior experiments. He's not expanding our set of knowledge, merely applying it.

Could you please present "the rules" here for all to see, and hopefully to agree upon? As I ask this question, I'm thinking that perhaps you mean the rules are the methodology noted by the experimenter, and thus are not based on a standard. (?)

I can't present it here, the list is too long. There is a long list of requirements and agreed standards for various types of experiments, based on logic and statistics, amongst others. Here's a good primer.

Hitting a ball is a highly skilled endeavor. To do the thing called, "hit a homerun," I can easily see individual(s) experimenting with the tools and knowledge of the exercise, to as to produce a) predictable results and :confused: to advance human knowledge on this subject. I'm around 95% sure that MLB franchises do approach this as "a science."

The Science lies in gathering data, and predict that when you do A, then B will follow, based on a particular theory you might have in mind. Hitting a baseball in a particular way to guarantee a homerun is merely applying known physics in a skilled manner, but generates no new knowledge. It's not "Science" in the hard sense - it's applied physics (or engineering) in much the way as tightening a bolt on the Hubble would be.

Again, I almost cannot think of an endeavor that would not apply to science

If I bumped my head against a rock and it bleeds, it's not science. Unless I predicted that based on what I know about human heads and rocks, it will bleed if I do so. Then I perform the experiment and validate my theory. Bumping my head against a rock again, isn't science - the theory was validated. It's applied physics that I would do if I may be in need of a cup of blood. If I were to start bumping my head against other stuff, like, say, down pillows to compare it with the results of the rock-banging, then we're back to science.

[lemit]

If I bumped my head against a rock and it bleeds, it's not science. Unless I predicted that based on what I know about human heads and rocks, it will bleed if I do so. Then I perform the experiment and validate my theory. Bumping my head against a rock again, isn't science - the theory was validated. It's applied physics that I would do if I may be in need of a cup of blood. If I were to start bumping my head against other stuff, like, say, down pillows to compare it with the results of the rock-banging, then we're back to science.

 

I think if you changed that rock to a brick wall you might have a great analogy for this thread.

 

I'm still concerned with getting that child off the staircase, since it's not doing science and is probably going to fall if we leave it there long enough. Marcel Duchamp's 'Nude Descending a Staircase" at least has some geometry. That poor innocent kid we've left on the staircase far too long doesn't have anything to do with science and deserves to be rescued.

 

--lemit

[SidewalkCynic]

As has been amply demonstrated already by fellow members, quite simply, you're wrong. You seem to be referring mostly to the hard atheist stance, which states flat out that there is no god.

 

While I concede that with each passing day I do, in fact, get closer to that position, I am at my core a person who ascribes to the tenets of science. More specifically, I hold dear the fact that we can never know anything with absolute certainty.

I believe that the more perfect scientist is a being that would be secular - very similar to agnostic, but more than just questioning the existence of a supernatural dimension, but not subject to any faulty ideology.

 

And, I believe that most contemporary scientists achieve that specifically in their field of specialty. In essence they train themselves to a full understanding of the logic system(s) that can be identified within that specialty.

 

And this is, basically, what I am getting at when I state that contemporary scientist are a little sensitive about discussing the definition of science; but they should not be - and need to get over it as soon as possible.

 

And the Atheists are the same way when it comes to the definition of "atheism," and "religion." Oh, yeah. I forgot the relative degrees of atheism: hard atheism, soft atheism, strong atheism, weak atheism, militant atheism, fundamental atheism......

 

:hyper: it's hilarious

 

If anything, Sidewalk, YOU manifest the symptoms of being "brain-washed" more than anyone else in this thread.

Really, can you identify the method, or the logic system, I am deploying. I mean really, if your claim is you can recognize the effects of brain washing, and you are a scientist - can you identify the symptoms, or what ever characteristics, that lead to your diagnosis?

 

If not then your excellent terminology is an ad homonym attack. Did you receive a warning, or did it get past the censors, or is this a group effort to maintain the status quo social system?

 

Question: why do you think that knowing something about science will somehow reduce your ability to criticize science?

I just want to know what is the concise definition of science that all scientists agree upon.

 

I believe that the most proper definition for all scientists to agree with is that science is defining information. Once you get past that headache, and begin to sort out things in accordance with that (inference), things will get better throughout Mankind.

 

The more you fight against it, the more difficult it will be for you when I impose it on society through mass publication in my master plan to take over the world. You will probably have to quit your job, because of mental fatigue - maybe you can get government subsidy.