alexander Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Sidewalk, theology actually had little effect on writing. It did, because it promoted documentation of certain ideas, which certainly had upsided, as priests were taught how to write, eventually openning schools and starting the schoolastic system, teaching people literacy, but as far as purposefully convoluting a language, i see no apparent link to support your theory. Meanings are defined more by the locales of people, classes and events in history, thus meanings are, as pyro said, defined by the people at a specific time and place, and they change, its just the nature of the society. Pyro, understand what you are trying to say, but once again the meaning has been convoluted by the missuse of the term by the scientific community. Science is not any single process, its not a process to find or categorize knowledge, it is the knowledge we are trying to achieve, its the facts and outcomes, thus what you are describing, scientific principal is a part of science, as is scientific method, an integral part of science, but its part of a much bigger thing that is science... You don't science around, you research, thus investigate the matter using scientific method and your curiosity to come up with scientific information (science), just like historic research defines historic information (history)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SidewalkCynic Posted June 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 I would like to remind all of us that the Dictionary is not a source of authority, evidence, proof, right or wrong.The Dictionary merely shows how words are currently being used. And that can change pretty fast.The fact that a word may appear in the Dictionary with a certain "definition" (usage) should not be construed as requiring us to always use that word in just that way and no other. I definitely agree, and I hope that the science community will begin to focus on attempts to "construct" some type of consistant language beyond their very absolute defining of natural phenomena. I've only been studying science for a half century or more, so I do not claim to be an authority, but for all those decades, in and out of academia, engineering and the medical community, the word "Science" has typically and consistently been used by my teachers, my managers and my colleagues to refer to the Process that produces the knowledge and technology. Knowledge and technology are the Products of Science, not Science itself.Okay, then we are still left, or are able, to define the specific, and consistent steps of the process (scientific method), and those are probably going to be defined as engineering, design, referencing, etc. And the only thing left is going to be the defining of information, which is deferent from defining words, because words are specific to represent abstract ideas. Of course, the word "science" is often used BOTH ways by lots of people. If you want to use "science" to mean a collection of "science books", by all means, do so.But in those places where the knowledge is produced, most folks talk about "DOING" science, not about collecting, organizing, publishing or reading science.Exactly. What they are referring to is technology - the detailed collection of information, from generalities to specific subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexander Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 I definitely agree, and I hope that the science community will begin to focus on attempts to "construct" some type of consistant language beyond their very absolute defining of natural phenomena.Its called Math, and it has existed for a while... Most people in the scientific community speak it rather well too most folks talk about "DOING" sciencealso doing science is guessing, finding, collecting, organizing and documenting what you found. Science is still the knowledge obtained at the end of all that... word is missused once again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SidewalkCynic Posted June 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Could you please, precisely, explain what about "knowledge" is flawed before you try to explain how to improve it?Logic is compromised in secular society.Also, I would argue that your Dewey Decimal system analogy is flawed. There's not much wrong with that system. I can walk into my school's main library, which is 26 stories tall, look up a book on the computer, find it, and walk out the door in 5 minutes. I don't think you can very much improve upon this system. The problem with the DDC is that it is of only usefulness in the library. For example we cannot effeceintly convert it to use as a directory for storing information in our computer documents. We cannot use it as a reference to the hierarchy of what scientists assign to groupings of subjects (taxonomy). Which brings me to the main point at hand. How can you better arrange human knowledge. Knowledge is knowledge. You either know something or you don't. What are you trying to spin here?Well, I haven't my patent pending, yet, so I am reluctant to divulge anymore than the better rendition of the DDC category of Science, because my rendition is not much different, but it does begin to show how I "clean" things up. And these are "renderings" of how Dewey, or the gaurdians of the DDC, and I "view" how knowledge is arranged in society for recognizing how to access the information/technology sought (map, taxonomy). 500 Natural sciences & mathematics 501 Philosophy & theory 502 Miscellany 503 Dictionaries & encyclopedias 504 Not assigned or no longer used 505 Serial publications 506 Organizations & management 507 Education, research, related topics 508 Natural history 509 Historical, areas, persons treatment 510 Mathematics 511 General principles 512 Algebra & number theory 513 Arithmetic 514 Topology 515 Analysis 516 Geometry 517 Not assigned or no longer used 518 Not assigned or no longer used 519 Probabilities & applied mathematics 520 Astronomy & allied sciences 521 Celestial mechanics 522 Techniques, equipment, materials 523 Specific celestial bodies & phenomena 524 Not assigned or no longer used 525 Earth (Astronomical geography) 526 Mathematical geography 527 Celestial navigation 528 Ephemerides 529 Chronology 530 Physics 531 Classical mechanics Solid mechanics 532 Fluid mechanics Liquid mechanics 533 Gas mechanics 534 Sound & related vibrations 535 Light & paraphotic phenomena 536 Heat 537 Electricity & electronics 538 Magnetism 539 Modern physics 540 Chemistry & allied sciences 541 Physical & theoretical chemistry 542 Techniques, equipment, materials 543 Analytical chemistry 544 Qualitative analysis 545 Quantitative analysis 546 Inorganic chemistry 547 Organic chemistry 548 Crystallography 549 Mineralogy 550 Earth sciences 551 Geology, hydrology, meteorology 552 Petrology 553 Economic geology 554 Earth sciences of Europe 555 Earth sciences of Asia 556 Earth sciences of Africa 557 Earth sciences of North America 558 Earth sciences of South America 559 Earth sciences of other areas 560 Paleontology Paleozoology 561 Paleobotany 562 Fossil invertebrates 563 Fossil primitive phyla 564 Fossil Mollusca & Molluscoidea 565 Other fossil invertebrates 566 Fossil Vertebrata (Fossil Craniata) 567 Fossil cold-blooded vertebrates 568 Fossil Aves (Fossil birds) 569 Fossil Mammalia 570 Life sciences; biology571 Physiology & related subjects572 Biochemistry573 Specific physiological systems in animals574 [unassigned]575 Specific parts of & systems in plants576 Genetics & evolution577 Ecology578 Natural history of organisms579 Microorganisms, fungi & algae580 Plants (Botany)581 Specific topics in natural history582 Plants noted for characteristics & flowers583 Dicotyledons584 Monocotyledons585 Gymnosperms; conifers586 Seedless plants587 Vascular seedless plants588 Bryophytes589 [unassigned] 590 Animals (Zoology)591 Specific topics in natural history592 Invertebrates593 Marine & seashore invertebrates594 Mollusks & molluscoids595 Arthropods596 Chordates597 Cold-blooded vertebrates; fishes598 Birds599 MammalsDo you see this as having an order that is easily recognizable, or do you begin to see a better pattern if we clean it up, and not confine ourselves to a base-ten classification system? NATUROLOGY Physicology Physics Chemistry Astronomy Terrestriology Geology Oceanology Meteorology Paleontology Anthropology Biology Microbiology Botany Zoology EcologyAs you may have noticed, mathematics and philosophy of science are not contained in my rendition of Naturology, but then I have not revealed the entire system because of intellectual property concerns. Besides, it is in everyones best interest, if someone else can make the claim that they thought independently and reconized some errors in the DDC; otherwise I, your humble idiot, is the avant gourde - you don't want that - I'm homeless, and don't understand science like a scientist does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercedes Benzene Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 The problem with the DDC is that it is of only usefulness in the library.Uhm. That's its purpose. Do you see this as having an order that is easily recognizable, or do you begin to see a better pattern if we clean it up, and not confine ourselves to a base-ten classification system?Actually, yes, I do see that as having an order that is easily recognizable. It very transparently allows us to visualize a categorization. It's neatly organized, and splits of "knowledge" into very recognizable, explicit categories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SidewalkCynic Posted June 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Uhm. That's its purpose. Actually, yes, I do see that as having an order that is easily recognizable. It very transparently allows us to visualize a categorization. It's neatly organized, and splits of "knowledge" into very recognizable, explicit categories. Well, that is the best defense in preventing me from taking over the world. Good luck - 'cause, I'm betting most people will recognize the benifits of my system to their communities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercedes Benzene Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Well, that is the best defense in preventing me from taking over the world. Good luck - 'cause, I'm betting most people will recognize the benifits of my system to their communities. Okay, once again, what exactly is it you hope to accomplish? What are the practical applications of your revised organization? How will it make things better? What basis do you have for making these assertions? What communities EXACTLY would "recognize the benifits [sic] of [your] system?" And why? Why are you so against a system that has already proven itself to work? Don't you think that if scientists had a problem with an aspect of their profession, their specialty, their life's work, they would work to change the system? You have no experience. :eek:These are all key things that you're conveniently leaving out of your explanations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SidewalkCynic Posted June 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Okay, once again, what exactly is it you hope to accomplish?World peace, and the better evolution of Mankind.What are the practical applications of your revised organization?Besides the library, people can use my system to organize their computer documents storage systems based on the system of their choosing - most likely their local library's system would be used. How will it make things better?People will be able to devise a uniform understanding of how knowledge is arranged in their community (or any social organization). What basis do you have for making these assertions?It is a hypothesis based on my personal understanding of the distinction between social chaos and order, and the possible causes of each.What communities EXACTLY would "recognize the benifits [sic] of [your] system?" And why?Communities that recognize that we endure social chaos, and seek the least invasive means of guiding the community toward the better evolution of their community are inclined to recognize the benefits of a more readily organized information distribution system. Why are you so against a system that has already proven itself to work?Wow, are you assigning relative degrees? It is not that I am against the system, it's just that I want to improve the system that has not been reorganized efficiently over the past 140 years; but because it is so antiquated it is better to completely replace it. Consider how Microsoft has updated Windows to the point that it is very different from from the original, and completely different from the previous operating system - I'm doing the same thing for public information classification and distribution systems, I am utilizing the contemporary sophistication of society to present a more efficient system that is not bogged down with compliance with a system (base-ten) that does not fit. Besides, my system is much more customizable to meet the needs of specific communities, where as, the DDC, is a very strict system. My system, if a community believes that a subject is higher in hierarchy, and whatever was is beter placed in the new hierachy, then they will be allowed to do that, as long as they maintain documentation for the central office to maintain records for comparison with any applicable demographical data (IQ, Education standards, etc) for possible improvising of the system(s). Very complicated stuff, beyond your pay grade and education, to be organized by government regulation - let the politicians handle it, Okay buddy?Don't you think that if scientists had a problem with an aspect of their profession, their specialty, their life's work, they would work to change the system?Sure if they recognize a problem. Just because they don't recognize a problem doesn't mean there is no problem - just ask the people at NASA about that.You have no experience. :eek:Isn't it a beautiful thing - no responsibilities, hardly any dogma, free minded thinking - drink when I want, smoke when I want, do what ever I want pretty much - how about you? Let not your heart be troubled - after I publish, you can bring forth your better rendition and prove to society how all your experience, and whatever else, enables you to render a better taxonomy than me - but I would suggest that you put forth that befor I put forth my system.:eek:These are all key things that you're conveniently leaving out of your explanations.Well, hey bud, maybe you would be more satisfied if I published a book about it when I get my patent, rather than expecting me to convey all my work and analysis to you over a very limited publication network of an Internet forum discussion on the topic of what is the definition of science, and not what is the next best public information classification system! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Logic is compromised in secular society.A profound statement. Care to back that statement up with evidence or examples ofwhere a secular society has been compromised by "Logic" ??? :eek:And these are "renderings" of how Dewey, or the gaurdians of the DDC, and I "view" how knowledge is arranged in society for recognizing how to access the information/technology sought (map, taxonomy). Why do you mention those numbers which are no longer used (?) :eek:...510 Mathematics 511 General principles 512 Algebra & number theory 513 Arithmetic 514 Topology 515 Analysis 516 Geometry 517 Not assigned or no longer used 518 Not assigned or no longer used 519 Probabilities & applied mathematic Where is the fields of Logic, Calculus (I suppose this could be in Analysis), ... ? :eek:520 Astronomy & allied sciences 521 Celestial mechanics 522 Techniques, equipment, materials 523 Specific celestial bodies & phenomena 524 Not assigned or no longer used 525 Earth (Astronomical geography) 526 Mathematical geography 527 Celestial navigation 528 Ephemerides529 ChronologyWhere is Stellar or Galactic Astronomy (Astrophysics), or Cosmology ? :hyper:530 Physics 531 Classical mechanics Solid mechanics 532 Fluid mechanics Liquid mechanics 533 Gas mechanics 534 Sound & related vibrations 535 Light & paraphotic phenomena 536 Heat 537 Electricity & electronics 538 Magnetism 539 Modern physicsWhere are Maxwell's Equations within 537 or 538 ? Where is Special Relativity, andGeneral Relativity ??? ;)Do you see this as having an order that is easily recognizable, or do you begin to see a better pattern if we clean it up, and not confine ourselves to a base-ten classification system?Yeah, I see a better one. One that is used in major libraries at Universities around the world -- Library Of Congress System. I grant you it's numbering system may seem wacky. It does make more sense to relegate all of Mathematics to QA1 - QA999 than to fit within 510-519 !!! :D The same goes for QB1 - QB999 for Astronomy, andQC1 - QC999 for Physics (some of the later Physics journals went beyond 3-digits). TheDDC (Dewey Decimal Systems) works fine for High School Libraries and maybe some smallCommunity Colleges. When you have over 10,000 books on a single subject, this is Notgoing to fit with 10 points. :naughty: Not without being even more confusing. :shrug:I should know. I learned the LOC system while shelving books a the university Library(both main and Math/Physics) while attending there. :) I got to do a lot of reading whileshelving books, journals and papers. :lol::lol::lol:As you may have noticed, mathematics and philosophy of science are not contained in my rendition of Naturology, but then I have not revealed the entire system because of intellectual property concerns. Besides, it is in everyones best interest, if someone else can make the claim that they thought independently and reconized some errors in the DDC; otherwise I, your humble idiot, is the avant gourde - you don't want that - I'm homeless, and don't understand science like a scientist does.My sympathies as to being homeless. If you want MHO, were I to use the DDC, I woulduse 5-significant digits 00000, not 3 or 4 (maybe even 6). This whole thread is quite simple. What is Science ?It is the application of the Scientific Method as first laid down by Sir Francis Bacon (in it's entirety -- though even he stands on the shoulders of others)There is a desire to corroborate or identify something. The steps are as follows:1) Form a hypothesis.2) Gather evidence to form a theory.3) Lay out the theory.4) Run experiments, calculate results.5) Write down your theory.6) Publish.7) Defend your theory amongst your peers.8) Based upon criticism go back to an earlier step or think up a new Hypothesis... Science is the application of this. Most of the other posts have said this in some form orfashion. Not that difficult. maddog Mercedes Benzene 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexander Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Besides the library, people can use my system to organize their computer documents storage systems based on the system of their choosing - most likely their local library's system would be used.I take it you are not a comp-sci person... well, those things you are describing are called file systems, they are pretty complex pieces of code that organize files on the hard drive, and they have structures that are far beyond your currently shown grasp of that concept... there are unequaly ballanced trees, hashes, and a ton of things you shouldn't concern yourself with, just that they are massively complex systems. expecting me to convey all my work and analysis to you over a very limited publication network of an Internet forum discussionWell, that would be nice of you... oh you don't want to do this, well then how about a wiki page? millions of visitors every day, get your name to be known, prove you are not BSing, fill in the blanks and prove your point... kills what 3 birds with one publication... and you can do it now, if your patent paper work is in (as you seem to imply), and the office accepted your claim, you are already protected by the patent laws, now arent you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexander Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Science is the application of this. Most of the other posts have said this in some form orfashion. Not that difficult.but its not a verb, i have been saying this over and over again, its the result that you get after application of the scientific method to study a subject matter, thus the data... this could be the formula or the result of the plugging in 2 numbers into it, it's not the search for the formula, that would be scientific research... Oh i know more people are going to have a problem with this definition and this statement, so to put it plainly, science consists of nouns... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercedes Benzene Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Yeah, I see a better one. One that is used in major libraries at Universities around the world -- Library Of Congress System. I grant you it's numbering system may seem wacky. It does make more sense to relegate all of Mathematics to QA1 - QA999 than to fit within 510-519 !!! :eek: The same goes for QB1 - QB999 for Astronomy, andQC1 - QC999 for Physics (some of the later Physics journals went beyond 3-digits). Yup. I was there the other day. I put in a request for call number QP517.P45 D96 2005. I got it in about 20 minutes. Not bad turnaround for a collection of 140,000,000 items, with 10,000 books added daily, if you ask me. That should at least give some perspective as to this system's effectiveness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SidewalkCynic Posted June 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 A profound statement. Care to back that statement up with evidence or examples of where a secular society has been compromised by "Logic" ??? :eek:The current state of the United States is an example of society suffering the ill effects of integrating and ultimately compromising logic systems, and the symptoms are that people make the claim that, "...things are messed up." Although they cannot specifically define the problem, because it is very complex, and compounded, over the course of several centuries of misguided political, and of course, church driven ideologies to maintain their respective organizations' ability to control the course of events (power). My theory is that the USA was founded on the concept of allowing people the opportunity to organize states (governments) under the auspices of peaceful conditions that a union of states can provide with a strong military defense mechanizism. Up until the founding of the USA it appears that nations were founded by authoritarian, and otherwise military occupation of colonies. Now, the Founders of the USA could not explicitly define that the states were to be founded on strict philosophical systems (logic, morality, etc), because that would lead to problems of explaining it to the people who were not as well educated as the Founders, and the Founders were hardly as sophisticated as we are now, and so it is difficult to be certain if they recognized the consequences of secular society as we can. Certainly, their anticipation was that reason would win the day. So, as the years have gone by, and states have joined the union, they have all essentially contributed to the ever expanding integration of various logic and morality systems (religions), and we are where we are - kids are shooting-up their schools because they are unhappy, others are shooting-up their work places, or shopping malls; the popularly elected President has to be gaurded by a secret service. Those are examples of chaos, not tranquility, which is the balance of chaos and order. So, my theory is that a better information classification system will lead to people developing a better sense of logical inference, and recognizing that some premises, such as theism and atheism, or free will and determinism, are too opposed to be able to correctly progress without segregating them. Why do you mention those numbers which are no longer used (?) :eek:Please, if they were not indicated, you would ask what happened to them. All I did was copy and paste off the Internet - I'm not going to go through and remove them, because I want to be sure I account for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SidewalkCynic Posted June 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 I take it you are not a comp-sci person... well, those things you are describing are called file systems, they are pretty complex pieces of code that organize files on the hard drive, and they have structures that are far beyond your currently shown grasp of that concept... there are unequaly ballanced trees, hashes, and a ton of things you shouldn't concern yourself with, just that they are massively complex systems.I'm talking about the personal documents (My Documents), or if you are on Linux, the Home folder, but it doesn't really work perfectly because the home folder stores a bunch of application customization which would go in a category that is buried in the classification system, but it's not that big a deal, because I am on Ubuntu and so I store all my documents on the Desktop and when ready I file them into my classification system on a USB partitioned for each domain. It's excellent. Well, that would be nice of you... oh you don't want to do this, well then how about a wiki page? millions of visitors every day, get your name to be known, prove you are not BSing, fill in the blanks and prove your point... kills what 3 birds with one publication... and you can do it now, if your patent paper work is in (as you seem to imply), and the office accepted your claim, you are already protected by the patent laws, now arent you...I'm probably going to do that, but I have no way to put money on my PayPal. And, I am holding off on my application for a patent because I have not finnished the essays for the book and this allows me the opportunity/time to check the stability of deep categories - which are difficult to stabilize because they are so specific and my understanding of them can be limited. And the defining of science is one of those loose ends, but I'm sure I've located it's category, and it is not a primary domain as Dewey and the Library of Congress make it - that's for sure - I gaurantee it - you can take it to the bank. And it is on you, scientists, for allowing such to perpetuate and contribute to the delinquency of society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 As much as I'd like to address your last sentence, this whole thread has careened off topic. Let's please keep this thread on topic. If you'd like to discuss something other than "what is science" then do so in another thread. lemit 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jway Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 This whole thread is quite simple. What is Science ?It is the application of the Scientific Method as first laid down by Sir Francis Bacon (in it's entirety -- though even he stands on the shoulders of others)There is a desire to corroborate or identify something. The steps are as follows:1) Form a hypothesis.2) Gather evidence to form a theory.3) Lay out the theory.4) Run experiments, calculate results.5) Write down your theory.6) Publish.7) Defend your theory amongst your peers.8) Based upon criticism go back to an earlier step or think up a new Hypothesis... Science is the application of this. Most of the other posts have said this in some form orfashion. Not that difficult. If this is science, which I don't really disagree with, I would just note it is the restricted view according to myself and Wikipedia. At any rate, I am one who thinks, strongly, that technique and practice is, in many human endeavors, the application of science and even method. IMO, after a theory has been: published and tested to see that it works, and is accepted with much consensus, then further application of the theory may not look like experimentation, but I believe astute humans are approaching it with that in mind. They (or we) are open to the further development of the theory, and if something were to pop up on the radar, it would then go back and be fed through the prescribed methodology. An example that comes to my mind on this is what occurs each (I would say every) time I visit the doctor. IMO, he/she isn't doing methodology, or if he/she it, it seems very shortened and steps are being skipped. I realize this may be where you say methodology is for research, but I think one can follow the integrity of that research, and thus methods, while doing the more important parts AFTER theory has been validated, which is applying the experimental information in a way that facilitates understand and streamlines process(es). So application after publishing / sharing of results is, as I see it, further validating (or invalidating) the theory, and can (often does) lead to more hypotheses and thus expands human understanding. While I am advocating in the direction I am speaking about, I do see holes in it as far is, "is this what science, and only science, is really up to?" But at same time, I think validation and research is not restricted to methodology. In fact, I would argue, have argued, that it is not restricted only to the prescribed methodology and that human understanding, typically, expands via the process of application that comes after publication / sharing. Personally, I see it taking off exponentially from that point forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 From Karl Popper's 1959 "The logic of scientific discovery": The task of formulating an acceptable definition of the idea of an ‘empirical science’ is not without its difficulties. Some of these arise from the fact that there must be many theoretical systems with a logical structure very similar to the one which at any particular time is the accepted system of empirical science. This situation is sometimes described by saying that there is a great number—presumably an infinite number—of ‘logically possible worlds’. Yet the system called ‘empirical science’ is intended to represent only one world: the ‘real world’ or the ‘world of our experience’. In order to make this idea a little more precise, we may distinguish three requirements which our empirical theoretical system will have to satisfy. First, it must be synthetic, so that it may represent a non-contradictory, a possible world. Secondly, it must satisfy the criterion of demarcation, i.e. it must not be metaphysical, but must represent a world of possible experience. Thirdly, it must be a system distinguished in some way from other such systems as the one which represents our world of experience. But how is the system that represents our world of experience to be distinguished? The answer is: by the fact that it has been submitted to tests, and has stood up to tests. This means that it is to be distinguished by applying to it that deductive method [the scientific method] which it is my aim to analyze, and to describe. ‘Experience’, on this view, appears as a distinctive method whereby one theoretical system may be distinguished from others; so that empirical science seems to be characterized not only by its logical form but, in addition, by its distinctive method. (This, of course, is also the view of the inductivists, who try to characterize empirical science by its use of the inductive method.) The logic of scientific discovery - Google Books Don't let this quote fool you that Popper was supporting inductivism. In the book he's very critical of it. I agree with the quote, and it's something that is voiced throughout the thread. Science is not only only knowledge (i.e. information), and a logical system of understanding that knowledge (or, as SidewalkCynic might say: "defining it"), but also a particular method (the scientific method) for assuring that the system works consistently with our world of experience. ~modest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.