goku Posted November 20, 2005 Report Share Posted November 20, 2005 the usefullness of science is limited to two realms:mechanics and chemistryusefull as in things that actually help mankind, or produce tangible results.i'm i or i'm i not right yes or no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockytriton Posted November 20, 2005 Report Share Posted November 20, 2005 so you don't consider things like ecology to be science? or biology? how about anatomy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAHD Posted November 20, 2005 Report Share Posted November 20, 2005 Astronomy(the calendar)? Meteorology? Aeronautics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted November 20, 2005 Report Share Posted November 20, 2005 Goku, it seems the answer to your question is a resounding "no, you're not right". I think that kinda wraps it up, folks. Now move along, nothing to see here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctus Posted November 20, 2005 Report Share Posted November 20, 2005 Not so quick Borseun :shrug:Eventually almost all gets down to mechanics (classical and QM), i.e: electricity= average of motion of charges, biology= movement of electrons and atoms in an organised body with efects (like moving an arm), etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted November 20, 2005 Report Share Posted November 20, 2005 the usefullness of science is limited to two realms:mechanics and chemistryusefull as in things that actually help mankind, or produce tangible results.i'm i or i'm i not right yes or no?___Conditionally right of course. On the condition that everything is a chemical/mechanical manifestation & that we don't yet recognize all the implications for utility & that science is always ammendable. The only limit I see for us is time; all in good time. :shrug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goku Posted November 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 so you don't consider things like ecology to be science? or biology? how about anatomy?yes they're science, they each produce tangible results :shrug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goku Posted November 22, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 if a science does not produce tangible results is it usefull?is science only limited by our lack of knowledge, technology? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarantism Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 is there a limit to how far scientists can push their creativity? seeing as how a scientist gets an innovative idea and acts upon it...thus you get a theory right? so i suppose its more of a question of the limit of our own minds, time, and some sort of "ultimate answer to the universe". haha maybe thats a bit farfetched? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 if a science does not produce tangible results is it usefull?is science only limited by our lack of knowledge, technology? ___The first question is contradictory as utility is time dependant.___The second question is contradictory because technology is knowledge dependant.___If you establish a limit, you'll surely reach it. Pluck the moment & don't trust tomorrow. :QuestionM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarantism Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 ___If you establish a limit, you'll surely reach it. Pluck the moment & don't trust tomorrow. :QuestionMÂ so are you saying that if we establish no limit then there may not be one? :eek2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 so are you saying that if we establish no limit then there may not be one? :eek2:___More accurately if we establish no limit there is not one. 'May not be one' is far too passive a structure for me. See Elements of Style by Strunk & White for further clarification. :QuestionM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 If science learns something that doesn't help us at the moment, does that mean that it is useless? Is it not always useful to have more knowledge about the world around us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarantism Posted November 24, 2005 Report Share Posted November 24, 2005 If science learns something that doesn't help us at the moment, does that mean that it is useless? Is it not always useful to have more knowledge about the world around us? didnt you just contradict yourself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamil Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006  usefull as in things that actually help mankind I think that the primary purpose of science is to satisfy our curiosity. If Science only existed to help technology then technology wouldnt go very far. Because if it wasnt for the curiosity of the scientists then we wouldnt be able to gain the knowledge we have today that is necesarry for technological advances. WHen people were asking questions like 'what is light made up of' or 'is matter quantized' then there were probably lots of people that thought that this would hav no significance to technology. But it does, and the intention of the scietist was not too help technology but to investigate what he was curious about. :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarantism Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 i second that notion and remind you all that science is "the study of..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergey500 Posted January 13, 2006 Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 No, you are most certinatly not right. Science is greek for knowledge (I think at least...) without any other part of science we would not find other informations to help us with productions. Astronomy helped us know where we are building to fly to, or the calender, or how the world around us works...for the most part. Earth Science, earthquakes predictions are usuelss you say? Hm, well if the way you put is true, then every thing we built to save lives from nature is pointless right? Too bad, I thought they were nice inventions. I suppose you checked the weather recently? So....according to you, that is NOT scientific advancement??? Without science we would not find information to advance. 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.