It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"There is no such thing as 'Science."

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
"There is no such thing as 'Science'."

"Who told you that?"

"No one -- I discovered it myself."

"I think that probably you are wrong."

"Oh? Consider this statement: 'Science tells us x'."

"What about it?"

"Well, where did you actually read 'x'?"

"Discover Magazine."

"Who wrote the article?"

"Never mind that -- I read the paper."

"Who wrote the paper?"

"J. M-- & B. P--, 'On x'. It's peer-reviewed."

"What sort of scientists are J.M and B.P?"

"Geologists."

"So, 'geology tells us x'?"

"Yes... yes -- If 'science tells us x' then 'geology tells us x'."

"So geology tells us 'x'?"

"Yes."

"So the people who wrote the paper are geologists. And it was peer-reviewed."

"Correct."

"Who was on the peer-review board?"

"Well, I'm not sure, let me see... Ah -- These people: (L, H, T & Y) are on the peer review board, and A.D & B.W. were able to reproduce their experiment, and came to the same conclusion: 'X is'."

"So: J.M, B.P, A.D, B.W, L, H, T, and Y all tell us that 'x' is?"

"Correct... but not just them: 95% of geologists agree that 'x' is (link to survey data) and furthermore --"

"Hold on a moment... 95% of geologists agree that 'x'?"

"That's what I said."

"How do they know?"

"Well, presumably they read the papers written by A.D. & B.W., and J.M & B.P., and arrived at the same conclusion I did."

"So they're no different than you."

"I suppose."

"And science tells us 'x'?"

"Yes."

"Are you science?"

"Well... no, but I suppose I'm 'part' of science."

"Are you a scientist?"

"I have a university degree in a scientific discipline."

"But, do you work as a scientist?"

"Well, I work for a company that designs scientific instruments."

"Have you ever researched 'x'?"

"No, not personally."

"So if you're a part of 'Science', and Science tells us, 'x', you're telling us x?"

"Well, in this context, yes."

"But you've never studied x yourself."

"No, I have not."

"So what is 'Science'?"

"Well... it's the scientific method."

"Just that? So the scientific method tells us x?"

"Yes."

"But you said J.M. and B.P. tell us x."

"Well, they used the scientific method to arrive at their conclusions. So did A.D. and B.W."

"And you did as well, right?"

"Well, no, I already told you I've never personally researched x."

"So the scientific method itself didn't tell you x, A.D. & B.W., and J.M & B.P did."

"I suppose, but they used the scientific method, so in a way --"

"In what way?"

"Please don't interrupt. I was saying: In a way, the scientific method did tell me x."

"But only through the research of A.D. & B.W., and J.M & B.P, right?"

"Yes, I guess so."

"Are A.D. & B.W., and J.M & B.P, 'Science'?"

"Yes, they are. They're scientists. Scientists are a part of 'Science'."

"But I thought 'Science' was just the scientific method."

"Well, no, it's also all the scientists, and the institutions they belong to."

"Universities, research institutes, and the like?"

"Yes, exactly."

"What about magazines like Discover that present scientific findings to the public? Are they part of 'Science'?"

"Hmm... well, they might be. But, no, no I don't think so. Not exactly."

"Why not?"

"Because they're not scientists, they're journalists and writers."

"Some of them are scientists, surely."

"Well, yes, I suppose some of them would be."

"Are the scientists who work for Discover magazine a part of 'Science'."

"Yes, I would say they are."

"But you said scientists and the institutions they belong to are a part of 'Science'. Discover magazine is an institution that scientists belong to."

"Yes, but it's not a 'scientific institution'."

"Like a research institute or a university?"

"Exactly."

"Are all members of universities scientists?"

"Well, no, but all members of the science departments of universities are scientists."

"So only the science departments are universities are a part of 'Science'?"

"Well... I'm not sure I'd say that."

"Why not?"

"I'm not sure exactly. I feel like you're trying to twist my words to prove a point."

"So you're being cautious now?"

"I think so."

"Very well, I will change directions: What about the students? Are they a part of 'Science'?"

"The science students?"

"Yes."

"They're future scientists."

"Are they a part of 'Science'?"

"I think they'd have to be."

"What about me, am I a part of Science?"

"Are you a scientist?"

"No, I'm a student."

"A student of the sciences?"

"No. But I could be one day."

"But you're not yet? Then you're not a part of Science."

"Why not? A science student is only a part of 'Science' because he's a future scientist. If I'm a future science student, I'm also a future scientist."

"I don't agree with your reasoning. Maybe you're a potential future scientist, but you're not a part of 'Science' yet -- but you could be, I warrant."

"Do I need to have a degree to be a scientist?"

"Well, not technically... Do you follow the scientific method when you conduct experiments? Do you have the necessary background in the field you want to research?"

"Well, no, but I could get the background I need by reading books. And I could conduct my own experiments using sound methodology and the scientific method."

"Then you would be a scientist. An amateur scientist, but still a scientist -- assuming you actually used the scientific method, and didn't use specious reasoning to make your arguments."

"Are amateur scientists a part of 'Science'?"

"Well, I don't know..."

"Weren't the first scientists amateur scientists?"

"Yes, I suppose they were. Amateur scientists are a part of 'Science'."

"So anyone, theoretically, could be a part of 'Science'?"

"Yes."

"What about companies that design scientific instruments -- like the one you work for. Are they a part of 'Science'?"

"I'm not sure... The scientists who work for them certainly are."

"Could your company ever be a part of 'Science'?"

"I suppose it could, if it's not already."

"How about this: Is 'x' a part of 'Science'?"

"It's a scientific finding."

"Are all scientific findings a part of 'Science'?"

"Yes, if they've been reproduced, verified, and accepted by scientists."

"But I thought 'Science' tells us 'x'?"

"It does."

"But now you're saying that 'x' is a part of Science."

"Am I? Well, I see what you're trying to do here -- you're using word tricks to make my argument sound circular."

"I'm just asking questions. Which one is true? Does Science tell us x, or is x a part of Science?"

"They're both true."

"That's a contradiction."

"It's not, it just seems that way because you've used clever definitions and language games to over-simplify the issue."

"You're appealing to complexity."

"You're creating a false dilemma."

"If you say so."

"I do."

"Let's backtrack: So 'Science' is the scientific method, all scientists, all scientific institutions to which they belong, all students of science, and the collection of scientific findings verified by Science, and, potentially: All future scientists, all institutions to which scientists belong, the companies that supply scientists with their instruments, the media institutions that share their findings with the public, and amateur scientists who believe in the scientific method, and practice proper experimental methods."

"Your definition seems a little broad."

"I thought you were accusing me of trying to over-simplify the issue?"

"You were. You still are."

"You sound like a church man."

"Beg your pardon?"

"You're reasoning exactly like a believer in the supernatural."

"I don't see how."




posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Ill admit science is based of tested theory... but why is your entire post in spoken tense?



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Science does not discover truth, it eliminates falsehoods. True science is needed by the human race and when done with integrity is the most important tool that we have in navigating the physical world.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
This has got to be the worst thread ive ever had the misfortune to read


Why did you chose to compose it the way you did??????

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")


1. the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts. 2. the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be verified or tested by further investigation. 3. any specific branch of this general body of knowledge, such as biology, physics, geology, or astronomy.


If you cant grasp that...then stick to creationism



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
science doesnt determine any theory as 100% fact, it takes everything we know about that said subject and uses it to come to the most likely scenario



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 


1. the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts. 2. the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be verified or tested by further investigation. 3. any specific branch of this general body of knowledge, such as biology, physics, geology, or astronomy.

So, Science is a) A Process, B) The collection of findings resulting from that process, and C) Any subset of B.

I agree.

So 'x' is 'Science'. Right? As long as 'x' is a part of B and C.

I agree with you 100%.

But who tells us 'x'?

Do I determine x for myself?



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
This is pretty much the least "scientific" post I have ever seen.

You are really tearing science a new one, there, champ.

Wow. I'm blown away.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptChaos
 


You mistake my intentions.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by DaveNorris
 


That sounds like a very reasonable position.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by RedBird
 


Science is no more real or false than any other philosophy for thats all it is..




posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
Science does not discover truth, it eliminates falsehoods. True science is needed by the human race and when done with integrity is the most important tool that we have in navigating the physical world.


I think this is the best post so far.

A star for you.

Would you agree with the definition of science proposed by the poster who accused me of being a creationist?

As A) Process, B) Collection of findings, and C) Subsets of those findings?

If so, are scientists a part of 'Science', or is 'Science' merely something that scientists practice?

And if the latter, who tells me 'x'?

The process, or the scientists?



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by RedBird
 


Science is no more real or false than any other philosophy for thats all it is..



I disagree. Science is not a philosophy. It's a process, and a collection of scientific findings. Any number of personal philosophies can be drawn from 'Science'.

But I appreciate that you did not automatically assume I was here to attack 'Science'. Funny how some posters read a lot more into the dialogue I posted than others.

Funny, also, how they assumed that A) My personal point of view was that of one of the speakers, and B) That I was necessarily the first speaker.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Ridiculous premise.

Without science we would still be living in caves.

Science is not a philosophy, it is not the opposite of religion. As Helious said, it's a process.

Even your Churches are trying to tell you this...

'God Loves Science' — and the First Congregational United Church of Christ will show kids that this Saturday




posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedBird
But I appreciate that you did not automatically assume I was here to attack 'Science'.


So what are you doing exactly by claiming there is no such thing as science?

Is your mind changing now you've been exposed to a little common sense?

Maybe I missed something, it was impossible to read your whole OP. Kind of like listening ti someone yak on and on, you just tune out...



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
"Science is a process, and a collection of knowledge derived from that process."

"So 'x' is 'Science'"

"X is a part of Science, yes."

"But not the scientists who discovered X."

"No, Science is the method that those scientists used to determine that X."

"And when they had determined x, what happened next."

"The process continues: Their findings were examined, if reproducible, they were reproduced. And when this happened a suitable number of times, 'x' became 'Science'."

"Was it the case that 'x' before scientists were able to use 'Science' to show that 'x'?"

"It was the case."

"Then, was 'x' 'Science' before it was discovered?"

"No, it became 'Science' once it had been verified and became a part of the body of knowledge determined by the process of 'Science.'

"What was 'x' before it was discovered?"

"It wasn't anything... Actually, I suppose it was a hypothesis. Before the experiments to verify x were conducted, someone had a hypothesis that 'x'."

"And hypotheses are a part of the process of 'Science."

"Yes."

"So 'x' was 'Science' when it was a hypothesis?"

"No, not exactly."

"I see. What will happen when 'x' is disproved?"

"Beg your pardon?"

"When x is disproved: What will happen? Will it still be Science?"

"It will become pseudo-science. If a better explanation for the experimental findings is found, and other experiments are conducted to verify it, 'x' will cease to be a satisfactory scientific explanation."

"That makes sense. So 'x' will remain 'Science' so long as it belongs to the body of scientific findings verified by research. And if/when a better explanation for those scientific findings is found, 'x' will cease to be 'Science.'?"

"Right."

"So Science is always changing."

"Exactly!"

"But not the process part, right? Just the body of knowledge that follows from it."

"Now you're getting it."

"I think I am. So, scientists tell me x, and then --"

"Hold on, you've lost it again."

"I have?"

"Scientists don't tell you x. No one tells you x."

"So how do I know that 'x'?"

"You don't. You suspect that you do, but you could always be wrong."

"Because Science isn't about finding truth, it's about eliminating falsehoods, right?"

"Correct."

"So, when someone tells me 'Science tells us 'x', what do they mean?"



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Ridiculous premise.

Without science we would still be living in caves.

Science is not a philosophy, it is not the opposite of religion. As Helious said, it's a process.

Even your Churches are trying to tell you this...

'God Loves Science' — and the First Congregational United Church of Christ will show kids that this Saturday



Whose churches?



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by RedBird
But I appreciate that you did not automatically assume I was here to attack 'Science'.


So what are you doing exactly by claiming there is no such thing as science?

Is your mind changing now you've been exposed to a little common sense?

Maybe I missed something, it was impossible to read your whole OP. Kind of like listening ti someone yak on and on, you just tune out...


When did I claim there was no such thing as 'Science'?

I don't think I made any claims. Could you please point it out to me? Are you referring to the title of this thread?

Does making the title the same as the first line of the post constitute a claim?



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
"They mean that the process has determined 'x'."

"So 'Science the method' has determined 'x', and now that it's been determined, 'x' joins the collection of knowledge that makes up 'Science the collection of findings', right?"

"Right."

"Doesn't that still mean that Science is telling us that x is Science?"

"It does. But they are two different definitions of 'Science'."

"Because 'Science' is a 'thing' (body of knowledge) as well as an action, (the process)."

"Exactly."

"So what does it mean when someone says that 'y' is 'Unscientific'?"



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
"It means that 'y' was not determined using the scientific process, and thus does not belong to the collection of findings that constitute 'Science.'

"Is this conversation unscientific?"

"I don't understand what you mean."

"Someone said that this conversation was unscientific. What did they mean by that?"



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
OP, you need to explicitly state what exactly is your point for this thread. What exactly are you questioning about science?

My point for my post is to clarify the confusion and equivocation some have in regards to whether science is philosophy or not: (1) The ideal form of science exists, science in actuality is itself not a verbal philosophy, and is what the practice of science tries to reach; (2) The practice of science is a concretized natural philosophy - the concept of logic, and scientific methods all have philosophical and epistemological foundations. When one studies the philosophy of science and knowledge, the philosophical nature of scientific practice is highly evident.

You can point at the fact that scientific practice is not based on omniscient knowledge of the meaning of science. You can point to the socially and politically biased results in many scientific studies and value biases that interfere with the scientific process in practice. However, this does not indicate that science itself (the ideal form) is flawed, only that scientific practice can be flawed. While human knowledge of science is not itself omniscient, humans can still put forward a genuine scientific effort in their practice of science.
edit on 3-12-2011 by Lucidia because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join