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: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
if there were no such thing as science, there would also be no such thing as TECHNOLOGY.


we can see, clearly, that tech. exists, therefore science assuredly does also.


like others, I do not understand what you are trying to accomplish.




posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucidia
 


the whole idea that reveal their lies being a will, is what they want to prove the impossible being god

it is impossible to be objective life by being free one fact, it is impossible equation

the base of objective is else freedom fact therefor there cant b any if it doesnt give to else concept truly perceived in objective way real else

but else is not the opposite but to liars that mean to abuse truth knowledge for creations powers

else is to what is the same truth, when truth is freedom, then there cant b all one, any free move limit itself fact end to its move, since free then it cut relation with freedom wholeness before moves
bc freedom is truly the truth, so there is no games possible there or time means or just a glimse of move while keeping the sense of before, it is serious, tell me about it, for one who never meant any by such limited move that serve others moves being trapped like that is only justified by that truth



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
we can see, clearly, that tech. exists, therefore science assuredly does also.


When was the scientific method invented? Did 'Science' exist before the scientific method?

Is the axe a technology? Is the woven basket?


Originally posted by tgidkp
like others, I do not understand what you are trying to accomplish.


Of that I have no doubt.
edit on 3-12-2011 by RedBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucidia
 


Interesting response.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedBird
reply to post by Lucidia
 


Interesting response.


Though it would be good if you could answer the initial question asked by Lucidia. What is the point of this post? For there is only so much more split personality conversations one can read regarding the semantical issues surrounding the word 'science'.


Originally posted by RedBird
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?


Yes, if you agree with A B and C


Originally posted by RedBird

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



Both. Simple.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


To answer your first (and Lucida's) question: The purpose of this thread is to co-construct a dialogue regarding the use of the word 'Science', in order to collaboratively elucidate its true meaning, and eliminate the linguistic paradoxes inherent in its colloquial use. (e.g. "Science tells us 'x')

To respond to your second point: I am glad that you concur that I determine 'x' for myself given the definition of 'Science' as previously accepted.

But I'm confused by your last point: I asked if scientists are a part of 'Science', or merely use it (both 'Science' the process, and 'Science' the collection of findings) as a tool.

You answered "Both." This implies that 'Scientists' are a part of 'Science'.

In order for this to be the case, we would have to add a 4th definition to 'Science' in addition to those already established:

A) The process of scientific investigation (i.e. the 'Scientific Method'.)
B) The collection of findings/knowledge resulting from 'A'.
C) Any subset of 'B'.
and now... D) Those (hereafter referred to as 'Scientists') who practice 'A'.

Will you agree to this new definition of 'Science'? Or do you want to qualify your statement?

My concern is that this new set of definitions (A through D) results in confusion.

Accepting definitions A through D, if someone says "Science tells us 'x':" Are they saying 'Science' (the process) tells us 'x', 'Science' (the body of knowledge) tells us 'x', or, 'Science' (all 'Scientists' / a subset of 'Scientists') tell us 'x'?

Or is it all three?



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedBird
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


To answer your first (and Lucida's) question: The purpose of this thread is to co-construct a dialogue regarding the use of the word 'Science', in order to collaboratively elucidate its true meaning, and eliminate the linguistic paradoxes inherent in its colloquial use. (e.g. "Science tells us 'x')


So ultimately you are trying to apply logic to the English Language. Good luck with that one.



Will you agree to this new definition of 'Science'? Or do you want to qualify your statement?


Yes I agree.


My concern is that this new set of definitions (A through D) results in confusion.

Accepting definitions A through D, if someone says "Science tells us 'x':" Are they saying 'Science' (the process) tells us 'x', 'Science' (the body of knowledge) tells us 'x', or, 'Science' (all 'Scientists' / a subset of 'Scientists') tell us 'x'?

Or is it all three?

Usually people don't trust the scientific process unless it's been done by someone who has studied in a field which falls under the umbrella term of 'Science' e.g. Physics, Chemistry or one of the 'ologies', and therefore is deemed by society to be a 'scientist'. But scientists use the the scientific process so ultimately it would be all 3.

But as I said in my previous statement the only person who gets you to accept facts deemed as coming from science is you. And you only do that is if you trust A through to D, depending on how your fact originated.
edit on 7/12/2011 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Ah, so science is just a religion and I'm guessing logic, reasoning, mathematics, and gravity are all just belief systems of science.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucidia
 


My purpose is to tease out what exactly is meant when someone says: "Science tells us 'x'"

I have no qualms with 'Science' or the scientific method.

I DO object to your notion that discussions of 'Science' should not include a linguistic/philosophical component, but that is a separate issue.

The danger inherent in any discipline is the attribution of all things to a single, over-arching 'thing' -- whether it be 'Science', 'Dogma', or any other word. I want us to stop using the word 'Science' the way mystics use the word 'Church', or 'God'.

What does a person mean when they say 'Science tell us 'x'. What CAN they mean when they themselves are not scientists, and have not studied 'x'?

If I say to a friend (and this is hypothetical), "I saw a magician lift a rabbit out of a hat." And he replies: "It was an illusion." What specifically is informing his statement? Is it a specific scientific finding, a compendium of such findings, a scientist him/her self, or a collection of such people? Is it a combination of these things? Tell me!

Take, as another example, this statement:

"I saw my dead mother yesterday: She told me she was at peace."

'Science' tells me that this statement is false: We can't speak to our dead mothers.

But who, or what, is specifically telling me this? Is it anything at all -- Or am I discovering it for myself as a result of understanding the scientific method and applying it?

There is an important distinction to be made here. If someone were to ask me, "How is it that you know you can't speak to your dead mother?" How would I answer? How would you answer?



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


That sounds reasonable.

If I were to say to you right now: "I saw a sparrow turn into a cardinal yesterday." How would you respond?



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme


That doesn't sound quite right. Is 'Science' a 'belief'? I thought it was a practice -- like stone-working or carpentry.

I suppose one has to have faith in the method itself, but isn't it an act of faith to assert that our thoughts (and therefor our experiences) have any bearing in reality at all?

I didn't intend for the conversation to turn in this direction, but now that we come to it -- How exactly do you know that your experiences correspond to an objective reality?

I'm trying to avoid going down the rabbit hole here, but it seems to be what is coming.

Let me ground the discussion: I have heard that there used to be a nuclear reactor in a place called 'Chernobyl' that had an accident. How do I know this? What grounds do I have for believing this is true?

I've never been to Chernobyl. But I've seen it on a map. I've also seen pictures of it, and numerous articles detailing the events that transpired there. How is it that I know there was an accident at Chernobyl?
edit on 7-12-2011 by RedBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedBird
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


That sounds reasonable.

If I were to say to you right now: "I saw a sparrow turn into a cardinal yesterday." How would you respond?


I would ask you to do it again

Obviously I would be skeptical, but being an ex-pagan as well as a 'scientist' (geologist) I have seen some truly amazing things which cannot be explained through 'everyday science' alone. I'm the kind of person who does not dismiss everything first hand just because it may at first not correspond to something the we would expect to see in what we term the 'real world'. There is more out there than that which can be measured with our tools, or which can be perceived through our senses, which themselves are tools with limitations.

I ultimately feel everything must be bound by some sort of logic, but just because we may not understand the logic does not mean it is not possible. And one thing that does not at first hand appear logical is definitely our use of language......



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by RedBird
 


"I DO object to your notion that discussions of 'Science' should not include a linguistic/philosophical component..."

I did not say that there should be no philosophy of science or philosophical discussion of science. In fact, I awcknowledged that scientific methods have philosophical and epistemological foundations, and I said these methods are not perfect, which suggests that I recognize that there is room for their philosophical improvement. Philosophical discussion of the methodology of science is indeed necessary to improve the various scientific methods of all logical study, and to identify which methods are most appropriate for investigating particular scientific questions while inappropriate for other objects of study. As well, I mentioned that the concept of logic itself has philosophical foundations. Because the sciences are logical studies, undeniably, the philosophy of logic has implications for the philosophy of science which in turn has implications for the practice of science.

Science is not based on faith - it is not a religion. It is based on logical methods for intelligently guessing about the truth of things and investigating those hypotheses by evaluating the data to identify whether the hypotheses are supported or rejected by the data. Religion, by contrast, doesn't have logical methods to study its claims. That is why it is not called 'religionology.' For those that have logical capacity, logic is recognized as an actual thing in the world and not something ('god') which is thought to exist most evidently in another world, so requires faith to believe in, because no evidence of it is possible in this world, and many think its existence is irrelevant to logical study, which according to them, does not have the capacity to confirm or deny it.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedBird
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


To answer your first (and Lucida's) question: The purpose of this thread is to co-construct a dialogue regarding the use of the word 'Science', in order to collaboratively elucidate its true meaning, and eliminate the linguistic paradoxes inherent in its colloquial use. (e.g. "Science tells us 'x')

To respond to your second point: I am glad that you concur that I determine 'x' for myself given the definition of 'Science' as previously accepted.

But I'm confused by your last point: I asked if scientists are a part of 'Science', or merely use it (both 'Science' the process, and 'Science' the collection of findings) as a tool.

You answered "Both." This implies that 'Scientists' are a part of 'Science'.

In order for this to be the case, we would have to add a 4th definition to 'Science' in addition to those already established:

A) The process of scientific investigation (i.e. the 'Scientific Method'.)
B) The collection of findings/knowledge resulting from 'A'.
C) Any subset of 'B'.
and now... D) Those (hereafter referred to as 'Scientists') who practice 'A'.

Will you agree to this new definition of 'Science'? Or do you want to qualify your statement?

My concern is that this new set of definitions (A through D) results in confusion.

Accepting definitions A through D, if someone says "Science tells us 'x':" Are they saying 'Science' (the process) tells us 'x', 'Science' (the body of knowledge) tells us 'x', or, 'Science' (all 'Scientists' / a subset of 'Scientists') tell us 'x'?

Or is it all three?



I accept the new definition, merely because without the scientist there is no science.

And yes, The process, The body of knowledge, and THE SCIENTIST(S) IN QUESTION. Not ALL scientists -- this would be ignoring context.

And I don't believe you are accomplishing your goal of this thread. You seem a bit redundant -- this is a thought experiment at it's core. You are attempting to conduct science however, the players in the thread aren't privy to the true hypothesis and therefor are incapable of distinguishing the true motive and or the validity of the scientific method of this thought experiment. Ultimately it is YOU who is trying to validate something.

In short, you are with holding information and steering the thread to your predestined conclusion. In lieu of this revelation, I'd have to say this thread is pseudo-scientific with a bias towards flawed philosophy and a waste of time.



My purpose is to tease out what exactly is meant when someone says: "Science tells us 'x'"


What is meant by the statement "Science tells us 'x'" is completely dependent upon the context. Ignoring the context is going to make that simple statement incomprehensible.

If ever there was a valid form of that question, it would have been pulled from a body of speech or text out of context and therefor, lacks all substance.

This is how language works.
edit on 8-12-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   
everything in this world exists. science just confirms or denies it's existence. if science didn't exist nothing would exist.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join