In another thread, @ Reg posts:

What is the best tool we have to get answers? Science is. Science does not care for the truth. It does not seek to assert that an idea is right. It first tries to destroy it. If it cannot be destroyed then it can be considered to be worthy of further consideration...

One of my struggles with much of what gets written here is that there are so many mythological views of science, many of which like @Reg's are anthropomorphic in their language.

Not only is Science the way of knowing, Science is a bearded, lab-coated deity of sorts.

Now I've probably spoiled things by that introduction, but I am really curious...   What do folks really think of science here?  What is it, how does it work in your point of view?

If you like, consider the following questions:

1. After scientists have developed a theory (e.g., atomic theory, kinetic molecular theory, cell theory), does the theory ever change? If you believe that scientific theories do not change, explain why and defend your answer with examples. If you believe that theories do change: (a) Explain why. (b) Explain why we bother to teach and learn scientific theories. Defend your answer with examples.

2. Science textbooks often represent the atom as a central nucleus composed of positively charged particles (protons) and neutral particles (neutrons) with negatively charged particles (electrons) orbiting the nucleus. How certain are scientists about the structure of the atom? What specific evidence do you think scientists used to determine the structure of the atom?

3. Is there a difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law? Give an example to illustrate your answer.

4. How are science and art similar? How are they different?

5. Scientists perform experiments/investigations when trying to solve problems. Other than in the stage of planning and design, do scientists use their creativity and imagination in the process of performing these experiments/investigations? Please explain your answer and provide appropriate examples.

6. In the recent past, astronomers differed greatly in their predictions of the ultimate fate of the universe. Some astronomers believed that the universe is expanding while others believed that it is shrinking, still others believed that the universe is in a static state without any expansion or shrinkage. How were these different conclusions possible if the astronomers were all looking at the same experiments and data?

Views: 1604

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

God is just a human idea that has been refined over time, the way energy is just a human idea that has been refined over time, or geometry

...or witchcraft or voodoo or astrology. There are billions of "human ideas" that have been dismissed (refined out of existence by rationality).

"truth" in terms of belief in an external reality is generally a part of science

Huh? Can you give me an(other) example of an external reality which is accepted as part of science - phenomena which don't originate in the human brain?

If God is an "external" reality how can you possibly have ANY knowledge of it. There is NO sign of God within nature. And, of course, nothing external to nature can possibly be apprehended. If God can, indeed, manifest itself in the natural world, then it, or at least those manifestations, must be scientifically testable.

Again, I'm not so interested in deconstructions or nitpicky definitions of science or atheism. There's obviously those academic discourses going on in the background, but in the foreground, I care more about what's actually happening than what's theoretical.

I could present a few dozen (if not a hundred) real life examples of what science is, and does. I'll just start with one (video), and you can tell me whether or not my perspective is relevant to your questions.

Just curious, @Pope... are you sure you're not talking about engineering? 

Pharmacological innovations like this are biochemical engineering, not science per se. 

Science made the biochemical engineering possible. 

I thought you might bring that up again. This is what I call discounting an argument with semantics/grammar smokescreen. Your title is "What for you is science?", so I'm explaining what science means to me. I hope you aren't saying that my example doesn't really address the exact question you're asking?

Ummm.... OK. 

Perhaps you can expand on that and explain how you think science made the biochemical engineering possible?

Perhaps you can expand on that and explain how you think science made the biochemical engineering possible?

Sure, if it's truly a point of contention with you?

"I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you"

^^ copy... and paste whenever you need it!

To be honest, I was really stumped until I slept on it and came up with the best non-answer, ever. But feels like trying to enlighten the kid that keeps asking "why", no matter what my last answer was. When Dr. Bob does this, there's this tiny Satanic voice in the back of my head that just whispers "Go on then, shoot yourself in the head now!".

Which made me have to consider and admit that sometimes we'll never get points conceded to us for any decent answer, and sometimes we do the same thing to others. It's not necessarily because we're dicks, or because harassment necessarily enlightens anyone. At some point we're only digging our respective foxholes deeper, when we should be looking elsewhere for a more meaningful battle.

Perhaps you can expand on that and explain how you think science made the biochemical engineering possible?

Let's trade informations.

What makes these happon??

I'm not sure if it is or isn't a point of contention for me.  That's why I asked you to explain it as you see it.

One can build a bridge over a river without a lick of science, as purely an exercise in engineering.  Just trial and error, until you come up with a bridge that works.   Science would be coming up with an explanation for why the bridge works - a theory of forces, a science of materials, a calculus of finite elements.

The shaman who by trial and error figures out that rubbing a rash with berries while chanting "Jesus on a Honda" sometimes makes it better is doing trial-and-error engineering, but not science.

Similarly, I have a whole group of friends who work in a large local pharmaceutical research firm.  Most of what they're doing is trial-and-error biochemical engineering.  Not much else, honestly.

So I was just curious as to what you meant by your statement, because I was thinking about these things.  Science is not the same thing as engineering, nor technology.

Similarly, I have a whole group of friends who work in a large local pharmaceutical research firm.  Most of what they're doing is trial-and-error biochemical engineering.  Not much else, honestly.

I just finished a science course in organic chemistry, and I cannot imagine how any pharmaceutical engineer could just go "try out some stuff" without first learning chemistry, and possibly other sciences as well. It's not like buying a chemistry set and experimenting at home with random mixtures and reactions. I got a B in the class, but got nowhere near the amount of scientific knowledge I'd need to go make medicines by just trying this or that.

lol, sorry, can't help it:

Clark's third law says that 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'

For example, the Cargo Cults in the South Pacific (primitive tribes who had never seen airplanes before WWII - when the soldiers left, the natives quite literally began to build bamboo models of airplanes to worship). This is a bit off of the main subject of the thread.

Very few of us actually prove anything sciency for ourselves. Most of us appeal to (scientific) authority, right? So for most of us, we identify a source to trust, and we trust that source, but trust is not scientific.

RSS

© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service