Learning: Introduction

[Earthling]

No you don't but my answers would just be quoting a dictionary definition of science. Which I don't feel would be very helpful.

No, indeed, it wouldn't. But I don't want a dictionary definition I wan't proponents of evolution to help me understand where you are coming from. If you change your mind and follow the discussion, and can add to it, you certainly have my attention.

Yes but science covers much more than just evolution.

Indeed it does, but we need only come to an agreement on it's basic meaning, which we have done as far as I'm concerned.

I don't think either are stupid, I can only judge what makes the most sense to me and as I've seen plenty of evidence to back up evolution and very little for creation I accept evolution as the best available answer to explain the variety of life on earth.

That's great. As I said, I would be interested should you wish to join the discussion.

 

[Jumi]

Beating a dead horse would be the most apt description.

Not at all.

 

[Earthling]

Not at all.

Why not?

 

[Jumi]

Why not?

Why do you think science is a dead horse? Are we communicating through a dead horse now or is the dead horse capable of reviving every time we don't look?

 

[Earthling]

Why do you think science is a dead horse? Are we communicating through a dead horse now or is the dead horse capable of reviving every time we don't look?

I didn't say science was the dead horse, I said the issue is the dead horse. We shouldn't have to have it. It's a distraction from the real issue which is the aforementioned class struggle. An atheist smokescreen for their political frustration. Now that (political frustration) is a valid concern. The smokescreen, the issue of Evolution Vs. Creationism, isn't.

 

[Jumi]

I didn't say science was the dead horse, I said the issue is the dead horse. We shouldn't have to have it. It's a distraction from the real issue which is the aforementioned class struggle.

Class struggle? There are of course theistic communists out there a plenty, but I don't see any class struggle in science.

If you're a theistic communist or believer in a "class struggle" do you believe the haves are out to attack the have nots with evolution and scientific ideas?

An atheist smokescreen for their political frustration. Now that (political frustration) is a valid concern. The smokescreen, the issue of Evolution Vs. Creationism, isn't.

If that is your belief then it might be difficult for you to even open the books.

I think the evolution and creationism debate is a big reason why Christians and Muslims with any science education leave their faiths in the West, but not for the reason you think. I believe the biggest decline in religion in my country has come from creationists. People here were well educated, but when the magical type of creationism spread from the US with all kinds of big money pastors and rigid ideas people started leaving religion. It's been a big downhill for religion for a decade or so.

 

[John53]

No, indeed, it wouldn't. But I don't want a dictionary definition I wan't proponents of evolution to help me understand where you are coming from. If you change your mind and follow the discussion, and can add to it, you certainly have my attention.

Indeed it does, but we need only come to an agreement on it's basic meaning, which we have done as far as I'm concerned.

That's great. As I said, I would be interested should you wish to join the discussion.

More than one way to have a discussion, discussing the meaning of a single word doesn't seem all that productive to me but it's your thread.

What's your definition of science?

 

[Earthling]

More than one way to have a discussion, discussing the meaning of a single word doesn't seem all that productive to me but it's your thread.

What's your definition of science?

I already gave it. Imperfect people trying to figure stuff out. Adrian's definition was better. "Science concerns the phenomenal world and that which can be verified by observation or measured." That's more specific. My definition could apply to just about anything. Theology, for example.

 

[John53]

I already gave it. Imperfect people trying to figure stuff out. Adrian's definition was better. "Science concerns the phenomenal world and that which can be verified by observation or measured." That's more specific. My definition could apply to just about anything. Theology, for example.

I can agree with your definition but I'm still confused as to what you ultimately want to discuss. Your generalisations about athiest science minded people don't help my confusion.

 

[ChristineM]

How would you define science?

Briefly, what is the history of science?

What is the strengths and weaknesses of science?

I wouldn't, the definition already exists, atheist are not, generally, people who try to redefine word to suite their sensibilities.

Science: noun, the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

I guess science began in pre history. The use of fire allowed cooking of food. Cooking is a scientific process given the above definition.

Strength, progress in so many ways.

Weaknesses, progress in so many ways

 

[Polymath257]

This is a valid point. At this point I'm merely trying to establish an agreement on what science is from a basic perspective of man without bias or leaning towards either the quixotic or the mundane.

I don't want answers like "Oh, Science is wonderful, the answers to all man's problems!" or "Science is evil, and the source of all man's problems!" I want something like "Science is a formal excursion of mankind to figure stuff out." If we can get to that point we can quickly move on. If we are stumbling on either of the other two we have more work to do.

In essence, science is an approach to figuring things out. It is a process. That process consists, again in general, of making observations, forming testable explanations for the observations made, coming up with a prediction from the hypotheses and testing that prediction via observation. If the prediction is valid, then make another prediction and test it also. If it is not valid, form a new hypothesis and make a prediction from that and test it. Rinse and repeat.

The crucial difference between the scientific method and, say, philosophy, is that science requires testability before full adoption of an idea (although ideas can be accepted tentatively prior to testing). Also, dispute resolution (if two hypotheses are proposed) via finding predictions that are different and then performing an observation to see which one is correct, thereby eliminating the wrong idea.

Another aspect of the scientific method is that all ideas are subject to testing. There are no 'sacred' ideas. Now, any idea that has undergone extensive testing over many observations and a lot of people looking at it is unlikely to be simply thrown out, but if counter information is found and accumulates enough, the viewpoints will change.

Now, in practice, it is never quite this simple. Observations perform both the role of initial observation and of testing. Hypotheses are often modified slightly to accommodate observations as opposed to having a massive overhaul. There is also the issue of how observation and theory interact, which most observations relying on previously tested theory.

Another aspect of the history of science should be noted: since older hypotheses have been tested, the new hypotheses tend to give the same answers in those topics where the old hypothesis worked. As an example, Newtonian physics has been replaced by Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity as fundamental theories. But Newtonian physics gives answers in many situations that are incredibly accurate and easier to reach than the other subjects. The actual predictions in many (but not all) cases are very close. So many of the previous conclusions based on Newtonian physics are still valid in the modern context.

This issue arises in the study of evolution, for example. That species have changed over geological time is a fact that has been known since the early 1800's if not the 1700's. This is a well tested set of observations. The question of *mechanism* for such changes was a big dispute until Darwin figured out *one* of the main ways species change over time. Later, the Modern Synthesis joined the study of genetics (which was unknown to Darwin) with the questions of this mechanism. Later still the issue of Punctuated Equilibria was brought up. But, in each modification, the *tested* conclusions of previous descriptions have been kept...they were already tested.

Finally, the word 'science' is often used to designate the collection of tested results that have accumulated (as opposed to the method for accumulating them). These previously tested ideas are crucial for developing and understanding new observations.

Now, there are many areas that look scientific from the outside, but either are not or that do the science poorly. Any subject that starts with the conclusion (as opposed to a previously well-tested position) and only accepts ideas consistent with that conclusion is not scientific. Any viewpoint that keeps its ideas when the predictions made repeatedly fail to hold up under testing isn't science. There are a great many subjects that use, as standard, very low confidence thresholds for their testing (say, p<.05 is common in many areas). This leads to many 'false positives' and is a real issue.

 

[Jumi]

There is no atheist science or theist science. There is only science. That's why you don't add God to science even if you're a believer and you don't add the materialist dialectic either if you're that type of anti-theist.

 

[Windwalker]

This does not mean that there are not many who dismiss science due to its inherent complexity they fail to understand. Part of the problem with 'dumbing it down' for the average garden gnome is that specific insight is lost in the process to make a concept understandable to a larger audience. And that, is the greatest weakness of science.

Interestingly enough, this is exactly the greatest weakness of religion too. And then you have people who see religion as the great evil, as those who see science as the great evil. Maybe the evil is actually the garden gnome mind itself, smiling contently in its little green lawn of ignorance.

 

[David T]

Exactly. Which puts me reluctantly in the awkward position of a critic of science. I have very little interest or animosity towards science. But the issue, the alleged conflict does the same to my opponent.

Reductionism specifically is I think what bothers some of us. It bothers me in religion and science.

Chesterson said good luck shrinking the cosmos to fit your brain. My own degree has played a major role in that over time.

A lot of times we are being confronted by symptoms in discussion with others thinking it is the problem. Creationism ID Etc in religion are symptoms of reductionism. And its a deeper issue than simply bad logic.

 

[David T]

There is no atheist science or theist science. There is only science. That's why you don't add God to science even if you're a believer and you don't add the materialist dialectic either if you're that type of anti-theist.

The belief of Philosophical purity in science is biased and horrid confusion Confirmation bias is emperical proof of my statement being fact. It's tired reductionism. Maybe reductionism should be classified as a philosophical view that parts determine the whole. It's fantasy but it's popular!!!

 

[David T]

Interestingly enough, this is exactly the greatest weakness of religion too. And then you have people who see religion as the great evil, as those who see science as the great evil. Maybe the evil is actually the garden gnome mind itself, smiling contently in its little green lawn of ignorance.

Yes!!!! We are confronted by 2 forms of reductionism. Which wrong is right?

 

[David T]

Well, creationists specifically deny that speciation and emergence of new plant and animal groups are possible through evolution. Science affirms that it is indeed possible and has happened through prehistory of earth. That's the dispute. There is no dispute with theists who affirm both God and the evolutionary process.

Creationists believe reality starts with them. That really is the problem what they say is the symptom not the problem.

 

[Jumi]

The belief of Philosophical purity in science is biased and horrid confusion Confirmation bias is emperical proof of my statement being fact. It's tired reductionism.

There's good and bad science certainly. Ever had to read some post-Docs that were apparently forced to publish something and you'll know the second quite quick, if it's a familiar topic...

 

[David T]

There's good and bad science certainly. Ever had to read some post-Docs that were apparently forced to publish something and you'll know the second quite quick, if it's a familiar topic...

Its as tricky being critical of science as it is being critical of religion. People think you are being anti them which I am not. Ironically it raises a question. Why would science be a personal thing? Especially if it's supposedly free of such emotional baggage as some would say? Goethe emotionally attacked science in 1805 in his intro to color. I was amazed he did that and had to contemplate where he was coming from. He was right!!!!

 

[Audie]

How would you define science?

Briefly, what is the history of science?

What is the strengths and weaknesses of science?

Learning?

Lets see if you can learn this about science:

A theory is not and can never be fact.

got it?