What is science?

Science is reason without emotional attachment.

Science cannot exist without a framework of emotional attachment
and desire.
That supports it.
Yet what supports it is anathema to the workings of it.
Desire for science results in it.
Desire 'in science' destroys impartiallity and science.

Interesting no?


occam

 

technology is applied science


roll it back from that......

 

All our manifestations are results from our potential just as a seed in the proper environment creates a tree; present day science is a manifestation of inherent potentials in how humans functioned, and function. Scientific method, using a broad definition, I believe, has been used in informal, subtle, and not well recorded ways for thousands of years by human beings; and formalization in many of it's aspects is a major component in the recent flood of well known and well recorded scientific discovery and technological advancement. All of scientific methods main elements are inherent to how we have reasoned for thousands of years. Water flows in a river in particular way, ancient man sees that fish congregate in a particular of area, we'll call it a "'mellow' eddy pool" or MEP. Ancient man says, "hum, I see many fish here and this is good". Ancient man sees this again in another area, sees subtle dynamics that relate, or appear to relate, including MEP to the cause of many fish being there. Ancient man tests the awareness of the connection between MEP and abundant fish and finds it to hold true. Ancient mans hypothesis is holding to be true, advancing toward discovery by "crude" scientific method.

 

Midnight

Really?
Reason has nothing to do with science.?
And science came before reason?



Occam

 

In my mind science is separted from philosophy and mathematics by experiment. In mathematics and philosophy (particularly philosophy) anyone can come up with a hypothesis. Something becomes science when you devise a test, which you perform and conclude. A random philosophical statement that may include some physics terminology is not science, some random hypothesis followed by a test is science. I would say reason has more in common with mathematics than science, of course good reasoning and mathematics are very important in science but for science you HAVE to test your result.

It doesnt always work in that order quite often there is an unexplained experimental result that is later expained by theory and then proved by further experiemtnation, this is also ok. Relativity and quantum mechanics have been done very well. A theory was devised using mathematics and reason (although quantum mechanics was slightly fudged in the early days). Then tests were performed and the theories expanded. But I cant empasize enough that in my mind you have to add an experiment to your reason/maths before you have good science.

 

to me, science is the facts concerning the workings of the universe that can be applied to every day life

 

Well...
sci·ence (sns) [size=-2]KEY [/size]

[size=-1]NOUN: [/size]

1. 1. <LI type=a>The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. <LI type=a>Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
   2. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: [size=+0]I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.[/size]
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: [size=+0]the science of purchasing.[/size]

Someone was going to do it, might as well be me.

 

"

Science refers to either:

• Reasoned investigation or study of nature, aimed at finding out the truth. Such an investigation is normally felt to be necessarily methodical, or according to scientific method – a process for evaluating empirical knowledge; or
• The organized body of knowledge gained by such research.

Science is knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method. Scientific knowledge relies heavily upon logic.

Areas of science may be classified in two major dimensions:

• Pure (the development of theories) versus Applied (the application of theories to human needs); or
• Natural (the study of the naturally occurring world) versus Social (the study of human behaviour and society).

Less formally, the word science often covers any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it. This article concentrates on the more specific definition.

(Latin: scientia, knowledge)..

What is science?

There are different theories of what science is.

According to empiricism, scientific theories are objective, empirically testable, and predictive — they predict empirical results that can be checked and possibly contradicted.

In contrast, scientific realism defines science in terms of ontology: science attempts to identify phenomena and entities in the environment, their causal powers, the mechanisms through which they exercise those powers, and the sources of those powers in terms of the thing's structure or internal nature.

Even in the empiricist tradition, we must be careful to understand that "prediction" refers to the outcome of an experiment or study, rather than to literally predicting the future. For example, to say, "a paleontologist may make predictions about finding a certain type of dinosaur" is consistent with the empiricist's use of prediction. On the other hand, sciences like geology or meteorology need not be able to make accurate predictions about earthquakes or the weather to qualify as sciences. Empiricist philosopher, Karl Popper also argued that certain verification is impossible and that scientific hypotheses can only be falsified (falsification).

"

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

 

I think therefore I am, I think.

 

The Greeks had no way of knowing how large the globe might be. The most daring travelers saw Earth reaching farther still beyond the fringe of their journeys. Then, in 200 BC, travelers told the head of the Alexandria Library, Eratosthenes, about a well near present-day Aswan. The bottom of the well was lit by the sun at noon during the summer solstice. At that moment the sun was straight overhead. Eratosthenes realized he could measure the shadow cast by a tower in Alexandria while no shadow was being cast in Aswan. Then, knowing the distance to Aswan, it'd be simple to calculate Earth's radius. (You geometry students, try that one.)

There was no accurate timekeeping back then. For Eratosthenes to make his observation, it had to be precisely noon in both cities. And he needed an accurate north-south distance from Alexandria to Aswan. Actually, Aswan lay south by southeast instead of due south, but the error wasn't great. His calculated size of Earth was high by only fifteen percent.

source: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1457.htm

 

Natural23

Occam asked himself what came first, reason or science. For another posed the question. And occam dismisses no questions.
The only answer that fits is that reason very quickly formed a reasonable filter to understand reality. A rudimentary scientific method if you will.
Then he read your post
Occam finds your posts, more and more often, as a honnest and impartial perspective.

Occam

 

Midnight

Would not

" i reason therefore i exist" come first
Then, we label it reason.
"why do i think" is philosophical, reason conceptualising.
And
"how do i think" is science. A tool of reason.

Occam

 

Fat tony

Human reason founded a philosophy that says reason applied by method.
Is the best way to aquire accurate understanding of reality.

Science is a result of a philosophy.
That being a way of thinking about something.
[not always a concious decision]
We thought about reality
And came up with science.

No-one argues that science does not work.
Especially occam, who's own method is largely scientific in structure.

Occam simply reminds you that reason came first.
And science is the tool reason uses to be accurate to reality.

PS..And yes anyone can come up with a hypothesis.
A patent clerk once did that.
He said imagination is far more important to understanding reality than intelligence.
And then proceeded to show humanity how reality worked.
Albert.
He said god, is his wonder at reality, pure philosophy no?

For example. Occam is a philosopher.. And his thinking comes from general knowledge..not speciallity.
But hypothesises that time.
Is but the same thing as the definition motion.
That because everything is in motion, and proved to be so by science.
Then time is but the sequential perception of that motion.
Please invalidate this hypothesis,, should be easy for a scientist to invalidate a philosopher. no?

So got to it,, Occam has been proposing this hypothesis for years.
But no-one has ever proposed a situation where time connot be transcribed to motion.

Unfortunately you cant use math. Because math is time free.
Time in math is duration, duration is sequencial experience of what?
Motion? Talk of 'times arrow' is crap, and even scienists know it.,
Its all an excuse to avoid the admission that time is but...motion.
and has always been.

Ask ANY mathematician to ague this with occam. He will gladly accept
the challenge.
For he fears not.



Occam

 

I do not argue that reason preceeded maths and science and is an important part of both disciplines. If your definition of reason is included to abstract thought then you really have one of the defining features of humans over other apes.

And NO what Einstein did was not pure philosophy he came out with a few soundbites which I guess you could class as philosophy. His 3 greatest works were a demonstration of the scientific method. The first 2 demonstrated howto explain unexplained experimental results with a theory and then provide tests for experiemntalists to probe you theory. His third, relativity I guess did start out perhaps with a slightly philosophical angle, asking what would happen if you surfed along a light wave. Although he went further and put a testable mathematical framework to it, thats when philosophy, became maths, became science.

Im not sure what you mean by invalidating a philosopher. Its usually very hard to disprove philosophical statements. 'I am who I am' being a classic, this is quite hard to disprove but im sure cloning will have a reasonable shot one day. On the other hand Leonhard Euler was famously stumped whan a woman suggested that the Earth was sitting on a giant tortoise. He replied by asking what the Tortoise was standing on. She replaied 'another one', and so it continued, thats one piece of philosophy I think we can say science has had a resonable go at.

As much as I enjoy debatin with you I dont understand a word of your last paragraph. Is it about philosophy of time? If so that depends on whether your a cosmologies or a quantum mechanics person because they treat time very differently which is one of the big problems of a TOE, if that helps with your thoughs, your welcome.

 

oh come on, my answer is the easiest one, why won't we just take it and go with it?

 

Id have been happy with it, but I doubt Occam will be. I quite enjoy arguing the toss anyway particularly on something as trivial as this.

 

you can logically extrapolate the thing, you have a pattern and it would be so easy to work with, for the love of god it's a litmus test...

 

M&M

Relativity fits with time as motion.
Mass at near tau zero slows in relation to mass with little tau affects.
Almost analogous to friction
Why, mass slows in motion is unknown.
A law we have yet to find [or we have found but none understand what]

Occam

 

Just Take The Simple Fucking Answer!!!!!!

 

Yeah id take the simple answer I have no idea whats going on now, I dont recognise any of whats going on but hey.