What is Science?

[Zosimus]

Come on then, Einstein, let's see you build a computer without making use of electromagnetic theory.

Come on then, Einstein, let's see you make the plants grow without using the Sun Vishnu created and maintains for you.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Every single scientific theory that you hold true will be abandoned in the next 500 years in favor of some new fiction that appears to work better.

This, to philosophers of science, is known as the disastrous historical meta-induction. It is empirically correct to say that scientific theories have always changed with the acquisition of knowledge and will continue to do so in the future. What it incorrect about this induction is that it does not account for approximation; Hilary Putnam writes (1975:73): "That terms in mature scientific theory typically refer (this formulation is due to Richard Boyd), that the theories accepted in a mature science are typically approximately true . . . these statements are viewed by the scientific realist not as necessary truth but as part of the only scientific explanation of the success of science." One can further point to the approximation of scientific explanatory efficaciousness through the fact that predictions are capable with further development of continual progress, of even better approximation. If, as you say, a theory which is widely regarded today will one day be abandoned, it will be abandoned because another theory will explain data better and will approximate closer to the truth. Albeit, I rather like Arthur Fine's more neo-pragmatic approach to science which suggests a Natural Ontological Attitude, abandoning notions such as both realism and anti-realism and asserting the problematic of calling an electron 'real' is the same problematic as calling anything 'real'. We should accept the reality of electrons in the same manner as we should tables and chairs -- problematically.

 

[Zosimus]

Hi,

One day at work in something along the lines of what you are asking that person to deal with objectively, I had to make a stucture to handle a part. The part was a ring, and my new structure had to handle every one of the rings out there, with out being too large or too small.

As you know anything that is built has variance. So, of course I did it the standard way, but my boss did not want me to handle every ring so I only handled the vast majority of them.

I measured 10 rings at random. I averaged that set of numbers.

I then calculated all of the variances from average, and added them together to get that average of the variations from the average.

By using the average with three sets of averages of the, average variation, I was able to build my structure to handle the vast majority of the rings.

That is math. That is real world. That is what is called science in action. In that world, normally more advanced questions are not needed. And, oh yes it worked. Does it not always work when that is done?

I did not develope that math, called averages and standard deviations. I just use it. Using Statistics, (a dirty word to some), and Probability, (also possibly a dirty word to some), in reality is just knowing What God has done, because someone took the time to find out, What God has done.

If I did not have that tool, developed by others and supposedly one of the two Greatest contributions given to us by Philosophy, Logic being the other one used in my profession, but both use practical verisons of both, if I did not have that tool, Statistics and Probability, developed by others, I could not have Wowed the maintenance staff.

I did not intend to Wow, the maintenance staff. I did not. But imagine taking only ten random parts, then measuring them, and then actually being right in talking about an unknown. That unknown is how many parts, were not the size that math said they were, out of 1000 parts.

For Average plus Three Standard Deviations in a nomally random occuring event, it is three parts.

LOVE,

Wow. You measured something. What an impressive scientist you are.

Well, Dr. Scientist, here's a challenge for you. There is a rule that governs a set of three numbers. You do not know the rule, but you can perform experiments to determine what the rule is. You propose a set of three numbers, and I will tell you "pass" if it conforms to the rule or "fail" if it does not conform to the rule.

Previous researchers have done the following experiments. Dr. X experimented with 2, 4, 8 and was successful. Dr. Y experimented with 1, 1, 1 and was not successful because the second set of numbers does not conform to the rule.

Your goal, then, is to derive the rule using experiments. Please propose your first set of numbers, and I will tell you whether the numbers conform to the rule. By doing so, you should be able to derive the rule.

What are your first three numbers?

 

[lesliedellow]

Come on then, Einstein, let's see you make the plants grow without using the Sun Vishnu created and maintains for you.

Would you care to take up the challenge instead of trying to evade it? It would be really very interesting to hear you explain how (electronic) computers could have been developed with the theory of electromagnetism first being developed.

 

[Zosimus]

Would you care to take up the challenge instead of trying to evade it? It would be really very interesting to hear you explain how (electronic) computers could have been developed with the theory of electromagnetism first being developed.

It's a stupid challenge.

Here, let's try this one. You try to build a computer with the theory of electromagnetism, and I'll try to build one without the theory. First one to succeed wins.

 

[lesliedellow]

It's a stupid challenge.

Here, let's try this one. You try to build a computer with the theory of electromagnetism, and I'll try to build one without the theory. First one to succeed wins.

Fine, but remember, you are not allowed to have a transformer in your power supply, because designing one of them would require you to utilise the theory of electromagnetic induction, or have somebody do it for you, and you are not allowed any capacitors on your mother board, because designing them would require you to utilise the theory of electrostatics, or have somebody do it for you.

 

[Zosimus]

Fine, but remember, you are not allowed to have a transformer in your power supply, because designing one of them would require you to utilise the theory of electromagnetic induction, or have somebody do it for you, and you are not allowed any capacitors on your mother board, because designing them would require you to utilise the theory of electrostatics, or have somebody do it for you.

First of all, that's completely untrue. I can simply postulate that evil spirits known as gnarks are trapped when two metal plates separated by Mylar are powered by Thor's lightning and that these evil spirits will gladly pay a ransom to escape by returning previously stolen lightning to do Thor's bidding.

Second, you're entirely missing the point. Neither you nor I is going to build a computer because building one requires far more than rudimentary knowledge of some passing scientific fad. A simple look at the I, Pencil essay shows that doing so is beyond the skill of any living person.

 

[lesliedellow]

First of all, that's completely untrue. I can simply postulate that evil spirits known as gnarks are trapped when two metal plates separated by Mylar are powered by Thor's lightning and that these evil spirits will gladly pay a ransom to escape by returning previously stolen lightning to do Thor's bidding.

Um, you wouldn' get far in being able to calculate its capacitance with that theory, and, if I walked into a store asking for a 100 micro farad capacitor, a 100 micro farad capacitor is what I would expect to get.

 

[Zosimus]

Um, you wouldn' get far in being able to calculate its capacitance with that theory, and, if I walked into a store asking for a 100 micro farad capacitor, a 100 micro farad capacitor is what I would expect to get.

I laughed long and hard when I read your post.

So your idea of "designing a computer using science" involves going to Radio Shack and buying off-the-shelf components. It reminds me of someone on another forum who quipped "I use science every day. I hit the power button on the remote control."

Do you seriously think that you could build a computer by buying a few capacitors and stringing together some NAND gates on a breadboard? You need a serious reality check, my friend.

Finally, I'd like to take the moment to criticize the horrible sentence you constructed, namely "If I walked into a store asking for a 100 micro farad capacitor, a 100 micro farad capacitor is what I would expect to get." I can't speak for you, but I've never seen a "store asking for a 100 microfarad capacitor." Where I come from, stores don't talk and they certainly don't request 100 uF capacitors. Second, microfarad is all one word. Finally, why do you say "a 100 uF capacitor is what I would expect to get" rather than just saying "I would expect to get a 100 uF capacitor?" Do you think that using 11 words to express an idea is somehow better than using 9? Do you think that the sentence is enhanced by the inexplicable shift from the active voice in the dependent clause to the passive in the independent one?

You're lucky that I speak gobbledygook. Some people might not have understood you at all.

 

[lesliedellow]

I laughed long and hard when I read your post.

So your idea of "designing a computer using science" involves going to Radio Shack and buying off-the-shelf components. It reminds me of someone on another forum who quipped "I use science every day. I hit the power button on the remote control."

Do you seriously think that you could build a computer by buying a few capacitors and stringing together some NAND gates on a breadboard? You need a serious reality check, my friend.

Finally, I'd like to take the moment to criticize the horrible sentence you constructed, namely "If I walked into a store asking for a 100 micro farad capacitor, a 100 micro farad capacitor is what I would expect to get." I can't speak for you, but I've never seen a "store asking for a 100 microfarad capacitor." Where I come from, stores don't talk and they certainly don't request 100 uF capacitors. Second, microfarad is all one word. Finally, why do you say "a 100 uF capacitor is what I would expect to get" rather than just saying "I would expect to get a 100 uF capacitor?" Do you think that using 11 words to express an idea is somehow better than using 9? Do you think that the sentence is enhanced by the inexplicable shift from the active voice in the dependent clause to the passive in the independent one?

You're lucky that I speak gobbledygook. Some people might not have understood you at all.

Stop trying to obfuscate. Somebody has to buy the capacitors for the motherboard.

 

[Zosimus]

Stop trying to obfuscate. Somebody has to buy the capacitors for the motherboard.

And someone has to sacrifice the virgins to the volcano god.

 

[lesliedellow]

And someone has to sacrifice the virgins to the volcano god.

N7sdcb bn5t576899po,bvnmr3e4534q5awex g97809

Which makes considerably more sense than what you just posted.

 

[Zosimus]

N7sdcb bn5t576899po,bvnmr3e4534q5awex g97809

Which makes considerably more sense than what you just posted.

I deeply regret that you are unable to follow a logical argument. Let's try it again from the top.

1. I post suggesting that there's no reason to believe that technology or technological advances come from science. I point out that Babbage, the father of the computer, was not a scientist.
2. You insist that computers could not be built without a specific electromagnetic theory. You provide absolutely no evidence that science was responsible for said theory.
3. I post a tongue-in-cheek rejoinder pointing out that you should stop breathing air since you don't believe in Allah. The point, which you don't seem to get, is that like your argument, the Allah-air argument only makes sense if you presuppose the truth of the argument. Since the point under discussion is whether science is responsible for technology, any argument that just presupposes that science is responsible is immediately suspect.
4. From that point on we've had a bunch of back-and-forth posts that resemble those of small children shouting "Uh-huh!" and "Nuh-uh!" at each other. You insist that I cannot build a computer. I point out that you cannot grow plants without the sun and that you cannot build a computer either.
5. You rebut by saying that stores ask for capacitors of 100 microfarads. I ridicule this idea.
6. Now you claim that my posts make no sense.

Are you back up to speed?

 

[lesliedellow]

I deeply regret that you are unable to follow a logical argument. Let's try it again from the top.2. You insist that computers could not be built without a specific electromagnetic theory. You provide absolutely no evidence that science was responsible for said theory.

Pardon? Oh, I get it, Faraday wasn't a scientist, and Ampere wasn't a scientist, and Gauss wasn't a scientist, and Coulomb wasn't a scientist, and Lorentz wasn't a scientist, and Maxwell wasn't a scientist, and none of them did science.

 

[Loudmouth]

I deeply regret that you are unable to follow a logical argument. Let's try it again from the top.

1. I post suggesting that there's no reason to believe that technology or technological advances come from science. I point out that Babbage, the father of the computer, was not a scientist.
2. You insist that computers could not be built without a specific electromagnetic theory. You provide absolutely no evidence that science was responsible for said theory.
3. I post a tongue-in-cheek rejoinder pointing out that you should stop breathing air since you don't believe in Allah. The point, which you don't seem to get, is that like your argument, the Allah-air argument only makes sense if you presuppose the truth of the argument. Since the point under discussion is whether science is responsible for technology, any argument that just presupposes that science is responsible is immediately suspect.
4. From that point on we've had a bunch of back-and-forth posts that resemble those of small children shouting "Uh-huh!" and "Nuh-uh!" at each other. You insist that I cannot build a computer. I point out that you cannot grow plants without the sun and that you cannot build a computer either.
5. You rebut by saying that stores ask for capacitors of 100 microfarads. I ridicule this idea.
6. Now you claim that my posts make no sense.

Are you back up to speed?

Show us a computer built using different theories.

 

[bhsmte]

Pardon? Oh, I get it, Faraday wasn't a scientist, and Ampere wasn't a scientist, and Gauss wasn't a scientist, and Coulomb wasn't a scientist, and Lorentz wasn't a scientist, and Maxwell wasn't a scientist, and none of them did science.

Didn't you know, Mr. Logic can never be wrong.

 

[Zosimus]

Pardon? Oh, I get it, Faraday wasn't a scientist, and Ampere wasn't a scientist, and Gauss wasn't a scientist, and Coulomb wasn't a scientist, and Lorentz wasn't a scientist, and Maxwell wasn't a scientist, and none of them did science.

Okay! Let's run through the story of Michael Faraday.

Michael Faraday was a devout Christian blacksmith. One day William Hyde Wollaston talked to Faraday about the electric motor. Wollaston had tried several times to make an electric motor, but he always failed. Faraday had no difficulty making an electric motor.

Therefore, thanks to Christians...er... I mean blacksmiths...er...I mean scientists we have electric motors.

The end.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Okay! Let's run through the story of Michael Faraday.

Michael Faraday was a devout Christian blacksmith. One day William Hyde Wollaston talked to Faraday about the electric motor. Wollaston had tried several times to make an electric motor, but he always failed. Faraday had no difficulty making an electric motor.

Therefore, thanks to Christians...er... I mean blacksmiths...er...I mean scientists we have electric motors.

The end.

Faraday wasn't a blacksmith.

 

[lesliedellow]

Okay! Let's run through the story of Michael Faraday.

Michael Faraday was a devout Christian blacksmith. One day William Hyde Wollaston talked to Faraday about the electric motor. Wollaston had tried several times to make an electric motor, but he always failed. Faraday had no difficulty making an electric motor.

Therefore, thanks to Christians...er... I mean blacksmiths...er...I mean scientists we have electric motors.

The end.

So? Prior to the late nineteenth century, when they started to get paid for their efforts, most scientists either had a "day job," or they were amongst the landed gentry. Faraday a scientist who worked in the field of electromagnetism.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So? Prior to the late nineteenth century, when they started to get paid for their efforts, most scientists either had a "day job," or they were amongst the landed gentry. Faraday was still a scientist who worked in the field of electromagnetism.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around what zosimus calls logic.