What is Science?

[Loudmouth]

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

It is pretty simple. If an epistemology leads to something Zosimus doesn't like, then the epistemology is wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

The Wright Brothers were bike makers. Does that mean that they were not airplaine pilots.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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

Grow light, I use them for my carnivorous plants.

 

[bhsmte]

It is pretty simple. If an epistemology leads to something Zosimus doesn't like, then the epistemology is wrong.

Long pattern here.

Said poster shows up to teach everyone how their logic is wrong. Said poster's own logic is exposed as faulty. Said poster goes away for awhile until he shows up again to teach everyone about logic.

 

[Zosimus]

Faraday wasn't a blacksmith.

Okay, his father was a blacksmith. He started to be a blacksmith, but was apprenticed to become a bookbinder.

 

[Zosimus]

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.

This reply entirely misses the point.

Man X is a:
Christian
Freemason
Shoe salesman.

Man X discovers or invents something.

Therefore, the discovery was not because the man was a Christian, or a freemason, or a shoe salesman. It's because he was a scientist.

Why? Because this point of view advances the worldview of lesliedellow and for no other reason.

 

[Zosimus]

The Wright Brothers were bike makers. Does that mean that they were not airplaine pilots.

Sure! Let's look at the Wright Brothers. They were:

Dutch
printers
high school dropouts
Christians
turned bike salesmen.

They invented a special system of three-axis control, which made powered flight possible.

Therefore, we owe the special system of three-axis control

not to the Dutch
not to printers
not to high school dropouts
not to Christians
not to bike salesmen

but to scientists.

Why? For absolutely no stinking reason at all, except that this advances Loudmouth's idea that scientists did everything.

 

[Zosimus]

Long pattern here.

Said poster shows up to teach everyone how their logic is wrong. Said poster's own logic is exposed as faulty. Said poster goes away for awhile until he shows up again to teach everyone about logic.

I think you have the pattern wrong.

Zosimus shows up and criticizes most posters' reasoning. The posters don't know what to make of him nor how to rebut his contentions. The posters turn to personal attacks (like those in your post) but never even address the points made in the arguments.

After awhile Zosimus, who has a real life, has to actually do something productive in the real world rather than shake his head at the collective stupidity of the arguments banded about and disappears for awhile. Then he returns to find the same refuted arguments presented with no attempt to even improve them.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Okay, his father was a blacksmith. He started to be a blacksmith, but was apprenticed to become a bookbinder.

And that has exactly what relevance to him establishing the concept of electromagnetism?

 

[Loudmouth]

Zosimus shows up and criticizes most posters' reasoning. The posters don't know what to make of him nor how to rebut his contentions.

There is nothing to rebut. You reject the scientific method. Good luck with that.

 

[bhsmte]

I think you have the pattern wrong.

Zosimus shows up and criticizes most posters' reasoning. The posters don't know what to make of him nor how to rebut his contentions. The posters turn to personal attacks (like those in your post) but never even address the points made in the arguments.

After awhile Zosimus, who has a real life, has to actually do something productive in the real world rather than shake his head at the collective stupidity of the arguments banded about and disappears for awhile. Then he returns to find the same refuted arguments presented with no attempt to even improve them.

I think I nailed the pattern, but I will let others chime in.

 

[PsychoSarah]

This reply entirely misses the point.

Man X is a:
Christian
Freemason
Shoe salesman.

Man X discovers or invents something.

Therefore, the discovery was not because the man was a Christian, or a freemason, or a shoe salesman. It's because he was a scientist.

Why? Because this point of view advances the worldview of lesliedellow and for no other reason.

Plenty of discoveries have been made by nonChristians. There is no reason to think that religion is related to inventing or any other academic pursuit, excluding situations in which only the religious have access to the necessary resources via political favoritism.

Depending on the nature of the invention, it could be related to his job as a shoe salesman though.

 

[lesliedellow]

This reply entirely misses the point.

Man X is a:
Christian
Freemason
Shoe salesman.

Man X discovers or invents something.

Therefore, the discovery was not because the man was a Christian, or a freemason, or a shoe salesman. It's because he was a scientist.

What a lot of fallacious crap. A scientist is somebody who uses the methods of science to investigate the physical universe,. Therefore, if he makes a discovery by utilising those methods he is, by definition, a scientist. It makes not a jot of difference whether or not he is also a Christian, Freemason or shoe salesman, unless one of them is relevant to the making of discoveries in one of the physical sciences, which clearly they are not.

How does one keep a civil tongue in ones head, when having to respond to ******* like this?

 

[PsychoSarah]

What a lot of fallacious crap. A scientist is somebody who uses the methods of science to investigate the physical universe,. Therefore, if he makes a discovery by utilising those methods he is, by definition, a scientist. It makes not a jot of difference whether or not he is also a Christian, Freemason or shoe salesman, unless one of them is relevant to the making of discoveries in one of the physical sciences, which clearly they are not.

How does one keep a civil tongue in ones head, when having to respond to ******* like this?

I just don't make it my goal to change minds other than maybe my own, and speak as I feel. I accept that most people will remain the same, but enjoy participating anyways.

 

[Zosimus]

Plenty of discoveries have been made by nonChristians. There is no reason to think that religion is related to inventing or any other academic pursuit, excluding situations in which only the religious have access to the necessary resources via political favoritism.

Depending on the nature of the invention, it could be related to his job as a shoe salesman though.

Just as plenty of inventions have been made by non-scientists. Marion Donovan invented disposable diapers (nappies). She was a housewife.

People innovate all the time. Science has no monopoly on innovation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just as plenty of inventions have been made by non-scientists. Marion Donovan invented disposable diapers (nappies). She was a housewife.

People innovate all the time. Science has no monopoly on innovation.

We get it. You think science doesn't work and you reject it. Everyone else thinks you are wrong.

Is there a second act to this dog and pony show?

 

[Zosimus]

What a lot of fallacious crap. A scientist is somebody who uses the methods of science to investigate the physical universe,. Therefore, if he makes a discovery by utilising those methods he is, by definition, a scientist. It makes not a jot of difference whether or not he is also a Christian, Freemason or shoe salesman, unless one of them is relevant to the making of discoveries in one of the physical sciences, which clearly they are not.

How does one keep a civil tongue in ones head, when having to respond to ******* like this?

First of all, what's this "he" nonsense? "A scientist is someone who uses the methods of science...if he makes a discovery..." What do you think – women never discover things? Misogynist much?

Second, I reject your self-serving definition of a scientist. Anyone who invents anything is a scientist, apparently, and all inventions are due to science not due to simple human ability to discover things and solve problems. What a load of bullsh... er... applesauce.

You remind me of a Jehovah's Witness I once knew who insisted that everyone who loved truth was a JW. Moses? JW. Jesus? JW. Michael Faraday? JW. Shakespeare? JW. Galileo? JW. Well, I guess we now know that all inventions really come from Jehovah's Witnesses.

It's no less self-serving than your claims.

 

[Zosimus]

We get it. You think science doesn't work and you reject it. Everyone else thinks you are wrong.

Is there a second act to this dog and pony show?

No, I get it. You think that science works, but you cannot:

Demonstrate any logical soundness to science or the scientific method.
Refute the idea that most published scientific findings are wrong.
Show that all or even most inventions come from science.
Show that scientists who make discoveries adhere to the scientific method.
Show that all or even most current scientific theories are correct.
Show that scientists are unbiased.

In short your faith in science is just that: faith. I get it; Some people need a reassuring system of belief to cling to in the face of the uncertainties of life. If science is your Islam, then more power to you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

First of all, what's this "he" nonsense? "A scientist is someone who uses the methods of science...if he makes a discovery..." What do you think – women never discover things? Misogynist much?

I think the fact that the first thing you focus on in lesliedellow's comment is 'he' and then refer to his views as misogynistic shows that you're just blustering and posturing.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I get it. You think that science works, but you cannot:

Demonstrate any logical soundness to science or the scientific method.

We can demonstrate that science works.

Your epistemology is so poor that you can't even demonstrate that your smoke detector works. In fact, you have to make pathetic excuses for why you won't use the scientific method. It is obvious to everyone that your argument has failed.