My Conformity Challenge

[Belk]

Does science conform to us, or do we conform to science?

Take the Law of Gravity for example.

Do scientists calibrate their machines to overcome lift in aerodynamics?

I would think so.

Scientists calibrate their machines to give them what they are trained to look for.

In this case, Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup].

Neither. Science is a method, not a thing. Science is the process by which we see how the universe around us functions. We no more "conform to science" then a person building a car "conforms to assembly line".

 

[Belk]

So we don't conform to science? is that what you want me to believe?

Using the example I provided, are you saying scientists can calibrate their equipment for gravity at Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]3[/sup], and airplanes will still fly with the "new and improved" leading edges on their wings?

I think not.

And AV disappears in a puff of Descartian logic.

 

[SnowyMacie]

And AV disappears in a puff of Descartian logic.

Descartes walks into a bar, the bartender asks "Would you like to try our special?" Descartes replies "I think not" and vanishes.

 

[Freodin]

Here it is again, with your answer:

What do you mean by "no"?

A little lession in reading comprehension: as your first set of questions were of a complementary trype, answering with a simple "no" wouldn't fit these questions.

But there was another question in this quote, the last line, that you meant as an "example" to explain your first set of questions:

"Do scientists calibrate their machines to overcome lift in aerodynamics?"

No. In all regards.

Scientists in aerodynamics do not try to overcome life. They do not use machines to not try to overcome life. They do not calibrate these machines that they do not use to not try to overcome lift.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Using the example I provided, are you saying scientists can calibrate their equipment for gravity at Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]3[/sup], and airplanes will still fly with the "new and improved" leading edges on their wings?.

No, AV1611VET: We are saying that example is nonsense. And wrong !

F = Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup]

You need to state exactly what equipment you are talking about before that "example" becomes sense.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, AV1611VET: We are saying that example is nonsense. And wrong !

Then replace it with a better one. And right !

 

[RealityCheck01]

Then replace it with a better one. And right !

AV1611VET: Your thread, your example.
How can I replace a nonsense example that addresses an incoherent question?
If you want to persist with a nonsensical example making a nonsense of your thread then that is your choice !

 

[AV1611VET]

AV1611VET: Your thread, your example.
How can I replace a nonsense example that addresses an incoherent question?
If you want to persist with a nonsensical example making a nonsense of your thread then that is your choice !

You're entitled to your opinion.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You're entitled to your opinion.

You are entitled to write an rather incoherent OP with an nonsensical example, AV1611VET.
What you are not entitled to do is waste peoples time by asking them to guess what that incoherent sentence means to create a sensible example.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are entitled to write an rather incoherent OP with an nonsensical example, AV1611VET.
What you are not entitled to do is waste peoples time by asking them to guess what that incoherent sentence means to create a sensible example.

Then fix it.

Please quit moaning & groaning about it and fix it, if you think you can do better.

(And don't forget to add a better example than I did.)

 

[RealityCheck01]

Then fix it.

I cannot read your mind, AV1611VET ! You fix it. Start by stating clearly what you mean by:

Does science conform to us, or do we conform to science?

Dictionary meanings of conform.

As I pointed out before:

The question is a bit nonsensical, AV1611VET.
You seem to be asking whether science is faked to fit with expectation which is just wrong .

ETA: Try giving an example, e.g. There is Newton's law of gravitation that you have quoted several times.
How do you expect Newton's law of gravitation to "conform to us"?
How do you expect "us conform to" Newton's law of gravitation?

 

[[serious]]

Does science conform to us, or do we conform to science?

Take the Law of Gravity for example.

Do scientists calibrate their machines to overcome lift in aerodynamics?

I would think so.

Scientists calibrate their machines to give them what they are trained to look for.

In this case, Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup].

That doesn't make much sense. Lift and gravity are entirely separate forces. Ask about the calibration of some specific device and we can probably start the conversation from there.

 

[Kylie]

Does science conform to us, or do we conform to science?

Take the Law of Gravity for example.

Do scientists calibrate their machines to overcome lift in aerodynamics?

I would think so.

Scientists calibrate their machines to give them what they are trained to look for.

In this case, Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup].

I'd expect this from Gottservant, not you, AV.

Science is a way of thinking about things. It is not a list of requirements that we must conform to.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So we don't conform to science? is that what you want me to believe?

Using the example I provided, are you saying scientists can calibrate their equipment for gravity at Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]3[/sup], and airplanes will still fly with the "new and improved" leading edges on their wings?

I think not.

The scientific quest to explain reality and the phenomena it contains is a different undertaking as opposed to engineering an airplane.

You can't start building a plane before doing the science to understand how gravtity, atoms, aerodynamics, etc works.

Science (the natural sciences, rather) is the gathering of knowledge about reality.
Engineering is using the knowledge gathered by the natural sciences to build machines / technology. It's about building things that work, using things that work.

To say that we "conform to science" is essentially saying that we "conform to reality". Because that's what science is about... to make sure that our models of reality actually match reality. And when it doesn't, we change the models to something that does match. We don't assume that reality is wrong...
Unlike some other people here.

*cough* evolution *cough*

 

[pgp_protector]

The scientific quest to explain reality and the phenomena it contains is a different undertaking as opposed to engineering an airplane.

You can't start building a plane before doing the science to understand how gravtity, atoms, aerodynamics, etc works.

Science (the natural sciences, rather) is the gathering of knowledge about reality.
Engineering is using the knowledge gathered by the natural sciences to build machines / technology. It's about building things that work, using things that work.

To say that we "conform to science" is essentially saying that we "conform to reality". Because that's what science is about... to make sure that our models of reality actually match reality. And when it doesn't, we change the models to something that does match. We don't assume that reality is wrong...
Unlike some other people here.

*cough* evolution *cough*

So the Wright Brothers knew how Aerodynamics, Atoms & Gravity worked?
You may not be able to design an efficient safe plane without understanding the science behind it, but you can design some form of plane without understanding all the science behind it.

 

[AV1611VET]

So the Wright Brothers knew how Aerodynamics, Atoms & Gravity worked?

For 59 seconds.

Just barely long enough to fasten their seat belts and put their trays in the upright position.

 

[pgp_protector]

For 59 seconds.

Just barely long enough to fasten their seat belts and put their trays in the upright position.

Hens the second part my my statement (That you let out)

You may not be able to design an efficient safe plane without understanding the science behind it, but you can design some form of plane without understanding all the science behind it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hens the second part my my statement (That you let out)

So it was back to the drawing board until they got a plane that satisfied scientific paradigms ... correct?

You know ... like the Titanic did?

 

[DogmaHunter]

So the Wright Brothers knew how Aerodynamics, Atoms & Gravity worked?

I was thinking more along the lines of a state of the art boeing.
The technology we have today is an extension of our understanding of how reality works, right?

The Wright brothers might not have had the knowledge we have today - and it shows in their technology - , but they most certainly had to understand a few things about air, lift and whatnot. How else could they have hoped to be successfull? They must have thought that they could succeed in building a plane, why else start the project?

It's a "if this and this...then we should be able to do that" kind of thing. That "this and this" would the understanding of certain phenomena, knowledge that can be used to accomplish a certain goal.

 

[Split Rock]

So it was back to the drawing board until they got a plane that satisfied scientific paradigms ... correct?

You know ... like the Titanic did?

The Titanic floated fine. It even sailed fine, even if something of a big elephant when it came to maneuvering. It was directed by sailors (opps, not "scientists") into a field of icebergs. At night. In a calm ocean which made them hard to detect. At regular speed. As if nothing was wrong. Even after the captain was warned about the icebergs, by way of a telegraph, invented by "scientists." Who was to blame? According to you, the "scientists."