What is Science?

[joshua 1 9]

Additionally, your claim that science has worked for 1,000 years is unfounded speculation. A simple Google search for the first scientist shows that William Gilbert was supposedly the first scientist (see http://science.howstuffworks.com/first-scientist1.htm ) and he was born in the 1500s. Strangely enough, the word "scientist" wasn't even invented till the 1830s.

Science goes back to the Sumerians. If there was any science before them then there is no record of it. Although the first building or structure goes back to Göbekli Tepe: the world's oldest temple around 12,000-year-old. The Jericho that we read about in the Bible goes back around 8,000 years. Building like this requires an understanding of at least 8th grade math. That is why 8 years of education is mandatory in this country.

 

[Zosimus]

Hi,

Wow, and please ease up logic Professor. If you are what you say you are, and you seem to be, my forte is neither, logic as you use that term, nor Philosophy. Is it not a professional courtesy, to extend respect to those outside of your field if possible?

I have explained what I do. You and I are communicating on the work of peopke like me. Why, the seeming hatred or disdain of science on your part, or are you just being overly stuck in your own discipline?

As far as for proving that science has worked, as I use it, and others in my field use it, again with benefits to you like this communication device, but in the past, that is probably easily provable.

I am no logic student nor remedial either. Again why all the hostile words like brazen? I am a mommy type. That is a term of respect and kindness. I am a scientist type, it is to give you my reference point. How did you take that? Was it an insult somehow? Surely, it was not meant that way, as I do know what I meant.

As far as for your picking up the point that I am no natural logician, yes, I would say so. The next two statements of my utter lack of logic is responsible for my success in science, what possible definition of logic are you using, that can ever make that true?

And really, if you are angry at me or upset, I don't see why yet, as I have not and will not attack you personally.

LOVE,

My problem is that you are engaged in a philosophy, proudly proclaiming the validity of said philosophy, and completely clueless about philosophy in general. You see, back in the 18th century, David Hume pointed out that the philosophy you run around espousing was completely unjustifiable. How many centuries does it take for you to get the memo?

However, you ignore this and throw out some sort of a naive justification of science. Your logic pattern goes something like this: I did X; Y occurred. Therefore, X causes Y. You remind me of those Buddhists I used to hang out with when I was in secondary (I was hot for the blonde). Every meeting they would get together and say, "I started chanting. My life got better. Therefore, chanting made my life better."

Correlation is not causation.

 

[Zosimus]

Science goes back to the Sumerians. If there was any science before them then there is no record of it. Although the first building or structure goes back to Göbekli Tepe: the world's oldest temple around 12,000-year-old. The Jericho that we read about in the Bible goes back around 8,000 years. Building like this requires an understanding of at least 8th grade math. That is why 8 years of education is mandatory in this country.

Your post merely shows a profound lack of understanding of what science is. Science is not math. Math is not science. Science is empirical. Math is rational.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Your post merely shows a profound lack of understanding of what science is. Science is not math. Math is not science. Science is empirical. Math is rational.

"Formal sciences are disciplines concerned with formal systems, such as logic, mathematics, statistics, theoretical computer science, information theory, game theory, systems theory, decision theory, and portions of linguistics." Wiki "Formal sciences began before the formulation of scientific method, with the most ancient mathematical texts dating back to 1800 BC (Babylonian mathematics), 1600 BC (Egyptian mathematics) and 1000 BC (Indian mathematics)." Wiki

 

[Zosimus]

"Formal sciences are disciplines concerned with formal systems, such as logic, mathematics, statistics, theoretical computer science, information theory, game theory, systems theory, decision theory, and portions of linguistics." Wiki "Formal sciences began before the formulation of scientific method, with the most ancient mathematical texts dating back to 1800 BC (Babylonian mathematics), 1600 BC (Egyptian mathematics) and 1000 BC (Indian mathematics)." Wiki

Are you seriously quoting Wikipedia as some sort of an attempt to score points here?

Long before the modern idea of "science" reared its ugly head, things were divided into two categories: arts and sciences. You can still hear allusions to this concept when some says, "Making the perfect cake is more of an art than a science..."

Stanford University still offers a Ph.D. in the "science of law." Law is not, however, an empirical endeavor based on experimentation. Similarly mathematics is not an experimental science. No one postulates that 2+2 might equal 5 at a very high relativistic speed or in the vicinity of a black hole and starts observing distant objects to see whether this can be demonstrated.

The word science, before it was bastardized, simply meant knowledge. It is drawn from the latin language.

 

[lesliedellow]

Are you seriously quoting Wikipedia as some sort of an attempt to score points here?

What would seem to be in dispute is the meaning of the word science, and the physical sciences have only had a virtual monopoly of the term since about the middle of the nineteenth century. Before that it had a much broader meaning, as Joshua 1 9 has said.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Your post merely shows a profound lack of understanding of what science is. Science is not math. Math is not science. Science is empirical. Math is rational.

Swing and a miss. Nice try though. The Latin word for science means knowledge or understanding. Perhaps your science is empirical but that is by no means the definition of science.

Origin of SCIENCE
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindereto split — more at shed
First Known Use: 14th century
Related to SCIENCE
Synonyms
lore, knowledge, wisdom
Origin of EMPIRIC
Latin empiricus, from Greek empeirikos doctor relying on experience alone, from empeiria experience, from em- 2en- + peiran to attempt — more at fear
First Known Use: 1562

 

[Zosimus]

Swing and a miss. Nice try though. The Latin word for science means knowledge or understanding. Perhaps your science is empirical but that is by no means the definition of science.

Origin of SCIENCE
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindereto split — more at shed
First Known Use: 14th century
Related to SCIENCE
Synonyms
lore, knowledge, wisdom
Origin of EMPIRIC
Latin empiricus, from Greek empeirikos doctor relying on experience alone, from empeiria experience, from em- 2en- + peiran to attempt — more at fear
First Known Use: 1562

Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

That's what most people on here mean when they say the word "science." By that simple definition mathematics is not science because mathematics is not knowledge, does not relate to the material world, and is not gained through observation or experimentation.

Y por el otro tema, a mí me sorprende mucho que tienes la cara tan dura para sugerir que pudiera igualar mi conocimiento de qué quiere decir una palabra de origen Latin dado que yo hablo un idioma latino todos los días mientras tú no me has demostrado ni siquiera lo más mínimo comprensión de esos temas.

 

[lesliedellow]

Y por el otro tema, a mí me sorprende mucho que tienes la cara tan dura para sugerir que pudiera igualar mi conocimiento de qué quiere decir una palabra de origen Latin dado que yo hablo un idioma latino todos los días mientras tú no me has demostrado ni siquiera lo más mínimo comprensión de esos temas.

If somebody wants to know the meaning of the Latin word scientia, all they have to do is use a Latin-English dictionary.

 

[katerinah1947]

My problem is that you are engaged in a philosophy, proudly proclaiming the validity of said philosophy, and completely clueless about philosophy in general. You see, back in the 18th century, David Hume pointed out that the philosophy you run around espousing was completely unjustifiable. How many centuries does it take for you to get the memo?

However, you ignore this and throw out some sort of a naive justification of science. Your logic pattern goes something like this: I did X; Y occurred. Therefore, X causes Y. You remind me of those Buddhists I used to hang out with when I was in secondary (I was hot for the blonde). Every meeting they would get together and say, "I started chanting. My life got better. Therefore, chanting made my life better."

Correlation is not causation.

Hi,

If you have a problem, it is certainly not one pertaining to a lack of insults and starting fights.

I see you say you have a problem with me. You also have a problem with peole like me rearing their ugly heads.

I understand you. Really I do. Please though stop using things provided to you and others, by the ugly headed ones.

Your continuance in using, products used by ugly headed people seems to confuse me. Your rancor seems high. So, if I and my types are so horrible to you, what do you want from us?

Do, you want us all to disappear? Do you want us all to be Philosophers? What do you want?

LOVE,

 

[joshua 1 9]

Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

That's what most people on here mean when they say the word "science." By that simple definition mathematics is not science because mathematics is not knowledge, does not relate to the material world, and is not gained through observation or experimentation.

Y por el otro tema, a mí me sorprende mucho que tienes la cara tan dura para sugerir que pudiera igualar mi conocimiento de qué quiere decir una palabra de origen Latin dado que yo hablo un idioma latino todos los días mientras tú no me has demostrado ni siquiera lo más mínimo comprensión de esos temas.

Ok, let me see if I understand what you are saying here. So math is not science and science is not math. Logic is not science and science is not logic. So the laws of math and the laws of logic do not apply to science. So that means that God is the God of logic, math, and science.

 

[katerinah1947]

Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

That's what most people on here mean when they say the word "science." By that simple definition mathematics is not science because mathematics is not knowledge, does not relate to the material world, and is not gained through observation or experimentation.

Y por el otro tema, a mí me sorprende mucho que tienes la cara tan dura para sugerir que pudiera igualar mi conocimiento de qué quiere decir una palabra de origen Latin dado que yo hablo un idioma latino todos los días mientras tú no me has demostrado ni siquiera lo más mínimo comprensión de esos temas.

Hi,

Again. What do you want? Is it to prove to me and all my types, that I am no scientist and neither are they? Is it to say Philosophy or you have been injured by the misappropriation of the word science? What? What do you want?

LOVE,

 

[joshua 1 9]

Hi,

If you have a problem, it is certainly not one pertaining to a lack of insults and starting fights.

I see you say you have a problem with me. You also have a problem with peole like me rearing their ugly heads.

I understand you. Really I do. Please though stop using things provided to you and others, by the ugly headed ones.

Your continuance in using, products used by ugly headed people seems to confuse me. Your rancor seems high. So, if I and my types are so horrible to you, what do you want from us?

Do, you want us all to disapear? Do you want us all to be Philosophers? What do you want?

LOVE,

Can we add that logic is not philosophy and philosophy is not logic? Maybe if your having a discussion about philosophy you should take it to the philosophy board. I just got a warning on my record because someone felt that a thread I started did not belong on this board. Even though they were the ones that started that discussion. So I would be more then happy to limit the discussion here to creation and evolution and not respond to off topic questions.

 

[katerinah1947]

Can we add that logic is not philosophy and philosophy is not logic? Maybe if your having a discussion about philosophy you should take it to the philosophy board. I just got a warning on my record because someone felt that a thread I started did not belong on this board. Even though they were the ones that started that discussion. So I would be more then happy to limit the discussion here to creation and evolution and not respond to off topic questions.

Hi,

Understanding what science is Biblically, in practice and maybe in Philosophical terms should help everyone trying to get an understanding of how much they should trust the Genesis 1:28 group, as they follow God's Commandment to us, to subdue the earth.

Certainly, taking a guess about something that you think might be true, and then trying to prove your own guess wrong, is what I and all others do in working with the unknown.

Creationists, if there is such a term, need to know that not only Genesis 1:28, is Commanded by God for them and me to follow, so is what is put into practice, from those Doing God's Will that way also.

It is in Romans 13:1-5, that what the Genesis 1:28 group finds is true, is put into practice, and God tells us Christians that we too, we also, must follow those laws, as all Govrnment Laws come from Him.

Fear comes from not knowing, some to all of the time. Yet, what some people who are Christians do, (me too), is figure that they know even about science, what is right and wrong, thus again, and I have even done this a time or more, more!, is to lean on our own understandings, rather than on God.

If God, is Real, then what is to fear in following what God tells us to do?

Do, those mean people with a Bible though, tell us that science, is not only a Command by God from that blessing there in Genesis 1:28, to subdue the earth, but in simpler terms it is also finding out , What God Has Done. Do they tell us that?

Do they make us understand that? If they did, then no one here would be upset. After all, who that is Christian, does not want to find out more, about God? Seeing and understanding what God has done, is finding out more about God.

Following Government laws, is also about following, what God has done. Governments use the work of Genesis 1:28'rs, to Govern.

LOVE,

 

[Zosimus]

If somebody wants to know the meaning of the Latin word scientia, all they have to do is use a Latin-English dictionary.

This is a very wrongheaded idea. It's like saying that you can understand the meaning of the Spanish word falta just by grabbing a Spanish-English dictionary. A simple Google translate search shows that falta means lack, deficiency, foul, absence, need, want, defect, shortage, misdemeanor, dearth, paucity, lapse, shortcoming and dozens of other translations. None of them demonstrate the meaning of the word. A simple conversation will suffice to show that none of the translations nails it.

"Are we at Grand Central Station?"
"No, todavía falta."

What does that mean? It still lacks? It's still short? It's still wanting? It's still deficient?
None of the above. It means, "We haven't gotten there, yet." or "We still have a ways to go." or "It's still a bit farther down."

Different languages are not a code. You cannot expect to find a one-to-one correlation between a given English word and a word in another language. You must grok in the fullness of the language and then render the idea in words that would be palatable to a native speaker in the language of choice.

 

[Zosimus]

Hi,

If you have a problem, it is certainly not one pertaining to a lack of insults and starting fights.

I see you say you have a problem with me. You also have a problem with peole like me rearing their ugly heads.

I understand you. Really I do. Please though stop using things provided to you and others, by the ugly headed ones.

Your continuance in using, products used by ugly headed people seems to confuse me. Your rancor seems high. So, if I and my types are so horrible to you, what do you want from us?

Do, you want us all to disappear? Do you want us all to be Philosophers? What do you want?

LOVE,

My problem is not with you but with stupid arguments.

You have made a poor attempt here to put together some sort of a logical argument, but you have badly constructed it. Fortunately for you, I have seen this argument before, and I will help you construct it before annihilating it.

Premise 1: Science has created many wonderful things, such as computers, cell phones, etc.
Premise 2: You hate science.
Premise 3: You love computers, cell phones, etc.
Conclusion: You are a hypocrite.

////////////////////////////////////////

That's the argument you're trying to make. However, the truth of premise 1 is in doubt. You assume that it is true, but you provide zero justification for it. In fact, I told you in a previous post that I doubted whether that was true, and your response is simply to assume that it is true. Do you think that I will be more convinced if you jut your jaw out a bit farther before insisting that it is true? Hardly.

Let's take a look at the computer, for example. Charles Babbage is credited with inventing the computer. He was a mathematician, inventor, philosopher, mechanical engineer, Englishman, and Anglican. He was not a scientist. So now you will say that he was a mechanical engineer and that that is close enough. However, how do you know he invented the computer because he was a mechanical engineer? How can you determine that it was not because the was a mathematician, a philosopher, or an Anglican? The short answer is you don't. Nevertheless, you will insist that it is true because of confirmation bias.

So I will take your ill-conceived argument and throw it back at you thus:

If you don't believe in Allah, then stop breathing air.

 

[Zosimus]

Ok, let me see if I understand what you are saying here. So math is not science and science is not math. Logic is not science and science is not logic. So the laws of math and the laws of logic do not apply to science. So that means that God is the God of logic, math, and science.

No, Joshua, God has nothing to do with the topic.

Logic is simply a set of rules for determining whether an argument is valid. Here is a valid argument that no one will accept.

All dogs are human.
All humans fly.
Therefore, all dogs fly.

This is a perfectly valid argument, because the premises, if true, entail the conclusion. However, no one seriously thinks that the premises are true or the conclusion for that matter.

Here is an invalid logical argument.

Cigarette smoking causes lung cancer.
John smokes a pack a day.
Therefore, John must have AIDS.

You should immediately be able to see that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. This is not a valid logical argument. Even if it turns out that John has AIDS, the argument is still invalid.

In short, we could say that the argument is not compelling. No matter how many times this argument is presented, a skeptic will remain unconvinced that John has AIDS.

Similarly, scientific reasoning that depends on logical fallacies is uncompelling.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No, Joshua, God has nothing to do with the topic.

Logic is simply a set of rules for determining whether an argument is valid. Here is a valid argument that no one will accept.

All dogs are human.
All humans fly.
Therefore, all dogs fly.

This is a perfectly valid argument, because the premises, if true, entail the conclusion. However, no one seriously thinks that the premises are true or the conclusion for that matter.

Here is an invalid logical argument.

Cigarette smoking causes lung cancer.
John smokes a pack a day.
Therefore, John must have AIDS.

You should immediately be able to see that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. This is not a valid logical argument. Even if it turns out that John has AIDS, the argument is still invalid.

In short, we could say that the argument is not compelling. No matter how many times this argument is presented, a skeptic will remain unconvinced that John has AIDS.

Similarly, scientific reasoning that depends on logical fallacies is uncompelling.

We were talking about the law of contradiction which tells us that a statement can not be both true and untrue. It has to be one or the other. The Bible has to be either true or false. I say it is true. The Bible is true because there are no contradictions. Every attempt that Atheists make to try and show that the Bible is not true - always fails. Just as the law of contradictions would predict.

All you have done is to demonstrate that the most basic of premises can be twisted into something that is not true. This of course confirms what I am saying that a statement has to be either true or false.

 

[bhsmte]

Sit back and enjoy the show folks.

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

If you have a problem, it is certainly not one pertaining to a lack of insults and starting fights.

I see you say you have a problem with me. You also have a problem with peole like me rearing their ugly heads.

I understand you. Really I do. Please though stop using things provided to you and others, by the ugly headed ones.

Your continuance in using, products used by ugly headed people seems to confuse me. Your rancor seems high. So, if I and my types are so horrible to you, what do you want from us?

Do, you want us all to disappear? Do you want us all to be Philosophers? What do you want?

LOVE,