What is Science?

[lesliedellow]

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,

So Zosimus thinks the physics which made transistors possible dropped out of thin air.

 

[katerinah1947]

So Zosimus thinks the physics which made transistors possible dropped out of thin air.

Hi,

In a way, using that term to mean God, as in the connection between great art and physics it did according to a required reading book in college, that tried to answer that question.

Vanguard Art, Great Art, he the author who bridges both worlds being a medical doctor, wrote precisely that God gives mankind information technologically to everyone. The artists pick it up first, and then the Physics Follows.

Transistors are really just manipulating the flow of electrons, and fields push electrons. Things like Gain, the amount of electricity controlled, is really sizing for the most part. Large amounts of electrons and controlled by large structures, and small amounts of electrons are controlled by small structures.

In something called a bipolar transitor, the first kind made, it is the thin ness of the middle layer that sets the amount of electrons that are controlled, with very thin layers contolling lots of electrons and larger, wider layers controlling fewer electrons, than the thinner middle layer.

Is the reason Philosophy is not used in Science the same reason that Religion was kicked out of Science?

Was it the abuse of Latter Day Philosophers, like the abuse we are told existed in those Religious folks, who are also Latter Day Religion types, is it their abuses of the people and the truth that only small if any amounts are allowed into science?

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

And by the book by the same name and the same author, here is a YouTube lecture on that:

LOVE,

 

[lesliedellow]

In something called a bipolar transitor, the first kind made, it is the thin ness of the middle layer that sets the amount of electrons that are controlled, with very thin layers contolling lots of electrons and larger, wider layers controlling fewer electrons, than the thinner middle layer.

Is the reason Philosophy is not used in Science the same reason that Religion was kicked out of Science?

I have a rough idea how bipolar transistors work.

Stephen Hawking is famous, amongst other things, for saying that science had made philosophy obsolete, or words to that effect. Shortly afterwards he described his approach to science as "Model Specific Realism". One of his fellow astrophysicists was led to joke that, if that wasn't a philosophical statement, he didn't know what was. It is true that some scientists are snooty about philosophy, but I think that can be put down to a mixture of ignorance and intellectual snobbery.

 

[katerinah1947]

I have a rough idea how bipolar transistors work.

Stephen Hawking is famous, amongst other things, for saying that science had made philosophy obsolete, or words to that effect. Shortly afterwards he described his approach to science as "Model Specific Realism". One of his fellow astrophysicists was led to joke that, if that wasn't a philosophical statement, he didn't know what was. It is true that some scientists are snooty about philosophy, but I think that can be put down to a mixture of ignorance and intellectual snobbery.

Dear,

I have always used Philosophy in my work. I can tell you that. It is practical Philosophy. It has me ask the questions to myself and of and to others, of the nature of reality, subjectivity, and knowing.

If I use no Philosophy what so ever, my work suffers and has errors. Combining is important.

The great (ones who actually find the correct answers) scientists use God, Philosophy, and what is called Science........but Together.

I did that. It is just who and what I am, but I have to weave my way through a world, not thinking about those things, but rather just doing them.

Others, in science use God, also. Few, as it is the New Heresey, like Science was in Galileo's time and somewhat in Newton's time, actually site God when using God, as the equivalent of burnings at the stake, like the ones seen here, were the way things were done in the last century.

When I used a calibration, that I had done on God, to know what God would do, and used that in a data driven science result, of course that point worked. I was not then, in the late 1980's allowed to say that, and it has bothered me since that time, as, all researchers site where the infomation comes from.

Segmentation and then calling the parts the whole, is Philosophy without Science. It is also Religion without Science.

(Source: ~...~)

And it is is science, or religion or philosphy without all of the others giving a more correct answer.

Of recent Philosophers, and false philosophers, have been credited with nothing of recent, but. But held in the highest esteem and hopes that one day, they will again give use the tools, like the tools and products they gave us in the past.

The tools, that I credit Philosophers with giving us, is not the modern day logic that is bantered about here causing nothing more than confusion in it's Pedantic effrontries, and esoterically eliminating anyone with wisdom, by the use of excessive Pedanticism, those tools that I credit Philosophy with are the present logic and math used in science and "Science".

Let me explain, the usage of science and Science.
I have the permissions and authority to make words work, when none exist for an idea.

'science is eliminating God, and Philosophy, but still doing what is called science.'

'Science' is the term I use in my trade, when all things are considered as much as possible without causing a stoppage of an otherwise practical answer, but by using God and Philosophy.

'Religion' and 'Philosophy' are also changes used by me, when both of those is inclusive of each other and of the inclusion of science also.

Elimination of segementation and some wrong answers come in mixing all those together.

So, and I was and am known for this at work. I am a Scientist of sorts, not a scientist of sorts. I use "practical" philosophy and "proven" God in all of my work. And, I am not the only one, but like many people in history, in order to help others, some amount of concealment is necessary, even sometimes for the very people I am helping.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

And by the book by the same name and the same author, here is a YouTube lecture on that:

LOVE,

Hi to all here,

I did not site a source. I will do that now, even though this forum is about science, and the above media reference in the lecture, not the original book, did not highlight the part that God plays in all of Science.

In the Original book, and noting who was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church for not citing his souce, it is God and please ask me by what mechanism, who gives mankind all new information to be used by us, but in blanket form to everyone.

In that video, is a mention of mystics in the past. When I wrote this ~...~, the three dots are the content, but the information was given to me that I use, it is not my own work. It is given to me mytically, and according to the mental health professional, as tough as that was for me and I am sure you, it is not always untrue or has a cause other than what the mystic says the cause or source is. In other words. In some people, it is real.

In citing my sources, this is one citation that was put in code. ~...~
The three dots are God. It is God the Father, God The Son, and God The Holy Spirit. The normal conveyance method is The Holy Spirit. Alternate conveyance methods are employed by God to mystics.

In other postings, all that is given by me, those communication methods, and the checks and cross checks that are done, to verify, the information, and the source of the information.

LOVE,
...Mary Katerina., .... .

 

[katerinah1947]

I have a rough idea how bipolar transistors work.

Stephen Hawking is famous, amongst other things, for saying that science had made philosophy obsolete, or words to that effect. Shortly afterwards he described his approach to science as "Model Specific Realism". One of his fellow astrophysicists was led to joke that, if that wasn't a philosophical statement, he didn't know what was. It is true that some scientists are snooty about philosophy, but I think that can be put down to a mixture of ignorance and intellectual snobbery.

Hi,

In Bipolar work, I have still a rough time seeing the electic fields. The thin region is essentially a full electric field capable of pulling any carriers to the opposite side of it. That is not something that I have calculated, to see the field strength as a function of distance between those two materials. (notice no esoteric language, if I can do this properly)

What we are told works, (meaning I have not done the calculations yet), is that if I pull in electrons, or things similar to that, using an applied voltage, most of those are swept to the other side, not towards the pulling force which is that applied voltage.

Thin ness or Thick ness of that middle layer determines the amount that is swept away, compared to the amount that is attracted to my voltage.

Of all things, for those kinds of transitors, yes called bi-polar because two of the materials are similar and the one in the middle is different, that is what allows transitors to replace vacuum tubes, which are electon faucets really as electrons actually move across a gap and are controlled by a voltage on a porous plate between the output and the input of those electrons, and really replace variable resistors and relays, it is that middle material, and the thickness of it that is important in how much of the electons are pulled out of the incoming electrons, and how many do useful things in being swept through to the other side, like in lighting lights, or making a motor run. Thick is used in lots of electon applications like heaters and motors, thin is used in low electon applications, like computers and such.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Most scientists would say that "science is a way of knowing".

Hi,

So in summary, what is not normally said is that Science not science, is the use of observations practical math, practical philosophy, and God, to find solutions to the command given to all people to subdue earth, however.

However, the general definition of science is things done by observations and then using whatever you cannot prove is wrong as you experiment, when you try and prove that what you think might be going on, is false, but.

But, normally science excludes philospophy, and religion thus a god, or God if God is Real.

The latter part is done, because of travesties in the past with Religious people saying they had all the answers and were always right.

Similarly, maybe some philosophers do that also. Maybe they think they have all the answers, to things, when they are not always right either.

Is that what you were looking for?

LOVE,

 

[Zosimus]

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.

Well, I don't see what any of the above has to do with science, evolution, creationism, logic, or any of the other points carried out in this thread.

However, I'll give it a stab.

Exodus 33:11 (KJV)
"And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle."
John 1:18 (KJV)
"No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

Genesis 6:6 (KJV)
"And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."
Numbers 23:19 (KJV)
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

There you go – two separate contradictions. Thank you; drive through.

 

[Zosimus]

So Zosimus thinks the physics which made transistors possible dropped out of thin air.

No, what I think is that scientific realism is nonsense.

Since you have branched out into the discussion of electronics, I'll use this as a staging ground for explaining the reason scientific realism should be rejected. Let's start with a discussion of conventional current. Benjamin Franklin originated the idea that electricity was like water that flowed from a high (positive) point to a lower (negative) point. Therefore, most electrical engineering students are taught to slow the flow of current from the positive terminal to the negative one and to put the + sign near the top and the - sign near the bottom.

However, science now believes that this is false and that electrons actually flow around the circuit in the opposite direction. Electrons, which are believed to actually exist and to have a negative charge, are said to jump from atom to atom in response to electrical forces that pull the electrons towards the positive anode.

So what happens if you believe in the "wrong" conventional current flow theory? Nothing at all – the circuits still work. In fact, the conventional methods are better because the right-handed rules are designed to work with conventional current flows.

Accordingly, we have no reason to conclude that a theory that "works" is in any way true or that scientific theories are expressions of the real world. They are a convenient fiction and nothing else. We have no reason to believe that electrons even exist. Certainly no one has ever observed an electron.

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.

 

[lesliedellow]

No, what I think is that scientific realism is nonsense.

Since you have branched out into the discussion of electronics, I'll use this as a staging ground for explaining the reason scientific realism should be rejected. Let's start with a discussion of conventional current. Benjamin Franklin originated the idea that electricity was like water that flowed from a high (positive) point to a lower (negative) point. Therefore, most electrical engineering students are taught to slow the flow of current from the positive terminal to the negative one and to put the + sign near the top and the - sign near the bottom.

However, science now believes that this is false and that electrons actually flow around the circuit in the opposite direction. Electrons, which are believed to actually exist and to have a negative charge, are said to jump from atom to atom in response to electrical forces that pull the electrons towards the positive anode.

So what happens if you believe in the "wrong" conventional current flow theory? Nothing at all – the circuits still work. In fact, the conventional methods are better because the right-handed rules are designed to work with conventional current flows.

Accordingly, we have no reason to conclude that a theory that "works" is in any way true or that scientific theories are expressions of the real world. They are a convenient fiction and nothing else. We have no reason to believe that electrons even exist. Certainly no one has ever observed an electron.

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.

Which in no way alters the fact that, if it had not been for the success of science in developing ever more successful models, you wouldn't today be using that computer in front of you.

Do you think the idea that they are building models of reality is unknown to scientists? I'm afraid not - esp[ecially not physicists. As one of them put it, the only completely accurate model of the universe is the universe itself.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Well, I don't see what any of the above has to do with science, evolution, creationism, logic, or any of the other points carried out in this thread.

However, I'll give it a stab.

Exodus 33:11 (KJV)
"And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle."
John 1:18 (KJV)
"No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

Genesis 6:6 (KJV)
"And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."
Numbers 23:19 (KJV)
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

There you go – two separate contradictions. Thank you; drive through.

I do not see any contradiction. Moses did not see the face of God. He spoke directly with God. In the second example the Hebrew word is the same but you have to look at the context. I could quote out of context all day long. We have covenant theology that deal with our covenant relationship with God. When He says He is going to do something He does not repent or relent, He does what He says He is going to do. In the first verse He was sorry that HE had made man on the earth. So God was going to correct the situation. He was going to do what He needed to do deal with the problem that man had become.

You can not blame God for the mistakes that man makes. Man has to take responsibility for that. This is a good question though because when you do scientific studies to test for God you have to understand what you are testing for and you have to understand the nature of God. You would want to look to see if God ever said He was going to do something and then repented and did not do what He said HE was going to do. This would indeed be a way to test to see if God is who He says He is and if HE does what HE says HE will do.

Let me give you an example of context from TalkOrigins: "Gravity can be treated as a fictitious". When I quote out of context it looks like TalkOrigions is saying that gravity is fictitious, which would mean: "not real or true, being imaginary or having been fabricated." Now lets look at the statement in context: "Gravity can be treated as a fictitious force only in tiny regions of space and time." The context changes the statement. It is the same in the Bible. You have to look at the context to determine what is being said. I usually do not quote out of context because people complain that it is a waste of time for them to have to explain what the context of the message is.

This has to do with science because we are talking about how to use science to test and verify the Bible. So we have to know how to test the Bible. We need to devise a way to determine if the Bible is accurate and true. I know the Bible is accurate and true because I have tested the Bible in my own life. So I know if we do what God says we can do then we will get the results He says we will get. Christians become pretty confident He is who is says He is and that He will do what He says He will do. This is from the experience that they have with God and with answered prayer.

 

[joshua 1 9]

However, the general definition of science is things done by observations

Do you believe this world is real and that your observations are accurate?

 

[katerinah1947]

Do you believe this world is real and that your observations are accurate?

Hi,

This world is real, with proofs backing them, thus making them independent of my beliefs.

My observtions have proofs backing them, thus making them independent of my beliefs.

By being independent of my beliefs, the reality of this world, is objective. Also, my observations are objective also, as they too were not initially determined by belief.

Your God and the concept of faith is raised to above faith, to many people, and I think for sure Joshua 19 you are one of those.

In your responses I see the signs of you being above faith also.

All people who are Graced by God, with some sort of personal encounter, are above faith, in believing all aspects of God. For, them the issue is to find out what is true, and what God means more than trying to figure out if God, The God of The Christians is Real or not.

You seem to be at the point where you know God is Real, The Christian God is Real, in some way or another.

Normally, I and most people would be able to say yes, I believe. My observations on some items like the reality of this world, and the accuracy of my observations are above that. And, I just woke up from a nap, so hopefully I am still making sense.

When the proof for the Bible was done, from the summary of the results from the Controlled Experiments, more stuff happened after that, which removed all possibilities of forgetting that work, or relegating it to belief or wishful thinking.

Occasionally at work, what I found was true by not being able to prove it wrong, would come close to the level of certainty that The Bible Controlled Experiments obtained. Never, in my entire life before or since, have I ever seen results that had no variance.

Lack of variance, is just not seen, in the normal world. I cannot and did not use, not only the lack of variance, but also "More out than Put In", which is also impossible. It breaks all the laws of Conservation of Energy. There were other things there in the testing, by this so-called scientist really, as back then, I could not call myself a Scientist yet, I was merely a scientist, even though I used practical Philosophy. I did not use religion or God, as I did not know, God is Real, until I finished that work. It is finished now. It was finished in the year 2000 or so. So, now I am a Scientist of sorts, and will tell everyone, if the audience is appropriate.

On appropriateness, I do not force my work on others who are in science. I do not. They are already working for God in being scientists, even if they don't know it, and true scientists are selfless. So, when working with the director of a Research Lab on a energy project, I let him not know if God is Real or not, and deal with him in the other ways we talk.

I hope, I have answered your question.

LOVE,
...Mary Kate., .... .

 

[Zosimus]

Which in no way alters the fact that, if it had not been for the success of science in developing ever more successful models, you wouldn't today be using that computer in front of you.

Do you have any proof of this? No? I thought not.

Well, while we are throwing unsubstantiated claims about, how about this one: If it weren't for Brahma, you wouldn't have an Earth to stand on, so become Hindu immediately.

 

[lesliedellow]

Do you have any proof of this? No? I thought not.

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

 

[Zosimus]

I do not see any contradiction. Moses did not see the face of God. He spoke directly with God. In the second example the Hebrew word is the same but you have to look at the context. I could quote out of context all day long. We have covenant theology that deal with our covenant relationship with God. When He says He is going to do something He does not repent or relent, He does what He says He is going to do. In the first verse He was sorry that HE had made man on the earth. So God was going to correct the situation. He was going to do what He needed to do deal with the problem that man had become.

You can not blame God for the mistakes that man makes. Man has to take responsibility for that. This is a good question though because when you do scientific studies to test for God you have to understand what you are testing for and you have to understand the nature of God. You would want to look to see if God ever said He was going to do something and then repented and did not do what He said HE was going to do. This would indeed be a way to test to see if God is who He says He is and if HE does what HE says HE will do.

Let me give you an example of context from TalkOrigins: "Gravity can be treated as a fictitious". When I quote out of context it looks like TalkOrigions is saying that gravity is fictitious, which would mean: "not real or true, being imaginary or having been fabricated." Now lets look at the statement in context: "Gravity can be treated as a fictitious force only in tiny regions of space and time." The context changes the statement. It is the same in the Bible. You have to look at the context to determine what is being said. I usually do not quote out of context because people complain that it is a waste of time for them to have to explain what the context of the message is.

This has to do with science because we are talking about how to use science to test and verify the Bible. So we have to know how to test the Bible. We need to devise a way to determine if the Bible is accurate and true. I know the Bible is accurate and true because I have tested the Bible in my own life. So I know if we do what God says we can do then we will get the results He says we will get. Christians become pretty confident He is who is says He is and that He will do what He says He will do. This is from the experience that they have with God and with answered prayer.

You are completely ignoring the problem of underdetermination. Your attempts to validate the Bible are based on logical fallacies.

You start by theorizing that the Bible is true. If so, what might we observe in the real world? Observations A, B, C, etc. So when you observe these things, you think that the Bible has been confirmed. In reality, however, you have merely engaged in a logical fallacy.

By way of example, let's take this example:

If it has rained, the ground will be wet.
The ground is wet.
Therefore, it must have rained.

Really? It's not possible that a nearby river has flooded? It's not possible that the water company had a pipe burst? It's not possible that someone washed his car here? It's not possible that someone ran over a fire hydrant? It's not possible that it snowed and the snow has melted? All of these are possible causes that similarly explain wet ground.

Thus we say that the "It has rained" theory is underdetermined. The data are not sufficient to demonstrate that it has rained.

Since every given data set can be explained by an infinite number of formulae, all scientific theories are undetermined.

 

[katerinah1947]

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

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,

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

A reference for Standard Deviations:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

You start by theorizing that the Bible is true.

Hi,

I don't remember in Joshua 19, that he started by theorizing that the Bible is true. Did he do that?

In my work, the opposite was done. I tried to prove that book is wrong, as that is the method I chose to start that work.

If he did do what you say, fine. I just have never seen him state, that is how he started out.

LOVE,