The study of atoms in the brain doesn't explain the redness of red;Materialism = FAKE

[David Mo]

The question is - does each parrot have to work this out for themselves, or can they pass this knowledge between them?

The parrot learns by experience, but that's not science. It's a non-scientific kind of knowledge. But knowledge. And don't tell me that if the parrot can know things that aren't science, human beings can't. That would be the last straw.

 

[arthwollipot]

In any case, it is not a scientific experiment.

What if the child, being a precocious little bugger, says to herself "I wonder what will happen if I touch this thing?"

What if the even more precocious child says to herself "Well, that last thing I touched hurt me. Here's a similar looking thing - I wonder if that will hurt me too?"

 

[Sideroxylon]

And yet, the testing of a plant for healing powers is nothing else but an experiment. Your strange "it's not science because in ancient times they did not do it like today" is extremely dishonest and of course totally irrelevant. Your discussion style is what I would expect from a small child.


It seems to me your concept of science changes by the second. So you can't go wrong, of course.



Ah, setting up the No true scotsman fallacy.

Any similar commentary on your own style would run harder against the MA.

 

[RedStapler]

Any similar commentary on your own style would run harder against the MA.

Parrots that ingest clay prior to eating berries that would otherwise poison them are scientists.

Philosopher, discusss thyself.

 

[David Mo]

And yet, the testing of a plant for healing powers is nothing else but an experiment. (...)
It seems to me your concept of science changes by the second. So you can't go wrong, of course.

Either you tell us what you understand as science and experiment or you're playing with us.
Anyone who knows a bit about this knows that primitive people do not do controlled experimentation, which is what distinguishes modern physical science from medieval science and other types of knowledge.
So please tell us what you mean by science.

 

[RedStapler]

Either you tell us you understand science and experiment or you're playing with us.
Anyone who knows a bit about this knows that primitive people do not do controlled experimentation, which is what distinguishes modern physical science from medieval science and other types of knowledge.
So please tell us what you mean by science.

How about you tell us what you think "testing a plant for healing properties" is, first?

 

[David Mo]

What if the child, being a precocious little bugger, says to herself "I wonder what will happen if I touch this thing?"

What if the even more precocious child says to herself "Well, that last thing I touched hurt me. Here's a similar looking thing - I wonder if that will hurt me too?"

You mean that the child's attitude is a precursor to science, but it is not science. If that's science any vaguely experiential speculation is science.

 

[David Mo]

How about you tell us what you think "testing a plant for healing properties" is, first?

It's rude to answer a question with a question.
Please say what is science.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Philosopher, discusss thyself.

Lol that was sarcasm.

 

[RedStapler]

It's rude to answer a question with a question.
Please say what is science.

Why would I do such a thing? You already have shown that you will keep trying the silly "It's not science because only modern science is science"

You think I don't see your attempt of distraction? I could give you any definition and you will just go "AHA, see, no science because not modern science!"

So, do we agree that testing a plant for healing properties is an experiment, no matter how much it is not "modern" science?

 

[RedStapler]

Lol that was sarcasm.

So? You really need to let go of these one sentence "You figure out what I mean" stuff.

 

[Sideroxylon]

So? You really need to let go of these one sentence "You figure out what I mean" stuff.

Plenty of context given in previous posts made in the minutes prior to it. But if you had engaged with it as if I was making the claim you could well have found yourself answering David’s question.

 

[RedStapler]

Plenty of context given in previous posts made in the minutes prior to it.

So it is " My answer is a riddle, you need to read all the clues"? Pathetic.

"Philosophers"

 

[Sideroxylon]

So it is " My answer is a riddle, you need to read all the clues"? Pathetic.

"Philosophers"

Would settle for you following the conversation.

 

[RedStapler]

Would settle for you following the conversation.

Sorry, not interested in a conversation about why parrots are scientists. Maybe ask your child?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Why would I do such a thing? You already have shown that you will keep trying the silly "It's not science because only modern science is science"

You think I don't see your attempt of distraction? I could give you any definition and you will just go "AHA, see, no science because not modern science!"

So, do we agree that testing a plant for healing properties is an experiment, no matter how much it is not "modern" science?

I took x. I felt better later. Is an experiment but it is mot a reliable one in the way a scientific experiment is.

 

[RedStapler]

I took x. I felt better later. Is an experiment but it is mot a reliable one in the way a scientific experiment is.

And yet it is an experiment. And "This plant will kill you within minutes if ingested. Look at poor Steve, Bob and George" is of course reliable.

 

[David Mo]

So, do we agree that testing a plant for healing properties is an experiment, no matter how much it is not "modern" science?

You don't want to show your cards because you're bluffing. You don't know how to say what science is and you try to hide your inability.

The parrot, the five-year-old, the shaman, the alchemist, the painter and the philosopher all observe things and draw conclusions. According to you they are scientists. What simple!

At a science conference, there are no parrots, children, shamans, alchemists and rarely philosophers. Why? Because they're not scientists.

So, what distinguishes science from those other ways of knowing? Very simple: that the type of observation used by science is not like that of others. How is it different? You don't know anything about it, and that's why you think the others are fooling you. You're fooling yourself, dear.

 

[RedStapler]

You don't want to show your cards because you're bluffing. You don't know how to say what science is and you try to hide your inability.

The parrot, the five-year-old, the shaman, the alchemist, the painter and the philosopher all observe things and draw conclusions. According to you they are scientists. What simple!

At a science conference, there are no parrots, children, shamans, alchemists and rarely philosophers. Why? Because they're not scientists.

So, what distinguishes science from those other ways of knowing? Very simple: that the type of observation used by science is not like that of others. How is it different? You don't know anything about it, and that's why you think the others are fooling you. You're fooling yourself, dear.

So, do we agree that testing a plant for healing properties is an experiment, no matter how much it is not "modern" science?

 

[Sideroxylon]

So, do we agree that testing a plant for healing properties is an experiment, no matter how much it is not "modern" science?

It’s reliable experiment for toxicity in an unknown plant but a poor experiment to judge healing properties for the same reason such simple experiments won’t tell you if homeopathy works.