Science: Wonders, causality and the indeterminable

Jonesboy said:
Here is a chance for us to raise our heads above this suffocating, sycophantous gloop that we call Science. Reject the idea that wonders are shown by science. Wonders are no more shown by a science than they are by a ladder, or a door, or a bus ticket to see the elephants.
It is our natural commonsense, our methodical nature, our conceptions, that build a technical world. The rest is flag-waving.
Click to expand...

1. Prove that commonsense exists. Or at least define it, since it would appear to not be all that common.

2. Technology is not science. It is a product of accumulated knowledge. The scientific method is a tool for increasing knowledge. Before it existed, the rate at which knowledge accumulated was slower than it is now.
 
Jonesboy said:
Dave Rogers said:
Jonesboy said:
There are no ideas that are not commensense.
Click to expand...
Tell me, then, the answer to the following questions, using nothing but common sense: If you take a block of silicon, with one thousandth of a percent of phosphorus as an impurity on one side, and one thousandth of a percent of arsenic on the other, and connect two wires, a battery and an ammeter to it, so that one wire goes to each side, does it make a difference which way round you connect the battery? If you take an identical block of silicon except that the second side now contains one thousandth of a percent of boron instead of arsenic, does it make a difference which way you connect the battery this time?

Dave
Click to expand...

How am I supposed to know if your canoe floats!
Click to expand...

Do you mean anything by that statement? How would "commonsense" help one work out what would happen in the situation that Dave describes?
 
Jonesboy said:
Here is a chance for us to raise our heads above this suffocating, sycophantous gloop that we call Science. Reject the idea that wonders are shown by science. Wonders are no more shown by a science than they are by a ladder, or a door, or a bus ticket to see the elephants.
It is our natural commonsense, our methodical nature, our conceptions, that build a technical world. The rest is flag-waving.
Click to expand...
Meaningless rhetorical gobbblty-gook. This could have come from any political pundant--but NOT from someone serious about discussing the issue.

Why, specifically, do you believe that science has no method? Or are you incapable of answering a simple question?

Don't forget the shoes, or the cash that bought the ladder, or the van. or the hand you used to climb the ladder and clear out the block. I did all that. Not some holy science.
Click to expand...
You have no idea what science is, do you? Science is a verb. Saying "I do all that, not science!" is akin to saying "Because I lift my leg, move it forward, place it down, and repeat with the other leg, there's no such thing as running! Let us rise above this suffocating, sycophantous gloop that we call Running!"

Doubt said:
2. Technology is not science. It is a product of accumulated knowledge. The scientific method is a tool for increasing knowledge. Before it existed, the rate at which knowledge accumulated was slower than it is now.
Click to expand...
Very true. And very easily demonstrated. A peasant from Rome circa 420 BC would have been perfectly comfortable as a peasant near London circa Henery the VIII. A farmer from the 1940s really has trouble farming today.
 
jimbob said:
Do you mean anything by that statement? How would "commonsense" help one work out what would happen in the situation that Dave describes?
Click to expand...

Commonsense tells me to work with materials to know what they do. He's expecting SCIENCE to miraculously just tell us.
 
Dinwar said:
Meaningless rhetorical gobbblty-gook. This could have come from any political pundant--but NOT from someone serious about discussing the issue.

Why, specifically, do you believe that science has no method? Or are you incapable of answering a simple question?

You have no idea what science is, do you? Science is a verb. Saying "I do all that, not science!" is akin to saying "Because I lift my leg, move it forward, place it down, and repeat with the other leg, there's no such thing as running! Let us rise above this suffocating, sycophantous gloop that we call Running!"
Click to expand...

If science is a verb, something that someone does, something that no-one, before science, has ever done before ... I can't find anything to fit that 'something that I haven't done', because everything I did I did since the day I was born.
 
Last edited:
Jonesboy said:
Commonsense tells me to work with materials to know what they do. He's expecting SCIENCE to miraculously just tell us.
Click to expand...

You're basically taking science, the verb, and renaming it common sense. Then you're trying to make science a noun (it aint) and pretending that it's doing something that it doesn't do.
 
Jonesboy said:
If science is a verb, something that someone does, something that no-one, before science, has ever done before ... I can't find anything to fit that 'something that I haven't done', because everything I did I did since the day I was born.
Click to expand...

You're playing a game with words and definitions, not reality. Science existed as soon as "cause and effect" was observed. It just didn't get the name "science" for awhile, when we decided to name it.
 
JudeBrando said:
The wonders of science are but mere glimpses of the wonders of God.
Click to expand...

The wonders of science are but mere glimpses of the wonders of Odin.

Plus, he had to lose an eye to get all the knowledge. Be grateful.
 
Is there any way to ignore a thread like I can ignore posters? Even better, can I wipe them off the forum page?
 
If science is a verb, something that someone does, something that no-one, before science, has ever done before ... I can't find anything to fit that 'something that I haven't done', because everything I did I did since the day I was born.
Click to expand...
Because you're blinded by ideology and sophistry.

I mean, you don't even realize what science IS and you presume to babble on about it.

Another thought occurs: something doesn't have to be built of entirely unique pieces to get a name. In biostratigraphy we often name biostraigraphic intervals for unique fauna, despite every individual being present at other intervals. The combination is unique. So while science may or may not include any unique attributes (and you frankly can't possibly know, because you've demonstrated a complete failure to understand what science is), the question is really irrelevant to the question of "Does science exist as a unique concept". Again, someone with a philosophy degree should know this. I'm going to assume from here on out that your degree isn't real.

Like Nature, Science has an Author, your Creator.
Click to expand...
Mom and Dad? I love my parents, but I certainly hope neither of them has any control over the laws of the universe!

If you mean any other Creator, please provide objective evidence of the existence of that being. Otherwise, I'm going to ignore you.

Lowpro said:
Science existed as soon as "cause and effect" was observed.
Click to expand...
Not really. Science refers to a specific epistemology: namely, that all ideas about reality must be tested before they are accepted, and (more recently) that those tests must be at least potentially verifiable by anyone. This contrasts dramatically with, say, Aristotle's view of physics, which I've heard described as "sitting around thinking deep thought"; our OP's view of epistemology, which amounts to "whatever I decide to say this post"; and the mystical idea of revelation. Where Jonesboy fails isn't in saying that science is common sense--he just drops the rest of the sentence. Science is common sense, tested and verified.
 
Jonesboy said:
Commonsense tells me to work with materials to know what they do. He's expecting SCIENCE to miraculously just tell us.
Click to expand...

I see so now you can tell intent ( I sense a MDC here), or at least shift the topic so that the fact that commonsense is not so explain everything is somehow changed...
 
Dikken said:
Is there any way to ignore a thread like I can ignore posters? Even better, can I wipe them off the forum page?
Click to expand...

If you ignore a person, there's an option to also ignore all threads started by that person - this will mean that they don't show up for you at all.
 
I'm going to go with an "imitation is the best compliment" move and copy Complexity.

Nonsense.

This thread has been gone from the realm of reality since the OP, despite attempts to return it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom