Science... Phooey!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-12-2014, 10:18 PM
RE: Science... Phooey!
(20-12-2014 11:53 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  I was going to say that is how stupid you americans are, but then I saw the man speaking is from england, so bad england don't be stupid, and sorry I thought it was you america.

Hey now. It's not like we came up with Ken Ham or anything.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2014, 10:26 PM
RE: Science... Phooey!
(21-12-2014 07:12 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  Science is only a method for ascertaining the nature of something, and while that method as far as I know has never been bested, it does have its limits.

Let's say a DVD with someone's Excel spreadsheet of a budget on it falls through a wormhole into the most advanced scientific laboratory of 1853. A budget on a spreadsheet (ledger page) was nothing alien in 1853. The scientists will fairly quickly determine what the DVD is made out of, but it will require human imagination to hypothesize that what it's for is analogous to a book, that it is a medium containing information. There's little about a DVD in 1853 to suggest its purpose. That leap of imagination isn't, strictly speaking, science - it's very much vital to science and you can't begin science without it, but it isn't the science, it isn't the method of discernment.

And in 1853, it would require fantastic imagination to hypothesize the full nature of that DVD - that it could only be "read" by some other device, that (if their pattern is even detectable) the pits are a binary encoding, that what's encoded itself can only be "interpreted" by another device, and, most difficult of all, to hypothesize that something that bizarre and complicated is nothing more than someone's budget on a spreadsheet.

I don't think the best science, in 1853, would ever be able to fully describe that DVD, even guided by outrageous imagination.

Or, in other words, that what we can know is limited by what we do know.

So if science is incomplete without the spark of human imagination, it is also incomplete in that it can't help discover what lies beyond our comprehension.

Not yet. But I have faith we may discover the means to overcome that limitation, and it won't come by faith but by science.

Very nicely put.

I'm curious as to why you picked 1853. Consider

(21-12-2014 07:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-17560379

How ' bout you do that ?

Do what? Recalculate the speed of light... or resign! Gasp

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2014, 11:12 PM
RE: Science... Phooey!
(21-12-2014 10:26 PM)DLJ Wrote:  ... I'm curious as to why you picked 1853 ...
Well, I started with 1863, but that was smack in the middle of the Civil War, and a random DVD found on a bench in 1863 would have been weaponized without any thought as to its origin, so I shifted back a decade. I didn't go into the 18th century or earlier because technology itself was not yet recognized as a cultural paradigm, and a DVD that early might not even arouse curiosity. I could have had it discovered in 1963, and be reasonably confident its full nature still beyond our ability to comprehend, but why take chances with forum nit-pickers whose grampas invented lasers, so 1853 felt about right. It was by no means a scientifically determined choice, just raw gut instinct. Well, you did ask.

Thanks for the compliment! And fixing that post, too!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2014, 11:39 PM
RE: Science... Phooey!
(21-12-2014 11:12 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  
(21-12-2014 10:26 PM)DLJ Wrote:  ... I'm curious as to why you picked 1853 ...
Well, I started with 1863, but that was smack in the middle of the Civil War, and a random DVD found on a bench in 1863 would have been weaponized without any thought as to its origin, so I shifted back a decade. I didn't go into the 18th century or earlier because technology itself was not yet recognized as a cultural paradigm, and a DVD that early might not even arouse curiosity. I could have had it discovered in 1963, and be reasonably confident its full nature still beyond our ability to comprehend, but why take chances with forum nit-pickers whose grampas invented lasers, so 1853 felt about right. It was by no means a scientifically determined choice, just raw gut instinct. Well, you did ask.

Thanks for the compliment! And fixing that post, too!

I like the way you think.

"Happy to be of service. The Moderators are working for your pleasure".

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
22-12-2014, 12:07 AM
RE: Science... Phooey!
(21-12-2014 10:18 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(20-12-2014 11:53 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  I was going to say that is how stupid you americans are, but then I saw the man speaking is from england, so bad england don't be stupid, and sorry I thought it was you america.

Hey now. It's not like we came up with Ken Ham or anything.

On behalf of all Australians everywhere: We are so sorry.

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue's post
22-12-2014, 08:23 AM
RE: Science... Phooey!
(21-12-2014 07:18 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  
(21-12-2014 07:12 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  Not yet. But I have faith we may discover the means to overcome that limitation, and it won't come by faith but by science.

Great post, good job.

Thank you for expressing your faith in science. :-)

Except that's not what he did. He is extrapolating from experience. Faith has never provided knowledge, science has.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
22-12-2014, 08:49 AM
RE: Science... Phooey!
(21-12-2014 11:12 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  Well, I started with 1863, but that was smack in the middle of the Civil War, and a random DVD found on a bench in 1863 would have been weaponized without any thought as to its origin

That was hilarious!
Thumbsup

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2014, 02:58 PM
RE: Science... Phooey!
Rupert Sheldrake is a scientist, and a good one.
He has the courage to push the boundaries and go beyond the norm.
There may not be many scientists that fudge evidence, but a definite
need to conform seems to exist.
Where results seem difficult and out of line with the accrued convention
the too hard basket is always available.
It is not a matter of 'knocking science', but making for a more creative science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2014, 03:41 PM
AW: RE: Science... Phooey!
(22-12-2014 02:58 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Rupert Sheldrake is a scientist pseudoscientist, and a good one.

FTFY

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
22-12-2014, 06:28 PM
RE: Science... Phooey!
(22-12-2014 02:58 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Rupert Sheldrake is a scientist, and a good one.
He has the courage to push the boundaries and go beyond the norm.
There may not be many scientists that fudge evidence, but a definite
need to conform seems to exist.
Where results seem difficult and out of line with the accrued convention
the too hard basket is always available.
It is not a matter of 'knocking science', but making for a more creative science.

The problem with these claims he or you have made in the past... is the lack of any testimony or evidence of people in scientific communities being this way on any significant scale.

As I mentioned earlier in contrast, at least in the public science speaking realm, a lot more of openness to creativity in science is welcomed and encouraged. AS LONG AS ITS SCIENTIFIC in origin, involving testing and following conclusions instead of leaping to judgement. If these claims were backed by evidence then it would hold merit. I've only once seen a strong case with claims of science being stuck to unopened movements and generational static movements in ideas, but all that data was based on older fields. Since the era of beyond atomic study, quantum studys, etc. It hasn't been something that is legitimately an issue though.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: