U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-09-2016, 07:45 AM
 
Location: Chicago
5,559 posts, read 3,660,266 times
Reputation: 2181

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
You're clearly are not educated in science to be saying such a thing.

Let me define a few terms for you.

Scientific Method - a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in *systematic* observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Method - a particular form of procedure for accomplishing or approaching something, especially a *systematic* or established one.

See how wrong and scientifically illiterate it comes across to make the claim that "there is nothing systematic about science"?

And before you get all bent out of shape about the word illiterate let me help you understand that there are many levels of illeratacy. Additionally, illiteracy is not a bad or demeaning word. The illeratacy that I am referring to means the lack of knowledge in a particular subject. In your case, it's the subject of science.

See #5 20 Types of Illiteracy

The Crisis of Scientific Illiteracy

And here is a great video demonstration of exactly what I mean when talking about scientifically illiterate people. Flat Earthers are on top of the charts when it comes to scientific illiteracy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHBZkek8OSU
This is the most absurd thing but I am not surprised since it came from you. So you are trying to sell to me that all the science that we have today that shapes medicine, technology, innovation, and our understanding of the Universe can't be corroborated. I call total bs and here is another perfect example of your attempts to demonize science and scientists.
How would you know? Let's see your credible links. According to you..."I pretty much ignore the science pages nowadays". Why am I not surprised that a person with no scientific understanding, and who's sole mission is to demonize science, chooses to ignore the science pages? But instead wants to waste pages on CD whining about the science that they don't understand?
Anyone who reads the morning paper for the purpose of thinking they are obtaining knowledge is about the most un-knowledgeable human around.
People like you are why this country is in trouble. Making statements such as this is pure ignorance on your part. So according to your claim the da Vinci Surgical System is not reliable? Testing a persons blood type so they can receive compatible units of blood is not reliable? Gene therapy is not reliable? Airplanes, cars, trains, computers, cell phones, GPS Satellites and on and on I could go, are not reliable? I think you need a serious paradigm shift to come up to speed with reality.
Makes perfect sense for a person who demonizes science and scientists.
Science is an awesome industry indeed!
Don't bother trying to sell me the Myths About Science. Try the gullible and naive. They are better customers.

Science = Funding = Money.

Now that is knowledge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-09-2016, 07:47 AM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
11,038 posts, read 4,770,990 times
Reputation: 7060
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf View Post
There is nothing systematic about science.
You're clearly are not educated in science to be saying such a thing.

Let me define a few terms for you.

Scientific Method - a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in *systematic* observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Method - a particular form of procedure for accomplishing or approaching something, especially a *systematic* or established one.

See how wrong and scientifically illiterate it comes across to make the claim that "there is nothing systematic about science"?

And before you get all bent out of shape about the term scientifically illiterate let me help you understand that there are many levels of illeratacy. Additionally, illiteracy is not a bad or demeaning word. The illeratacy that I am referring to means the lack of knowledge in a particular subject. In your case, it's the subject of science.

See #5 20 Types of Illiteracy

The Crisis of Scientific Illiteracy

And here is a great video demonstration of exactly what I mean when talking about scientifically illiterate people. Flat Earthers are on top of the charts when it comes to scientific illiteracy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHBZkek8OSU
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf View Post
Only an infinitesimal number of studies in bioscience (where most of the money is made) is ever attempted to be corroborated, and when there is some attempt, the vast majority of studies can't be replicated.
This is the most absurd thing but I am not surprised since it came from you. So you are trying to sell to me that all the science that we have today that shapes medicine, technology, innovation, and our understanding of the Universe can't be corroborated. I call total bs, and this is just another perfect example of your attempts to demonize science and scientists. It's also another perfect example of you lack of scientific understanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf View Post
And if results are not what the Industry wants to hear, the researcher is stripped of funding and ostracized. Research is all about money. Has almost nothing to do about reporting accurate results. Science is anything but systematic. It is goal seeking, and the goal is research dollars. Survival of the most greedy.
How would you know? Let's see your credible links. According to you..."I pretty much ignore the science pages nowadays". Why am I not surprised that a person with no scientific understanding, and who's sole mission is to demonize science, chooses to ignore the science pages? But instead wants to waste pages on CD whining about the science that they don't understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf View Post
Basically anyone who believes science provides knowledge had not read the morning paper.
Anyone who reads the morning paper for the purpose of thinking they are obtaining knowledge is about the most un-knowledgeable human around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf View Post
Not only doesn't science provides knowledge (knowledge is a self endeavor), it doesn't even provide reliable information.
People like you are why this country is in trouble. Making statements such as this is pure ignorance on your part. So according to your claim the da Vinci Surgical System is not reliable? Testing a persons blood type so they can receive compatible units of blood is not reliable? Gene therapy is not reliable? Airplanes, cars, trains, computers, cell phones, GPS Satellites and on and on I could go, are not reliable? I think you need a serious paradigm shift to come up to speed with reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf View Post
I pretty much ignore the science pages nowadays.
Makes perfect sense for a person who demonizes science and scientists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf View Post
Science that makes the Bread gets the Bread. It's an Industry.
Science is an awesome industry indeed! Science is the best we have produced thus far, the evidence of this is all around us. Look at all the things it has taught us, and all the ways we have put that knowledge into working use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2016, 07:50 AM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
11,038 posts, read 4,770,990 times
Reputation: 7060
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf View Post
Don't bother trying to sell me the Myths About Science. Try the gullible and naive. They are better customers.

Science = Funding = Money.

Now that is knowledge.
I know you just don't get it. Pretty clear to see that you don't understand that it takes funding to accomplish anything involved in discovery and innovation. It's clear that basic economics is not your strong suit. Nor is science.

Anyone with a basic understanding in economics and economies understands that it takes investments to create anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2016, 07:56 AM
 
Location: Venice Italy
1,027 posts, read 1,093,985 times
Reputation: 486
The pseudo-scence- today generates only arrogant people, according with scence exist only the stuff-exp that can be repeated as an event, then we do not exist because science can not recreate in the laboratory the creation of the universe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2016, 08:09 AM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
11,038 posts, read 4,770,990 times
Reputation: 7060
Quote:
Originally Posted by miticoman View Post
The pseudo-scence- today generates only arrogant people, according with [sic]scence exist only the stuff-exp that can be repeated as an event, then we do not exist because science can not recreate in the laboratory the creation of the universe.
Yes I agree that the scientifically ignorant creationists, who so self-righteously and arrogantly believe in the pseudo-science being fed to them, are a detrimental set of humans on Earth.

They can't recreate anything in the lab...how could they? They don't even have a hypotheses to start with. LOL!

The creationists are so bad they even put out their own pseudo-science Evolution book in 2007 that had to be critiqued by real scientists.

You can read all about their pseudo-science in this Critique. See how easily scientifically illiterate folks can be duped! This creationist book is bad knowledge!

Critique: Exploring "Explore Evolution"

Last edited by Matadora; 06-09-2016 at 09:08 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2016, 08:49 AM
 
Location: Whittier
3,007 posts, read 5,082,172 times
Reputation: 3033
Although I disagree with Daniel Dennett on some of things, this quote of his is basically my main point:

There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination. — Daniel Dennett

And I don't want to speak for Continuum but I think this would be their point as well.

To make it clear, I love science, insofar as I believe in it more than other fields of study because it is concrete to us. Because statistically science makes sense. Because it is the best we have at explaining the world around us. However to ignore that science and or the underpinnings of the doing of science isn't closely related to philosophy is just fool-hardy.

For me, there is no agenda other than the realization that philosophy plays a big part in our lives if you realize it or not. I'm not religious, I'm not promoting pseudoscience and I don't think that the earth is flat or vaccines are bad. It's just amazing to me that anyone would not recognize the importance and marriage of the two fields.

Scientific Method (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2016, 10:09 AM
 
Location: Chicago
5,559 posts, read 3,660,266 times
Reputation: 2181
Quote:
Originally Posted by miticoman View Post
The pseudo-scence- today generates only arrogant people, according with scence exist only the stuff-exp that can be repeated as an event, then we do not exist because science can not recreate in the laboratory the creation of the universe.
Arrogant to the extreme and they have the money and legal power to shut anyone down that does not tow the party line. Billions of dollars being thrown down the tube for silly research while people are starved for what they really need - not more toxic drugs but just clean, nutricious food. This is the enormous power that the Science Industry wields and people are starting to revolt against it. That is knowledge gained from experience in living.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2016, 03:05 PM
 
13,029 posts, read 4,890,915 times
Reputation: 1337
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf View Post
Don't bother trying to sell me the Myths About Science. Try the gullible and naive. They are better customers.

Science = Funding = Money.

Now that is knowledge.
sure, that has some truth. But the data is that data. We can turn anything good into a bad. List only the bad things that you do. Are you that bad?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2016, 03:08 PM
 
Location: Chicago
5,559 posts, read 3,660,266 times
Reputation: 2181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
sure, that has some truth. But the data is that data. We can turn anything good into a bad. List only the bad things that you do. Are you that bad?
No, just knowledgeable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2016, 08:40 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
11,038 posts, read 4,770,990 times
Reputation: 7060
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
Although I disagree with Daniel Dennett on some of things, this quote of his is basically my main point: There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination. — Daniel Dennett
No offense but this reminds me of how bible folks only pick and choose what they like out of the bible just so they can keep on believing in their own personal narrative in spite of contradictory evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
However to ignore that science and or the underpinnings of the doing of science isn't closely related to philosophy is just fool-hardy.
We covered this. Once upon a time long ago and far away Philosophy and Science were married. If you think about how times were back in those days it makes perfect sense as to why this was the arrangement. The folks back in those days usually wore many hats. Take for example Francis Bacon, he was an: English philosopher, statesman, scientist, jurist, orator, and author. He served both as Attorney General and as Lord Chancellor of England.

This man is the father of the Scientific Method.

It first started out as The Baconian Method - which is the investigative method developed by Sir Francis Bacon. The method was put forward in Bacon's book Novum Organum (1620), or 'New Method', and was supposed to replace the methods put forward in Aristotle's Organon. This method was influential upon the development of the scientific method in modern science; but also more generally in the early modern rejection of medieval Aristotelianism. With the upcoming Romanticism in the 19th century, it was replaced by Humboldtian science.

But as History and Science evolved around the world, Science began to stand on it's own, as did Philosophy. Today they are completely separate entities. The scientific setting today is a much different setting than it was in Bacon's day.

I took a year of Philosophy in college and we never touched upon scientific topics. I hold several science degrees and during the course of my studies we never touched upon Philosophy. When I was learning about Physics, Biochemistry, Immunology, Biology, Cell Biology, Genetics Organic Chemistry, Physical Chemistry, Calculus and many many other core classes, we never invoked anything that had to do with Philosophy. We were taught the basic principals of each course and then applied this knowledge to experiments and were given papers to write and exams to demonstrate our understanding.

Let's look at the course description for Biochemistry - Nature of the chemical constituents of living organisms, including carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids, and enzymes.

And for Organic Chemistry - Chemistry of the compounds of carbon with emphasis on energies and mechanism of reactions, synthesis, and the structure of organic molecules.

And for P Chem - The gaseous state, thermodynamics, chemical equilibria, change of state, solutions, electrochemistry, and atomic and molecular structure.

Do you see any where in these few courses where we would apply Philosophy? No, you don't, because Science branched off on it's own. People who have no formal education in the physical sciences have no basis of understanding when they try to argue that our Scientific education is closely related to Philosophy, when clearly it's not. You are stuck back in the times when guys like Bacon wore multiple hats. Times are totally different today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
It's just amazing to me that anyone would not recognize the importance and marriage of the two fields.
It amazes me that anyone would not recognize that Science and Philosophy are no longer married today. It also amazes me that a person who only understands Philosophy, but not Science, would even try to make this argument when they have no frame of reference for comparison. It's no wonder that you have trouble understanding why Krauss, Neil degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye, chide and deride Philosophy. These men are all educated in both Philosophy and in the Physical Sciences.

Therefore they know the difference.

Perhaps you would also know the difference if you became formally trained in the physical sciences. It would be as clear to you as it is to me, Krauss, Neil degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye.

Last edited by Matadora; 06-09-2016 at 09:11 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:54 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top