The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What is ...Science ?  (Read 18180 times)

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
What is ...Science ?
« on: 01/11/2013 18:15:19 »
"What is ...Science ?

Hi, folks :

This question seems to be so obvious and simple that most , if not all, people do think they know the answer to it , but they do not , simply because science proper has been confused with materialism as a false conception of nature  for so long now (since the second half of the 19th century at least thus ) by most , if not all, people , including the majority of scientists today , that all those core materialist mechanistic belief assumptions have been taken for granted as science , unfortunately enough, materialism' s core belief assumption that considers reality as a whole as just a matter of physics and chemistry , as just a matter of material physical biological processes  .
Modern science thus has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry , to just material biological physical processes , thanks to materialism , while science should in fact try to deal only with the observable, empirical, falsifiable, verifiable, reproducible , testable ...part of reality , the rest does "fall " outside of both science's realm and outside of science's jurisdiction as well thus .

I will be looking forward to your eventual reactions on the subject .

Thanks, appreciate indeed.

Cheers .


 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #1 on: 01/11/2013 20:37:41 »
In a bare bones sense, I'd say that science is simply the application of the scientific method. Of course, it is stated in various different ways, but it can be more or less related as follows: identify a problem/phenomenon, propose a hypothesis to explain said problem/phenomenon, make predictions based on the hypothesis, perform experiments to test your predictions.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #2 on: 01/11/2013 20:53:01 »
In a bare bones sense, I'd say that science is simply the application of the scientific method. Of course, it is stated in various different ways, but it can be more or less related as follows: identify a problem/phenomenon, propose a hypothesis to explain said problem/phenomenon, make predictions based on the hypothesis, perform experiments to test your predictions
.

More or less correct :
Science is just the scientific method practiced by scientists humans , there are many forms of the scientific method indeed : cosmologists , for example , cannot put the sun , planets , galaxies , stars ...in the lab to study them, they have their own scientific approaches in that regard .
But , the main core issue here is as follows :
How can science assume that reality as a whole is material physical = everything can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry ?, while science should in fact only be concerned with the observable, empirical ...

 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #3 on: 01/11/2013 23:03:59 »
Science is the application of the scientific method. Observe, hypothesise, predict, observe....

The inability to control experimental variables does not invalidate that definition. The ability to control specific inputs merely speeds up the process.

Being an inanimate recursive algorithm, science cannot "assume" anything. Its practitioners may make temporary assumptions but these can be tested by the same process.

Scientific knowledge is the residue of testable, explanatory and predictive hypotheses that have not yet been disproved.
 

Offline Skyli

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #4 on: 02/11/2013 10:39:29 »
But , the main core issue here is as follows :
How can science assume that reality as a whole is material physical = everything can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry ?, while science should in fact only be concerned with the observable, empirical ...[/i]

Do what!!!?

You've just accepted a definition of science that clearly shows it to be a technique, a tool; a tool used for studying Observable Reality.

How can a tool "assume" something?
Why would Science be concerned with "Reality as a Whole"?
Where is "Science" concerned with the non-observable?

You are again, confusing Science with Learning.

Why not tell us what you think science should be?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #5 on: 02/11/2013 11:49:04 »
The amazing thing is that the definition of science given by myself, supercryptid and skylii is the one that is taught and used in schools from the age of 5 upwards. How come DQ has never heard of it, or why does he choose to ignore it in favour of some irrelevant halfbaked rant about materialism?   
 

Offline Skyli

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #6 on: 02/11/2013 12:51:50 »
I am quite satisfied that the argument is Dogma, not reasoned debate. The objection is primarily based on a reaction to the fact that Science, one of several tools used to understand "Reality as a Whole", must, by definition, ignore God.

I don't meet many God-fearing hammers.

Perhaps this will be met with a "why bring God into this?" from a correspondent who, himself, mentions God, the Soul and even telepathy(!) as arguments at every opportunity. I doubt that there is a jurist or psychologist alive who would not detect the religious fundamentalism behind this perverse view of science, behind these evasive or downright avoided answers. Indeed, it is overt enough that any adult can see what the problem really is.

DonQuichotte, I'll use your own notational form. Do you agree with the following?

Science = Ignore God = Sinful/Haram

I'm sure you can manage a simple yes/no answer.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #7 on: 02/11/2013 17:57:50 »
This so urgently needed a fourth thread.
 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #8 on: 02/11/2013 21:10:03 »
How could the scientific method even be applied to God? In principle, you might be able to detect His affects on reality (i.e. miracles), but you can't detect Him directly unless He chooses to be detected.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #9 on: 03/11/2013 17:14:02 »
This so urgently needed a fourth thread.
[/quote]

I  am afraid even a 1000th thread on the subject won't help : see what these folks have been  saying regarding science and materialism ... science that has been materialistic since the 19th century at least = science that has been reducing everything to just phsyics and chemistry = science that has been reducing the whole reality as a whole as such to just material physical biological processes ,thanks to materialism indeed,  while science should in fact confine itself only to the observable, empirical ...
These folks do not seem to be able to get that simple fact , despite all my extensive attempts to make them understand just that ...hopeless...
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #10 on: 03/11/2013 18:17:52 »
How could the scientific method even be applied to God? In principle, you might be able to detect His affects on reality (i.e. miracles), but you can't detect Him directly unless He chooses to be detected.
[/quote]

Normally , science is just an effective human limited and an unparalleled tool instrument or sophisticated method that's like no other for that matter ,practiced by scientists humans ,  to try to understand and explain the observable , empirical, faslifiable, verifiable , reproducible, testable ....part of reality only ,,the rest of reality is , per definition, outside of science's realm , and outside of science's jurisdiction as well, including God, the immaterial side of reality as a whole as such ... .
But , materialism has been making science , for so long now , go beyond its empirical scientific method ,materialism has been therefore making science go beyond science's realm and byond science's jurisdiction  as well  by making science "assume " , via that dominating materialist meta-paradigm in science mainly , by making science "assume " that the whole reality as such is just physical material = the whole reality as such , everything thus , can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry + just in terms of those materialist macroscopic extensions of materialism's core belief assumption regarding the nature of reality as a whole , materialist macroscopic extensions such as " the mind is in the brain, memory is stored in the brain, consciousness is just an allegedly emergent property from or  product of the evolved complexity of the brain's neuronal activity ...human reason is just a product of the so-called neuronal computation mechanisms ..." , life as whole is just a matter of physics and chemistry or biochemistry ...
See the difference between what science really is , what science can and cannot do , what science can try to understand or explain , and what science cannot do ....and between what materialism has been turning science into  ?

 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #11 on: 03/11/2013 18:31:57 »
The amazing thing is that the definition of science given by myself, supercryptid and skylii is the one that is taught and used in schools from the age of 5 upwards. How come DQ has never heard of it, or why does he choose to ignore it in favour of some irrelevant halfbaked rant about materialism?   
[/quote]

I am not responsible for your lack of understanding simple facts :  see above :
People are certainly  taught in schools , universites ...all around the world that  materialism is science , simply put : or rather that all materialist belief assumptions in science are ...science : they take for granted as science without question :
They are not taught that materialism is just an Eurocentric outdated philosophy that dates back to the 19th century , they are not taught that materialism is just a world view , an ideology , a false conception of nature in science .
Science  indeed  , once again, should in fact limit itself only to the observable , empirical ....part of reality , but materialism has been making science go beyond science's realm, beyond the scientific method and beyond science's jurisdiction, by making science consider the whole reality as such as just being material physical = a false materialist belief assumption in all sciences and elsewhere , that gets taken for granted without question by most people, including by the majority of scientists today , including by all of you , guys , thus , a false materialist belief assumption or a materialist false conception of nature that gets taken for granted as ...science= thanks to materialism , science has therefore been reducing the whole reality as a whole as such to just material physical biological processes = the whole reality as a whole as such , everything thus , can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry , and in terms of the materialist macroscopic extensions of that materialist false core belief assumption regarding  the nature of the whole reality as a whole as such .............the latter as being allegedly exclusively material physical ...
Really , is that so difficult to understand ? Amazing ..
.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2013 18:34:28 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #12 on: 03/11/2013 20:24:40 »
Quote from: DonQuichotte link=topic=49470.msg423107#msg423107

Normally , science is just an effective human limited and an unparalleled tool instrument or sophisticated method that's like no other for that matter ,practiced by scientists humans ,  to try to understand and explain the observable , empirical, faslifiable, verifiable , reproducible, testable ....part of reality only ,,the rest of reality is , per definition, outside of science's realm , and outside of science's jurisdiction as well, including God, the immaterial side of reality as a whole as such ... .
But , materialism has been making science , for so long now , go beyond its empirical scientific method ,materialism has been therefore making science go beyond science's realm and byond science's jurisdiction  as well  by making science "assume " , via that dominating materialist meta-paradigm in science mainly , by making science "assume " that the whole reality as such is just physical material = the whole reality as such , everything thus , can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry + just in terms of those materialist macroscopic extensions of materialism's core belief assumption regarding the nature of reality as a whole , materialist macroscopic extensions such as " the mind is in the brain, memory is stored in the brain, consciousness is just an allegedly emergent property from or  product of the evolved complexity of the brain's neuronal activity ...human reason is just a product of the so-called neuronal computation mechanisms ..." , life as whole is just a matter of physics and chemistry or biochemistry ...
See the difference between what science really is , what science can and cannot do , what science can try to understand or explain , and what science cannot do ....and between what materialism has been turning science into  ?



If scientists restrict themselves to using their "unparalleled tool instrument or sophisticated method that's like no other" in order  "to understand and explain the observable , empirical, faslifiable, verifiable , reproducible, testable part of reality"   because "the rest of reality is , per definition, outside of science's realm," then why would you expect them to generate theories or a conceptual frame work that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual work they are doing? How is a chemist just doing work in chemistry imposing on anyone else's beliefs?

Actually, the view that science assumes the whole of reality is material isn't even accurate. Here is an example, brought to you by the evil materialists at Scientific American.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2013/11/02/ian-stevensons-case-for-the-afterlife-are-we-skeptics-really-just-cynics/

In this article, a psychology professor and science writer, Jesse Bering, examines  Ian Stevenson's claims involving children recalling past lives. He is impressed by the  examples. He is also impressed by Stevenson's attempts to fact check, and discard any easily refutable claims. Bering says "This Sri Lankan case is one of Stevenson’s approximately 3000 such “past life” case reports from all over the world, and these accounts are in an entirely different kind of parapsychological ballpark than tales featuring a middle-aged divorcée in a tie-dyed tunic who claims to be the reincarnation of Pocahantas. More often than not, Stevenson could identify an actual figure that once lived based solely on the statements given by the child. Some cases were much stronger than others, but I must say, when you actually read them firsthand, many are exceedingly difficult to explain away by rational, non-paranormal means."

But I doubt you will see an explosion in scientific research involving reincarnation or past lives, and not because science has been hijacked by materialism. Like investigations of ESP, conclusions are based on process of elimination - e.g. "There's no way this person could have this information that we can identify, so it must be....." And that's where it ends.
Paranormal research never gets beyond that point. There never seems to be a way to design additional experiments that provide more detailed or descriptive insight into the mechanism or process - how it works. But if you can come up with some good experiments, Don, I'm sure some scientist out there will listen. There's no materialist, Eurocentric conspiracy to brain wash the entire world.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2013 21:00:44 by cheryl j »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #13 on: 03/11/2013 21:14:41 »
Quote from: DonQuichotte link=topic=49470.msg423107#msg423107

Normally , science is just an effective human limited and an unparalleled tool instrument or sophisticated method that's like no other for that matter ,practiced by scientists humans ,  to try to understand and explain the observable , empirical, faslifiable, verifiable , reproducible, testable ....part of reality only ,,the rest of reality is , per definition, outside of science's realm , and outside of science's jurisdiction as well, including God, the immaterial side of reality as a whole as such ... .
But , materialism has been making science , for so long now , go beyond its empirical scientific method ,materialism has been therefore making science go beyond science's realm and byond science's jurisdiction  as well  by making science "assume " , via that dominating materialist meta-paradigm in science mainly , by making science "assume " that the whole reality as such is just physical material = the whole reality as such , everything thus , can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry + just in terms of those materialist macroscopic extensions of materialism's core belief assumption regarding the nature of reality as a whole , materialist macroscopic extensions such as " the mind is in the brain, memory is stored in the brain, consciousness is just an allegedly emergent property from or  product of the evolved complexity of the brain's neuronal activity ...human reason is just a product of the so-called neuronal computation mechanisms ..." , life as whole is just a matter of physics and chemistry or biochemistry ...
See the difference between what science really is , what science can and cannot do , what science can try to understand or explain , and what science cannot do ....and between what materialism has been turning science into  ?



If scientists restrict themselves to using their "unparalleled tool instrument or sophisticated method that's like no other" in order  "to understand and explain the observable , empirical, faslifiable, verifiable , reproducible, testable part of reality"   because "the rest of reality is , per definition, outside of science's realm," then why would you expect them to generate theories or a conceptual frame work that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual work they are doing? How is a chemist just doing work in chemistry imposing on anyone else's beliefs?

Actually, the view that science assumes the whole of reality is material isn't even accurate. Here is an example, brought to you by the evil materialists at Scientific American.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2013/11/02/ian-stevensons-case-for-the-afterlife-are-we-skeptics-really-just-cynics/

In this article, a psychologist and science writer, Jesse Bering, examines  Ian Stevenson's claims involving children recalling past lives. He is impressed by the  examples. He is also impressed by Stevenson's attempts to fact check, and discard any easily refutable claims. Bering says "This Sri Lankan case is one of Stevenson’s approximately 3000 such “past life” case reports from all over the world, and these accounts are in an entirely different kind of parapsychological ballpark than tales featuring a middle-aged divorcée in a tie-dyed tunic who claims to be the reincarnation of Pocahantas. More often than not, Stevenson could identify an actual figure that once lived based solely on the statements given by the child. Some cases were much stronger than others, but I must say, when you actually read them firsthand, many are exceedingly difficult to explain away by rational, non-paranormal means."

But I doubt you will see an explosion in scientific research involving reincarnation or past lives, and not because science has been hijacked by materialism. Like investigations of ESP, conclusions are based on process of elimination - e.g. "There's no way this person could have this information that we can identify, so it must be....." And that's where it ends.
Paranormal research never seems to get beyond that point. There never seems to be a way to design additional experiments that provide more detailed or descriptive insight into the mechanism or process - how it works. But if you can come up with some good experiments, Don, I'm sure some scientist out there will listen. There's no materialist, Eurocentric conspiracy to brain wash the entire world.
[/quote]

Ironically , Sheldrake, for example, to mention just this scientist ,  has been conducting  almost the same scientific research approach in relation to telepathy , in relation to his alleged morphic resonance theory ...It's just that Sheldrake does not assume that the mind is created by the brain's activity ,or that reality is material physical , as materialists do , "The mind is in the brain", for example ,    as just an extension of the materialist core assumption or materialist meta-paradigm in all sciences and elsewhere , that assumes reality as a whole to be exclusively material , a materialist belief assumption that pretends to be 'scientific " .

So, any so-called non-physical or non-biological pocesses as such would be , per definition, either dismissed as such by the mainstream materialist scientific community , or would be just reduced to physics and chemistry at their ultimate core , while trying to deliver some macroscopic materialist 'explanations " of those non-material processes , such as via computation , emergence property theory or otherwise , in ways that would fit into the materialist world view in science ,the latter that gets taken for granted as the 'scientific world view " .

So, you cannot deny the fact that science has been reducing reality as a whole to just material physical processes , despite the fact that there are some scientists who  do  'sing outside of the mainstream dominating materialist orchestra club " , such as some of the religious scientists .

So, science proper should confine itself only to the empirical, observable ...instead of 'assuming " that the whole reality is physical material , that everything can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry biochemistry , or just in terms of those macroscopic extensions of materialism such as that computation computer -like , machine -like analogy regarding the neuronal activity of the brain , such as the mind is in the brain, memory is stored in the brain ...

When science does assume that reality is material physical, science ceases to take non-material and non-physical processes seriously , worse : science rejects  a-priori  their existence ,obviously, or science will just try to dismiss them as just "creations of the mind " or illusions , delusions ...thanks to materialism thus  .

But , when science will cease to be dogmatic and will become more scientific , by rejecting materialism thus , then, science will be open to non-physical and to non-biological processes = science will cease to consider the latter as just material physical biological processes as a result, or as just elaborate 'creations of the mind via the brain's activity " .... .

In short :
Science should restrict itself only to what it can be testable, empirical , observable (instead of assuming that everything is material physical , the latter that's just a materialist belief assumption thus) ....also in the sense that telepathy , for example , can be testable, observable , verifiable, faslifiable ...scientifically ,as Sheldrake tries to do .

Gotta go, try to re-read my words you still do not get yet fully  .
Thanks, appreciate indeed
Cheers
 

Offline SimpleEngineer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #14 on: 04/11/2013 14:57:48 »
In short :
Science should restrict itself only to what it can be testable, empirical , observable (instead of assuming that everything is material physical , the latter that's just a materialist belief assumption thus) ....also in the sense that telepathy , for example , can be testable, observable , verifiable, faslifiable ...scientifically ,as Sheldrake tries to do .

Gotta go, try to re-read my words you still do not get yet fully  .
Thanks, appreciate indeed
Cheers

Science DOES restrict itself to what is testable and observable.. This is why you dont see whta others are saying as you all are saying the same thing.. Except DQ is yammering on about how science cant explain somethings.. WELL let me ask you .. what is the definition of Theology or even Psychology, these are sciences based upon the unseen, the immaterial and based upon the beliefs and reactions of their subjects.

These are the sciences that tranverse materialism, they bridge the gap between the measurable and the immeasurable.

Science will try to observe what it can, even if its non material, non physical.. If it cant observe it, then there is no interest in looking at it, (such as existence of god) Science has never once tried to disprove the existence of any god. Science has just looked at things and found explanations for it. So say you talk about something non material, non physical such as a new religion.. if it cannot be observed even theology cannot look at it as there is nothing to look at.

Science will never close its door to new forces or experiences, as the whole idea of science is to find these and explain them. And STILL it agrees that things are not fully explained.

You talk about realms and jurisdiction as if you are putting boundaries in the universe for some reason. The boundaries either already exist.. or they do not.. both ways science is needed to find them or to prove them not there.. there is nothing (and really should be nothing) inhibiting investigation. You mention telepathy a few times in previous threads.. you surely must know that the best 'so-called' telepaths in the world have explained its no so much reading the mind, as reading the person.. its all about body language and 'tells' no reading of the mind at all. This came from those who practise it, and make money from it.. any belief otherwise to me seems inherently concerning.

   
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #15 on: 04/11/2013 19:34:28 »
In short :
Science should restrict itself only to what it can be testable, empirical , observable (instead of assuming that everything is material physical , the latter that's just a materialist belief assumption thus) ....also in the sense that telepathy , for example , can be testable, observable , verifiable, faslifiable ...scientifically ,as Sheldrake tries to do .

Gotta go, try to re-read my words you still do not get yet fully  .
Thanks, appreciate indeed
Cheers

Science DOES restrict itself to what is testable and observable.. This is why you dont see whta others are saying as you all are saying the same thing.. Except DQ is yammering on about how science cant explain somethings.. WELL let me ask you .. what is the definition of Theology or even Psychology, these are sciences based upon the unseen, the immaterial and based upon the beliefs and reactions of their subjects.

Theology is , obviously , no science .
psychology is no real exact science , psychology is mainly a pseudo-science , despite some scientific truths contained in it , thanks mainly to neurology ....
But , fact is , even psychology itself is dominated by the materialist "scientific world view " ,the same goes for  neurology also by the way some particular school of psychology relies on ,  psychology thus is dominated by materialism , especially the so-called evolutionary psychology ,especially the so-called behavioural psychology , especially that of Skinner in the 1960's ... despite the fact that there are many schools of psychology out there in fact , such as  the non-materialist ones at that .

Quote
These are the sciences that tranverse materialism, they bridge the gap between the measurable and the immeasurable.

Sciences such as what exactly ? see above .
All sciences , all human sciences and the rest are dominated mainly by the materialist 'scientific world view " that considers reality as a whole as to be exclusively material physical , even the human mind or intellect is reduced by neurologists to just the physical brain's neuro-chemical acitivity , via some elaborate macroscopic computation "mechanisms " extensions of materialism ,sir = the mind is in the brain, even consciousness is reduced by neurology to just some sort of magical 'emergent " property from the evolved complexity of the human physical brain's activity ...even memory is reduced to just physics and chemistry , by assuming that memory is stored in the brain ...Come on .

Quote
Science will try to observe what it can, even if its non material, non physical

That's what science should do in fact , but science has been reducing everything to just physics and chemistry , so , thanks to materialism thus .
That reality as a whole is allegedly material physical is just a materialist dogmatic belief assumption, no empirical one .

Quote
.. If it cant observe it, then there is no interest in looking at it, (such as existence of god) Science has never once tried to disprove the existence of any god. Science has just looked at things and found explanations for it. So say you talk about something non material, non physical such as a new religion.. if it cannot be observed even theology cannot look at it as there is nothing to look at
.

Science , per definition, can only deal with the observable, empirical ....the rest is outside of science's realm and jurisdiction, obviously .
Science can thus neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, for example , simply because that cannot be observable, empirical...simply put .
But , as science has been assuming , thanks to materialism, that reality as a whole is physical material , so, there is no God , no immaterial side of reality , no immaterial phenomena ...see the difference between what science actually is , and what materialism has been turning science into ? Hope so for you .

Quote
Science will never close its door to new forces or experiences, as the whole idea of science is to find these and explain them. And STILL it agrees that things are not fully explained.

Science has been in fact closing all its  doors and  itself in relation to the possibility of the existence of   the immaterial side of reality , in relation to the immaterial side of life ,to those it can approach empirically at least ,  by assuming that reality as a whole is material physical, thanks to materialism, once again .

Quote
You talk about realms and jurisdiction as if you are putting boundaries in the universe for some reason. The boundaries either already exist.. or they do not.. both ways science is needed to find them or to prove them not there.. there is nothing (and really should be nothing) inhibiting investigation. You mention telepathy a few times in previous threads.. you surely must know that the best 'so-called' telepaths in the world have explained its no so much reading the mind, as reading the person.. its all about body language and 'tells' no reading of the mind at all. This came from those who practise it, and make money from it.. any belief otherwise to me seems inherently concerning.

What about the famous CIA and KGB remote viewing telepathy studies during the cold war , for example ?
What about Sheldrake's scientific approach of telepathy ?
Anyway , i am not interested really in telepathy , i just mentioned it as an example science should not dismiss a-priori as such .

There are , besides, limits to what science can and cannot do , can and cannot observe , test , verify , falsify ....obviously .

That does not mean that all what cannot be tested , observed ...empirically , does not exist as such = the abscence of evidence is not always the evidence of abscence .

But then again, i have to remind you , once again, to the point where i would sound as boring and depressing as anythingelse for that matter , but , nevertheless , i have to remind you of the fact that science has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry , thanks to materialism, a fact that makes science close all its doors and a-priori to any non -physical non-material or non-biological processes out there ...to the ones it can approach empirically at least .

 
« Last Edit: 04/11/2013 19:36:48 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #16 on: 04/11/2013 20:11:04 »
Quote
i have to remind you of the fact that science has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry

Nothing to do with science. Reality IS just physics and chemistry. And since chemistry is just physics applied to molecules, and since physics is just a trivial particularisation of mathematics, reality is just applied maths. Which is why the universe behaves so predictably.   

If you don't believe that the universe in general and human behaviour in particular is predictable, read DQ's next post, and compare it with any of his others. There will not be one original thought in it.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #17 on: 04/11/2013 20:54:04 »
Quote
i have to remind you of the fact that science has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry

Nothing to do with science

Nothing to do with science ? Well, for your information , that's the 'scientific world view " or the scientific consensus ,how can you say that then ? haven't you heard of that materialist meta-paradigm in science   yet ? = reality is just physical or material , have you ? Guess not thus , obviously,despite the fact that i have been mentioning it for so long now on this forum  .

Quote
. Reality IS just physics and chemistry

Is that a scientific fact ?
Has science ever proved that materialist "fact ", or rather that materialist core belief assumption to be "true ", ever ?

If yes , do try to tell me how and  when, not to mention by whom exactly and where when how  .
If not , why do you consider it as a fact then ?

You do have some serious explanations  to do , good luck : i do not wanna be in your shoes = mission impossible = materialism as just a belief , all beliefs for that matter , cannot be proven to be "true or false " empirically at least , obviously , and simply because science cannot know yet already  , if ever , what the nature of reality as a whole might be : science has been just revealing some aspects of reality , despite those desperate and unscientific materialist belief assumptions attempts to try to come up with some sort of "theory of everything = theory of nothing " that pretends to explain everything = nothing just in terms of physics and chemistry thus: see "A brief history of time " by Stephen Hawking at least on the subject , to mention just that  apparent genius who's been also deluded by materialism into thinking that materialism is science ,unfortunately enough : what a waste for such a great talent  such as his  indeed   .


Quote
. And since chemistry is just physics applied to molecules, and since physics is just a trivial particularisation of mathematics, reality is just applied maths. Which is why the universe behaves so predictably.
 

Is that a fact ?

Can everything be explained just via the laws of physics ? try to explain consciousness, human intellect , emotions, feelings , human love , memory , human conscience , human ethics , human societies, politics , economy , cultures, beliefs ...human history ....the origins of life , reality as a whole thus  and beyond  ...just via the laws of physics then= you would most certainly , not just probably , you would in fact make a fool of yourself with absolute certainty , not just probably = i am absolutely certain, without a shadow of a doubt , that you ,including anyoneelse for that matter , would make a complete fool of yourself by just thinking of trying to do so  .

Good luck then, even though i do not believe in the existence of such a 'thing " such as ...luck indeed .

I thought that the maths of chaos , or the butterfly effect  theory  , and modern physics had  already kissed that outdated , superseded  , largely discredited and  largely refuted  Newtonian-Cartesian presumed absolute predictability goodbye , a long time ago , that physicists and mathematicians can only talk in terms of ...probability  nowadays  , as a result , not to mention that uncertainty principle .

Try to read the following and  try to watch this extremely enlightening and interesting top docu on the subject :

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/high-anxieties-the-mathematics-of-chaos/

High Anxieties: The Mathematics of Chaos


High Anxieties: The Mathematics of ChaosThe documentary looks at the modern advances in mathematics and how they affect our understanding of physics, economics, environmental issues and human psychology.

The film looks at how developments in 20th Century mathematics have affected our view of the world, and particularly how the financial economy and earth’s environment are now seen as inherently unpredictable.

The film looks at the influence the work of Henri Poincare and Alexander Lyapunov had on later developments in mathematics. It includes interviews with David Ruelle, about chaos theory and turbulence, the economist Paul Ormerod about the unpredictability of economic systems, and James Lovelock the founder of Gaia theory about climate change and tipping points in the environment.

As we approach tipping points in both the economy and the climate, the film examines the mathematics we have been reluctant to face up to and asks if, even now, we would rather bury our heads in the sand rather than face harsh truths.



Quote
If you don't believe that the universe in general and human behaviour in particular is predictable, read DQ's next post, and compare it with any of his others. There will not be one original thought in it.

Depends on   DQ's  particular audience or public at hand, depends on many other variables and on many unpredictable insights from other kindda public , events ...as well etc also indeed  .

See above

I thought you were mentioning a "fact", not an act of faith grounded in an outdated refuted and superseded 19th century materialist core belief assumption .



Have you predicted the following  as well  ? :
Excerpts from high Arabic ancient poetry tragedy odyssey " The Epistle of forgiveness " by Al Maari : the father of Dante's "Divine comedy " :

فليت شعري عن النمر بن تولبٍ العكلي،

[Mod: Please keep your posts in English.
What I saw was a mix of Chinese and Arabic.
Did you read what you were posting?]
« Last Edit: 04/11/2013 22:58:23 by CliffordK »
 

Offline SimpleEngineer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #18 on: 05/11/2013 14:20:50 »
Wait... you talk of science 'reducing' things..

If it can be reduced to physics and chemistry then it is materialistic, if it cant.. then feel free to use it for what ever means you wish to do.. worship it maybe?

Why should physics and chemistry not try to reduce what it can observe and test, to try and understand the why of things.

You words are starting to gain the aroma of antiscience, which similar to aetheism is the sign of deep rooted confusion. What do you gain from this belief? Other than to restrict and subjugate the development of technology and understanding. Its a very selfish view that just because you can't understand something, that no one else can and they shouldn't even try. 
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #19 on: 05/11/2013 16:00:27 »

Quote
Has science ever proved that materialist "fact ", or rather that materialist core belief assumption to be "true ", ever ?

Science is about disproof, not proof. AFAIK there has been no disproof of my statement.
 

Offline grizelda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #20 on: 05/11/2013 18:03:55 »

فليت شعري عن النمر بن تولبٍ العكلي،



Here's a rough translation: "Help, I'm being tortured by Ali Baba in a burning flying carpet factory".

Hang on Don, thanks to your encoded GPS location the drones cavalry on on the way. You won't die alone.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #21 on: 05/11/2013 18:16:32 »

فليت شعري عن النمر بن تولبٍ العكلي،



Here's a rough translation: "Help, I'm being tortured by Ali Baba in a burning flying carpet factory".

Haha Very funny .
Where did you study Arabic ,sis : Google translation sucks really = hilarious .
I am rather flying via  both of my wings , while you , folks , are flying just via one of your wings , while assuming that your other wing does not exist , but do not worry , i will be there to save you from your inevitable fall haha

Quote
Hang on Don, thanks to your encoded GPS location the drones cavalry on on the way. You won't die alone.

The drones' inquisitions will meet the same fate as  that of the medieval church haha
« Last Edit: 05/11/2013 18:18:16 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #22 on: 05/11/2013 18:21:51 »

Quote
Has science ever proved that materialist "fact ", or rather that materialist core belief assumption to be "true ", ever ?

Science is about disproof, not proof. AFAIK there has been no disproof of my statement.

Well,ok, have it your way then, or just  let me go along with you for a change then, just for our discussion's sake then :
Has science ever disproved the fact that reality as a whole is not just material physical ?

What statement ? determinism or predictability ? = do kiss them goodbye= the maths of chaos did destroy that myth  .
Not everything can be explained just by the laws of physics , obviously .
Otherwise , try to explain or rather try to predict the economy , politics, societies, cultures , history, .......consciousness, memory , feelings , emotions , life as a whole ....just via physics and chemsitry then = cannot be done, obviously .
« Last Edit: 05/11/2013 18:26:08 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #23 on: 05/11/2013 18:31:46 »
Quote
To the Mod  who wrote the following :

[Mod: Please keep your posts in English.
What I saw was a mix of Chinese and Arabic.
Did you read what you were posting?]

I did specify what it was i was posting = just Arabic high poetry , there was no Chinese in it .
That was just something to "test the amazing predictability extraordinary powers of our alancalverd , that's all : i thought you have noticed just that  already  .
As an Arab, it's pretty logical to assume that i do know Arabic, don't you think ?
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #24 on: 05/11/2013 18:35:34 »
Wait... you talk of science 'reducing' things..

If it can be reduced to physics and chemistry then it is materialistic, if it cant.. then feel free to use it for what ever means you wish to do.. worship it maybe?

Why should physics and chemistry not try to reduce what it can observe and test, to try and understand the why of things.

You words are starting to gain the aroma of antiscience, which similar to aetheism is the sign of deep rooted confusion. What do you gain from this belief? Other than to restrict and subjugate the development of technology and understanding. Its a very selfish view that just because you can't understand something, that no one else can and they shouldn't even try.
[/quote]

All i was saying is that reality as a whole is not just material physical , as modern science assumes it to be, thanks to materialism : not everything can be explained just in terms of physics and  chemistry , or just by the laws of physics ,or just by cause and effect .....: see the modern maths of chaos ,for example .

 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #24 on: 05/11/2013 18:35:34 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums