Time

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by VJ
No. Science is an easily definable word, meaning you can empirically try and realize something to be true universally, or something which depends from these proved axioms.

While I agree with your rant against humanist hippies, "empirically trying and realising something to be true universally" is not science. And something which depends on proved axioms is philosophy. Science is "natural philosophy."

[Spec]

Define natural philosophy please.

Spec.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Spec
But science is.

So everyone having another field of study and purpose than finding a cure for cancer is not a scientist?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Whatever you say, Lee

There is no experiment. There is nothing that can be varified.

Someday it will be physics, and there are a lot of scientists who are devoting their careers to making it so. But it isn't right now.

JM

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


And now we don't need you.

Have we ever needed you? Thanks for being clueless nevertheless.

[Jon Miller]

Several people in this thread are holding to ideas that hurt science more than creationism does.

Jon Miller

[BeBMan]

One could say several people in this thread have a very dogmatic, so rather unscientific view on what science is

[Meticulous Man]

VJ:

I agree that some kind of an ideology always lies behind people's thoughts as to what should be called "science" and what shouldn't. If I would want to find out whether a correlation between advocacy of certain political views and a positivistic philosophy of science exists in our society, do you think I would have to come to a conclusion in this issue through measuring people's brain physiology in order for my study to be called scientific?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
There is no experiment. There is nothing that can be varified.

I haven't studied it at all, but I was of the opinion that it does make testable predictions, it's just that we don't have the means to test them yet.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Several people in this thread are holding to ideas that hurt science more than creationism does.

QFT. Spec is one of them.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by LordShiva


I haven't studied it at all, but I was of the opinion that it does make testable predictions, it's just that we don't have the means to test them yet.

Doesn't make any predictions that we will ever be able to test, with our current understanding of physics.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by LordShiva


QFT. Spec is one of them.

I was thinking more BreBro.

JM

[Fake Boris]

Science is based on empirical realism, positivism, and stuff like that. These are metaphysical conceptions issued from philosophy. Anyone who ignores that has nothing to say in this thread.

[RGBVideo]

I agree that some kind of an ideology always lies behind people's thoughts as to what should be called "science" and what shouldn't. If I would want to find out whether a correlation between advocacy of certain political views and a positivistic philosophy of science exists in our society, do you think I would have to come to a conclusion in this issue through measuring people's brain physiology in order for my study to be called scientific?

strawman

sigh

I give up with you guys. There's nothing more to say now that I've repeated the definition of science which has existed ever since Isaac Newton stopped studying alchemy. I really don't really care how your professors who redefined their fields to "science" in order to gather more money from the government rationalized it to you, but neither philosophy or whatever you're currently studying is science. If you don't want to be arrogant and clueless, read Feynman's speech, then look up science on a dictionary. If you already read it and still disagree, then you're just clueless. People usually tolerate either arrogance or cluelessness, but very few tolerate both of them.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by VJ

strawman

sigh

I give up with you guys. There's nothing more to say now that I've repeated the definition of science which has existed ever since Isaac Newton stopped studying alchemy. I really don't really care how your professors who redefined their fields to "science" in order to gather more money from the government rationalized it to you, but neither philosophy or whatever you're currently studying is science. If you don't want to be arrogant and clueless, read Feynman's speech, then look up science on a dictionary. If you already read it and still disagree, then you're just clueless. People usually tolerate either arrogance or cluelessness, but very few tolerate both of them.

So in other words, you don't want to consider anything that goes against something you learned at some time. That's a truly scientific approach.