nPeace
Veteran Member
Can you clarify. I probably didn't understand your words.Certainly not. If you want to define 'science' as meaning any form of trial and error process for determining knowledge, be my guest. That type of science has always been around. But the modern scientific process has been around since the 1600s.
I seem to do that a lot, when you 'speak'.
What did you mean by...
Quote Hmm...well, there are two ways you could define science. In it's simplest form, the oldest record of scientific process being followed that I'm aware of is Ancient Egypt. There are records of a medical science in a very simple form being followed. Examination, Diagnosis, Treatment and Prognosis. However, I was more talking about modern science, and the modern scientific process, which is more like the 1600's (with the evolution of scientific method largely taking the entire century). People commonly seem to be referring to modern science, rather than a much looser definition, when talking about it, and it was in that sense that I suggested science as 'unnecessary' in the truest sense. Unquote
Were they "scientific process" in ancient times, or not? Does that count as science, or not? ...in your view.
You should laugh. It takes the frown off one's face, and adds a few years to one's life.I'm a massive history nerd, so I'm going to let the 'no people before 1600' crack pass by.
Science is just what it is. It's not defined by our preferences.If you want to talk about what passed for science in classical times with me, no problems. But I find it is somewhat useful to clarify when talking to people as to whether it's modern scientific process they are talking about. Humans prospered for many centuries without it, despite it being a much more efficient and effective means of building knowledge.
There were coolers in the past... ovens, etc. They don't have to look like what we know today, in order to be called such.
Huh? Thankfully, all scientists do not wear straight-jackets.I don't have a 'side of the coin', and have been consistently against binary thought-concepts like that. But I'd simply ask them to extrapolate out what they mean to a level of coherence I could respond to.
Maybe you missed my point... Or, I don't understand your point.I think you're getting the point a little tangled, to be honest. I'm not suggesting it's preferable or healthy to live without higher thought, or love, or family. I'm suggesting it's not in any way, shape or form POSSIBLE to have love, higher thought, family, etc, without basic survival requirements being met.
It doesn't matter how well adjusted and loved I am, nor how spiritually attuned I am, if I have no food, no shelter, or a neighbouring tribe deciding I'd look tasty in a cooking pot, and me without any security.
Man can live without anything physical - food, water, clothes, shelter, love, family...
The thing is, each one's life-span will differ in shortness.
So, yes, man can live without science and religion, but it will still be short-lived. Only not as short as a few weeks fasting.
So if you are saying that man only needs to eat and drink to live, I say he only needs to breath.
We needed science to survive.The simple way of stating it is that to survive, we need food, shelter and security. To LIVE, we need food, shelter, security, companionship, self-actualising, etc.
The basic survival requirements are a pre-requisite ALWAYS. Other things can be done without for certain periods of our life, and we can survive, before returning to higher end thought when our basic needs are more easily satisfied.
What tools did our ancestors use to survive? | Bushcraft Buddy
history of technology - The urban revolution (c. 3000–500 bce)
Ancient Survival Techniques that Were Part of Everyday Life
Trial and error? Is that what testing hypotheses are?
I'm sure the ancient people had ideas, and they proved those ideas worked.
Is that science? History of science in early cultures - Wikipedia
You are obviously missing something.Without modern science? Indefinitely. Man wasn't going anywhere. Life is better with modern science, but it's not required. And there are plenty of people and nations doing just fine without religion, although some might argue it was an important part of their formative years. That's pretty much the point I already made, but I have to admit, I'm not seeing much of a direct addressing of these. Perhaps we're simply talking past one another.
The fact is that people are surviving due to achievements of centuries of science and religion.
We are only doing fine because we are standing on an already laid foundation. If the foundation was not laid, we would not be here.
So, it's like a person saying, we are doing quite fine without the teacher, because I am living on what that one taught me.
Rather than make the claim, please, can you demonstrate this?Science <> knowledge. It is entirely possible to build knowledge without science. It's just less efficient. Humans did it for centuries.
Skill building? That's a new one.That's a comment about evolutionary skill-building, not Neanderthal science.
The point - Had it not been for science, and religion - of the past (millennia ago), none of us would be alive.
For one thing, man would not have been able to survive the threats to his life, nor learned how to combat these threats, without certain knowledge.
What is technology?
Technology is the application of scientific knowledge to the practical aims of human life or, as it is sometimes phrased, to the change and manipulation of the human environment.
Technology in the ancient world
The beginnings—Stone Age technology (to c. 3000 BCE)
Well I haven't seen you provide anything credible in support of your viewpoint. So why should what you think matter?And you think indigenous tribes developed their extensive knowledge about medicinal plants via scientific process? Then you have a much looser definition of 'science' than I would use. That's fine, but it's the reason I tried to define terms in my original post.
Seriously... You are?I'm completely at a loss as to how that relates to the topic at hand, for all that I find it interesting.
Could it be, you isolated it from the connecting statements?
It was linked to this... I believe that had it not been for science, and religion - of the past (millennia ago), none of us would be alive.
For one thing, man would not have been able to survive the threats to his life, nor learned how to combat these threats, without certain knowledge.
Neanderthal extinction linked to human diseases
In a new study published in the journal Nature Communications, Greenbaum and his colleagues propose that complex disease transmission patterns can explain not only how modern humans were able to wipe out Neanderthals in Europe and Asia in just a few thousand years but also, perhaps more puzzling, why the end didn't come sooner.
"Our research suggests that diseases may have played a more important role in the extinction of the Neanderthals than previously thought. They may even be the main reason why modern humans are now the only human group left on the planet," said Greenbaum, who is the first author of the study and a postdoctoral researcher in Stanford's Department of Biology.
If there were no advances in knowledge of combating diseases, man would not have survived... Thanks to ancient science.
Through religion, moral laws were implimented. Some of these played a role in survival, as well.So...you're going to need to explain that VERY carefully, I would suggest. Exactly which moral law do you think was broken, and how does that relate to ANY modern situation?
For example, what is known about promiscuity today.
The results of, or costs associated with, these behaviors are the effects of human sexual promiscuity.
A high number of sexual partners in a person's life usually means they are at a higher risk of sexually transmitted infections and life-threatening cancers. These costs largely pertain to the dramatic consequences to physical and mental health. The physical health risks mainly consist of the sexually transmitted disease risks, such as HIV and AIDS, that increase as individuals have develop sexual partners over their lifetime. The mental health risks typically associated with promiscuous individuals are mood, and personality disorders, often resulting in substance use disorders and, or permanent illness. These effects typically translate into several other long-term issues in people's lives and in their relationships, especially in the case of adolescents or those with previous pathological illnesses, disorders, or factors such as family dysfunction and social stress.
Thus, with religion playing a role in preventing this "animalistic" behavior some 'societies', lives were preserved.