How do you define SCIENCE?

[Hockeycowboy]

@YoursTrue , thanks for trying to help.

 

[cladking]

Do you support and believe in Methodological Naturalism which is the foundation of science as defined and described and is supported by every major university in the world? This is the subject of the thread.

I don't believe it is the subject of the thread and no I do not believe in it. It's a pretty good definition except that each person will parse it differently. Universities now days usually consider "Peer review" part of the "methodological" and this is beyond the metaphysics. It is self serving claptrap as well since only universities can create "Peers".

The rest of this was just noise. Respond specifically to the question at hand as to how science is defined and functions in the evolving body of knowledge of our physical existence.

If you hear only noise I see no point in trying to communicate.

For every practical purpose science is experiment and experiment is science. You can add "Methodological Naturalism" to this definition by simply noting that for every individual learning good observation is key to most success in science. "Observation > Experiment".

 

[Colt]

The discussion is about SCIENCE -- Creation -- and religion. How do you define science, first of all? One definition of science: (yes, I know there are different "branches" of science, but looking for a broad definition):
Science: "The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained:"
If possible, limit discussion to the definition of SCIENCE before striking out to other areas.

Science is the discovery of material facts. Religion is the discovery of spiritual truths. They could both stand to be less dogmatic.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sorry, but I’m not a Young Earth Creationist.

I didn’t say that at all. I said the Australians, the Egyptians, the Hindus, the Peruvians, etc., all celebrate, or in past centuries did celebrate, their festivals of the dead at the same time of year.

That indicates a common connection between these cultures, far earlier than 60,000 years.


I think rationally just fine, thank you.

Likely true, because the migration of humans to the Americas likely occurred between 30,000 and 21,000 years ago based on the current evidence. The common celebration of religious observances does translate to times in history when they had a common relationship. The common factor is by the objective verifiable evidence that humans have been observing the heavens and and seasons and patterned their observances around these factors. Humans also have a common cultural and social nature and observance of birth, death, and maturity rites are simply their common human nature.

The dating of human history and relationships is based on scientific dating, and not common celebrations and observances. methods.

Worthy of note: The oldest known carving of the cycles of the moon is dated 10,000 years ago and found in Italy.

 

[cladking]

Oh you mentioned soup of the day. Thank you! I will think what soup to get today! I like some soups better than others.

Indeed! Clam chowder was my soup of the day. But someone will say vegetable soup would have been better for me and next week someone will prove in the lab the beef barley soup is the only food humans should eat.

My models and taste buds suggested I should eat the chowder before it got much older

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't believe it is the subject of the thread and no I do not believe in it. It's a pretty good definition except that each person will parse it differently. Universities now days usually consider "Peer review" part of the "methodological" and this is beyond the metaphysics. It is self serving claptrap as well since only universities can create "Peers".

Accusations and generalizations such as the above reflect the fact that you have little or no knowledge of science.
Subject of the thread How do you define SCIENCE?

If you hear only noise I see no point in trying to communicate.

For every practical purpose science is experiment and experiment is science. You can add "Methodological Naturalism" to this definition by simply noting that for every individual learning good observation is key to most success in science. "Observation > Experiment".

Did not answer the question as per the subject of the thread.

Respond specifically to the question at hand as to how science is defined and functions in the evolving body of knowledge of our physical existence.

Which is the greater authority? All the universities of the world or your negative rantings about science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Science is the discovery of material facts. Religion is the discovery of spiritual truths. They could both stand to be less dogmatic.

As supported by the Baha'i Faith. Though careful science is not by its nature dogmatic. An important point is from the perspective of science is subjective 'beliefs and claims' not falsifiable by Methodological Naturalism This makes science neutral to most religious beliefs and claims. Some scientists may take a dogmatic philosophical approach, but this is not science.

 

[YoursTrue]

Indeed! Clam chowder was my soup of the day. But someone will say vegetable soup would have been better for me and next week someone will prove in the lab the beef barley soup is the only food humans should eat.

My models and taste buds suggested I should eat the chowder before it got much older

Oddly enough I just went for lunch and I didn't want the vegetable soup since that's all they had, so I opted for veggies, rice, and some nicely seasoned chicken.

 

[YoursTrue]

Science is the discovery of material facts. Religion is the discovery of spiritual truths. They could both stand to be less dogmatic.

It also depends on what a person listens to and/or likes. Right?

ROFL no, sir. the fact that festival X is celebrated today is certainly NO EVIDENCE that it was celebrated 60,000 years ago. But at least you tried.

It's certainly may be an indicator of past festivals.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, but I’m not a Young Earth Creationist.

I didn’t say that at all. I said the Australians, the Egyptians, the Hindus, the Peruvians, etc., all celebrate, or in past centuries did celebrate, their festivals of the dead at the same time of year.

That indicates a common connection between these cultures, far earlier than 60,000 years.


I think rationally just fine, thank you.

@IndigoChild5559 hi again. I hope you read Hockeycowboys response to your statement that he (or I for that matter) thinks the earth is 6000 years old.

 

[cladking]

Did not answer the question as per the subject of the thread.

Here's some more "noise" for you. Read the posts. You are missing the meaning. I've defined science in almost every post.

Which is the greater authority? All the universities of the world or your negative rantings about science.

AGAIN

Beliefs change over one's lifetime. When I was a child EA Burtt was about the last word on metaphysics. Today, universities spoon out self serving claptrap. Beliefs have changed and are continuing to change one funeral at a time. This will always be because homo omnisciencis is a product of his time and place.

In twenty years science may be whatever wiki says it is or maybe some AI will define it instead. God only knows what all knowing man will know in twenty or a hundred years but in the long run every single thing we know today will be stood on its head and nobody can stop it. Everything you believe will be proven false or only true from a given perspective. It will be known to be wholly incomplete. Your extrapolation and interpolations will suffer far more.

I defined what I believe is the best definition for science but if I lived 967 years I'm sure I could come up with a better one. And besides your damned ""Methodological Naturalism" will have changed by then so much the definition might have little application to the subject of "science".

We don't know everything and there is no reason to believe we even know the formatting of reality. Everything that is fundamental to science is an abstraction.

We each have our own definitions for everything and I don't fully support yours but I still parse your words as I believe YOU intend them. It would seem you parse my words as you would intend them if you said them. You don't see any problem with this so you hear "noise".

OK, I'll turn my noise maker off now and will probably attempt no more communication with you.

 

[cladking]

Oddly enough I just went for lunch and I didn't want the vegetable soup since that's all they had, so I opted for veggies, rice, and some nicely seasoned chicken.

There really are some common sense ways to make such decisions. I have to avoid much rice though.

Some people will probably ask an AI program what to eat and then rush out to a restaurant buy it and eat from filthy dishes in unsanitary conditions. We all get what we pay for.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@IndigoChild5559 hi again. I hope you read Hockeycowboys response to your statement that he (or I for that matter) thinks the earth is 6000 years old.

I'm getting REALLY tired of this conversation being constantly deflected into an age of the earth argument. My question to him was nothing about the age of the earth. Go back and read my post again.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It's certainly may be an indicator of past festivals.

I see that you are equally irrational. I'm sorry, but it really DOESN'T follow that because a festival is celebrated today means that it was celebrated in antiquity. Let me give you an example. Today, the US celebrates Thanksgiving in November. Does it follow that the founding fathers celebrated Thanksgiving in November? NO. In fact, not only is that conclusion illogical, but we know from historical documents that Thanksgiving did not become a national holiday until Lincoln. I can point out the utter lack of logic, but I cannot give you a more rational mind, just as I cannot help Hockey in this manner.

I'm moving on. This discussion has become nothing but an irritation. If you want to reply, it's fine. But I will not answer further.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Sorry, but I’m not a Young Earth Creationist.

Thank you for clarifying. However, our argument was never over the age of the earth.

I didn’t say that at all. I said the Australians, the Egyptians, the Hindus, the Peruvians, etc., all celebrate, or in past centuries did celebrate, their festivals of the dead at the same time of year.

That indicates a common connection between these cultures, far earlier than 60,000 years.


I think rationally just fine, thank you.

My response was and is and always will be, you cannot make this claim without concrete evidence of it, such as historical documents or archeological remains. Our discussion was specifically about Australian Aborigines, who did not have written records. I asked you, given the lack of any written record, how do you know they had these festivals in antiquity. What I EXPECTED from you was for you to tell me about archeological findings that indicated this.

But that's not what you answered. After a considerable number of posts that avoided answering altogether, your response was that you knew they had these festivals in antiquity because they had these festivals when they were discovered.

And THAT doesn't fly. It is ILLOGICAL.

As I told YoursTruly, this discussion has become an irritation. If you want to reply, that's fine. But I will not respond further.

 

[John53]

I see that you are equally irrational. I'm sorry, but it really DOESN'T follow that because a festival is celebrated today means that it was celebrated in antiquity. Let me give you an example. Today, the US celebrates Thanksgiving in November. Does it follow that the founding fathers celebrated Thanksgiving in November? NO. In fact, not only is that conclusion illogical, but we know from historical documents that Thanksgiving did not become a national holiday until Lincoln. I can point out the utter lack of logic, but I cannot give you a more rational mind, just as I cannot help Hockey in this manner.

I'm moving on. This discussion has become nothing but an irritation. If you want to reply, it's fine. But I will not answer further.

I've lived in Australia all my life and never heard of an Indigenous festival of the dead. I googled it and found nothing. I asked a friend who is a Worrimi and he hasn't heard of it. I do know for many of the various Aboriginal cultures it is forbidden to speak the name of the deceased or even talk about them. So like you I would be interested in reading his source.

 

[shunyadragon]

Here's some more "noise" for you. Read the posts. You are missing the meaning. I've defined science in almost every post.



AGAIN

Beliefs change over one's lifetime. When I was a child EA Burtt was about the last word on metaphysics. Today, universities spoon out self serving claptrap. Beliefs have changed and are continuing to change one funeral at a time. This will always be because homo omnisciencis is a product of his time and place.

In twenty years science may be whatever wiki says it is or maybe some AI will define it instead. God only knows what all knowing man will know in twenty or a hundred years but in the long run every single thing we know today will be stood on its head and nobody can stop it. Everything you believe will be proven false or only true from a given perspective. It will be known to be wholly incomplete. Your extrapolation and interpolations will suffer far more.

I defined what I believe is the best definition for science but if I lived 967 years I'm sure I could come up with a better one. And besides your damned ""Methodological Naturalism" will have changed by then so much the definition might have little application to the subject of "science".

We don't know everything and there is no reason to believe we even know the formatting of reality. Everything that is fundamental to science is an abstraction.

We each have our own definitions for everything and I don't fully support yours but I still parse your words as I believe YOU intend them. It would seem you parse my words as you would intend them if you said them. You don't see any problem with this so you hear "noise".

OK, I'll turn my noise maker off now and will probably attempt no more communication with you.

Fine, because as per the topic of the thread you reject science and the foundation of science Methodological Naturalism.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I've lived in Australia all my life and never heard of an Indigenous festival of the dead. I googled it and found nothing. I asked a friend who is a Worrimi and he hasn't heard of it. I do know for many of the various Aboriginal cultures it is forbidden to speak the name of the deceased or even talk about them. So like you I would be interested in reading his source.

Wow, now that's very interesting. Thank you for the input.

 

[shunyadragon]

It also depends on what a person listens to and/or likes. Right?

No, personal preference involves subjective beliefs like religions.

It's certainly may be an indicator of past festivals.

No not necessarily. It is more indicative of the nature of being human in different diverse cultures over the 10s of thousands of years to have religious celebrations on cosmological, seasonal, and life rituals such as birth and death.

 

[shunyadragon]

There really are some common sense ways to make such decisions. I have to avoid much rice though.

Your admiration of @YoursTrue reflects your rejection of science.

You apparently like @YoursTrue define science based on your own personal beliefs and agenda.