How do you define SCIENCE?

[shunyadragon]

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 In fact, not only is that conclusion illogical, but we know from historical documents that Thanksgiving did not become a national holiday until Lincoln.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.

Harvest festivals are widely observed around the world. The time is dependent on the traditional harvest time. Harvest festivals most likely developed independently around the world dependent on giving thanks for bountiful harvest. Actually, the current Thanksgiving in the USA does not reflect the actual harvest time common in the colonies.

The earliest British colonial settlers most likely celebrated the unofficial harvest festival on the Sunday closest to the harvest moon.

A guide to the UK’s harvest time - Dexam

Harvest season is an important time in the British farming calendar, as we reap the rewards of the past year and see crops harvested for food and animal feed.

www.dexam.co.uk

Here in The UK, the harvest festival doesn’t have an official public holiday date. Instead, it is usually celebrated on the Sunday nearest to the harvest moon, which is the full moon that occurs nearest to the Autumn equinox, usually towards the end of September.

 

[YoursTrue]

P

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".


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".

Good point about hearing noise because that kind of describes it.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

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.

That may be true about your misunderstanding over your erroneous summation of the belief Hockeypuckey and some others may have about the age of the earth, however it is absolutely integral to have a decent conversation with basics determined. That includes the idea of how old the earth is. I've been reading a little about aboriginals in Australia, and I find it not only interesting but questionable regarding statements made about how long they were there. Plus more. Another day perhaps.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

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.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Yes, I asked the cook to put less rice on my plate but that's because I tend to eat too much of it.

 

[YoursTrue]

@IndigoChild5559 ,
If the Australian aborigines had no written record, how do scientists know they’ve been there 70,000 years?


I think the evidence presented by those two researchers, regarding the commonality of these far-flung festivals of the dead & found also in Australia, discredit any “60,000 to 70,000 years” hypothesis.

I'd like to know that also. I read a few articles now and see publications say the aborigines are real real old (yes like 60-70,000 years) but it's only their word. No proof (oh by that I mean substantiation). Or evidence. Maybe tools they dated, maybe soil getting into the tool, etc.?

 

[shunyadragon]

P

Good point about hearing noise because that kind of describes it.

Turkeys of a feather flock together,

 

[cladking]

Your admiration of @YoursTrue reflects your rejection of science.

That's not funny I don't think but it might be closer than most things around here.

I admire @YoursTrue because he is insightful and logical not because I agree with him. I come closer to agreeing with you than he but you can't understand that. you have to put everyone who disagrees with you in a little box inscribed creationists and heretics.

I love real science. What you've been peddling here is more a belief system. You've written much better posts than this in the past.

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

No. I define terms such that they are accurate and specific. there are ample general terms in the language so scientific terms should be as comprehensive, specific, and accurate as possible. Words are the glue of models so good definitions can lead to good thinking.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'd like to know that also. I read a few articles now and see publications say the aborigines are real real old (yes like 60-70,000 years) but it's only their word. No proof (oh by that I mean substantiation). Or evidence. Maybe tools they dated, maybe soil getting into the tool, etc.?

The bones, pottery, and wooden objects are what date the arrival of the Aborigines in Australia.

Of course, you only accept the dating of carbon 14 for toy dinosaurs from Mexico less than 100 years old..

 

[shunyadragon]

That's not funny I don't think but it might be closer than most things around here.

I admire @YoursTrue because he is insightful and logical not because I agree with him. I come closer to agreeing with you than he but you can't understand that. you have to put everyone who disagrees with you in a little box inscribed creationists and heretics.

Your admiration of @YoursTrue puts you in the box of those rejecting the accepted universal science worldwide

I love real science. What you've been peddling here is more a belief system. You've written much better posts than this in the past.



No. I define terms such that they are accurate and specific. there are ample general terms in the language so scientific terms should be as comprehensive, specific, and accurate as possible. Words are the glue of models so good definitions can lead to good thinking.

Like @YoursTrue, what you consider accurate and specific is your own personal science, and nothe Methodological Naturalism practiced in all the major universities of the world.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's not funny I don't think but it might be closer than most things around here.

I admire @YoursTrue because he is insightful and logical not because I agree with him. I come closer to agreeing with you than he but you can't understand that. you have to put everyone who disagrees with you in a little box inscribed creationists and heretics.

I love real science. What you've been peddling here is more a belief system. You've written much better posts than this in the past.



No. I define terms such that they are accurate and specific. there are ample general terms in the language so scientific terms should be as comprehensive, specific, and accurate as possible. Words are the glue of models so good definitions can lead to good thinking.

Ohhh...in deference, I have enjoyed many of your comments and they make sense to me about some things. I find shunydragon's opinions often supercilious without warrant except that he thinks so and is agreement with those he considers real smart but I also see no backup except superciliousness from him.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's not funny I don't think but it might be closer than most things around here.

I admire @YoursTrue because he is insightful and logical not because I agree with him. I come closer to agreeing with you than he but you can't understand that. you have to put everyone who disagrees with you in a little box inscribed creationists and heretics.

I love real science. What you've been peddling here is more a belief system. You've written much better posts than this in the past.



No. I define terms such that they are accurate and specific. there are ample general terms in the language so scientific terms should be as comprehensive, specific, and accurate as possible. Words are the glue of models so good definitions can lead to good thinking.

P.S. I didn't get the impression you admired me. Just that you are friendly and I like some of your viewpoints. I guess that got me in trouble with shunydragon.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your admiration of @YoursTrue puts you in the box of those rejecting the accepted universal science worldwide


Like @YoursTrue, what you consider accurate and specific is your own personal science, and nothe Methodological Naturalism practiced in all the major universities of the world.

So?? Me oh my!

 

[cladking]

the accepted universal science worldwide

Ah, yes. There is one science and one doctrine. One dogma to which all must worship. Reality poofed into existence when homo omnisciencis invented experiment and was confirmed by the very first Peer.

Now if you could just get Egyptologists to agree about anything at all you could get people to believe.

Of course true believers won't even notice that 3% of physicists believe an airplane can't take off from a conveyor moving the opposite direction.

It must be nice to follow the one true religion and be among the holiest of all thous.

 

[shunyadragon]

P.S. I didn't get the impression you admired me. Just that you are friendly and I like some of your viewpoints. I guess that got me in trouble with shunydragon.

Turkeys of a feather flock together. Actually, I am indifferent to you both, because you have nothing to offer concerning science. The stories of cud-chewing rabbits and toy dinosaurs from Mexico make these threads amusing.

 

[cladking]

...the accepted universal science worldwide

Shaka, when the walls fell.

Nothing funny here either.

 

[YoursTrue]

The bones, pottery, and wooden objects are what date the arrival of the Aborigines in Australia.

Of course, you only accept the dating of carbon 14 for toy dinosaurs from Mexico less than 100 years old..

I figured that's how they might have done the dating. But I've been reading a lttle more about the Australian aborigines and it appears they did not develop a system of writing before colonisation, although it is said there was a huge variety of languages, including sign language. Since this was not particularly the subject though, I'll leave it for now.

 

[YoursTrue]

Turkeys of a feather flock together. Actually, I am indifferent to you both, because you have nothing to offer concerning science.

(lol) you're funny but not too often.

 

[John53]

I'd like to know that also. I read a few articles now and see publications say the aborigines are real real old (yes like 60-70,000 years) but it's only their word. No proof (oh by that I mean substantiation). Or evidence. Maybe tools they dated, maybe soil getting into the tool, etc.?

History of Indigenous Australians - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[YoursTrue]

History of Indigenous Australians - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I read some of that, seeing the ideas as to how they left Africa, etc. What I find interesting is that they did not develop a system of writing until colonization.