Learning: Introduction

[Segev Moran]

How would you define science?

The process by which we determine what is probable and what not.
It is based on evidence, experiments, observations and math.
Science is built upon theories who then are tested to be falsified.
This means we come up with an idea and try to prove its wrong.
As long as we can't, it is considered possible.
It is of course only valid for ideas that can be falsified unlike theology, mythology, pseudosciences and the likes of those.
That's why the question of god can not be a scientific theory as it cannot be proven wrong.

Briefly, what is the history of science?

Science emerged from philosophy in a way.
It is a process that was developed over the years while trying to find the best way to describe reality in an unbiased, falsifiable manner.

What is the strengths and weaknesses of science?

Some key strengths of science in my opinion:
* Science is unbiased
* Science can be practiced by anyone without any former education
* Science is global and non discriminating
* Science improves science
* Science is the only way we can become better humans
* Science prevents idiots from becoming idiots with power (not enough though... too many idiots still have too much power)

As for weaknesses, i can't think of weakness of science persay rather of humans weaknesses that involve science:

* humans abuse science
* humans don't practice enough science
* there isn't a universal law preventing idiots ruling other people using non scientific claims.

 

[blü 2]

So you'd say the weakness is that science, like democracy,
is run by people?

I think the record will support that view. Another way of putting it would be to say that for a human endeavor, science's success has been pretty remarkable.

 

[CLee421]

Scie

How would you define science?

Briefly, what is the history of science?

What is the strengths and weaknesses of science?

Science literally means "knowledge" ... knowledge obtained by observation.

Strengths? Knowledge is power.

Weaknesses? See above

 

[Polymath257]

The first concept you have to understand is the tree of life. It is also called a nested hierarchy or a phylogeny.

A good analogy is language. As you are probably aware, there are the three major Romance languages of French, Spanish, and Italian. All of these languages share a common ancestral language called Vulgar Latin.

If a modern French speaker went back in time they probably wouldn't be able to understand someone speaking an early form of French, just as you would have a tough time reading the Canterbury Tales in their original Middle English, and probably have no chance of reading or understanding Old English. And yet, every generation of French speakers was able to understand the generation before them and communicate to the generation after them. So what happened? Small changes accumulate over time to the point that they produce big differences.

On top of that, language groups were developing separate from one another. Whatever changes happened early on in the French speaking group were different from the changes that happened in the Spanish speaking group. Over time, those languages diverged. They became less and less like each other over time even though both language groups started with the same common ancestral language. At the same time, you can still find Spanish and French words that are obviously similar, and they are similar because they share a common ancestral language.

This is the sort of process that produces the tree of life, the branching structure of shared features and different features. Small changes accumulate over time which is why you can see larger differences between modern species and fossil species. You also get different changes in different species that share a common ancestor, and this is what causes modern species to be different from each other.

Does that make sense?

One slight, and not particularly relevant (at this point) caveat: languages tend to evolve via something closer to the Lamarckian as opposed to the Darwinian model.

Nonetheless, the analogy is often quite good.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

One slight, and not particularly relevant (at this point) caveat: languages tend to evolve via something closer to the Lamarckian as opposed to the Darwinian model.

Nonetheless, the analogy is often quite good.

No analogy is perfect. Another major drawback for the language analogy is horizontal transfer from other languages. English is notorious for using a lot of French words, as one example.

 

[gnostic]

I couldn't agree with you more, but thus the dilemma. We should let scientists do science and the creationist sort out creation.

Creationists don’t sort out creation.

He or she (as a Christian) interpret the myths from Genesis 1 & 2 and John 1 to be true without verification.

It isn’t sorting out, because you have already made up your mind about creation. And that takes blind faith.

 

[gnostic]

Science can't test the supernatural so it has absolutely no say in the matter.

Creationists cannot prove the supernatural, then creationists should have no say on the supernatural.

 

[gnostic]

Evolution is a scientific theory. I begin the discussion by coming to an agreement on what science is in the hope of establishing a fair exchange. I don't want the typical discussion of is evolution stupid or is creationism stupid. I think they are both stupid, that isn't the point.

What is stupid is that you don’t even know what “scientific theory” is.

To go back to your original questions, with what is science?

Science is a tool or methodology of understanding the physical and natural world, through mean of observation and empirical evidences.

The scientific theory is explanations accompanied with observable, measurable, testable and repeatable data from the evidences found or experiments tested. The theory is explanations on on observable facts.

The more evidences you have that support the theory, the more probable that the theory is true.

The more evidences you have against the theory, or if there are lack of evidences, than the less probability that the theory is true.

Science deal with sorting what’s true and what’s false, through probability, eg by the amount of evidences there are.

Religion and philosophies go by what they think is possible or impossible, respectively through conviction (therefore faith in belief) and through rationality. Neither religion, nor philosophy, require objective evidences.

 

[Audie]

What is stupid is that you don’t even know what “scientific theory” is.

To go back to your original questions, with what is science?

Science is a tool or methodology of understanding the physical and natural world, through mean of observation and empirical evidences.

The scientific theory is explanations accompanied with observable, measurable, testable and repeatable data from the evidences found or experiments tested. The theory is explanations on on observable facts.

The more evidences you have that support the theory, the more probable that the theory is true.

The more evidences you have against the theory, or if there are lack of evidences, than the less probability that the theory is true.

Science deal with sorting what’s true and what’s false, through probability, eg by the amount of evidences there are.

Religion and philosophies go by what they think is possible or impossible, respectively through conviction (therefore faith in belief) and through rationality. Neither religion, nor philosophy, require objective evidences.

Just so ya know he is gone, nothin's gonna bring
him back.

 

[gnostic]

No analogy is perfect. Another major drawback for the language analogy is horizontal transfer from other languages. English is notorious for using a lot of French words, as one example.

What?!

I can speak French?!

 

[gnostic]

Just so ya know he is gone, nothin's gonna bring
him back.

He ran away, again?

 

[Audie]

He ran away, again?

Says he aint never coming back, but now that I think
a bit...why did I suddenly start to believe him?

That is me choosing to believe what i want to
believe, the very thing I get all wonderful and
point at what others do, but me, no, not me,
certainly not.

The guy finally got me. How embarrassing.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

What?!

I can speak French?!

If you think beef comes from cows, then yes. A lot of the words for foods comes from French while we still use older English words to describe the animals the food comes from. I always found that to be interesting.