The Problem with Science

[shunyadragon]

Sir you are practically saying space does not exist. It is quite apparent you have no idea what you are talking about as you keep giving moo moo arguments.

The 'space' you describe does not exist. 'Space' does indeed exist as defined in the English language.


From: space definition - Google Search

Space noun

1. 1. a continuous area or expanse that is free, available, or unoccupied.
   "a table took up much of the space"
   synonyms: room, capacity, area, volume, expanse, extent, scope, latitude, margin, leeway, play, clearance More.
2. the dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move.
   "the work gives the sense of a journey in space and time"
3. verb

1. 1.
   position (two or more items) at a distance from one another.
   "the houses are spaced out"
   synonyms: position, arrange, range, array, dispose, lay out, locate, situate, set, stand
   "the chairs were spaced widely".
2. informal
   be or become distracted, euphoric, or disoriented, especially from taking drugs; cease to be aware of one's surroundings.
   "I was so tired that I began to feel totally spaced out"

 

[Milton Platt]

Science is discipline at the universally objective end of the Truth spectrum called knowledge. But in a free society, anyone who lives in a religious or otherwise subjective world, can waltz into a scientific endeavor and start branding everything from Truth to toilet paper with subjective qualities, and even claim what they're doing is objective and universally true for everyone.

So how does a person seeking knowledge deal with this. Yeah, ignore them as best we can, but what happens when they start, through political correctness or brute force, to be come professors, politicians, judges and police officers? The war between good an evil always starts out as struggle for Truth starting with outright lies a twisting the definitions of words to enable the unknowledgeable (in modern parlance, political correctness) to establish and maintain a double standard.

There is no silver bullet. But understanding what's going on, that a double standard is always at the bottom of all corruption/evil, is as close as we're ever gonna come to having one. So, bottom line, it isn't just a problem with science (though it's somewhat easier to expose there, thus the title here), but also with justice, love and even art, as well.

Maybe you should write a book........

Sorry, sarcasm is my kind of humor...no offense meant. That has always been and always will be a problem. Education is part of the answer. As scientific literacy goes down, this sort of stuff increases.

But that is not a problem with science, it is problem with people lacking education in the subject matter, lacking critical thinking skills, etc.

 

[james blunt]

The 'space' you describe does not exist. 'Space' does indeed exist as defined in the English language.

Huh? There is only one space, I am not describing anything other than space. You know the space at the end of your nose that you can see with your eyes if you look .

Space noun

1. 1. a continuous area or expanse that is free, available, or unoccupied.

Which I quoted you, what does unoccupied mean to you ?

It means empty , nothing , does it not ?

You are clutching at straws that do not need to be clutched.

Space is a vast nothingness.

 

[Milton Platt]

Huh? There is only one space, I am not describing anything other than space. You know the space at the end of your nose that you can see with your eyes if you look .


Which I quoted you, what does unoccupied mean to you ?

It means empty , nothing , does it not ?

You are clutching at straws that do not need to be clutched.

Space is a vast nothingness.

And yet the space at the end of your nose is not unoccupied......

 

[james blunt]

And yet the space at the end of your nose is not unoccupied......

Of course not, a small volume of space at the end of your nose has elements occupying that volume of space, particles and Quantum field radiation . However if you were to remove those particles and quantum field radiation, there is the absolute of space left. The absolute that has a single property whole of nothingness.

 

[Milton Platt]

Of course not, a small volume of space at the end of your nose has elements occupying that volume of space, particles and Quantum field radiation . However if you were to remove those particles and quantum field radiation, there is the absolute of space left. The absolute that has a single property whole of nothingness.

Not according to many cosmologists and physicists. They would say that it is filled with energy and sub atomic particles continually popping in and out of existence. That stuff is way above my pay grade, though. Is there anything that can truly be called "empty space"? I don't know. Just playing the devil's advocate here. Maybe someone else can chime in. It seems a good bet that as they say, "Nature abhors a vacuum" and everything is filled with something, even if it is energy waves and/or photons.....

I may be derailing your original thread....sorry.

 

[shunyadragon]

Huh? There is only one space, I am not describing anything other than space. You know the space at the end of your nose that you can see with your eyes if you look .


Which I quoted you, what does unoccupied mean to you ?

It means empty , nothing , does it not ?

You are clutching at straws that do not need to be clutched.

Space is a vast nothingness.

Your clutching at straws, and you did not look at the examples given. Of course, empty of what? None of the examples equate what you describe as absolute nothing. As I said before you have to go to the philosophical nothing, 'ex nihilo,' to get what may be called 'nothing, and again this has never been objectively observed.

 

[james blunt]

Your clutching at straws, and you did not look at the examples given. Of course, empty of what? None of the examples equate what you describe as absolute nothing. As I said before you have to go to the philosophical nothing, 'ex nihilo,' to get what may be called 'nothing, and again this has never been objectively observed.

No, you are not thinking this through, you can see what nothing looks like when you view space.

Nothing is not philosophy. ''Physical'' nothing is space, consider nothing is a property of space.

What are the properties of space ?

Nothing TRUE

 

[shunyadragon]

No, you are not thinking this through, you can see what nothing looks like when you view space.

Nothing is not philosophy. ''Physical'' nothing is space, consider nothing is a property of space.

What are the properties of space ?

Nothing TRUE

Nothing in not a property of space. All objectively observed space contains something.

 

[james blunt]

Nothing in not a property of space. All objectively observed space contains something.

Why do you keep putting something in space?

Why are you struggling to ''see'' space and to think about space independent of substance?

Think Sir! Empty your mind then empty the space.

What are the properties of space?

 

[shunyadragon]

Why do you keep putting something in space?

Why are you struggling to ''see'' space and to think about space independent of substance?

Think Sir! Empty your mind then empty the space.

What are the properties of space?

Why . . . . ? because there is not any objectively observed 'space' that does not contain something.

There are many properties that space, space is defined by what it contains per definition provided, such as everyday objects, chemicals, particles, and all forms of energy and matter. There never has been any space that does not contain something.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Why do you keep putting something in space?

Why are you struggling to ''see'' space and to think about space independent of substance?

Think Sir! Empty your mind then empty the space.

What are the properties of space?

I'm afraid that it is you that need to think things through. I couldn't begin to show all the things wrong with your xyz coordinate model.There is no such thing as empty space, at any point in a 3 dimensional spatial universe. Every point in space can be weighed, has energy, vibrates, has pressure, and radiates. Please read the most accurate, the most tested, and the most predictable Theory in physics. The Quantum Field Theory. Every point in our entire Universe in bathed in multiple fields at different quantum states. Think of every point in space as tiny balls with a spring attached. These balls are oscillating up and down at different rates(quanta). A perfect vacuum can never be achieved, since it would violate a whole host of physical laws. Even light could not move through a perfectly empty space. It needs a medium to propagate. Gravity and matter waves would not exists in absolute nothing. No matter how much you may wish it were so, it just ain't. Do you really think that there can be a hole in the blanket of space? Please think again. The evidence is overwhelming.

 

[Augustus]

Applying science, i.e. reason, to government, renders it to be a constitutional republic with a capitalist economic system, and citizens educated by anything other than government schools.

Applying "science" to government has produced all kinds of results throughout history, most of them decidedly illiberal (Jacobinism, Marxism, etc).

 

[shunyadragon]

Applying "science" to government has produced all kinds of results throughout history, most of them decidedly illiberal (Jacobinism, Marxism, etc).

In reality science is most often applied to economic systems, and not systems of government. They of course are most often misguided attempts of applying science to economic systems. These attempts were in the realm of applied science, which more often than not have a weak base in basic sciences. Nonetheless economic systems do evolve from more a practical result of what works and what does not, with the evolution of the academic discipline of economics..

 

[Augustus]

In reality science is most often applied to economic systems, and not systems of government. They of course are most often misguided attempts of applying science to economic systems. These attempts were in the realm of applied science, which more often than not have a weak base in basic sciences. Nonetheless economic systems do evolve from more a practical result of what works and what does not, with the evolution of the academic discipline of economics..

I was really commenting on the nonsensical nature of saying that "science" leads to a constitutional democracy/capitalism/etc. seeing as the same arguments have been used for many different systems of government.

Even economics is probably as much of a science as astrology is.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Applying "science" to government has produced all kinds of results throughout history, most of them decidedly illiberal (Jacobinism, Marxism, etc).

Quote science unquote...exactly.

 

[Augustus]

Quote science unquote...exactly.

Strange that you can easily see that with ideologies you dislike, yet fool yourself into believing your views reflect actual science, rather than "science".

 

[shunyadragon]

I was really commenting on the nonsensical nature of saying that "science" leads to a constitutional democracy/capitalism/etc. seeing as the same arguments have been used for many different systems of government.

Even economics is probably as much of a science as astrology is.

My point was clear, science does not have much if anything to do forms of government. I do consider economics to be a legitimate applied science discipline even though it is often abused, and the amateurs have a field with the weejie board playing an economic shell game.

 

[gnostic]

Political science, if it were actually treated as a science, must start with a statement of the objective of politics.

Doesn’t political science falls under the much broader umbrella of “social science”?

I don’t know, because I was never big on social science. I don’t know why there is “science” in the “social”, since the Scientific Method don’t apply here.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Doesn’t political science falls under the much broader umbrella of “social science”?

I don’t know, because I was never big on social science. I don’t know why there is “science” in the “social”, since the Scientific Method don’t apply here.

It can, and should, but yes, it's usually just a collection of political bias.