 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 374 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614087 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sex is the most important thing in life for virgins. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Because the things examined are different from in the natural sciences. There's a distinction between natural sciences and humane sciences, etc, but it isn't so that only one of these are science. You really haven't thought this through, have you? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
He may have better things to do. I have a fever, so I don't. I also doubt he'd put an end to anything. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Peru. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Is he really? He could go the extra mile and visit me in Arica. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, he's there for a month - minus 3 days now. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Science means "knowledge of something acquired by study". That's the same kind of fallacy that leads to lay-people believing that there is space for creationism as "another theory" alongside evolution. You can dress it up in nice peer-reviewed clothes, but it's still baseless junk. In a similar way, over the last years we've seen an encroachment on the sciences by new disciplines such as sociology, social science, political science. The has a section for the Faculty of Social and Human Sciences. I am somewhat questionable of the scientific rigour in some of these disciplines... Science does not mean "knowledge acquired by study". By that definition, I could study Enya videos and decide which ones I like best and pick out all the little production mistakes and call it science. Science is a system of objective knowledge. Objective is the operative word. In particular, science refers to knowledge obtained through the scientific method, and to the ensemble of this shared knowledge. By their very nature, humans cannot be objective. We can only observe the world around us through the stained-glass of our five senses. Even if we augment our senses with sensors and other electronic instruments, these exist within the same framework as we do. But science means doing the best you can to be objective. It means replicable experiments. It means empirical (experimental) evidence. It means prediction based only on valid observations and logical deduction. It means subjecting hypotheses and theories to efforts to disprove them. And it means doing it repeatedly. Just because Hooke's Law has been around for hundreds of years doesn't mean we should stop testing it with new materials, in new situations, with new parameters. We might find it to be wrong, or not universal. Science is not "knowledge of something acquired by study". |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you're in for it now. i mentioned the "objective knowledge" bit in another thread and was lynched by drunken mastah and marlowe. OH BUT HOW CAN KNOWLEDGE BE OBJECTIVE? THE IDEA IS ABSURD, OH YES ps good post. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
observation and inference is 'study', but it isn't necessarily 'science'. i think you're leaving out the experimentation and nullification processes that are required in science... or, maybe not, i didn't really read all of this. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oohwow i didn't even see page two. ignore me as usual.. (my post was intended as a general reply to DM from page one of this thread) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's why I included the caveat about human experience. Absolute objectivity is impossible. Objectivity within the realm of human possibility is what science aims for. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
wow! a zilty thread with lots of interesting posts. *...dum dee do dee da dee dee dum... ... if I only had a brain...* |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You seem to believe in magic. That when something is "scientific," it's magically heightened beyond other theories. The fallacy at play here isn't what you claim, but rather that people try to discredit theories by refusing to call them scientific, as if this magically invalidates them. Creationism is a grey area, but what invalidates it as a scientific theory is that what it says doesn't always fit the data it's trying to explain, at least not in the way we want it to. However, to discredit it, one would first have to consider it as a scientific theory and then test it, just as one does with any other theory. Are/were Newton's physics unscientific just because they have been (partly) disproved? That the followers of creationism still cling to their theory just proves that they don't adhere to commonly practised scientific method. If science is a system of objective knowledge, there wouldn't be much to it. Objective knowledge limits itself to the objective properties of a thing, and these are only the properties that relate only to the thing itself. Even though you can't examine a thing without being in a relation to it, let's say that examples of these properties would be the thing's weight and size. There's not much information to gain from that. "This atom is so-and-so large and weighs so-and-so much. The end." With objective knowledge alone you can't explain anything; with observations alone, you can't explain anything. Therefore science also involves the explanation of the observed phenomenons, not only the observation of said phenomenons. Knowledge of a phenomenon is the understanding of the explanations of it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"However, to discredit it, one would first have to consider it as a scientific theory and then test it, just as one does with any other theory." Nah, creationism can be discredited as a scientific theory because it is by its very nature impossible to disprove. It is just bad science. That doesn't necessarily disprove it factually, but it does mean that it should not be considered 'science'. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
As I said, creationism is kind of grey, and thus it kind of depends on the particulars of the theory. Those that are worded more "neutrally" have possible experiences that could prove or disprove them even though their undertones or motivations are the same as the more radically christian ones. Also, on your comment about experimentation.. in some cases experimentation can't be anything more than observation, if you catch my drift. A good example is social anthropology. You can't really do any experiments on people without necessarily making your observations invalid as observations of what you're supposed to be observing (daily happenings), but you can.. probe: you can ask questions, etc, to get answers to things. That the phenomenon is such that it cannot be reproduced in a "controlled environment" (because it is too extensive, for example) doesn't necessarily mean that something isn't science. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You seem to believe in magic. That when something is "scientific," it's magically heightened beyond other theories. I didn't say that, and I don't think that, and I don't believe in magic. Did you read what I said? Newtonion classical mechanics remains scientific because they explain phenomena within certain restrictions. When he created them, he did not know these restrictions. Later scientists continued to build on his work and proved that some of it didn't work in certain cases. But they came up with theories which try to explain these cases. That's how science works, an observation leads to a theory. An experiment proves or disproves a theory. Another theory builds on this theory, or the fact that it was disproven. More experiments and observations prove or disprove this, and so the scientific method continues. Since I foolishly brought up the creationism point, think of it this way. Creationism is an earlier theory, like Newtonian mechanics, except much earlier. When it was created, it couldn't be disproved using the science of the time. So it stood. Much of it has now been disproved, along with the flat earth hypothesis and the theory of the sun orbiting the earth. Most of what remains cannot be disproved, due to its very nature. If a theory says there is an imperceptible cat sitting beside me as I type this, I can never disprove it, nor prove it. It will remain a theory, and a useless one at that. Creationists want to turn back the clock on scientific progress with irrefutable theories about imperceptible beings. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no sex is not the most important thing. sex ultimate goal is to provide a satisfying orgasm which lasts a few seconds, if you want to say those few seconds are the most important seconds in everyones life be my guest, i dont believe that thogh |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh, yes, the ultimate goal of sex certainly is to provide orgasm. ........ |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"That's how science works, an observation leads to a theory. An experiment proves or disproves a theory [etc]" Yeah, and now you've included all those things you've previously excluded, like social sciences. Something is observed, and a theory about it is created. The experiments may be different depending on the object of study, and sometimes it will be more of a probing than an experiment, but that doesn't exclude it from being a science. And I don't really get where in the world you get the idea that these sciences somehow steal the natural sciences' objects of study.. it's more the other way around with sociobiology trying to explain social phenomena with biological explanations, and doing a very very poor job at it too; it's already way outside of the limits of what it can explain. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah it is, it's not to make babies as some people think. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i have lost so much respect for you, DM. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I said I questioned the scientific rigour in the disciplines, not whether they are science or not. If they follow the scientific method, with sufficient verifiability and replicability, etc. then they are science. Studies with 10 subjects don't count. And I don't really get where in the world you get the idea that these sciences somehow steal the natural sciences' objects of study.. I'm not sure where you read that either. Anyway, I hope you've all enjoyed the ride. Be seeing you. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"I'm not sure where you read that either." "In a similar way, over the last years we've seen an encroachment on the sciences by new disciplines such as sociology, social science, political science." Did I misunderstand the word encroachment? Sufficient is a pretty vague word... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i got tired of reading all these posts about 2/3 of the way through, so i'll just reiterate what I think would have been the most important statement i made before: SCIENCE WITHOUT FALSIFICATION IS BAD SCIENCE!!! SCIENCE WITHOUT FALSIFICATION IS BAD SCIENCE!!! SCIENCE WITHOUT FALSIFICATION IS BAD SCIENCE!!! SCIENCE WITHOUT FALSIFICATION IS BAD SCIENCE!!! SCIENCE WITHOUT FALSIFICATION IS BAD SCIENCE!!! SCIENCE WITHOUT FALSIFICATION IS BAD SCIENCE!!! if we're now discussing what is science and what isn't we're in karl popper's territory, which is leaps and bounds past freud, scientifically and philosophically. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
...well, that all depends on your definition of "is"... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
d, unlike you and dog_belch, most members have much to discuss here. i don't even need to make inteligent posts (i can't in english) to have inteligent replies. i like this place. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
right now it seems to have significant control over my life. i don't know if this is good or bad, but i am having a lot of fun. find a freaky little girl and get it on.....ain't no feeling like this or any drug that can compare. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
seems to me like the best threads are in capitals nowadays |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Rather than get into a heated discussion about sex (omg no pun intended lolz!) I will just say that sex is great... as long as all the interested parties go into it with a good mindset. pew pew, QQ ftw. :D |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
When I was a little boy, I wanted to grow up and learn about philosophy, psychology, and all those interesting fields. But then I started to see educated smug people debating. It threw me off for life |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
damn, now that i've actually read a bit of the previous discussion i feel ashamed of digging up this piece of turd. i still believe the thread-title was ok, though. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
whether science is [100%] objective or not, you will still eventually arrive at a valid theory, right? if you come up with a hypothesis that you want to be correct, then that's subjective. but then testing that hypothesis will still reveal the hypothesis to be valid or invalid regardless. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh god, shut up. let it die. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
calm down sanchez. what a crock of shit! since when has this messageboard been called X-L-crock-of-shit? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you shut your mouth liz! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
this thread reads like a trip to some grotty student union bar. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
my thoughts exactly. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I hope sex isn't that important in life. = | |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i love u |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I've never had sex. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Lucky you. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I didn't care about freud until I read he based his ideas on darwin. I still havn't read much of his stuff but its probably obvious (reproducing/replicating is the basis of our existance so our mind is based on sex). I don't even think god predicted that this life/ existence of us multicelled organisms, as sprung up from some stupid things that happened to be good at replicating, would be this real and vivid- then again I don't believe in god, at least a conventional one. And this life that I have I am wasting on xltronic. My soul is partly evaporated. I'm not sure I even have a physical body to interact with the world outside screen text. But that's enough about penguins, as detached as they are from the shortcomings of the mastadon triad. I could have spelled it right years ago if they purple and gazelle me in the trunk of neptune or else. But alas the time has come for neuron balloons to debunk our own material existance upon the third everyday sardines and why I told them today it ill. Saw dust eat. Toejam sniff. Pickle sawdust and spaghetti, marbles rolling faintly over a smoke colored flan cheese cake. It is all so beautifully empty and I can't arse to it flake fleas munch. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The unabomber manifesto threw me off. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
