The Instigator
dr_sepheroth
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
LuckyScientist
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Science is for science

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 181 times Debate No: 90467
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

dr_sepheroth

Pro

In the time I have been on this website, I have seen subjects being debated under science from meta physics and child abuse to physical strength between men and woman and even stupid debates like is the earth flat ?

Science is science, and should only be used as science.

Like Albert Einstein said, "Only two things in this universe are certain, the universe and stupidity of mankind, and I am not sure about the universe."

This area should be restricted to scientific debate.

If you agree cast your opinion and post your vote.
LuckyScientist

Con

Science is for science. An odd statement. It instills this idea that science some kind of specific subset of subjects, ideas, concepts and paradigms. While to an extent this is true but it makes it seem like science is some kind of self contained dogma. Science is not a belief system or an ideology. It is a means of objectively viewing the universe in which we live, making sense of observations through empirical evidence. In this, all things can be discussed under science. All things can come under scrutiny using the scientific method.

People will always be stupid. There will always be a particular subset of people who believe the most ridiculous things imaginable, like the fact the earth is flat (there is one user in particular who like to keep starting debates under this topic, I sense she may be a troll). That said, they are entitled to but this forward as a view are entitled to have those views obliterated using logic and science. It would be wrong to no platform a debate topic by saying it doesn't fall under the topic of science. Once the scientific method is applied I see no issue. Science is a tool, not just a subject.
Debate Round No. 1
dr_sepheroth

Pro

dr_sepheroth forfeited this round.
LuckyScientist

Con

Forfeits are nice.
Debate Round No. 2
dr_sepheroth

Pro

dr_sepheroth forfeited this round.
LuckyScientist

Con

LuckyScientist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
dr_sepheroth

Pro

Mathematics is the very essence of science, how can anyone say mathematics and science are not synonyms to each other ?

With out mathematics science would not exist and with out science mathematics would not have reached the level it is currently at !
With out science we would not have calculus, trigonometry and algebraic topography.

Modern day Calculus was invented by Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Isaac Newton being the famous Physicist and Gottfried Leibniz who was a famous Mathematician.

One of Isaac Newtons many great discoveries is that force is proportional to the product of two mass's and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
The formula for this can be seen below.
F = G frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}
This formula is a mixture of Differential and Integral Calculus !

This can also be seen in equations from Erwin Schr"dinger.
For N particles in three dimensions, the Hamiltonian is:

\hat{H} = \sum_{n=1}^{N}\frac{\hat{\mathbf{p}}_n\cdot\hat{\mathbf{p}}_n}{2m_n} + V(\mathbf{r}_1,\mathbf{r}_2,\cdots\mathbf{r}_N) \,,\quad \hat{\mathbf{p}}_n = -i\hbar \nabla_n

where the position of particle n is rn and the gradient operators are partial derivatives with respect to the particle's position coordinates. In Cartesian coordinates, for particle n, the position vector is
rn = (xn, yn, zn)
while the gradient and Laplacian operator are respectively:

\nabla_n = \mathbf{e}_x \frac{\partial}{\partial x_n} + \mathbf{e}_y\frac{\partial}{\partial y_n} + \mathbf{e}_z\frac{\partial}{\partial z_n}\,,\quad \nabla_n^2 = \nabla_n\cdot\nabla_n = \frac{\partial^2}{{\partial x_n}^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{{\partial y_n}^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{{\partial z_n}^2}

The Schr"dinger equation is:

-\frac{\hbar^2}{2}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\frac{1}{m_n}\nabla_n^2\Psi(\mathbf{r}_1,\mathbf{r}_2,\cdots\mathbf{r}_N) + V(\mathbf{r}_1,\mathbf{r}_2,\cdots\mathbf{r}_N)\Psi(\mathbf{r}_1,\mathbf{r}_2,\cdots\mathbf{r}_N) = E\Psi(\mathbf{r}_1,\mathbf{r}_2,\cdots\mathbf{r}_N)

with stationary state solutions:

\Psi(\mathbf{r}_1,\mathbf{r}_2\cdots \mathbf{r}_N,t) = e^{-iEt/\hbar}\psi(\mathbf{r}_1,\mathbf{r}_2\cdots \mathbf{r}_N)

Again, for non-interacting distinguishable particles the potential is the sum of particle potentials

V(\mathbf{r}_1,\mathbf{r}_2,\cdots \mathbf{r}_N) = \sum_{n=1}^N V(\mathbf{r}_n)

and the wavefunction is a product of the particle wave functions

\Psi(\mathbf{r}_1,\mathbf{r}_2\cdots \mathbf{r}_N,t) = e^{-i{E t/\hbar}}\prod_{n=1}^N\psi(\mathbf{r}_n) \, .

All of this is a mix of integral and differential calculus.

Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz contribution to mathematics has been enormus. We would not have the laws of physics, as we currently understand them, if it were not for calculus.

Mathematics is a science in itself. It is a Science of the manipulation of numbers and operators. This is the spinal cord of science.

Science can only be for Science is saying Science is a science and Mathematics is a Science. Both of these fields of study work together and applied to each other make each other work !
LuckyScientist

Con

LuckyScientist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
dr_sepheroth

Pro

dr_sepheroth forfeited this round.
LuckyScientist

Con

I guess this is the end.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
Ahhh, science and math are not synonymous. LOL
Posted by LuckyScientist 9 months ago
LuckyScientist
Indeed, mathematics is such a subjective perception.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
How silly too claim that science provides for an objective way to view the world when it based on nothing but the subjective sensory perceptions.
No votes have been placed for this debate.