Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What's Science?

Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 6:39:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Define if you can!
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
AbhijeetWatts
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 6:42:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 6:39:29 AM, Dazz wrote:
Define if you can!

Science is the most awesome thing in the Universe. It is enthralling, fascinating and simply indescribably beautiful. It fills me with a sense of curiosity and wonder for the world around us.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 7:30:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 6:42:40 AM, AbhijeetWatts wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:39:29 AM, Dazz wrote:
Define if you can!

Science is the most awesome thing in the Universe. It is enthralling, fascinating and simply indescribably beautiful. It fills me with a sense of curiosity and wonder for the world around us.

Is science a thing? Well yes that's wonderful and curious.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 7:45:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Science is the body of knowledge concerning the world and the universe that has been built up as a result of empirical testing and evidence.

The principles behind it, and therefore the principles behind all the features, process and technology that we use today is that only testable explanations, supported by evidence that methods of predicting how the world does or will operate in a way that we cannot see now is the only will to build any objective model of the way the universe works.

As you sit and type, on your laptop/phone, and ponder the vast sum of modern knowledge that has gone into every singe aspect of your entire life it maybe worth asking how much of the technology that sustains you, and sustains this world has come about as a result of scientific investigation and how many technologies have been designed, theorised or implemented on the grounds of what religion has taught.

Science works.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 2:40:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 6:39:29 AM, Dazz wrote:
Define if you can!

The gathering, interpretation, and application of empirical data to explain natural phenomena in a theoretical manor.

That's how I'd describe it.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 3:55:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would say that science has 3 elements:

1) The gathering of evidence by observation or experiment.

2) The invention of theories that explain the evidence gained.

3) The assumptions and postulates that theories rely on but cannot be proven.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 9:13:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 6:39:29 AM, Dazz wrote:
Define if you can!

Science is knowledge. The term "science" can also be used to indicate the method by which knowledge is attained.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 10:37:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 7:45:24 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
Science is the body of knowledge concerning the world and the universe that has been built up as a result of empirical testing and evidence.

The principles behind it, and therefore the principles behind all the features, process and technology that we use today is that only testable explanations, supported by evidence that methods of predicting how the world does or will operate in a way that we cannot see now is the only will to build any objective model of the way the universe works.

As you sit and type, on your laptop/phone, and ponder the vast sum of modern knowledge that has gone into every singe aspect of your entire life it maybe worth asking how much of the technology that sustains you, and sustains this world has come about as a result of scientific investigation and how many technologies have been designed, theorised or implemented on the grounds of what religion has taught.

Science works.

Wow, you can't even answer a simple question about what science is without taking the opportunity to proselytize against the evils of the great and feared enemy who doesn't even exist, according to you. Regardless though, appealing to the lack of materialistic goods brought about by religious teaching is like complaining about a flu vaccine not helping your golf swing. That's not its objective.

So is it correct to assume from your words that you think materialistic science is the only valid means of gaining knowledge??
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 8:45:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 7:45:24 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

As you sit and type, on your laptop/phone, and ponder the vast sum of modern knowledge that has gone into every singe aspect of your entire life it maybe worth asking how much of the technology that sustains you, and sustains this world has come about as a result of scientific investigation and how many technologies have been designed, theorised or implemented on the grounds of what religion has taught.

Science works.

So because something is good for people and the world that automatically makes it work? Textbook logical fallacy of argument from consequences there. Darwinism inspired the Nazis to kill millions of disabled people in Germany, this doesn't prove that it's wrong.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 11:22:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/21/2013 8:45:13 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 12/20/2013 7:45:24 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

As you sit and type, on your laptop/phone, and ponder the vast sum of modern knowledge that has gone into every singe aspect of your entire life it maybe worth asking how much of the technology that sustains you, and sustains this world has come about as a result of scientific investigation and how many technologies have been designed, theorised or implemented on the grounds of what religion has taught.

Science works.

So because something is good for people and the world that automatically makes it work? Textbook logical fallacy of argument from consequences there. Darwinism inspired the Nazis to kill millions of disabled people in Germany, this doesn't prove that it's wrong.

Ah, but Darwinism helped explain much more of science in the end, and it can therefore be argued that Darwinism helped the world more than it hurt, not to mention the fact that Hitler misapplied Darwinism, so that doesn't really count.

Not a logical fallacy.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 11:24:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/21/2013 11:22:41 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/21/2013 8:45:13 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 12/20/2013 7:45:24 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

As you sit and type, on your laptop/phone, and ponder the vast sum of modern knowledge that has gone into every singe aspect of your entire life it maybe worth asking how much of the technology that sustains you, and sustains this world has come about as a result of scientific investigation and how many technologies have been designed, theorised or implemented on the grounds of what religion has taught.

Science works.

So because something is good for people and the world that automatically makes it work? Textbook logical fallacy of argument from consequences there. Darwinism inspired the Nazis to kill millions of disabled people in Germany, this doesn't prove that it's wrong.

Ah, but Darwinism helped explain much more of science in the end, and it can therefore be argued that Darwinism helped the world more than it hurt, not to mention the fact that Hitler misapplied Darwinism, so that doesn't really count.

Not a logical fallacy.

Moving the goalposts- the atheists favourite past-time.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 11:26:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Surprising to see none of you has linked it with nature yet?
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
obrienkr
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 11:29:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Science is man's systematic and objective investigation of the natural physical world. It refers to both the body of knowledge and to the analytical procedures used in the pursuit of that body knowledge.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 11:34:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 6:42:40 AM, AbhijeetWatts wrote:
Science is the most awesome thing in the Universe. It is enthralling, fascinating and simply indescribably beautiful. It fills me with a sense of curiosity and wonder for the world around us.
Excellent definition, I think the authors of Oxford Dictionaries want to use yours from now on.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 11:41:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/21/2013 11:24:25 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 12/21/2013 11:22:41 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/21/2013 8:45:13 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 12/20/2013 7:45:24 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

As you sit and type, on your laptop/phone, and ponder the vast sum of modern knowledge that has gone into every singe aspect of your entire life it maybe worth asking how much of the technology that sustains you, and sustains this world has come about as a result of scientific investigation and how many technologies have been designed, theorised or implemented on the grounds of what religion has taught.

Science works.

So because something is good for people and the world that automatically makes it work? Textbook logical fallacy of argument from consequences there. Darwinism inspired the Nazis to kill millions of disabled people in Germany, this doesn't prove that it's wrong.

Ah, but Darwinism helped explain much more of science in the end, and it can therefore be argued that Darwinism helped the world more than it hurt, not to mention the fact that Hitler misapplied Darwinism, so that doesn't really count.

Not a logical fallacy.

Moving the goalposts- the atheists favourite past-time.

That has nothing to do with moving the goalposts. I discredited the evidence, and did not ask for greater.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 11:53:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/21/2013 11:34:29 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/20/2013 6:42:40 AM, AbhijeetWatts wrote:
Science is the most awesome thing in the Universe. It is enthralling, fascinating and simply indescribably beautiful. It fills me with a sense of curiosity and wonder for the world around us.
Excellent definition, I think the authors of Oxford Dictionaries want to use yours from now on.

Should be given margin......sometimes!
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 1:14:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 10:37:02 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/20/2013 7:45:24 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
Science is the body of knowledge concerning the world and the universe that has been built up as a result of empirical testing and evidence.

The principles behind it, and therefore the principles behind all the features, process and technology that we use today is that only testable explanations, supported by evidence that methods of predicting how the world does or will operate in a way that we cannot see now is the only will to build any objective model of the way the universe works.

As you sit and type, on your laptop/phone, and ponder the vast sum of modern knowledge that has gone into every singe aspect of your entire life it maybe worth asking how much of the technology that sustains you, and sustains this world has come about as a result of scientific investigation and how many technologies have been designed, theorised or implemented on the grounds of what religion has taught.

Science works.

Wow, you can't even answer a simple question about what science is without taking the opportunity to proselytize against the evils of the great and feared enemy who doesn't even exist, according to you. Regardless though, appealing to the lack of materialistic goods brought about by religious teaching is like complaining about a flu vaccine not helping your golf swing. That's not its objective.

I'm pretty sure the original question was loaded. As they so often are.

As you want to teach your religion as science, the statement is very much valid; as it seems that many people don't really seem to appreciate how much science actually does for the world and how little the religion you are trying to replace it with does not.

So is it correct to assume from your words that you think materialistic science is the only valid means of gaining knowledge??

Materialistic science is the only means of objectively and measurably making our lives better.

It is the only DEMONSTRABLE means of gaining knowledge so far; and when Religion makes a substantive, objective and measurable prediction, I may change by mind.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 11:03:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/21/2013 11:29:34 AM, obrienkr wrote:
Science is man's systematic and objective investigation of the natural physical world. It refers to both the body of knowledge and to the analytical procedures used in the pursuit of that body knowledge.

And the source of exploring that body of knowledge can be........?
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
obrienkr
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 4:46:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 11:03:42 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 12/21/2013 11:29:34 AM, obrienkr wrote:
Science is man's systematic and objective investigation of the natural physical world. It refers to both the body of knowledge and to the analytical procedures used in the pursuit of that body knowledge.

And the source of exploring that body of knowledge can be........?

Exploring the body of established knowledge would involve research on the scientific topic in question. This might include reading books on the topic, reviewing technical journals on the topic, and studying the topic through a variety of media from reputable scientific sources. Exploring and expanding upon the topic requires experimentation and analysis, in short the use of the scientific method that we all learned in grade school. These typically involve an element of peer review and confirmatory testing. A hypothesis or theory typically precedes the gathering and analysis of date. This is a bit harder to define as I believe it is borne in the mind and then evaluated in the lab or field to test the theory. Not sure if I addressed your question, but that's my stab at it.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 4:34:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 2:07:06 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation http://www.merriam-webster.com...

This works fine.

Doesn't that only cover the empirical evidence via experiment and observation, so science has nothing to with pure logic or rationalism? Is it so?
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 8:17:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 10:37:02 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/20/2013 7:45:24 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
Science is the body of knowledge concerning the world and the universe that has been built up as a result of empirical testing and evidence.

The principles behind it, and therefore the principles behind all the features, process and technology that we use today is that only testable explanations, supported by evidence that methods of predicting how the world does or will operate in a way that we cannot see now is the only will to build any objective model of the way the universe works.

As you sit and type, on your laptop/phone, and ponder the vast sum of modern knowledge that has gone into every singe aspect of your entire life it maybe worth asking how much of the technology that sustains you, and sustains this world has come about as a result of scientific investigation and how many technologies have been designed, theorised or implemented on the grounds of what religion has taught.

Science works.

Wow, you can't even answer a simple question about what science is without taking the opportunity to proselytize against the evils of the great and feared enemy who doesn't even exist, according to you. Regardless though, appealing to the lack of materialistic goods brought about by religious teaching is like complaining about a flu vaccine not helping your golf swing. That's not its objective.

So is it correct to assume from your words that you think materialistic science is the only valid means of gaining knowledge??

Plus which, "science works" presumes the metaphysical. Physics is F=ma. If a given force can be said to "work" or "not work", then clearly that determination must be made by non-physics equations.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 8:36:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 8:17:40 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/20/2013 10:37:02 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/20/2013 7:45:24 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
Science is the body of knowledge concerning the world and the universe that has been built up as a result of empirical testing and evidence.

The principles behind it, and therefore the principles behind all the features, process and technology that we use today is that only testable explanations, supported by evidence that methods of predicting how the world does or will operate in a way that we cannot see now is the only will to build any objective model of the way the universe works.

As you sit and type, on your laptop/phone, and ponder the vast sum of modern knowledge that has gone into every singe aspect of your entire life it maybe worth asking how much of the technology that sustains you, and sustains this world has come about as a result of scientific investigation and how many technologies have been designed, theorised or implemented on the grounds of what religion has taught.

Science works.

Wow, you can't even answer a simple question about what science is without taking the opportunity to proselytize against the evils of the great and feared enemy who doesn't even exist, according to you. Regardless though, appealing to the lack of materialistic goods brought about by religious teaching is like complaining about a flu vaccine not helping your golf swing. That's not its objective.

So is it correct to assume from your words that you think materialistic science is the only valid means of gaining knowledge??

Plus which, "science works" presumes the metaphysical. Physics is F=ma. If a given force can be said to "work" or "not work", then clearly that determination must be made by non-physics equations.

Erm no.

Physics works in the sense that whether f=ma is right or wrong it allows us to land men on the moon, probes on Titan and lets you fly from one side of the planet to the other.

It works in that it has demonstrable applications and is definitively shown to build civilisations. Religion doesnt.

This is what I mean by 'works' as should be plainly obvious given what I was saying.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 9:32:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/21/2013 1:14:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

Wow, you can't even answer a simple question about what science is without taking the opportunity to proselytize against the evils of the great and feared enemy who doesn't even exist, according to you. Regardless though, appealing to the lack of materialistic goods brought about by religious teaching is like complaining about a flu vaccine not helping your golf swing. That's not its objective.

I'm pretty sure the original question was loaded. As they so often are.

As you want to teach your religion as science, the statement is very much valid;

Most people would prefer to keep the two separate. I would rather not have science teachers teaching religion to my kids, and I think most parents would agree with that. However, when the only available option has science teachers teaching someone else's religion or worldview to my kids, one that tries to turn them against my religious principles, then yes, as a parent and a taxpayer, I have a right to object.

So is it correct to assume from your words that you think materialistic science is the only valid means of gaining knowledge??

Materialistic science is the only means of objectively and measurably making our lives better.

No doubt that science has made our lives better, but that wasn't the question.

It is the only DEMONSTRABLE means of gaining knowledge so far

Knowledge of sex, and that we needed to reproduce, wasn't gained through materialistic science. I can think of numerous examples of knowledge being gained prior to, thus serving as a foundation for the formation of materialistic science, that did not come about as a result of the scientific method.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 10:24:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 4:34:32 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 12/24/2013 2:07:06 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation http://www.merriam-webster.com...

This works fine.

Doesn't that only cover the empirical evidence via experiment and observation, so science has nothing to with pure logic or rationalism? Is it so?

The definition says that science is the "study" of the natural world, and the study involves logic. However, the definition leaves the study of logic itself outside of science, presumably in math and philosophy. Traditionally, the study of the logic used in science is categorized as the philosophy of science. I can see why the definition could be cut some other way, but I think that it is appropriate as it stands. We usually say "math and science" and "science and philosophy," intuitively drawing a distinction.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 10:38:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 10:24:30 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 12/24/2013 4:34:32 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 12/24/2013 2:07:06 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation http://www.merriam-webster.com...

This works fine.

Doesn't that only cover the empirical evidence via experiment and observation, so science has nothing to with pure logic or rationalism? Is it so?


The definition says that science is the "study" of the natural world, and the study involves logic. However, the definition leaves the study of logic itself outside of science, presumably in math and philosophy. Traditionally, the study of the logic used in science is categorized as the philosophy of science. I can see why the definition could be cut some other way, but I think that it is appropriate as it stands. We usually say "math and science" and "science and philosophy," intuitively drawing a distinction.

Oll Korrect.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 8:19:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 8:36:43 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/24/2013 8:17:40 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/20/2013 10:37:02 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/20/2013 7:45:24 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
Science is the body of knowledge concerning the world and the universe that has been built up as a result of empirical testing and evidence.

The principles behind it, and therefore the principles behind all the features, process and technology that we use today is that only testable explanations, supported by evidence that methods of predicting how the world does or will operate in a way that we cannot see now is the only will to build any objective model of the way the universe works.

As you sit and type, on your laptop/phone, and ponder the vast sum of modern knowledge that has gone into every singe aspect of your entire life it maybe worth asking how much of the technology that sustains you, and sustains this world has come about as a result of scientific investigation and how many technologies have been designed, theorised or implemented on the grounds of what religion has taught.

Science works.

Wow, you can't even answer a simple question about what science is without taking the opportunity to proselytize against the evils of the great and feared enemy who doesn't even exist, according to you. Regardless though, appealing to the lack of materialistic goods brought about by religious teaching is like complaining about a flu vaccine not helping your golf swing. That's not its objective.

So is it correct to assume from your words that you think materialistic science is the only valid means of gaining knowledge??

Plus which, "science works" presumes the metaphysical. Physics is F=ma. If a given force can be said to "work" or "not work", then clearly that determination must be made by non-physics equations.

Erm no.

Physics works in the sense that whether f=ma is right or wrong it allows us to land men on the moon, probes on Titan and lets you fly from one side of the planet to the other.

It works in that it has demonstrable applications and is definitively shown to build civilisations. Religion doesnt.

This is what I mean by 'works' as should be plainly obvious given what I was saying.

I'm merely pointing out that science is a metaphysical thing. Only something non-physical can study the physical. Protons cannot study protons. The ability to know the physical as a distinct reality must come from something the physical is distinct from.

It may be a shocking revelation to some people, but this is very nearly a tautology. It's like teaching a person to sing well - you have to remind them to listen to their own voice and not just the artist they think they're imitating. Likewise, people need to be reminded to observe themselves, to see that being human is something both physical and non-physical.
This space for rent.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 11:27:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/26/2013 8:19:58 AM, v3nesl wrote:
I'm merely pointing out that science is a metaphysical thing. Only something non-physical can study the physical. Protons cannot study protons. The ability to know the physical as a distinct reality must come from something the physical is distinct from.

And what is your proof of that assertion? In order to "study" there needs to be some form of intelligence capable of analysis. That follows from the definition of "study." So therefore your assertion is that intelligence is non-physical. So are you claiming that artificial intelligence cannot exist, because if artificial intelligence were accomplished by a computer, then it would be "physical." But artificial intelligence at that level has already been accomplished, so that cannot be your point. So what is your point?

It may be a shocking revelation to some people, but this is very nearly a tautology. It's like teaching a person to sing well - you have to remind them to listen to their own voice and not just the artist they think they're imitating. Likewise, people need to be reminded to observe themselves, to see that being human is something both physical and non-physical.

That seems to imply that you think all intelligence is human. So?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 1:26:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/26/2013 11:27:19 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 12/26/2013 8:19:58 AM, v3nesl wrote:
I'm merely pointing out that science is a metaphysical thing. Only something non-physical can study the physical. Protons cannot study protons. The ability to know the physical as a distinct reality must come from something the physical is distinct from.

And what is your proof of that assertion?

It's logic. The AI thing is a red herring, not really relevant. If knowing force is something other than being accelerated by a force, then it is something other than being accelerated by the force. It is something other than a physical reaction.
This space for rent.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 8:07:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/26/2013 1:26:01 PM, v3nesl wrote:

It's logic. The AI thing is a red herring, not really relevant. If knowing force is something other than being accelerated by a force, then it is something other than being accelerated by the force. It is something other than a physical reaction.

One meaning of metaphysics is " of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses." Another meaning is "supernatural." So taking the strict application of the first meaning, I suppose a photograph shown to person not at the original scene when the picture was taken is metaphysical. The person viewing the photo cannot travel to the place and go back in time to sense the reality directly. Okay.

So what? It implies nothing about the reality of the supernatural.