R
rturner76
Guest
Without science there would be no such thing as technology.
- Status
A
abucs
Guest
quite true.
and if there was no mathematics there would be no science.
Maths, science and technology (engineering) are all important and each have their place. I think perhaps some people say science when they mean ‘the sum of modern knowledge and material progress’. I guess you could say in that instance that the word ‘science’ is being mis-used but saying it is overated seems a bit harsh.
and if there was no mathematics there would be no science.
Maths, science and technology (engineering) are all important and each have their place. I think perhaps some people say science when they mean ‘the sum of modern knowledge and material progress’. I guess you could say in that instance that the word ‘science’ is being mis-used but saying it is overated seems a bit harsh.
Y
yppop
Guest
rt76
You must be very familiar with the history of science and technology to be able to offer such a dogmatic quote.
I don’t know what you mean by science or technology, but if you mean that “science” is the best explanation of the observations of natural phenomena and “technology” is the work and acheivements of people that fall into the categories of inventor, technician, and engineer, I believe that for every example of a technological accomplisment that depended on science, there are probably ten examples of technological innovation that did not depend on science.
Think about: boats, tools, bridges, buildings, watches, wagons, bricks, steel, bronze, acids, telescopes, printing presses, automobiles, steam engines, transistors, pasteurization, small pox vaccine, corn, textiles, looms, frisbees, typewriters, etc., etc. etc…
What would astronomy be without the telescope?
Yppop
A
abucs
Guest
yes yppop. you are quite right. Technology can be defined apart from science.
Perhaps it is better to say technology has been greatly enhanced by the field of science and over the preceding decades much of the modern field of technology now uses science as integral to itself.
Perhaps it is better to say technology has been greatly enhanced by the field of science and over the preceding decades much of the modern field of technology now uses science as integral to itself.
R
rturner76
Guest
In essence science is: “a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.”
The scientific method:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
How can one invent anything without using all or most of these basic steps?
The scientific method:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
How can one invent anything without using all or most of these basic steps?
A
abucs
Guest
Well i guess if you construct a cutting tool from stone you could employ some of the steps you mentioned.
But then saying Neanderthals knew about and practiced science stretches what most people would consider science.
I guess it depends on what we mean when we say science, whether it be following some steps, or all steps in a certain set, or simply just using our common sense.
But then saying Neanderthals knew about and practiced science stretches what most people would consider science.
I guess it depends on what we mean when we say science, whether it be following some steps, or all steps in a certain set, or simply just using our common sense.
C
carn
Guest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy_variation_over_time
The knowledge enabling mankind to save hundred of millions of children from dying to various natural causes is something to be proud of. (To use the knowledge to kill millions pre birth does not mean the knowledge should be a matter of shame.)
Furthermore, science has shown the God did such a profound job at creation, that the material universe seems to function mostly without much active meddling by God.
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
Before the scientific method was invented we already had bridges, buildings, medicines, carriages, tools, etc…
A
Alberti_Devoveo
Guest
I think those numbers form the Wiki article you link are bogus. I have read some books on Roman life, and it was stated in those books that the age of marriage is around 40 for men and 20 for women. If the Romans knew that they lived to about 30 or so, why would they get married 10 years after that, and then start having kids? Seems to me that the society would die off very quickly if that were actually the case.
Note also that if you account for abortions, the US life expectancy drops from 76.9 years to 48.6 years.
And can you prove that God is not actively meddling in the material universe?
C
carn
Guest
- the Romans might have had at times improved life expectancy due to having good sanitation
- read the link, it specifically states that a main reason for low life expectancy was infant death (therefore i said the knowledge about saving hundred of millions of children) and if one got through the first 10 years or so, one had a personal live expecatancy beyond 50:
"Life expectancy increases with age as the individual survives the higher mortality rates associated with childhood. For instance, the table above listed life expectancy at birth in Medieval Britain at 30. A male member of the English aristocracy at the same period could expect to live, having survived until the age of 21:[19]
1200-1300 C.E.: 43 years (to age 64)
1300-1400 C.E.: 34 years (to age 55) (due to the impact of the Black Death)
1400-1500 C.E.: 48 years (to age 69)
1500-1550 C.E.: 50 years (to age 71)."
I specifically stated that the positive aspect about having the knowledge to save hundreds of millions of children still exists even if the knowledge is abused to kill hundreds of millions. Just because carpentry can used to make a cross used to execute someone does not a good carpenter should be ashamed about his knowledge or skills.
Nonetheless a depressing number.
No.
Just, that if He ever would decide one day, to only keep the natural laws in place and do nothing else, we probably would have a hard time to notice.
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
This calculation only corrects for induced abortions. Also including spontaneous abortions, i.e., miscarriages, would lower the number even more dramatically.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
There would be if knowledge came from another world.
F
fakename
Guest
True.
And plus, where is the evidence that one needs scientific evidence for everything? At best there’s only inductive evidence and thus, it’s contradictory to say “for everything”.
One either believes that all reason is circular or one believes in some sort of indemonstrable starting points for knowledge.
R
rturner76
Guest
Even if the term wasn’t used yet, the principles were in place. Have an idea, test it etc.
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
Yes, but these people were still successful despite not subscribing to methodological naturalism. The scientific view blinds us to the way reality really works by making it impossible to accept the supernatural. Thus if you try to prove that a miracle happened, a scientist will have to claim that it does not exist/you are lying or counter that science will explain it someday. We toy about with explanations of a reality that we cannot fully understand by our paradigm.
C
carn
Guest
Science does not blinds us to the way reality realy works. An unconstrained apple is accelerated near earths surface by about 9.81 m/s^2 due to the apple and earth having mass. Why should that information in itself be blinding?
The error is the assumption that science will or might be able to explain everything, including ethics.
A
Alberti_Devoveo
Guest
That information itself is not blinding, what I think he is pointing to is the deterministic and atomistic point of view many scientists hold. Those two combined really blind one to reality, not science itself.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
Hmm
at·om·is·tic
Definition 1 in no way rules out “the supernatural” - it just accepts the (well established) reality of atoms.
Definition 2 would seem to be what you would want if you are arguing for coexistence of ‘natural’ things that science is ‘allowed’ to study and a ‘supernatural’ class that science is ‘forbidden’ from studying.
From a scientist’s point of view I would argue that Science can study anything that produces an observable effect on the physical world. And so should be ‘allowed’ to do so - not that that implies that science is the only path to truth. I have yet (for example) to meet a scientist who rejected logical or mathematical proofs.
A
Alberti_Devoveo
Guest
Or something entirely different than what you think I am discussing. The atomistic philosophy is one in which the prevailing notion is that we are nothing more than a collection of atoms, that there is nothing beyond the atoms we can observe. If one ascribes to this belief, then they are truly blind to reality.
Then you have not met many scientists, if you have not yet met any who rejected a proof. Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven rejected the Big Bang theory, despite 2 decades of observational and mathematical proofs. Nobel Laureate John Mather rejects the notion of massive Pop III stars (Pop III stars are the first generation of stars, suspected at being on the order of 100+ solar masses). Several of my colleagues at my university have rejected some evidence that contradicts their atomistic world-view.From a scientist’s point of view I would argue that Science can study anything that produces an observable effect on the physical world. And so should be ‘allowed’ to do so - not that that implies that science is the only path to truth. I have yet (for example) to meet a scientist who rejected logical or mathematical proofs.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
Well, pardon me, I can only go by the generally known and accepted definitions. :bowdown:
Well, that’s easy, no significant fraction of scientists believe that. For example, we know for a fact that there are fields and particles which are not atoms.
Wrong - I am a scientist and met many others while doing my magistere, PhD, Postdoc and while working at Cambridge!
Tell me, when you find that you are wrong, do you even consider revising your opinion?
Nope - you are confusing rejection of specific individual proofs with rejection of mathematical and logical proofs in general.
- Status