Most Noble Science: Math or Theology?

[JohnDamian]

But being that logic is superior to science and all encompassing, surely that is exactly what you and your friends here have been advocating?

Physical sciences are a form of philosophy called “empiricism” - they are one of the many forms of applied logic.

Obviously, by your own admission that the logical principles of observance, repetition and hypothesis are valid; you are basing your activities on logic, albeit uncritically and unawaredly.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Physical sciences are a form of philosophy called “empiricism” - they are one of the many forms of applied logic.

Obviously, by your own admission that the logical principles of observance, repetition and hypothesis are valid; you are basing your activities on logic, albeit uncritically and unawaredly.

Strange…

Google

Your search - the “logical principle of observance” - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

* Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
* Try different keywords.
* Try more general keywords.

 

[JohnDamian]

Strange…

Google

Your search - the “logical principle of observance” - did not match any documents.

So, my wording was original… oh.

You believe,
You believe based upon observations,
You believe these observations are valid,
You believe that if you repeat and hypothesise on the reliability of your observations, and thus beliefs will be more reliable and useful.

That is logic, that is a logical principle, that is a logical principal related to observance… it is a logical principle of observance.

 

[Moonstruck888]

So, my wording was original… oh.

You believe,
You believe based upon observations,
You believe these observations are valid,
You believe that if you repeat and hypothesise on the reliability of your observations, and thus beliefs will be more reliable and useful.

That is logic, that is a logical principle, that is a logical principal related to observance… it is a logical principle of observance.

I’ll take your word for it. That still doesn’t demonstrate that a scientists needs a philosophy degree.

 

[JohnDamian]

I’ll take your word for it. That still doesn’t demonstrate that a scientists needs a philosophy degree.

A scientist does not need a philosophy degree, but for them to have a critical awareness of the role of their subject in the world it would help to take a few classes, or read a few books… I don’t have a philosophy degree; all you need is a library card and an open mind.

 

[Areopagite]

You build me a time machine and I’ll go and find out. If there were, they obviously had some conception of what music was about.

I would agree. They would have a conception of what music was about, but they probably didn’t have a science of music … i.e. they didn’t have a organized system of terminology and concepts used to describe the complex details of music. Hence, musicians can still be a musician, even if they don’t have a scientific understanding of it. Knowledge can be organized into a system (i.e. a science) or not organized into a system (not science). Hence, the distinction between the original definition of science and other knowledge is meaningful.

Google doesn’t seem to agree with you. Systematic philosophy is described as a philosophy of science, not as a science.

I don’t know what you mean by “Google.” I need you to be a little more specific than that.

I mean that pseudoscience does not pass mustard when peer reviewed.

Works of philosophy have been peer-reviewed and many of those peers consider philosophy of a science … not a pseudoscience. This is because the word “science” has meant “an organized body of knowledge” and not simply “an organized body of knowledge concerning only the physical world.” Sorry.

Physics puts observational data above logic, so I would imagine that must make it illogical, wouldn’t you?

I don’t think physics is illogical. You think physics is illogical. I believe physics depends on logic (because, of course, you need more than just observational data … you need to draw conclusions from it using logic). But … you don’t think physics uses logic at all right? That’s what you said, right? So, once again … just to be clear … is physics illogical?

It is what any scientist who isn’t a fraud and a crank does.

You’re imposing your narrow definition of “science” on everyone again, even though it is not accepted by everyone, nor has it been the definition for the majority of that word’s history.

But being that logic is superior to science and all encompassing, surely that is exactly what you and your friends here have been advocating?

Why? Why does that logically follow? What are you talking about?

I would say that to draw ANY conclusion you need to use logic (and so all sciences need logic). But you need more than just the formal logical rules to conclude something. You need actual matter in an inference. I can’t conclude the rate at which a thing falls by force of gravity merely by logical rules. In physics, I need data. However, with the data, I then use logic to conclude something from that. You, on the other hand, seem to think that only data is necessary for physics. That is ridiculous, I hope you know.

Math on the other hand, while it doesn’t require observable data per se, it needs, at the very least, the concept of numbers in order to conclude things with logic. Still, it is an organized system of knowledge. Hence, math, even though it doesn’t use observable data per se, is still a science.

And what I am saying is that while your definition may have been fit for purpose back in the days while our Lord was walking the Earth, nowadays in the modern era it simply will not do.

The word “science” has had its original definition for the vast majority of time after Jesus’ life. It’s always been fit for its original definition because it’s still widely used that way. And, just curious, why would it be fit then and not now?

It is not precise enough, it is not pertinent enough.

Not precise enough for what? Not pertinent enough for what? What are you talking about?

The maths in his experiment is Mickey Mouse stuff.

Boyles Law: pV = k

p denotes the pressure of the system.
V denotes the volume of the gas.
k is a constant value representative of the pressure and volume of the system.

He depended on observations of experiments done with physical apparatus to do his experiments. As a matter of fact, what he was doing when he discovered his relationship was working on building a pump.

I never denied that observations and physical apparatus was necessary. But I will say that such things are insufficient. You need math for example. And math is not a physical science, and yet Boyle depended on it for his. Physics requires math. Do you deny that?

I have already told you, time and time again, that the definition you have is no longer fit for purpose because it is too vague and impertinent to define modern science.

You call that a reason? Why is it vague and why is it impertinent to define “modern science”? You’re just making things up, and you don’t give any reason.

The fact is, “science” has meant “an organized body of knowledge” forever and is still used that way widely. That is reason enough to still use that definition. To say that it’s too vague and impertinent doesn’t mean anything (unless you can explain yourself). What you and many others are doing is something equivalent to a group of people saying “From now on, the word ‘box’ can only be defined as containers made specifically of cardboard … because to include all containers would be too vague and impertinent.” Obviously, people don’t have to listen to them. People can use the word “box” as they like, and a group of psychos have no authority to tell them differently.

 

[Geremia]

There’s no reason why someone of a scientific bent cannot take an interest in things outside science.

Who said it’s outside of science? The line between modern science and philosophy isn’t and shouldn’t be hard.

I myself am interested in the philosophies of Miriam Simos and Aleister Crowley. That doesn’t mean that when I look up into the night sky I actually believe that the Milky Way is Nuit making love with the ground. I’m also interested in Chakral Cleansing and meditation. That does not interfere with my ability to think scientifically.

What you mention isn’t philosophy; it’s belief. True philosophy, e.g., the perennial philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, is commonsense, not fancy.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I don’t know what you mean by “Google.” I need you to be a little more specific than that.

google.com

It’s very handy as a research tool.

I don’t think physics is illogical. You think physics is illogical. I believe physics depends on logic (because, of course, you need more than just observational data … you need to draw conclusions from it using logic). But … you don’t think physics uses logic at all right? That’s what you said, right? So, once again … just to be clear … is physics illogical?

You are really beginning to annoy me. I’ve answered this in completely unequivocal terms.

I would say that to draw ANY conclusion you need to use logic (and so all sciences need logic).

I conclude that in the daytime the sky is blue. I used no logic whatsoever to reach that conclusion, I merely looked up.

I can’t conclude the rate at which a thing falls by force of gravity merely by logical rules. In physics, I need data. However, with the data, I then use logic to conclude something from that. You, on the other hand, seem to think that only data is necessary for physics. That is ridiculous, I hope you know.

My point is, and always has been, that science is observation based. You need no formal training in logic to perform scienitific experiments. You don’t need to know the definition of logic to perform scientific experiments. You don’t need to know the philosophy of science to perform scientific experiments. You have to be able to think, yes, but that is something that comes naturally to most humans.

Hence, math, even though it doesn’t use observable data per se, is still a science.

That is an oxymoron.

The word “science” has had its original definition for the vast majority of time after Jesus’ life. It’s always been fit for its original definition because it’s still widely used that way. And, just curious, why would it be fit then and not now?

I’ve heard this argument from several people, that the definition of science should be immutable and never be updated or revised from the way it was used in ancient times. I don’t see how that argument holds water. Words and definitions change all the time. Language evolves.

Not precise enough for what? Not pertinent enough for what? What are you talking about?

Not precise enough to define science as it is practiced in the modern day.

I never denied that observations and physical apparatus was necessary. But I will say that such things are insufficient. You need math for example. And math is not a physical science, and yet Boyle depended on it for his. Physics requires math. Do you deny that?

No, I do not deny it, but the maths is contingent on the observations.

The fact is, “science” has meant “an organized body of knowledge” forever and is still used that way widely. That is reason enough to still use that definition.

The fact that science was defined in a certain way a very long time ago by non-scientists before modern science even existed means that it should always be defined that way no matter what?

I’m sorry, but I don’t see that argument as holding water.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Who said it’s outside of science? The line between modern science and philosophy isn’t and shouldn’t be hard.What you mention isn’t philosophy; it’s belief. True philosophy, e.g., the perennial philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, is commonsense, not fancy.

I would say that fancy was precisely what Aquinas indulged in. Fantasy even.

 

[JohnDamian]

google.com

It’s very handy as a research tool.

Good grief…

I conclude that in the daytime the sky is blue. I used no logic whatsoever to reach that conclusion, I merely looked up.

You unconsciously used the logical presumption that perception is reflective of reality; you used the logical determination of individuals to seperate “sky” from “not sky”, and you used the logical tool of universals and essence to predicate “blue” to the “sky”.

Just because you are not aware of it does not mean it is not so.

My point is, and always has been, that science is observation based. You need no formal training in logic to perform scienitific experiments. You don’t need to know the definition of logic to perform scientific experiments. You don’t need to know the philosophy of science to perform scientific experiments. You have to be able to think, yes, but that is something that comes naturally to most humans.

You’d be surprised how many scientists don’t know how to think, to pull your trick and google it;

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

You see, many “scientists” are just ignorant fools little better than simple biological calculators repeating a tired and uncritical formulae to reality…

That is an oxymoron.

Just because you don’t have a dictionary handy does not mean that what he is saying is wrong. To pull your research technique again;

dictionary.reference.com/browse/science
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.
a particular branch of knowledge.
7.
**skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency. **

All of the emboldened ones are wider than just the physical sciences.

I’ve heard this argument from several people, that the definition of science should be immutable and never be updated or revised from the way it was used in ancient times. I don’t see how that argument holds water. Words and definitions change all the time. Language evolves.

See above. The definition has not changed.

I would say that fancy was precisely what Aquinas indulged in.

So, when Aquinas wrote in his summa that the** truth resides in things and not in the intellect **he was being fantastical or fancifull?

You need to either get off your high horse presuming everything he said was speculative, or you need a dose of reality; because your speaking nonsense.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Just because you are not aware of it does not mean it is not so.

Thank You. That is what I’ve been arguing all along. I’m glad you’ve seen sense. A scientist does not need to study logic to be a scientist. If he is following certain logical precepts in doing so, fine. That doesn’t mean that he’s thinking like a philosopher.

So, when Aquinas wrote in his summa that the** truth resides in things and not in the intellect **he was being fantastical or fancifull?

You need to either get off your high horse presuming everything he said was speculative, or you need a dose of reality; because your speaking nonsense.

Aquinas worshipped supernatural beings. I’d say anyone who does that is pretty irrational.

 

[JohnDamian]

Aquinas worshipped supernatural beings. I’d say anyone who does that is pretty irrational.

As rationality is clearly not your area of expertese, you should probably sit this one out. Because philosophers study logic and rationality, and God is proven by these. Perhaps you could say that belief in God is not nessecary to be a good physical scientist, I’d accept that… But in general a person who does not believe in God is either stupid, irrational or unaware of his proofs.

 

[Moonstruck888]

As rationality is clearly not your area of expertese, you should probably sit this one out. Because philosophers study logic and rationality, and God is proven by these. Perhaps you could say that belief in God is not nessecary to be a good physical scientist, I’d accept that… But in general a person who does not believe in God is either stupid, irrational or unaware of his proofs.

Am I to assume that you’re saying you can prove to me that God exists?

 

[Areopagite]

google.com

It’s very handy as a research tool.

I went to that address, and it brought me to the Google homepage. Nowhere on that homepage did I find anything that related to what we’ve been talking about. Once again, you’ll have to be a little more specific than that.

You are really beginning to annoy me. I’ve answered this in completely unequivocal terms.

No you haven’t. Where have you done that? If you’ve done that already, why didn’t you include your answer here again? You could have simply copied and paste. So, what’s you’re answer? Is physics illogical?

A yes or no answer will do. But whatever. As long as it’s clear.

I conclude that in the daytime the sky is blue. I used no logic whatsoever to reach that conclusion, I merely looked up.

I looked up, and I saw the ceiling. It looks white. Would I be correct to say that “The sky is blue” merely because I looked up? Obviously, merely “looking up” doesn’t prove the “sky is blue.” You need to do better than that. You may even need to use logic.

My point is, and always has been, that science is observation based. You need no formal training in logic to perform scienitific experiments.

I agree! And this is no knock on either logic or the physical sciences. Now, do you agree that, while you do not required a formal knowledge of logic (i.e. a science of logic), you nonetheless need to think logically to some extent (when doing any science)?

You don’t need to know the definition of logic to perform scientific experiments. You don’t need to know the philosophy of science to perform scientific experiments. You have to be able to think, yes, but that is something that comes naturally to most humans.

And doesn’t all thinking (at least in sciences) require logic? Perhaps some scientists don’t know what logic is … but they need to think logically, don’t they? At least in some areas? Right?

I’ve heard this argument from several people, that the definition of science should be immutable and never be updated or revised from the way it was used in ancient times. I don’t see how that argument holds water. Words and definitions change all the time. Language evolves.

I agree. However, not only has the word science meant “an organized body of knowledge” for hundreds and hundreds of years … but many people still use it that way. Hence, there is no reason to demand that it “evolve” because, quite simply, it still has the same meaning for a lot of people.

Not precise enough to define science as it is practiced in the modern day.

Why? Many philosophers in the modern day call their field a science, so they would say to define science as “an organized body of knowledge” is appropriate because philosophy is still practiced in the modern day.

No, I do not deny it, but the maths is contingent on the observations.

Math is contingent on observations? I don’t know what you mean by this. If math is contingent on observations … wouldn’t that make math a science according to your definition?

The fact that science was defined in a certain way a very long time ago by non-scientists before modern science even existed means that it should always be defined that way no matter what?

I never said that. I’m saying that a lot of people still use science to mean “an organized body of knowledge” and coupled with the facts that it has meant that for a long time and that the etymology of the word closely adheres to that meaning … it is for those reasons why it is still very appropriate to define it as “an organized body of knowledge.”

Now, I’ve explained why science should have that definition. Why do you think it shouldn’t? You still haven’t explained your position. All you’ve said is stuff like, “Well, this is the modern day” and meaningless stuff like that.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I went to that address, and it brought me to the Google homepage. Nowhere on that homepage did I find anything that related to what we’ve been talking about. Once again, you’ll have to be a little more specific than that.

Google is a search engine. You can find articles on any subject. Now, go to the google homepage again, type in the term you wish to search, and you’ll find you get fast results.

No you haven’t. Where have you done that? If you’ve done that already, why didn’t you include your answer here again? You could have simply copied and paste. So, what’s you’re answer? Is physics illogical?

A yes or no answer will do. But whatever. As long as it’s clear.

It is based on observation and experimentation, not logic.

I looked up, and I saw the ceiling. It looks white. Would I be correct to say that “The sky is blue” merely because I looked up? Obviously, merely “looking up” doesn’t prove the “sky is blue.” You need to do better than that. You may even need to use logic.

Try it again but go outside this time. If there is one thing that I detest in a person, it is being deliberately obtuse.

Armed Robber: No nonsense. Just give me all your money.

Mr Logic: I shall commence by pointing out to you that my demeanour is not one which could be described as nonsensical. Consequently I can attest you have no cause to reprimand me on your first point. On to your second point: Bearing in mind the potentially lethal situation in which I find myself, to wit: your presence in conjunction with the presumably loaded firearm which is presently levelled at my cranium, I will comply with your request comprehensively, albeit reluctantly. Here, twenty-seven pence.

Armed Robber: Twenty-seven pence? **** off. There's more than that in the till.

Mr Logic: Indeed, undoubtedly so. However your request was for *my* money. The currency in the till belongs to a third party and is therefore not "my money". However, if you are still desirous of said money I would suggest that you re-phrase your original statement to recognise and incorporate this important distinction.

I agree! And this is no knock on either logic or the physical sciences. Now, do you agree that, while you do not required a formal knowledge of logic (i.e. a science of logic), you nonetheless need to think logically to some extent (when doing any science)?

Since I don’t know much about logic, I’d have to take your word for that.

And doesn’t all thinking (at least in sciences) require logic? Perhaps some scientists don’t know what logic is … but they need to think logically, don’t they? At least in some areas? Right?

Again, since I don’t know much about logic, I’d have to take your word for that.

I agree. However, not only has the word science meant “an organized body of knowledge” for hundreds and hundreds of years … but many people still use it that way. Hence, there is no reason to demand that it “evolve” because, quite simply, it still has the same meaning for a lot of people.

Stupid people. Do we really want the expansion of human knowledge to be a convoy that travels at the speed of the slowest ship?

Math is contingent on observations? I don’t know what you mean by this. If math is contingent on observations … wouldn’t that make math a science according to your definition?

You’ve taken that out of context. What I meant was that in science, if the maths disagrees with the observations, the scientist will always side with the observations. Quite simply, in any disparity between maths and observations, either the maths or the experimental control will be where the error is.

I never said that. I’m saying that a lot of people still use science to mean “an organized body of knowledge” and coupled with the facts that it has meant that for a long time and that the etymology of the word closely adheres to that meaning … it is for those reasons why it is still very appropriate to define it as “an organized body of knowledge.”

So, you say. I disagree.

Now, I’ve explained why science should have that definition. Why do you think it shouldn’t? You still haven’t explained your position. All you’ve said is stuff like, “Well, this is the modern day” and meaningless stuff like that.

It shouldn’t, in my opinion, have that definition because the definition is not accurate. I don’t see why you find that difficult to understand. A description should be as precise and accurate as possible. An organized body of knowledge could mean anything.

 

[JohnDamian]

It shouldn’t, in my opinion, have that definition because the definition is not accurate. I don’t see why you find that difficult to understand. A description should be as precise and accurate as possible. An organized body of knowledge could mean anything.

Then, if a definition should be as precise as possible… Physics, Biology and Chemistry should be called Non-Critical Empirical Applied Philosophy (or suchlike), not science. Because that is what it is;

a) Non Critical; it is not done with a critical awareness of the underlying concepts.
b) It is empirical.
c) It is a philosophy applied to the world.



“Science” is an ambiguous and wide reaching term, if you want to be precise you would not insist on it’s useage here, as that would be silly, as Science; meaning “an organised body of knowlege” is not restricted to test tubes and labcoats.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Then, if a definition should be as precise as possible… Physics, Biology and Chemistry should be called Non-Critical Empirical Applied Philosophy (or suchlike), not science. Because that is what it is;

a) Non Critical; it is not done with a critical awareness of the underlying concepts.
b) It is empirical.
c) It is a philosophy applied to the world.



“Science” is an ambiguous and wide reaching term, if you want to be precise you would not insist on it’s useage here, as that would be silly, as Science; meaning “an organised body of knowlege” is not restricted to test tubes and labcoats.

An organized body of knowledge. What a preposterous way to describe an heuristic method.

“In general we look for a new law by the following process. First you guess. Don’t laugh, this is the most important step. Then you compute the consequences. Compare the consequences to experience. If it disagrees with experience, the guess is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t matter how beautiful your guess is, how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experience, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” – Richard Feynman.

 

[JohnDamian]

“In general we look for a new law by the following process. First you guess. Don’t laugh, this is the most important step. Then you compute the consequences. ** Compare the consequences to experience. If it disagrees with experience, the guess is wrong.** In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t matter how beautiful your guess is, how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experience, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” – Richard Feynman.

So a colorblind person who is unable to detect certain colors has scientific proof that they are not there - because their guess is not confirmed in experience. Or a person who has a hallucination really has it because it conforms to experience…

What a silly man.

You call this knowlege?

 

[Moonstruck888]

So a colorblind person who is unable to detect certain colors has scientific proof that they are not there - because their guess is not confirmed in experience. Or a person who has a hallucination really has it because it conforms to experience…

What a silly man.

You call this knowlege?

I think you’re confused. Subjective experiences are eschewed in the scientific method. To draw the conclusion that you did, that not being able to detect certain colours means they aren’t there, would be meaningless. Colour is a subjective observation. If you wanted to investigate certain wavelengths of light, spectroscopy would be the method you would use.

Also, one of the prime maxims of science is repeatability. What colourblindness does prove is that vision is an unreliable way of objectively observing light.

 

[JohnDamian]

I think you’re confused. Subjective experiences are eschewed in the scientific method. To draw the conclusion that you did, that not being able to detect certain colours means they aren’t there, would be meaningless. Colour is a subjective observation. If you wanted to investigate certain wavelengths of light, spectroscopy would be the method you would use.

You entirely missed the point.

The sum total of the scientific method is the product of a large number of subjective experiences. It increases the research reliability but not the research validity. You should know this they are Physical Science terms (I remember them from school).