A
aprilfloyd
Guest
Hi Crazzeto,
Are you really perturbed that the definition of science includes ‘knowledge gained by systematic study’?
And if so, why?
- Status
Are you really perturbed that the definition of science includes ‘knowledge gained by systematic study’?
And if so, why?
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
The word ‘science’ comes from the word ‘knowledge’ It can be applied to all knowledge. Why do you wish it to be limited? Why would anyone seek to limit the advancement of knowledge - You are ‘talking’ to me via the Internet so you can’t be in North Korea - surely the Church is not totalitarian?
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
I wouldn’t do that. I enjoy these discussions. I am not following your point.
D
dshix
Guest
That is a false statement. Prove it.
I don’t want it to be limited, it is limited.
Umm, what? You are putting words in my mouth. I said nothing about the limitation of knowledge. All I said is that Science is not capable of reaching all knowledge; there are different types of observation which are used to obtain other types of knowledge. (i.e. Religion enhances spiritual knowledge, philosophy enhances moral or other mental knowledge, etc.)
P
PRmerger
Guest
Please provide the studies that demonstrate that “science can study anything”.
You have proposed ANOTHER statement of faith, april.
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
dshix, I am disappointed, are you really wanting proof of dictionary definitions? No I am not going to attempt to prove the dictionary definition. I expected more from you. Science is about acquiring knowledge, why is that an issue for you, it is hardly news.
Why do you think acquiring knowledge is limited to just some types of knowledge.Your getting silly now and you know it.
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
You are right we can only study some things - welcome to ‘totalitaria’ the country where we are told what can be studied and what cannot - Good Night and Good LuckPlease provide the studies that demonstrate that “science can study anything”.
You have proposed ANOTHER statement of faith, april.
G
Gricken
Guest
He DID provide a definition, Here it is:dshix, I am disappointed, are you really wanting proof of dictionary definitions? No I am not going to attempt to prove the dictionary definition. I expected more from you. Science is about acquiring knowledge, why is that an issue for you, it is hardly news.
Your getting silly now and you know it.
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
A little editing of the definition before posting occurred Gricken…disappointing.
P
PRmerger
Guest
G
Gricken
Guest
Are you claiming he edited the definition to suit his argument? Hang on a sec…A little editing of the definition before posting occurred Gricken…disappointing.
…
…
Okay back, and with a link! dictionary.reference.com/browse/science you want to click it? Don’t have too! I’ll post what it says right here, you can double check if you wish.
sci·ence
[sahy-uhns]
noun
- 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.
- systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
- any of the branches of natural or physical science.
- systematized knowledge in general.
5.knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
H
humble_catholic
Guest
April’s if you have not studied the worlds major religions how can you know if their claims are valid?
The answer is you can’t therefore your argument here is nonsensical.
You probably didnt know that the New Testament has a far better historicity then any ancient book does.
If your looking for reasonable evidence you can try gary Habermas’s minimal facts theory where he gives historical evidence for the resurrection that even bible historian critics mostly agree with.
And your claim that empirical evidence is the only way to get facts is incorrect. Ill give u an example.
My grandfather was the type of person never told tall tales, is very down to earth and would give u the shirt off his back if you needed it.
He told my dad the story one day about how he was about to be murdered (buried alive) by 7 people. All of a sudden an old man with a cane showed up out if no where to save him, but no ordinary man, but a being with a human body that was glowing with light.
His aunt told him 2 days before that she had a vision that saint Joseph would save him from death. He laughed at her, but he wasnt laughing after.
Can we scientifically prove it? Absolutely not.
Does that mean it didnt happen? Absolutely not
Why did my dad trust my grandfathers story?
Because he knew his dad I side and out. My grandfather wasnt the kind of person that told tall tales. If he said it happened , there is no reason for us to believe that it didnt. He had faith in my grandfather
Your view that only science can prove truth statements is unscientific itself. It’s called scientism.
Your need to broaden your mind April
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
Copy his quote and search and you will see.
G
Gricken
Guest
I did. Put it through Google too. I got the same thing he did. Also you are avoiding the main point of my post. I just gave you the actual definition of science. It is not what you claimed it to be.
D
davidv
Guest
No. Why do you think so?Are you now arguing my position for me?
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
That was the definition I posted - come on!!
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
Send me the link.
E
Eleve
Guest
WOW.
April, the word “science,” as commonly understood and used by most people, refers specifically to empirical knowledge, knowledge that’s about the physical or empirical world.
That’s why people say things like “You need a science degree to become a patent examiner.” That would be redundant if every form of study were to count as science. Patent examiners need a particular kind of degree - one in the sciences.
That’s why we use the word “scientist” to refer to certain kinds of researchers (Einstein, Curie, Rutherford) and not to others (Elkies, Parfit, Vendler). James Levine studies music; is he a “scientist”? Nobody I know has ever called him that!
That’s why Wikipedia says that “Science … is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.” Note the qualification: explanations and predictions about the universe. Not other forms of claim about the universe, and not claims that are not about the universe itself.
You are correct that “science” sometimes means study or systematic knowledge in general. But most of the time it refers to particular empirical methods and the subjects which they investigate.
April, the word “science,” as commonly understood and used by most people, refers specifically to empirical knowledge, knowledge that’s about the physical or empirical world.
That’s why people say things like “You need a science degree to become a patent examiner.” That would be redundant if every form of study were to count as science. Patent examiners need a particular kind of degree - one in the sciences.
That’s why we use the word “scientist” to refer to certain kinds of researchers (Einstein, Curie, Rutherford) and not to others (Elkies, Parfit, Vendler). James Levine studies music; is he a “scientist”? Nobody I know has ever called him that!
That’s why Wikipedia says that “Science … is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.” Note the qualification: explanations and predictions about the universe. Not other forms of claim about the universe, and not claims that are not about the universe itself.
You are correct that “science” sometimes means study or systematic knowledge in general. But most of the time it refers to particular empirical methods and the subjects which they investigate.
D
dshix
Guest
Umm… I know you posted a definition. That definition proved my point; don’t you realize that?
The bolded parts of that definition confirm what I was telling you all along; science is used to understand physical knowledge. The last two definitions are intended in context with the first three. I’m not sure what is so hard about this.
Science is about acquiring natural knowledge; not spiritual knowledge or any other type of knowledge.Science is about acquiring knowledge, why is that an issue for you, it is hardly news.
I don’t think acquiring knowledge is limited to some types of knowledge. I said that science is limited to natural knowledge.
Actually, my opinion hasn’t changed once this whole time, so if anyone has changed, it’s you.
K
KendraDZ1902
Guest
You can study the fields of literature, history, humanities, and language. They aren’t sciences. They are considered arts. Study does not equal science.
- Status