|
RJT: 1, 21 Credit Semester: 0 (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Zild |
| I don't know man. When I was studying philosophy they had us taking lectures in some of the most dilapitated buildings on the whole campus. Switched to science voila state of the art labs and classrooms. I would argue that the vast majority of funding that most schools get feeds directly into the science department. But thats because they pull in huge grats for sweet sweet things like raman lasars, and 10meter telescopes. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
What if the environments wrong?. Then right is based on wrong. |
right by evolution's standard is wrong by that very same standard? :wtf:
does not compute. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
"3. No public support; Privately Funded; Personal Affair"
scholarships, research grants, book deals... |
Philosophers engaging in those activities who then not be engaged in pure science.
The difference is that philosophy requires little more than the ability to reason in order to be practiced. The kinds of cutting edge science and research being done in fields like chemistry, biology, physiology, etc. all, at one level or another, require substantial funding. Money rarely comes "no strings attached," and therefore those fields of study are far more likely not to meet the criteria laid out in my definition of science.
It's not that philosophy can't fall prey to the same problems as other sciences, it's just that it doesn't seem to occur nearly as often. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
I don't know man. When I was studying philosophy they had us taking lectures in some of the most dilapitated buildings on the whole campus. Switched to science voila state of the art labs and classrooms. I would argue that the vast majority of funding that most schools get feeds directly into the science department. But thats because they pull in huge grats for sweet sweet things like raman lasars, and 10meter telescopes. |
rjt said he has no intention of quantifying purity levels, so that's irrelevant :p |
|
|
| Zild |
| Stephen Hawking doesn't need any fancy equipment to do his thing. He's one of my heroes. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Philosophers engaging in those activities who then not be engaged in pure science.
The difference is that philosophy requires little more than the ability to reason in order to be practiced. The kinds of cutting edge science and research being done in fields like chemistry, biology, physiology, etc. all, at one level or another, require substantial funding. Money rarely comes "no strings attached," and therefore those fields of study are far more likely not to meet the criteria laid out in my definition of science.
It's not that philosophy can't fall prey to the same problems as other sciences, it's just that it doesn't seem to occur nearly as often. |
so you are quantifying and measuring after all :toothless |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
so you are quantifying and measuring after all :toothless |
No, I'm not quantifying anything with regard to levels of funding. It's a black and white comparison. The fact that it occurs instantly erodes the legitimacy of it as a real science. |
|
|
| Zild |
| And what about mathematics? They used to force girls to major in mathematics because you don't need any funding to do research in math. Chemistry, physics, etc... was reserved for men. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
right by evolution's standard is wrong by that very same standard? :wtf:
does not compute. |
Well evolution is based upon organisms adapting to a natural environment. Now If the environment is being altered by teh organism, natural selection is affected and thus evolution is affected by a non natural environment.
Think about how our environment is increasing in polution. Organisms will be selected towards an environment that has been manipulated to shorten life expectancy. Evolution will proceed correctly, but the environment is no longer natural, therefore the whole claus that defines natural selection and evolution is wrong and thus a wrong definition for the term cannot lead to a correct definition of evolution being a benchmark for right and wrong. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
No, I'm not quantifying anything with regard to levels of funding. It's a black and white comparison. The fact that it occurs instantly erodes the legitimacy of it as a real science. |
without quantifying, measuring, comparing.... you can't validly proclaim one thing is more x than another thing.
comparison requires measurement. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
without quantifying, measuring, comparing.... you can't validly proclaim one thing is more x than another thing.
comparison requires measurement. |
Fair enough, but I'll only conede the point to you based on the technicality that anything trying to prove something either "is" or "is not" would conform to your definition of quantification. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
6x+3=3x+3
6x=3x
2x=x
2=1
:eek: |
|
|
|
|
