|
RJT: 1, 21 Credit Semester: 0 (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Orbax |
I assume hes using the literal definition of science:
1. 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.
as opposed to Science being the "Scientific Method"
scientific method
–noun a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.
Also, science is usually considered to be falsifiable, and a logic construct, while ridiculous, can be a proof.
If youve ever read a book talking about religion using the 4 pillars of philosophy used by some dude in the 18th century and the author was using those pillars because they prove each other this way....bla bla bla...
I am assuming RJT is being technically correct, which is a philosophy major's favorite kind of correct :p |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Not in the least. What I am saying, however, is that modern chemistry suffers from the problem of funding - The money necessary to |
jinx |
|
|
| RJT |
| The problem with textbook definitions of science is that they are rarely universally agreed upon as correct. ;) |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
The problem with textbook definitions of science is that they are rarely universally agreed upon as correct. ;) |
thats why i used the dictionary, its the common agreement book :p |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
thats why i used the dictionary, its the common agreement book :p |
Ever notice how often dictionaries are revised?
:p |
|
|
| Zild |
It is true science did spawn out of philosophy. And you're right about the funding thing. Which is why we build bombs. But not all of us do for example I work in a lab purifying protein factors and the other half of the lab works on a cure for muscular dystrophy. That isn't so bad is it?
I see what you mean because I personally don't include sociology and psychology as sciences because they aren't. Archeology is more of a history type thing I would say not a science. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Ever notice how often dictionaries are revised?
:p |
haha now is that because language grows or because we no longer know what the definition of is is |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
It is true science did spawn out of philosophy. And you're right about the funding thing. Which is why we build bombs. But not all of us do for example I work in a lab purifying protein factors and the other half of the lab works on a cure for muscular dystrophy. That isn't so bad is it? |
Certainly not, I'd even go so far as to say it's a virtuous activity! :)
The problem is still one of state funding - In a philosophical sense, science is typically defined as having:
1. No divine explanation
2. Noticeable regularities in observations; General Laws
3. No public support; Privately Funded; Personal Affair
4. Active argument and defense of views with reasonable support.
5. It is a self conciously theoretical inquiy into nature.
6. Critical investigation for empirical support.
I'm sure you can see how what you're doing would not be considered science in the viewpoint I'm positing. I'm not saying this is right either, I'm just putting it forth as a possible definition of science.
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
I see what you mean because I personally don't include sociology and psychology as sciences because they aren't. Archeology is more of a history type thing I would say not a science. |
Which is a view shared by many, many people in the academic community. There is general little agreement on this issue between the so called "soft sciences" and the "hard sciences" steeped in completely empirical pursuits in science. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
haha now is that because language grows or because we no longer know what the definition of is is |
It's because the definition of words change over periods of time.
A prime example would be the words "Gay" and "Fag." |
|
|
| Zild |
| see thats why I got out of philosophy. I'm trying to talk about real things not proper definitions and constructs, etc... I know about all that personally I believe we're living in a dream well actually a dream within a dream, but thats another story. I just don't agree that philosophy is the only pure science simply because it isn't even science it is philosophy. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
see thats why I got out of philosophy. I'm trying to talk about real things and proper definitions and constructs, etc... I know about all that personally I believe we're living in a dream well actually a dream within a dream, but thats another story. I just don't agree that philosophy is the only pure science simply because it isn't even science it is philosophy. |
Do you mean now? Because science would not exist without philosophy - The first philosophers WERE the first scientists. How familiar are you with the likes of Thales and the other presocratics?
Edit: And nothing I posted isn't "real," it's simply not your perception of how things are. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
It's because the definition of words change over periods of time.
A prime example would be the words "Gay" and "Fag." |
Im glad to have a language that has a magical book that updates itself as the language changes, personally :D |
|
|
|
|
