|
Scientificity (and "intelligent design") (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| a bad example is phylogeny lol |
|
|
| Zild |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
a bad example is phylogeny lol |
Is that some sort of non physics/chemistry . Sounds like it. I don't trust it. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
Is that some sort of non physics/chemistry . Sounds like it. I don't trust it. |
basically its evolutionary history.. family trees based on classification of organisms. The problemwith this theory is that DNA sometimes contradicts morphology. Traits appear and disapear on the same lineage. Very open to debate and its all old people who don't knowhow to database that have been doing them. Hippies. |
|
|
| Zild |
| OK. That isn't science; end of story. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
OK. That isn't science; end of story. |
evolution is science. especially when carbon dating is involved as well as genetic tracking.
Knowing that humans are more closely related to starfish then octopus is science due to cell tracking. |
|
|
| biznology |
to be honest, i agree with the sciences, but beyond that - what do any of us know for sure? really not much
science is not static, not proven.
at the same time faith based decisions are a bit worse as much of faith is all based on human interpretation.
humans have always tried to explain everything, but if there is a god, why and how would we ever have the capacity or possibility of explaining whatever god was?
if there is or was anything that powerful, what would we have to say about it, other than our selfish, questionable needs? we should search more for meaning in our own lives, and communities, not in something that must be so mysterious that we likely would never have any concept of such power.
plus, even with a creator, science is reasonably predictable, which if there was a creator, has something to do with that omni. things that apply to this world are more applicable to humans than hopes of something we cannot control| |
|
|
| Zild |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
evolution is science. especially when carbon dating is involved as well as genetic tracking.
Knowing that humans are more closely related to starfish then octopus is science due to cell tracking. |
I guess evolution is science, but you called it history. So I was thinking history of anything is not science.
But yeah I guess that is biology. I've had biology students in some of my classes and I wouldn't really class them as scientists or at least not scientists on the same level as chemistry/physics students. They just memorize a bunch of crap and have almost zero knowledge of mathematics, but I'm biased.
Science is always subject to change. Back to my example of thermodynamics. When Boltzmann came up with statistical thermodynamics to build on classical thermodynamics he was rejected by most members of the scientific community. Then he killed himself and everyone realized he was right. But thermodynamics really is as close to proving something as science will ever get. Nobody thinks thermodynamics as it is right now will ever change because there are no problems with it. |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
I guess evolution is science, but you called it history. So I was thinking history of anything is not science.
But yeah I guess that is biology. I've had biology students in some of my classes and I wouldn't really class them as scientists or at least not scientists on the same level as chemistry/physics students. They just memorize a bunch of crap and have almost zero knowledge of mathematics, but I'm biased.
|
Science doesn't have to be mathematical you know. I take offence to you insinuating that biology is a lower form of science than physics and chemistry.
Anyway, they all overlap sooner or later. It's just necessary to split them up into different fields, just as we separate music into genres. |
|
|
| Zild |
I fully understand that. I just like to take the piss out of 'soft' scientists every chance I get.
It is really just a matter of scale. There aren't well defined mathematical models for extremely complex things like animals as opposed to an atom. |
|
|
| eckmek |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
Guys science is empirical. There isn't just some guy sitting in a room somewhere pulling theories out of his ass so that he can then go disprove them. You observe the world. Look at your observations and then you try to apply a mathematical model to it. A great example of this is thermodynamics. |
But you have to have SOME theory you "pull out of your ass" in order for you to know what to look for when making observations. You can't just clear your head of thought and then look at your experiment and spot the important processes without having theorized about it first. |
|
|
| Zild |
Like I said. You don't pull it out of your ass you base it on empirical observations.
Like the theory of relativity. Empirical observations were made that showed classical mechanics to break down in certain instances. Einstein noticed this and then formulated his theory of relativity which then went on to be empirically tested through experiment which shows that it too breaks down under certain instances. But nowhere did someone just write down some equations and say hey thats probably how it works. Many times theory will correctly predict currently unobserved phenomena but that doesn't mean it was pulled out of someone's ass. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
I just like to take the piss out of 'soft' scientists every chance I get. |
 :D |
|
|
|
|
