The quote is good, read it enough times to get your head around it if you do not grasp the way in which it is worded, do not just imply that everything that disagrees with you is wrong and stupid (as you frequently do). Just because you do not agree or you find it difficult to read does not mean it is clumsy, I found it quite eloquent.

This is simple, and all comes down to the fact that I define science far more broadly and in more simple terms than you do, in this way my definition of science is quite capable of including maths.

Science is the method through which man tries to explain and understand nature, it is the process through which meaningful knowledge of nature is gathered and organised. Maths is defined within this, in your own words: "It constructs its own rules/axioms and then proves other things within itself from this and only from these rules/axioms.", and since these rules/axioms are products of natural processes (human thought), maths is a process of describing nature and a means through which to understand it. Nice broad simple definitions.

I do not think you are not wrong, I simply disagree wit the way you define science, and you will find that many are on my side in this, proponents of string theory for example.

Quote:


Here I have defined both? What are you blind, or stupid?

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2007 at 5:50pm:

Exactly, your definition does fit into mine, but yours is limiting eg. it requires that evolution is not science. Science is broader than the limited definition you have, and often needs to be defined differently to fit the various sciences, clearly biology requires a different definition than physics for example.

Oh and I do actually believe that all religions are simply very early examples of scientific endeavour, but I have been crucified before on this and probably will be again, but my belief is firm.

Also:
Quote:

In what way is human thought not natural? My statement does not destroy the meaning of natural, it simply acknowledges the scope of the word.

We can disagree on this and be civil about it (you are never going to be right all the time so better to know how to be modest all of the time!), I don't think anyone in the scientific community will tell you there is a solid and unchallenged definition of what science is, I simply try to use one that encompasses all others.

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2007 at 7:08pm:

Yes there are, we could for instance bring god into it?

Specific definitions become important in the context of different scientific methods, depending on the rigour and quality of the precedents that are set within the particular field of study. No, all science is certainly not considered in as broad a sense as my definition of science, good science most often requires a deeper definition than this, such as the one that you provide, but that one is only a very specific description of a way to go about science, a more modern way as is applied to situations where it is relevant and achievable. The thing is that science can arise from so much more than what you limit yourself to in your article. As I say science is the method, science is any method that is applied in an objective way by applying some sort of order and structure to problems or questions, attempting to limit the influence of human perceptions, in some sort of attempt to explain and understand nature. It can and does refer to things far simpler than what you demonstrate in your article. Science must remain broad and ambiguous enough to allow for new fields to easily be accepted, and an openness to constant changes in understanding, to be 'self correcting' as you say.

Quote:

That question is phrased in the most loaded way imaginable...

No I do not think whether god exists or not is a scientific question. I believe that god is a convenient way to describe many of the things that are now described in other ways, and that it is very likely that a belief in god came out of the same desire to seek understanding in nature that drives science.

Quote:

I don't think many people accept that view any more, certainly not many people I know, and certainly not many scientists.

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2007 at 2:30pm:

Beats me? You asked the question, You tell me?

Quote:

Tell me, what questions does evolution ask that are answered through different means? Credible scientific examples? Not some bullsh!t you just made up here on this website, go out and find some examples.

Quote:

Who said anything about psychology? Still, that hasn't stopped anyone from trying, and if they try, it is science, it may be poor science but it is science.

Quote:

A very simplistic way to look at it, you dismiss the potential for subtlety.

Words can carry different meanings in certain contexts, in the context of science, yes everything is natural and it is used as a term to distinguish between that which is able to be studied scientifically, and that which can not (eg faith). In the context of your day to day conversations, yes nature often defines human from everything else (although I refuse to accept this, so much stupidity comes from this arrogant perception of man), but this is far too clumsy a definition for science, and this is not the context of our conversation.

Quote:

And what of the science that has not produced modern technology? You miss all of the historical achievements of science, as I pointed out with the ancient greeks, but much was even discovered and studied before those times. Tell me, do you think then that when science that has been left to the history books it is no longer science?

Quote:

It is one way, but too narrow to encompass everything we understand as science.

Quote:

True, but you take my meaning out of context, I should have said preconceptions, emotions etc, but I chose to use one word, an error of communication if you missed my point, essentially all I meant was to be objective.

Quote:

So we are accepting non scientific fields into science now?

Quote:

It is not the only way, it is one way, a good way, but not the only way.

The truth is freediver, while I sit and study scientific subjects and ponder on your tight little definition I can only notice how much of my science texts do not fit what you call science. I went through a chapter of a thermodynamics text today and read it, mentally selecting and removing passages of text that do not fit your definition of science, and without these passages many topics no longer made much sense? Is thermodynamics not science? Indeed, what is empirical about the thought experiment? All thought experiments are exercises in intuition concerning nothing but content that is made up and in the mind, purely maths as sense defined it, are thought experiments not science? While one studies science they can be engaged in science and yet not conduct one experiment or postulate one theory, a student may not do one single thing you define as science, yet they are still engaged in science. If I attempt a scientific problem as outlined in my text, using maths taught to me in that text, I am not conducting empirical study, nor am I making meaningful predictions, nor proposing theories. I am however engaged in science.

The problem with the way you define science is that it does not encompass things that everyone regards as scientific already, like evolution, which means you are applying a false definition to the word. And that is all there is to it.

Tell me, what questions does evolution ask that are answered through different means?

It answers them. It doesn't ask them. It answers them in the same way that microeconomics answers questions about the state of the current global economy, without actually sheeding any light un the fundamental reasons.

in the context of science, yes everything is natural and it is used as a term to distinguish between that which is able to be studied scientifically, and that which can not (eg faith).

Now I get why you used the term, but maths cannot be studied scientifically either.

Tell me, do you think then that when science that has been left to the history books it is no longer science?

No, a lot of the theories the ancient greeks came up with are scientific. My reason for the reference to modern technology is that the technoloigcal explosion over the last few centuries resulted from the institutionalisation of the modern scientific method. It highlights the difference between blindly stumbling across the simpler scientific discoveries as the ancient greeks did and systematically uncovering them via the modern scientific method.

It is one way, but too narrow to encompass everything we understand as science.

No it isn't. Evolution is the only theory that is mistaken considered by some members of the general public to be science. This is due to the lumping together of scientific and unscientific theories, not to a broader meaning to science.

So we are accepting non scientific fields into science now?

No, you misunderstood me. I did not say whether as field is accepted as science..., obviously whether it is accepted as scientific depends on whether it is scientific. Having more fields accepted as science is alone no reason to blur the defintion of science. To do so would make theries like intelligent design scientific, which is exactly the opposite of what people want. It would turn a useful distinction into a meaningless one.

It is not the only way, it is one way, a good way, but not the only way.

The modern scientific method is the reason science has leapt ahead over the last few centuries and given us all that technology. Lack of it is the reason why so many other beginnings (eg China) petered out into nothing. If there is an alternative method that works, it is not known to historians.

I can only notice how much of my science texts do not fit what you call science.

My high school science textbook defined science the same way I do. The reason for the apparent discrepancy is that high school textbooks tech the results of science and are very misleading on how that knowledge came about. Kuhn backs me up on this. But you have to at least be aware of what has been discovered before in order to contribute to knowledge (and of course to benefit from it). While Kuhn correctly pointed out that textbooks can be misleading about the scientific method, he also pointed out that this does not necessarily hinder progress.

It only really becomes a problem when so many scientists lose sight of what science really is and engage in pointless academic battles, such as the one we currently see in the US between evolutionists and creationists. Then there is a genuine risk. Then they end up wasting 'scientific' careers on dogma.

I went through a chapter of a thermodynamics text today and read it, mentally selecting and removing passages of text that do not fit your definition of science

Give me an example and I will explain why you were wrong to remove it.

Is thermodynamics not science?

Thermodynamics is science.

All thought experiments are exercises in intuition

In Einsteins case, they were not. They were predictions from the current theory. An experiment requires a predicted outcome to be useful. Predicting that outcome requires you to perform a thought experiment. In other situations, a thought experiment is useful in getting people to picture a concept with which they are actually already very familiar in their everyday lives.

While one studies science they can be engaged in science

Learning what has already been disovered is different from contributing to the field of knowledge. Like I said, you have to catch up before you can overtake. However, learning science does usually get you to use the scientific method. That's what prac's are. It's not all theory you know. Did you ever get the impression that pracs were a wate of time? That's because your teacher didn't explain why you were doing them. They just hoped you would pick up the scientific method by doing it. Luckily, many teachers also teach it explicitly.

If I attempt a scientific problem as outlined in my text, using maths taught to me in that text, I am not conducting empirical study, nor am I making meaningful predictions, nor proposing theories. I am however engaged in science.

You are manipulating a scientific theory with maths. Like I said before this itself is not science. It is just translating the theory. It's like rephrasing it in english. Just as youy learn a theory by stating it different ways, you learn a theory by employing it to make predictions. Kuhn made the same argument.

However, it is wrong to say that your predictions are not meaningful. They are. It's just that you don't test them empirically. Experiments cost a huge amount of time and money. Instead your teacher marks them.

Freediver, you can be engaged in science without conducting a single experiment. What you describe is one example of the scientific method, it is not science in its entirety, just a part of it. I do not dismiss your definition, quite the contrary, I even agree that it is a very good way to approach science, but your definition does not include all of science. Forget evolution then, what about my other example? You tell me the simply studying science is not being engaged in science until you do an experiment? Utter bull, thought experiments are sufficient for one, as is the use of mathematical methods to explore and manipulate existing theories, it is all science, experiment is not needed. You dismiss Diamonds work as history, not science, and yet he is a biologist and his books are entirely scientific, using very similar methods to those used in evolutionary study, methods considered by the scientific community to be valid science. Again you fail to include all areas of science. Archeologists? Paleontologists? Same methods again. Are you telling me these people are not scientists, despite having been trained for years in the area of science, and being accepted by the whole scientific community as scientists?

Also you have compared your high school text to the ones I have been issued at university, I'll just let that speak for itself.

Thought experiment is maths as sense has defined maths, if that is how you define maths (and I agree that it is) but thought experiments are also science. Einstein used already existing theories in his experiment but I have already pointed out that a theory is only a human mental construct, it is not nature. You cannot directly observe nature by thinking about it, and you cannot actually make a perfect theory, even more you cannot objectively observe nature in the first place, are you familiar with the Heisenburg uncertainty principle? It more or less says that all scientific observations cannot accurately describe nature since observing nature influences what is observed. It is the cornerstone of quantum mechanics. Are you familiar with Schrodingers cat? Or Maxwells demon? These are completely non testable experiments because they rely on purely imagined scenarios that could never exist. The known scientific theories they were based on are only human derived laws that approximate nature, they do not accurately describe it, and thus they are defined by the same description as accurately defines maths. And yet everyone considers these to be important scientific experiments? To add to this, can you name for me one mathematical field that does not attempt in some way to describe nature? Nature as we have defined for use in science, not idle conversation.

There is no reason why new scientific theories won't be 'stumbled upon' in the future, indeed, many scientific theories are stumbled upon all the time, take the discovery of penicillin. This is yet another reason why you need a broader definition of what science is than what you give. You only describe a part of science, not the whole.

To quote Jared Diamond again (this time I will use more of the text since it outlines what I am on about):
Quote:

Bit further down, talking about his career as a biologist (Diamond has degrees in laboratory biology, biochemistry, and a Ph.D. in physiology, just thought I'd point that out since you were so quick to dismiss him as simply a historian earlier):
Quote:

So are 'population biology, astronomy, epidemiology, geology, and paleontology' not areas of science? Because these fields require the broader definition of science that Diamond gives, not the narrow one you have. The methods used by these scientists are the methods employed by evolution, so by dismissing evolution as not science you dismiss the fields of population biology, astronomy, epidemiology, geology, and paleontology, to name just a few.

My last post about Christianity stifling science was not controvertial. It was a simple fact acknowledge by all reasonable men. Your response illustrates your position well.
It's the equivalent of me saying 2+3=5 and you replying with "history does not back that up - Christians are great". Have you read "Elmer Gantry" by Sinclair Lewis? This forum reminds me of the hypocracy illustrated in that book.