This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
What is science ?
The science is the result of the interaction between our minds on one hand and the things that are different of our minds on the other . More exactly this interaction means the relation of association of our mind laws to the things outside of our minds .
From what I said results a main idea : - the science is surely our minds creation (this creation might be real).
And now I have a additional question : -what about if we make the supposition that exist a different mind of ours ? wouldn't it be absurd to say that the nonexistence of scientific proofs about this mind is a reason to think this mind don't exist ?
Robert Winner 50+
You have just proven that old saw mind over matter. Guess that sicience does matter. If you don't mind.
All the best. Bob.
E G 10+
- because my theory is that our mind production is a mind thing.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
If there is no evidence for something that someone else says or wrote down you might be at least a little skeptical.
All the evidence so far points to minds being a product of brains. Damage the brain and you damage the mind.
You haven't defined this mind different to ours so it is hard to discuss.
A whale has a mind different to ours.
You can imagine a rock has a mind if you like, but don't pretend that this is a sound belief.
Not all ideas accurately portray the universe.
We can not disprove unverifiable concepts but that doesn't make them a something worth believing in automatically.
I guess its about balancing skepticism and still being open to new evidence.
I suspect this is some fallacious method of apologetics for something supernatural.
Right now I am imagining a bacon flavoured ice cream in my mind. Do we have any rational reason to believe this exists in reality
Thomas Reddy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon_ice_cream
Other than that, I agree with your statement :)
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I'm now imagining it a green colour.
Thomas Reddy
Additionally science doesn't tell us subjective truths. If we learn that apples grow from apple trees, or that electricity works a certain way, the same is true for everyone. If there is another "mind", either because there are spirits in the world, or because information can organize on some unknown substrate, we could eventually determine ways to detect and analyze it.
I'd you are intent on using your definition for some hypothetical exorcise, don't attribute it to the word science.
Comment deleted
E G 10+
And you already contradict yourself : you seem to say that we need to trust our senses (in answer to my ideas about science) and at the same time you say science doesn't tell us subjective things . It's like saying : 'I trust my senses not being subjective ' , a flagrant contradiction . Did you ever think that my sense could be different of yours ?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Repeatable, measurable, predictive etc.
If you are looking for absolutes you will get no where.
But there is a practical level to define knowledge or fact that have given us tangible results.
I can see this going down the usual rabbit hole that in the end everything is perceived by our brains and is in some sense subjective. However some things can be proven to a practical level. I can reasonably prove to you I have a pet dog. If you don't accept this then it is not worth continuing.
Some claims are more fantastic and might require more proof
E G 10+
It would be interesting to know what does that mean more proof or more fantastic ; you know the infinite exist , if the science don't overcome it there always be an infinite to overcome (whatever of its already huge results ).
Then what more fantastic , or more proof mean ? a bit more forward ?
I think you notice you've already been subjective.
Thomas Reddy
E G 10+
Your definition of science is not precise : -the word 'universe' for different people means actually different things , even though they are similar things . More than that , even though I force the note here, what science (what the people call science) tells us entirely different things of what we already know , for example think at the difference between what science tells us about the light and what common sense does : 2 entirely different things . Then what is universe and what is not ? what is the object of investigation for science ?
Thomas Reddy
Here is a thought experiment on this one. Assume you are speaking to someone from a culture where the popularly accepted belief was that there were no things such as spirits, or gods, or any other supernatural entities. How would you convince them otherwise? They don't care what you believe, they'll want you to point to something, or have some proof. The. After they have your proof they'll want to be able to do that experiment themselves. Do you think you could convince these people?
The point that I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't assume things as fact if we have no proof to back up that claim. I'm not claiming that the supernatural doesn't exist, I'm saying there is no reason to believe that it does exist, so why should we make that assumption. I could claim to be an all powerful and judgmental creator, and that in this life I will not use my power in any way shape or form, but that based on my observations, I will choose to damn people to an eternity of suffering in the afterlife. As far as I can tell, you'd have no way to prove me wrong, so according to your logic, I should assume that to be true.
E G 10+
Why do you think I gonna try to convince them ? I won't , I said you see my topic ideas .
You're going round and round without getting what I said (why don't you ask questions?) .
Obey No1kinobe 50+
1. I have blue eyes.
2. I'm 100 meters tall.
3. I have an invisible immaterial dragon living in the garage.
You have every right to be skeptical of 3. The same logic applies to all supernatural spiritual claims.
There might well be a spiritual dragon there. There could be a billion invisible dragons on my desk. But we need more than speculation to start taking this seriously.
Again if you move the argument to absolutes it becomes nonsense.
Thomas Reddy
The description of your topic question, does not follow from "What is Science?".
Instead you're using rhetoric to posit an idea about human understanding of the world. This would best be posted as an "Idea" on the TED boards, and not a question. This seems especially true since this post seems focused on proving your initial assertion. This is perfectly legitimate if posted as an idea, but it shouldn't be labeled as a question.
As technically correct and dictionary definitions of "What is Science" do not appear to be sufficient for you, I'd posit this slightly more fundamental and slightly esoteric definition:
Science: The study of the universe(s) and all of its constituent parts. This is not limited to what has been deemed "Natural Sciences" such as physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc. This study uses a methodological approach to determine fact from fiction, and to gain deeper understandings of that which is already known. The methodological approach employed is as follows:
1) Ask a Question
2) Do Background Research
3) Construct a Hypothesis
4) Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
4.5) If you cannot construct an experiment capable of verifying or falsifying your hypothesis start at step 1, with this as your feed question.
5) Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
6) If your hypothesis is false or partially true, go back to step 3.
7) Communicate Your Results
E G 10+
You take it too hard all of the sudden with your definition of science , let's stop a bit and analyze :
- 'the science is the study of universe.............' , there is already in this sentence unknown things because you didn't say what the universe is and because as much as I can grasp from what you said what you call science has the role of saying us what the universe is , how the hell then if we don't know what science is can we know what the universe is ? ..........+ considering that we don't know what science is (because we are at the step right know of defining it)....... I can say you start by saying nothing ; not a good start .
Did you want to say that the science is the study of what we think the universe is ? or maybe something else......... Idk .
If we don't are very clear science is not science and we can't make any step further .
Thomas Reddy
-It would not be absurd to say that the nonexistence of scientific proof about some nondetectable mind is reason to believe it does not exist.
Assertion 1)
There are a great number of things for which we cannot prove the existence of. In fact that number is infinite. There are literally an infinite number of things or types of things which we currently cannot detect, nor prove scientifically.
Assertion 2)
The set in assertion 1 is divided into two sets. Set 1 - Things which exist, have existed, or could exist. Set 2 - Things which do not exist and cannot exist.
Assertion 3)
There is some finite number of things or types of things which do exist. For example, there may be an infinite number of protons in the universe, but if we fully understand how 1 proton works, we understand how they all work.
Assertion 4) There are infinitely more things which do not exist than there are things which do exist yet we are unable to prove or detect.
In this case, we have to start making certain assumptions. Namely, that just because something can't be disproven that there is not an equal chance of it existing or not existing. If someone makes a claim for the existence of some heretofore unknown, they have a duty to prove its existence.
It is crucial that we as a society continue to expand our knowledge about the universe. We do not know everything there is to know. We may never know everything there is to know. And if we continue to expand our horizon it will be necessary that we consider theories which were previously unproven, unknown, and/or undetectable.
To do this, we should look for clues and evidence of things which we may not yet know or understand, and set about affirmatively proving those things. It would be wasteful, however, to begin this process by picking theories for which there is no proof, and then taking on the task of attempting to disprove it.
E G 10+
I said that science is the production of our mind , the scientific proofs are our mind production too ; if it is so then how could you detect a different mind using the science ? ..........because I repeat by 'science' the single mind you can detect is yours (because the science is the production of your mind).
I thank you for your steps but I would say right now to remain on the topic if you don't mind, ok?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Nonsense.
Why could we not detect a different mind if it actually existed?
If you define the type of mind you refer to we could continue the discussion.
Can you not not discriminate between science and any assertion in a practical sense?
Mind S 30+
From the title of your conversation and the nature of your replies I am curious about your scientific background, hence I am asking:
What are your scientific credentials?
E G 10+
damien mcminn
E G 10+
Thomas Reddy
It would be more accurate to say that the entirety of the human experience is a result of what goes on in the ~1.5kg inside our skulls. And that, there really is no way to know whether our minds are stuck in some "Matrix" like system so that we only imagine we're experiencing life, or whether we actually are physical beings mucking about in the Universe. Let's say that our minds are correctly perceiving the universe, and that you, me, and the rest of the people commenting on this thread really do exist, and that we're interacting in the same world.
The scientific method (as described by Ed Long earlier in this thread), is an accurate description of the scientific method. It's a way for humanity to test ideas to see if they are relevant or accurate. Up until the 19th-20th century, there were a lot of theories about the nature of the the universe at the small scale. The important thing there was that those theories were testable, and the bad ones were thrown away.
The scientific method does not say that the lack of proof for a supposition equates to the proof of a negative. What it does say is that proof of the existence of something is really the only thing that matters. I could say that I am a wizard and can control the forces of nature with but a thought... It doesn't matter unless I can prove that to be the case. General Relativity was an equally absurd assertion, however we were able to prove that it was correct and make accurate predictions based on it.
You are correct, it is incorrect to say that the nonexistence of proof of a thing is a reason to think that it doesn't exist. However, it is absurd to say that something exists because of a lack of proof to the negative. If you assert that something exists which we have yet to prove, it is incumbent upon you to find the proof; otherwise we shouldn't act as though that assertion is fact.
E G 10+
-I didn't claim that 'the lack of proof for a supposition equates to the proof of a negative ' ;
-think how many atheists think incorrectly;
As about the rest , you talk about an entire different thing : the scientific method , I was interested about the science itself . However there is something there about science :
- the entire human experience ,thus including the science , is a result of what goes on inside our brains (even the brains?) thus we don't know if science (part of the human experience) is a imagined thing or a physical one ? .....maybe is none ? ........... it's very hard if not impossible to understand something coherent from your first paragraph .
Thomas Reddy
-To your second point. From what does your claim about atheists flow from? Is it about my difficulty in understanding your unclear statement, or is it a general claim about humanity in general, which therefore includes atheists? Or is it just an unfounded insult stemming from prejudice?
-As to your third point, what useful distinction are you attempting to making about the difference of the terms "Science" and "Scientific Method"?
Wikipedia defines Science as: "Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."
Dictionary.com defines science as:
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.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
Wikipedia defines the Scientific Method is defined as:
"a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge."
The best I can do to separate the two ideas is that science is the application of the scientific method combined with the resulting body of knowledge.
Could you refine or articulate your point in a more clear way if, as you say, I'm talking about an entirely different thing?
E G 10+
Look , atheism is saying something like : if there is no proof for God why to believe in God ? This question is absurd , and the absurdity lies in not understanding what a scientific proof is . (thus the topic of this conversation : what is the science ?)
Well , that definitions about science are contradictory : for example ( the dictionary):
1. the science is a branch of knowledge or a study .......... a study and a branch of knowledge are not the same thing . It's the same distinction between a encyclopedia and a book of philosophy/thinking ........ and unlike the : 2. which says : the science is only knowledge + how this knowledge is gained . The first didn't mentioned how this knowledge is gained .
Which is the complete definition of science in the end ?
Even more , the second is nonsense : because the way we can gain something can be scientific or not , therefore the second says in the end that : science is a body of knowledge and is science . Tautological nonsense .
The science and the scientific method are two different things ; the confusions lies in what we do: we call science everything that is scientific but 2 scientific things aren't one and the same thing .
As about your last question is not much to say if you understand what I've just said :
-talking about scientific method you don't talk about science in the broadest meaning of it , you just talk about a method that happens to be scientific . I asked what is the science itself , the entire science is not only a method, obviously.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I find it interesting that so may cultural traditions rely on some sort of invisible immaterial realm which makes them unverifiable. Being unverifiable is not a strong argument for anything.
Rhona Pavis 50+
edward long 100+
E G 10+
So the physical/natural science is a body of knowledge, nothing more ? For example Rhona Pavis above said that science is life ?
edward long 100+
E G 10+
-you said first that data is information (I take only the information) ; after that you said that in that definition of data the idea of proof is assumed , in other words you said according to your definition that the idea of proof is assumed in what you call information . And after this all ,you just said the reverse :"Information becomes data when it is proven" , so in the end what do you meant to say :the information assumes the idea of proof or not ?
From you example it seems that not ; so the data is information proved .
And now let's turn back a bit to your first comment : the pertinent data(=information proved) is the second step , the third is : formulation of hypothesis , but why the heck to formulate an hypothesis if we have already pertinent data , something proved ; or why to make experiments if we have already something proved ? ...... and so on .
You just prove the rule Mr Edward : you have in mind something but not an understanding of what you have in mind .
edward long 100+
E G 10+