Science a positive influence on society and politics should

[mellie]

10000 you dumbass,,,,,:)

[mellie]

I'm a realist, and the concept of Christian Science or the Church of Scientology... or even the philosophical faction of political environmentalism (aka eco-socialism) Church of Climatology (COC) etc was always an oxymoron to my way of thinking.

Each to their own I guess.

But I like to keep my eggs in separate baskets.

I'm not a fan of consolidating religion, politics, science and state ... because when we start doing things like this, this is when the lines begin to blur.

[freediver]

Agreed. However to invent farming, improving on it, testing new ways to farm, introducing the plough... is science. Once the knpowldge has been learned, other can apply it.

So what I was talking about was that science as defined by it's method has been with us from the beginning of modern humans existence.

Not necessarily. I grow some food in my backyard. I plant different things and go with whatever does well. That is not science. I don't try to figure out why it does well. I don't even check if it really does do better or was just a fluke, except when it later fails.

A plough is an invention. It is not science and was not arrived at through any kind of scientific method.

Being able to open your eys, see what is around you, and figure out how to survive in it is not science.

I agree. You can apply the scientific method to anything. I wish everyone did, the world would be better place.

Except of course that nothing would ever get done.

You refer to pure science. Like pure maths, it is science for science (inquiry) sake.

I am referring to a method, not a motivation.

Trial and error is a valid scientific process

It depends on how you approach it. Trial and error could refer to stumbling your way through life not thinking about anything you do.

We base our compouter technology today on our theory of quantum machanics.

No we don't.

[mellie]

A variety of historical, philosophical, and scientific arguments have been put forth in favor of the idea that science and religion are in conflict. Historical examples of religious individuals or institutions promoting claims that contradict both contemporary and modern scientific consensus include creationism (see level of support for evolution), and more recently, Pope Benedict XVI's 2009 statements claiming that the use of condoms to combat the AIDS epidemic in Africa was ineffective and counterproductive.In the Galileo affair, the acceptance, from 1616 to 1757, of the Greek geocentric model (Ptolemaic system) by the Roman Catholic Church, and its consequent opposition to heliocentrism, was first called into question by the Catholic cleric Copernicus, and subsequently disproved conclusively by Galileo, who was persecuted for his minority view.Additionally, long held religious claims have been challenged by scientific studies such as STEP, which examined the efficacy of prayer. A number of scientists including Jerry Coyne have made an argument for a philosophical incompatibility between religion and science. An argument for the conflict between religion and science that combines the historical and philosophical approaches has been presented by Neil Degrasse Tyson.Tyson argues that religious scientists, such as Isaac Newton, could have achieved more had they not accepted religious answers to unresolved scientific issues.

This is a quote from wikpedia which is a good starting point.Should science play any role in political thinking and society.

Yes if science was not around we would still have a flat earth,all the stars would revolve around us. In modern society I tend to think science is playing a more prominant role than ever eg Global warming,Whale killing.Human nature shows we follow whoever has the loudest voice eg communism.But eventually truth thru science will prevail.

Was Pope Benedict XVI's 2009 statements claiming that the use of condoms to combat the AIDS epidemic in Africa was ineffective and counterproductive that outrageous, considering much of the money raised to cure it is being put towards developing new strains of a deadly plague some believe to have been a biological weapon.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjrzo_eLfZM

[boxy]

Not necessarily. I grow some food in my backyard. I plant different things and go with whatever does well. That is not science. I don't try to figure out why it does well. I don't even check if it really does do better or was just a fluke, except when it later fails.

Trail and error. That's scientific, even if a crude form of it. You see what works, and you keep doing it. If it doesn't work, you keep that in mind, and try to formulate a theory as to why it didn't work, so you can change your method next time.

A plough is an invention. It is not science and was not arrived at through any kind of scientific method.

Sure it was. People used to dig in the ground with sticks and rocks. They noticed that metal was more durable and workable, so they applied it to digging implements like shovels and hoes, and then started pulling them with horses to cut down on labour. Each step imagined and implemented by people with ideas as to what might work better.

Being able to open your eys, see what is around you, and figure out how to survive in it is not science.

The scientific method can and is used by many people you wouldn't consider to be "scientists". Doesn't make it any less "science" based knowledge.

Say that I'm running out some irrigation pipe, with the intention of using gravity to feed from the reservoir to a trough. I'm unsure what position to put the trough in, and still have it on a lower level than the reservoir. I could pay a surveyor to come out with laser levels, and all that "science" stuff, or I could lay the pipe, fill it with water, and move up and down until I found a suitable place with a high enough water flow. Both are based on sound science, both obtain the desired outcome... one is less complex than the other.

Yay for science

[freediver]

Trail and error. That's scientific, even if a crude form of it. You see what works, and you keep doing it.

So science really is no different to tennis?

Say that I'm running out some irrigation pipe, with the intention of using gravity to feed from the reservoir to a trough. I'm unsure what position to put the trough in, and still have it on a lower level than the reservoir. I could pay a surveyor to come out with laser levels, and all that "science" stuff, or I could lay the pipe, fill it with water, and move up and down until I found a suitable place with a high enough water flow. Both are based on sound science, both obtain the desired outcome... one is less complex than the other.

Both use knowledge acquired through science. That is not the same thing as science.

[boxy]

Trail and error. That's scientific, even if a crude form of it. You see what works, and you keep doing it.

So science really is no different to tennis?

Science can be applied to tennis, just like everything else. You can go about in a scientific manner, understanding the theory behind a good shot, and tactics, or you can trust everything to your instincts.

Say that I'm running out some irrigation pipe, with the intention of using gravity to feed from the reservoir to a trough. I'm unsure what position to put the trough in, and still have it on a lower level than the reservoir. I could pay a surveyor to come out with laser levels, and all that "science" stuff, or I could lay the pipe, fill it with water, and move up and down until I found a suitable place with a high enough water flow. Both are based on sound science, both obtain the desired outcome... one is less complex than the other.

Both use knowledge acquired through science. That is not the same thing as science.

So, someone laying irrigation pipe isn't "scientific", but a lab monkey, processing samples is... hmmm.

I see, a white coat seems to be the difference

[freediver]

Science can be applied to tennis

Sure, but doing a bit of trial and error is not the same thing. Trial and error is what everyone does, all the time. It is a totally meaningless distinction.

So, someone laying irrigation pipe isn't "scientific", but a lab monkey, processing samples is... hmmm.

You brought up the lab monkey, not me.

[IQS.RLOW]

Science can be applied to tennis

Sure, but doing a bit of trial and error is not the same thing. Trial and error is what everyone does, all the time. It is a totally meaningless distinction.

So your beloved computer climate models are not science then.
Goodo

[boxy]

Science can be applied to tennis

Sure, but doing a bit of trial and error is not the same thing. Trial and error is what everyone does, all the time. It is a totally meaningless distinction.

The scientific method is based on what we do all the time, what we have always done. It's been formalised, is all. There are numerous "scientific methods", and trial and error can be an appropriate one to use, in many circumstances (including everyday life). As long as you are willing to honestly evaluate the results (rather than allow human perception to cloud them), then it is an entirely scientific way to go about making decisions.