science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.
science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
Even if the scientific method was rudimentary, flawed, etc., isn't it still scientific? The wheel may have been invented in the bronze age when they didn't understand 'the scientific method', but that doesn't mean it wasn't employed in some way to perfect the product. Maybe they just skipped right onto the test from the problem statement.
science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?
science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
Even if the scientific method was rudimentary, flawed, etc., isn't it still scientific? The wheel may have been invented in the bronze age when they didn't understand 'the scientific method', but that doesn't mean it wasn't employed in some way to perfect the product. Maybe they just skipped right onto the test from the problem statement.
I'm not trying to be mean here, but I'm pretty sure even scientists would be disturbed by the way science is being defended on this thread. At this point, you're basically trying to classify all reasoning as science, which suggests you don't really understand what science is.
science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?
Yes, because they tested and learned. It's rudimentary and incomplete, but the baby used empirical data to decide not to touch the fire again. I feel like you're mixing philosophy and science here a bit though. Empiricism is more classically contrasted with rationalism, not science.
science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?
Yes, because they tested and learned. It's rudimentary and incomplete, but the baby used empirical data to decide not to touch the fire again. I feel like you're mixing philosophy and science here a bit though. Empiricism is more classically contrasted with rationalism, not science.
Historically, most science is empirical. Not universally, but most of it.
What I'm about to say is tongue-in-cheek, but there's a real point in here, as well: are you really comfortable defending science as the definitive source of knowledge if it's something a baby can do?
science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?
science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?
you don't need bunson burners to "do science".
So your answer is "yes." For a defender of science, you have a pretty slipshod (not to mention dismissive) understanding of what it is.
1 : knowledge about the natural world that is based on facts learned through experiments and observation. 2 : an area of study that deals with the natural world (as biology or physics)
science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?
Yes, because they tested and learned. It's rudimentary and incomplete, but the baby used empirical data to decide not to touch the fire again. I feel like you're mixing philosophy and science here a bit though. Empiricism is more classically contrasted with rationalism, not science.
Historically, most science is empirical. Not universally, but most of it.
What I'm about to say is tongue-in-cheek, but there's a real point in here, as well: are you really comfortable defending science as the definitive source of knowledge if it's something a baby can do?
It was your example, not mine. The scientific method, if we're speaking the same language, is a simple what... 6/7 step process? How deeply in each of those steps is related to the complexity of the problem. That's true for most everything you do in your life. You have a more analytical, information driven decision tree for buying a car than buying a used Styx record. And it's mostly because of the risk and size of the investment. So the baby uses some of the scientific method, as did humans 3500 years ago when inventing the wheel. Still science, in my opinion.
Yes, but when you appeal to it as a source of knowledge, you use the 2nd definition. When you try to explain what it is you shift to the first definition.
science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?
you don't need bunson burners to "do science".
So your answer is "yes." For a defender of science, you have a pretty slipshod (not to mention dismissive) understanding of what it is.
you are the one who called science a "social construct", which is absolutely wrong no matter what angle you look at it.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?
Yes, because they tested and learned. It's rudimentary and incomplete, but the baby used empirical data to decide not to touch the fire again. I feel like you're mixing philosophy and science here a bit though. Empiricism is more classically contrasted with rationalism, not science.
Historically, most science is empirical. Not universally, but most of it.
What I'm about to say is tongue-in-cheek, but there's a real point in here, as well: are you really comfortable defending science as the definitive source of knowledge if it's something a baby can do?
It was your example, not mine. The scientific method, if we're speaking the same language, is a simple what... 6/7 step process? How deeply in each of those steps is related to the complexity of the problem. That's true for most everything you do in your life. You have a more analytical, information driven decision tree for buying a car than buying a used Styx record. And it's mostly because of the risk and size of the investment. So the baby uses some of the scientific method, as did humans 3500 years ago when inventing the wheel. Still science, in my opinion.
Sorry, man, this isn't an area you get an opinion. You deciding what you're going to buy is not science. And, since you seem to like science, that's a good thing for you.
science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?
Yes, because they tested and learned. It's rudimentary and incomplete, but the baby used empirical data to decide not to touch the fire again. I feel like you're mixing philosophy and science here a bit though. Empiricism is more classically contrasted with rationalism, not science.
Historically, most science is empirical. Not universally, but most of it.
What I'm about to say is tongue-in-cheek, but there's a real point in here, as well: are you really comfortable defending science as the definitive source of knowledge if it's something a baby can do?
It was your example, not mine. The scientific method, if we're speaking the same language, is a simple what... 6/7 step process? How deeply in each of those steps is related to the complexity of the problem. That's true for most everything you do in your life. You have a more analytical, information driven decision tree for buying a car than buying a used Styx record. And it's mostly because of the risk and size of the investment. So the baby uses some of the scientific method, as did humans 3500 years ago when inventing the wheel. Still science, in my opinion.
science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?
you don't need bunson burners to "do science".
So your answer is "yes." For a defender of science, you have a pretty slipshod (not to mention dismissive) understanding of what it is.
you are the one who called science a "social construct", which is absolutely wrong no matter what angle you look at it.
With the strength of your argument, I should probably just succumb, but I'll press on nonetheless: please tell me a moment of science that precedes and is entirely detached from the social?
science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?
you don't need bunson burners to "do science".
So your answer is "yes." For a defender of science, you have a pretty slipshod (not to mention dismissive) understanding of what it is.
you are the one who called science a "social construct", which is absolutely wrong no matter what angle you look at it.
With the strength of your argument, I should probably just succumb, but I'll press on nonetheless: please tell me a moment of science that precedes and is entirely detached from the social?
strike a match and you tell me.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?
Yes, because they tested and learned. It's rudimentary and incomplete, but the baby used empirical data to decide not to touch the fire again. I feel like you're mixing philosophy and science here a bit though. Empiricism is more classically contrasted with rationalism, not science.
Historically, most science is empirical. Not universally, but most of it.
What I'm about to say is tongue-in-cheek, but there's a real point in here, as well: are you really comfortable defending science as the definitive source of knowledge if it's something a baby can do?
It was your example, not mine. The scientific method, if we're speaking the same language, is a simple what... 6/7 step process? How deeply in each of those steps is related to the complexity of the problem. That's true for most everything you do in your life. You have a more analytical, information driven decision tree for buying a car than buying a used Styx record. And it's mostly because of the risk and size of the investment. So the baby uses some of the scientific method, as did humans 3500 years ago when inventing the wheel. Still science, in my opinion.
How do people think they get an "opinion" on what constitutes science? At the most basic logical level you're undercutting your position as your expound it.
science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?
you don't need bunson burners to "do science".
So your answer is "yes." For a defender of science, you have a pretty slipshod (not to mention dismissive) understanding of what it is.
you are the one who called science a "social construct", which is absolutely wrong no matter what angle you look at it.
With the strength of your argument, I should probably just succumb, but I'll press on nonetheless: please tell me a moment of science that precedes and is entirely detached from the social?
science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?
you don't need bunson burners to "do science".
So your answer is "yes." For a defender of science, you have a pretty slipshod (not to mention dismissive) understanding of what it is.
you are the one who called science a "social construct", which is absolutely wrong no matter what angle you look at it.
With the strength of your argument, I should probably just succumb, but I'll press on nonetheless: please tell me a moment of science that precedes and is entirely detached from the social?
strike a match and you tell me.
chemistry is not social. biology is not social. math is not social. these are truths.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?
you don't need bunson burners to "do science".
So your answer is "yes." For a defender of science, you have a pretty slipshod (not to mention dismissive) understanding of what it is.
you are the one who called science a "social construct", which is absolutely wrong no matter what angle you look at it.
With the strength of your argument, I should probably just succumb, but I'll press on nonetheless: please tell me a moment of science that precedes and is entirely detached from the social?
strike a match and you tell me.
chemistry is not social. biology is not social. math is not social. these are truths.
No, they are discourses. Knowledge and truth are not the same thing.
science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?
Yes, because they tested and learned. It's rudimentary and incomplete, but the baby used empirical data to decide not to touch the fire again. I feel like you're mixing philosophy and science here a bit though. Empiricism is more classically contrasted with rationalism, not science.
Historically, most science is empirical. Not universally, but most of it.
What I'm about to say is tongue-in-cheek, but there's a real point in here, as well: are you really comfortable defending science as the definitive source of knowledge if it's something a baby can do?
It was your example, not mine. The scientific method, if we're speaking the same language, is a simple what... 6/7 step process? How deeply in each of those steps is related to the complexity of the problem. That's true for most everything you do in your life. You have a more analytical, information driven decision tree for buying a car than buying a used Styx record. And it's mostly because of the risk and size of the investment. So the baby uses some of the scientific method, as did humans 3500 years ago when inventing the wheel. Still science, in my opinion.
Sorry, man, this isn't an area you get an opinion. You deciding what you're going to buy is not science. And, since you seem to like science, that's a good thing for you.
I'm drawing a correlation to how the baby, or our ancestors used science, not saying buying an album is science. You said that until someone recognized and articulated the scientific method, it didn't exist. At least that was my interpretation earlier. I'm saying humans used the method to varying degrees even though they did not recognize it as such, nor follow every step completely.
science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?
Yes, because they tested and learned. It's rudimentary and incomplete, but the baby used empirical data to decide not to touch the fire again. I feel like you're mixing philosophy and science here a bit though. Empiricism is more classically contrasted with rationalism, not science.
Historically, most science is empirical. Not universally, but most of it.
What I'm about to say is tongue-in-cheek, but there's a real point in here, as well: are you really comfortable defending science as the definitive source of knowledge if it's something a baby can do?
It was your example, not mine. The scientific method, if we're speaking the same language, is a simple what... 6/7 step process? How deeply in each of those steps is related to the complexity of the problem. That's true for most everything you do in your life. You have a more analytical, information driven decision tree for buying a car than buying a used Styx record. And it's mostly because of the risk and size of the investment. So the baby uses some of the scientific method, as did humans 3500 years ago when inventing the wheel. Still science, in my opinion.
Sorry, man, this isn't an area you get an opinion. You deciding what you're going to buy is not science. And, since you seem to like science, that's a good thing for you.
I'm drawing a correlation to how the baby, or our ancestors used science, not saying buying an album is science. You said that until someone recognized and articulated the scientific method, it didn't exist. At least that was my interpretation earlier. I'm saying humans used the method to varying degrees even though they did not recognize it as such, nor follow every step completely.
i am pretty sure that hominids figured out that if the first guy walks off of a cliff that is bad. they did not need isaac newton to tell them about gravity. it was pretty much a universal truth.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?
you don't need bunson burners to "do science".
So your answer is "yes." For a defender of science, you have a pretty slipshod (not to mention dismissive) understanding of what it is.
you are the one who called science a "social construct", which is absolutely wrong no matter what angle you look at it.
With the strength of your argument, I should probably just succumb, but I'll press on nonetheless: please tell me a moment of science that precedes and is entirely detached from the social?
Whoa, wait. This is a different argument. How do you say something is completely detached from a social construct? Every species has a social construct of some sort. So because science and society operate together, in parallel, this is an un-provable argument.
i am pretty sure that hominids figured out that if the first guy walks off of a cliff that is bad. they did not need isaac newton to tell them about gravity. it was pretty much a universal truth.
Again, you haven't read the thread. You're conflating science (a discourse/method for apprehending reality) with that reality itself.
science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.
LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?
there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then.
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science?
you don't need bunson burners to "do science".
So your answer is "yes." For a defender of science, you have a pretty slipshod (not to mention dismissive) understanding of what it is.
you are the one who called science a "social construct", which is absolutely wrong no matter what angle you look at it.
With the strength of your argument, I should probably just succumb, but I'll press on nonetheless: please tell me a moment of science that precedes and is entirely detached from the social?
Whoa, wait. This is a different argument. How do you say something is completely detached from a social construct? Every species has a social construct of some sort. So because science and society operate together, in parallel, this is an un-provable argument.
Not entirely: if they coexist as you say they do, how did you become certain of the exact relationship between the two?
i am pretty sure that hominids figured out that if the first guy walks off of a cliff that is bad. they did not need isaac newton to tell them about gravity. it was pretty much a universal truth.
Again, you haven't read the thread. You're conflating science (a discourse/method for apprehending reality) with that reality itself.
i skipped over a bit when you started lighting other posters up for no reason.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
Comments
it was "oooh oooh OOOH".
www.headstonesband.com
What I'm about to say is tongue-in-cheek, but there's a real point in here, as well: are you really comfortable defending science as the definitive source of knowledge if it's something a baby can do?
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRL4uIVzVWI
www.headstonesband.com
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."