All things Transgender related

ecdanc

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. 

gimmesometruth27

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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.

ecdanc

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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. 

HughFreakingDillon

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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.  

exactly. 

http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRL4uIVzVWI

ecdanc

gimmesometruth27 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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? 

gimmesometruth27

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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.

ecdanc

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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.  

exactly. 

http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRL4uIVzVWI

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. 

ecdanc

gimmesometruth27 said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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.

Who made that match?

gimmesometruth27

gimmesometruth27 said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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.

ecdanc

gimmesometruth27 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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. 

gimmesometruth27

anatomy is not social. fission is not social.

gimmesometruth27

physics are not social. biomechanics are not social.

ecdanc

gimmesometruth27 said:

anatomy is not social. fission is not social.

Have you read the thread? I've already explained this. 

mrussel1

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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.  

ecdanc

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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.  

Again, scientists everywhere are cringing. 

gimmesometruth27

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.

mrussel1

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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.  

ecdanc

gimmesometruth27 said:

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. 

ecdanc

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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?

gimmesometruth27

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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.