Before The Common Era.

[charter.rights]

How else would you come to an objective truth?

Because science does and will evolve.

The more we learn the more we realize we don't know.

And science is not objective truth. It is the "best guess given the information we presently know". It is somewhat reliable, but as I mentioned in the example of death, also very dangerous.

So there has to be stop gap for all the stuff that falls in between. Can you imagine what would happen if we said "well he ~looked~ dead..." But it is just as simplistic to say today given how the understanding of death has evolved "well we monitored his brain activity and it was silent". The scientific probability is that our understanding of what constitutes death today, will continue to evolve. (as will all other science). Who gets to draw the line if it turns out in another 20 or so years that life does exist after the cessation of brain function??

The buildings of today use less science and a whole lot of non-thinking labour to build them. Workers follow plans created by engineers who basically double their findings in calculating loads and moments "just in case". They "predict" imaginary loads and influences on the structures and hope they do not forget a component. Heating designers still use "rule of thumb" principles in their designs, and plumbers still rely on the old adage "shit flows downhill" to make sure it all works properly

Back in the 80's Barrie, Ontario got whacked by a tornado that destroyed hundreds of homes and killed 8 or 9 people. When engineers did the post disaster analysis one persistent issue came to light. The anchor bolts that were supposed to secure the house to the foundation all failed because a 2 cent washer was omitted to save construction costs. Science is not the end-all, catch-all. It is merely one more tool in a tool chest that may or may not contain speculation, estimation, theory, and belief in understanding the entire dynamic. And if not for the "supernatural" event we would not understand the importance of one 2 cent metal washer in whole house construction.

Truth is arrived at by applying what one knows and understands and experiences. God could be any of those unknowns just as much as science is. Some will look to the Bible for their inspiration for truth. Others will look to siblings and elders for their truth.

Scientific truth is subjective - not objective. Just ask those currently engaged in the climate change debate......

Edited January 26, 2010 by charter.rights

[chuck schmidt]

the earth being round is a universal and objective truth.

Not likely its not. Its elliptical.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not likely its not. Its elliptical.

No...the Earth is an oblate spheroid.

[ToadBrother]

And science is not objective truth. It is the "best guess given the information we presently know". It is somewhat reliable, but as I mentioned in the example of death, also very dangerous.

It's the only epistemological system we've ever developed that has an objective means of self-correcting. I mean, how do you determine that Arianism is a heresy or whether or not Sunni or Shia Islam is right in an objective fashion? What test can you bring to bear to determine these subjective beliefs and experiences?

And it ain't about Truth. Truth is for religions and metaphysics. Science deals in evidence and explanations. That's why it's so damned powerful,.

And your death example is a pretty crappy analogy. A lot of what defines death today has to do with the technologies to reverse what even a few decades ago would most certainly have been fatal. It does not change the fundamental fact that at some point, the cellular activity in the body ceases and degradation and decay to key areas like muscles and the nervous system sets in, making the condition irreversible.

I think you make a grave mistake in devaluing science. I can understand that in part it's because some people attempt to use science to evaluate ideas that are fundamentally beyond the capacity of science. Science cannot disprove or prove the existence of God. Entities like God are pretty explicitly beyond any kind of empirical analysis. AT the same time, science's ability to self-correct makes it the most powerful tool for analyzing in a predictive fashion the natural world we've ever come up with. Full stop. And all in all, there are darned few theories that have ever been outright falsified. Some of the 19th century pseudo-sciences like phrenology and race theory certainly have, but I'd argue that these were not really based on meaningful scientific principles at all. Certainly some of the pre-tectonic theories of continent formation and movement have been discarded, as are major points of pre-Darwinian evolutionary ideas, but all in all theories often remain intact in the large points, but correction and expansion happen in the details.

[Guest TrueMetis]

And science is not objective truth. It is the "best guess given the information we presently know". It is somewhat reliable, but as I mentioned in the example of death, also very dangerous.

No one said it was.

So there has to be stop gap for all the stuff that falls in between. Can you imagine what would happen if we said "well he ~looked~ dead..." But it is just as simplistic to say today given how the understanding of death has evolved "well we monitored his brain activity and it was silent". The scientific probability is that our understanding of what constitutes death today, will continue to evolve. (as will all other science). Who gets to draw the line if it turns out in another 20 or so years that life does exist after the cessation of brain function??

The same people who are trying to figure it out now, doctors.

The buildings of today use less science and a whole lot of non-thinking labour to build them. Workers follow plans created by engineers who basically double their findings in calculating loads and moments "just in case". They "predict" imaginary loads and influences on the structures and hope they do not forget a component. Heating designers still use "rule of thumb" principles in their designs, and plumbers still rely on the old adage "shit flows downhill" to make sure it all works properly

Yep so easy to design a building that works.

Engineer equations

Back in the 80's Barrie, Ontario got whacked by a tornado that destroyed hundreds of homes and killed 8 or 9 people. When engineers did the post disaster analysis one persistent issue came to light. The anchor bolts that were supposed to secure the house to the foundation all failed because a 2 cent washer was omitted to save construction costs. Science is not the end-all, catch-all. It is merely one more tool in a tool chest that may or may not contain speculation, estimation, theory, and belief in understanding the entire dynamic. And if not for the "supernatural" event we would not understand the importance of one 2 cent metal washer in whole house construction.

Your blaming science for people being cheap? Seriously? Wow you have no idea what science is do you?

Truth is arrived at by applying what one knows and understands and experiences. God could be any of those unknowns just as much as science is. Some will look to the Bible for their inspiration for truth. Others will look to siblings and elders for their truth.

No, hell no. The facts is arrived at by repeating tests and getting the same answer every time.

Scientific truth is subjective - not objective. Just ask those currently engaged in the climate change debate......

Scientific fact is objective. Science has proven gravity and the earth is a sphere, and that is objective. (unless you want to nitpick about the shape of the earth)

Edited January 26, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Shwa]

But I don't think mediation is the right term you wanted to use. Religion and Science are irreconcilable to begin with. How can you use science to mediate it's debate with religion?

Mediation - the process of mediation, "to transmit as intermediate mechanism or agency"

Thus we use "science" to mediate between ourselves - our minds - and the world (or universe if you prefer). Now, we can go out into the world and examine it, but through the scientific process can we obtain knowledge (objective truth). Would you agree with this use of the word and if so, do you understand how science mediates in the sense that it provides a 'medium' for our understanding or knowledge?

[GostHacked]

And science is not objective truth. It is the "best guess given the information we presently know". It is somewhat reliable, but as I mentioned in the example of death, also very dangerous.

Science is objective. That is how you come to any unbiased conclusion.

So there has to be stop gap for all the stuff that falls in between. Can you imagine what would happen if we said "well he ~looked~ dead..." But it is just as simplistic to say today given how the understanding of death has evolved "well we monitored his brain activity and it was silent". The scientific probability is that our understanding of what constitutes death today, will continue to evolve. (as will all other science). Who gets to draw the line if it turns out in another 20 or so years that life does exist after the cessation of brain function??

Stop gap? Like God? That stop gap seems to be getting smaller all the time though. Death is one of those gray areas we still don't quite understand, that does not mean there is some higher power at work. And at least you are starting to understand that science is always evolving.

The buildings of today use less science and a whole lot of non-thinking labour to build them. Workers follow plans created by engineers who basically double their findings in calculating loads and moments "just in case". They "predict" imaginary loads and influences on the structures and hope they do not forget a component. Heating designers still use "rule of thumb" principles in their designs, and plumbers still rely on the old adage "shit flows downhill" to make sure it all works properly

Because some methods are tried tested and true, and still hold true today. You would be a complete fool if you don't think building construction is better today than it ever was. Engineers have to account for those 'what if's. Nature is not very predictable in many regards, so we have to prepare for those events. Like earthquakes, floods, ect ect.

Shit flows downhill because of gravity! Just like apples fall from a tree! Just ask Newton!.

Back in the 80's Barrie, Ontario got whacked by a tornado that destroyed hundreds of homes and killed 8 or 9 people. When engineers did the post disaster analysis one persistent issue came to light. The anchor bolts that were supposed to secure the house to the foundation all failed because a 2 cent washer was omitted to save construction costs. Science is not the end-all, catch-all. It is merely one more tool in a tool chest that may or may not contain speculation, estimation, theory, and belief in understanding the entire dynamic. And if not for the "supernatural" event we would not understand the importance of one 2 cent metal washer in whole house construction.

Science built the house. A greedy person skimmed on the needed parts which was to blame for the amount of damage that was caused. You can't blame science for the purposeful misdeeds of one person. The engineers said, use the washers, all the materials needed to make this house what it should be are in the schematics. Not their problem if others can't stick to the plan. Greed is to blame here. This is why we have home inspections to catch crap construction work. Man is to blame here, not the science.

Not to mention that tornadoes are not supernatural by any means. Science does explain how a tornado is created.

Truth is arrived at by applying what one knows and understands and experiences. God could be any of those unknowns just as much as science is. Some will look to the Bible for their inspiration for truth. Others will look to siblings and elders for their truth.

God will always be an unknown. Science is not looking there anyways.

Scientific truth is subjective - not objective. Just ask those currently engaged in the climate change debate......

You are kidding me right? What the climate guys are doing is not really science then is it? If they are purposefully fudging data for political or economic means then it is not science anymore. A few bad apples trying to hijack the process for their cause. Obviously the science is objective because these guys were found out. Science's self correction mechanism at work. The work they have done is biased and subjective because of their goals and motivations.

[GostHacked]

Mediation - the process of mediation, "to transmit as intermediate mechanism or agency"

Thus we use "science" to mediate between ourselves - our minds - and the world (or universe if you prefer). Now, we can go out into the world and examine it, but through the scientific process can we obtain knowledge (objective truth).

Yes, I had stated that science can be a mediator to itself. But to mediate between science (itself) and religion, simply does not seem to work. There is no current way to have science mediate between religion and itself. Science simply has nothing on religion. Why? That is not science's goal.

Would you agree with this use of the word and if so, do you understand how science mediates in the sense that it provides a 'medium' for our understanding or knowledge?

That all depends on your definition of 'medium'. ?!?!

[Shwa]

Yes, I had stated that science can be a mediator to itself. But to mediate between science (itself) and religion, simply does not seem to work. There is no current way to have science mediate between religion and itself. Science simply has nothing on religion. Why? That is not science's goal.

That all depends on your definition of 'medium'. ?!?!

By medium I mean a process or set of processes by which we gain information or as M-W defines it, "a channel or system of communication"

Does this make sense?

[GostHacked]

By medium I mean a process or set of processes by which we gain information or as M-W defines it, "a channel or system of communication"

Does this make sense?

Science is a medium

Religion is a medium

What do you use to mediate and reconcile the difference between two completely different mediums?

Edited January 26, 2010 by GostHacked

[Shwa]

Science is a medium

Religion is a medium

What do you use to mediate and reconcile the difference between two completely different mediums?

Very good point, but I am not interested in religion as a medium, let's stick with science.

So if you agree that science is a medium to knowledge - objective truth - this suggests another question: are there other mediums known to man that also convey knowledge or is science all there is?

[ToadBrother]

Very good point, but I am not interested in religion as a medium, let's stick with science.

So if you agree that science is a medium to knowledge - objective truth - this suggests another question: are there other mediums known to man that also convey knowledge or is science all there is?

I wish you guys would stop throwing the word "truth" around. Science does not deal in truth. It deals in the best explanation that fits the data. Now, some theories are sufficiently well supported that to deny that they represent a factual explanation of certain phenomena would be ludicrous (ie. geocentrism, the germ theory of disease, biological evolution, the age of the Earth, General Relativity, Quantum mechanics), even if those explanations may not be complete (we don't have a grand unifying theory of GR and QM, for instance).

If you come at science looking for truth, then you have utterly misunderstood how it works and what it proposes to accomplish. Science's sole interest is in explanatory power, not in finding truth.

[GostHacked]

Very good point, but I am not interested in religion as a medium, let's stick with science.

You are not interested in religion as a medium? So why the following?

So if you agree that science is a medium to knowledge - objective truth - this suggests another question: are there other mediums known to man that also convey knowledge or is science all there is?

Science is the only one medium that will result in objective knowledge. And using science we can most likely (not sure I don't know if its been tested) show that science is the only medium that can result in objective knowledge.

[Shwa]

Science is the only one medium that will result in objective knowledge. And using science we can most likely (not sure I don't know if its been tested) show that science is the only medium that can result in objective knowledge.

What about math or logic?

[Guest TrueMetis]

What about math or logic?

Math is science and logic is used in science, although when evidence and logic conflict the evidence wins.

[charter.rights]

Math is science and logic is used in science, although when evidence and logic conflict the evidence wins.

Dodge.

Score 3 points for Shwa.

[ToadBrother]

Math is science and logic is used in science, although when evidence and logic conflict the evidence wins.

Mathematics and logic can be used to "prove" (and proof is legitimate in mathematics and formalized logic) systems that cannot, in fact, exist. One can model n-dimensional spaces despite the fact that it's highly unlikely that such spaces actually being real.

[GostHacked]

What about math or logic?

Science uses math. Math is a part of science, because without math, there really would not be science. Without math, no physics, no algebra, no formulas, .. kiss modern transportation and space flight goodbye. Modern society as a whole would not exist if math did not exist.

Science is the process, math and logic are the tools of the trade.

Edited January 27, 2010 by GostHacked

[Guest TrueMetis]

Dodge.

Score 3 points for Shwa.

You know even less about science than I thought.

[charter.rights]

You know even less about science than I thought.

You know less about thinking than you thought.

Edited January 29, 2010 by charter.rights

[Guest TrueMetis]

You now less about thinking than you though.

That makes no sense.

[Oleg Bach]

I don't agree with that definition. My definition of knowledge is that knowledge is objectively true even if there is no one to observe it. (That definition could probably use a little bit of tweaking)

If a tree falls in the forest with no one around does it make a sound? Damned right it does.

[Shwa]

Science is the process, math and logic are the tools of the trade.

Perhaps math and logic are the processes and science is the result. However, that is not useful at this time.

How about intutition and emotion as procesess to determine knowledge? How about morals and ethics?

[GostHacked]

Perhaps math and logic are the processes and science is the result. However, that is not useful at this time.

You have just reworded what I said. I am also not surprised you don't find it useful.

How about intutition and emotion as procesess to determine knowledge? How about morals and ethics?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion

Emotion is subjective experience, associated with mood, temperament, personality, and disposition. The English word 'emotion' is derived from the French word émouvoir. This is based on the Latin emovere, where e- (variant of ex-) means 'out' and movere means 'move'.[1] The related term "motivation" is also derived from movere.

Emotion is subjective. Can't be used in science.

Morality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

In its first, descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct or a set of beliefs distinguishing between right and wrong behaviors. In its descriptive use, morals are arbitrarily and subjectively created by philosophy, religion, and/or individual conscience.

Morality is subjective. Can't be used in science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality; that is, about concepts such as good and bad, right and wrong, justice, and virtue.

Ethics is subjective. Can't be used in science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition

At the start I would say Intuition can be used in science, but reading into it more, I looks like it can't be used in science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_(knowledge)

Intuition is the apparent ability to acquire knowledge without inference or the use of reason.[1] “The word ‘intuition’ comes from the Latin word 'intueri', which is often roughly translated as meaning ‘to look inside’ or ‘to contemplate’."[2] Intuition provides us with beliefs that we cannot necessarily justify. For this reason, it has been the subject of study in psychology, as well as a topic of interest in the supernatural. The "right brain" is popularly associated with intuitive processes such as aesthetic abilities.[3][4][5] Some scientists have contended that intuition is associated with innovation in scientific discovery.[6] Intuition is also a common subject of New Age writings.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_(philosophy)

Intuition is a priori knowledge or experiantial belief characterised by its immediacy. Beyond this, the nature of intuition is debated. Roughly speaking, there are two main views. They are:

In the end it looks like intuition is even subjective. So not useful in science.

Edited January 28, 2010 by GostHacked

[ToadBrother]

Perhaps math and logic are the processes and science is the result.

Math and logic are the language of science. They are no more science than pencils and paper are architecture.

However, that is not useful at this time.

How about intutition and emotion as procesess to determine knowledge?

Too unreliable.

How about morals and ethics?

Morals and ethics are about behavior, not knowledge. They can guide the application of knowledge, but are not epistemological systems in and of themselves.