How should we reestablish of relations between science and technology to make wider room for philosophy? — Pacem
How should we reestablish of relations between science and technology to make wider room for philosophy? — Pacem
Science as a discipline is relatively recent. — Marchesk
I have my doubts any of you actually has a real clue what you are talking about when it comes to the origin of science. — Jeremiah
provided a definition for "Science" in my first post to this thread.
Feel free to provide a different one for consideration. — Galuchat
1) Science: empirical investigation which provides a reliable explanation.
. Science as a discipline is relatively recent. — Marchesk
I threw you in that mix for this subjective comment.
. Science as a discipline is relatively recent.
— Marchesk — Jeremiah
Does the origin of the scientific method go back "thousands of years" (Jeremiah), or "several centuries" (Marchesk)? — Galuchat
Science, as the word is commonly used, implies these things: first, the gathering of knowledge through observation; second, the classification of such knowledge, and through this classification, the elaboration of general ideas or principles. In the familiar definition of Herbert Spencer, science is organized knowledge.No, unless you want to redefine the word "Science" to mean perception. — Marchesk
Of course it does. How can you make such a claim without using technology (like telescopes)? And how can you test such a claim without using technology (like telescopes)?For the OP, notice how, ""Science tells us the universe is 13.7 billion years old, not 6,000.", has nothing whatsoever to do with technology (as a statement). — Marchesk
Of course it does. How can you make such a claim without using technology (like telescopes)? And how can you test such a claim without using technology (like telescopes)? — Harry Hindu
Any time we use technology based on a certain scientific theory, we are testing the theory, which is itself a scientific act. If everyone in your social group is using sticks to draw out termites from a mound, then isn't that testing the scientific observation and the subsequent conclusion that termites attach themselves to sticks when stuck into their mound? — Harry Hindu
If science is only about explaining the world, then you'd be right. But you've also said in this thread that you are referring to the modern history of science which started with the application of the scientific method, which includes testing theories. Using technology is testing the theory it is based on, and therefore a scientific act.The claim is a statement of fact about the world, not technology. That's the point. Science isn't about making the next great smartphone. It's about explaining the world. Obviously, science makes heavy use of technology, and vice versa.
But the two aren't the same and it's a mistake to conflate them. — Marchesk
The theory being tested is that when a stick is inserted into a termite mound and removed, termites will be on the stick. Now let's test the theory by inserting sticks in to termite mounds and removing them. Every time you do that you are testing that theory.What is the scientific theory that chimpanzees are testing when using sticks to draw termites out of termite mounds?
Or what would our ancestors have been testing? That the ancestral spirit has gifted them with termites to eat? That the goddess causes termites to stick because of the sacrifice last full moon? — Marchesk
I have modern science in mind which is a community built around the scientific method and naturalistic explanations based on the results of various experiments and research performed over time. — Marchesk
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.