28 Feb 12
Originally posted by jaywillWith the qualification that 'science' is a tricky word and can mean various things including a process or method of doing things, or the findings obtained by following this process, I would say yes, science gets it wrong sometimes. But categorising Pluto as a planet or not, was not one of those times.
Can I by this assume that you do not object to the idea that Science can be incorrect then sometimes ?
I did not mean that science is made up of nothing else.
Well then I misunderstood you. In my defence, you were less than clear and should have qualified your statement. At face value, that is what your statement means.
So why is it wrong thinking to say that, among other things, science is made up of definitions ?
It isn't. But again, this depends partly on what we mean by science. Science the process is not made up of definitions (even in part). Science the findings by following that process are also not made up of definitions. However, carrying out the process and and communicating the findings are both very much dependent on definitions.
The "universe" proposed by Ptolemy was "geocentric" and proported that all things "revolved" around the "sun."
And that proposition is a proposition not a definition. They are not synonyms.
We now know more about the "universe." Copernicus proved that the "astronomical bodies" revolved around the sun in a "solar system" - a "heliocentric" system.
Again, not a definition. You communicated something about reality using definitions, but what you communicated is not a definition.
We talk about science (and other things) through definitions. "Universe" is a word whose definition underwent a change.
Not in this instance, no.
What is taboo about us saying that Ptolemy's "universe" was less correct than that of Copernicus ?
I very much doubt that Ptolemy defined 'universe' to mean "a geocentric universe".
The previous science, we now know, was incorrect.
Although I don't dispute this, I think you should be careful not to make it out as if the whole world was in agreement about a geocentric universe then alter about a heliocentric universe.
Do you disagree with this paragraph ?
Not entirely. Its hard to quantify such things, which is why he had to qualify it with "one standard of counting". Most science is an approximation (and known to be such) and with that qualification is rarely wrong.
This line of debate started because I said, somewhat mischievously, I admit "Yea, science had it wrong before."
Which in the case of Pluto being defined as a planet or not, simply is not the case. Calling Pluto a dwarf planet instead of a planet is not more correct than calling it a planet. It is not a correction to a scientific theory. Calling it a planet in the past was not wrong.
28 Feb 12
3 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]
With the qualification that 'science' is a tricky word and can mean various things including a process or method of doing things, or the findings obtained by following this process, I would say yes, science gets it wrong sometimes. But categorising Pluto as a planet or not, was not one of those times.
[b]I did not mean that science is made up of nothin ientific theory. Calling it a planet in the past was not wrong.
me: What is taboo about us saying that Ptolemy's "universe" was less correct than that of Copernicus ?
ts: I very much doubt that Ptolemy defined 'universe' to mean "a geocentric universe".
Now it is my turn to say that YOUR thinking would be wrong. I suppose you mean he would not use that phrase [edited] ?
Some of that is getting a bit abstract for me. Suffice it to say Science sometimes is corrected.
Chat at you latter.
28 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillNo, I mean he would say something like:
Now it is my turn to say that YOUR thinking would be wrong. I suppose you mean he would not use that word?
1.The universe is geocentric. Where 'universe' means 'everything that is', and 'geocentric' means 'the Earth is at the centre'.
He would not say:
2. 'Universe' means 'a geocentric system'.
Do you see the difference between a definition, and a statement about reality?
If he said 2., then we would then have to ask 'do we live in a universe'? and Copernicus would have to say: we don't live in a universe as defined by Ptolemy.
But even then, the definition in 2. cannot be right or wrong. It just is.
28 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadSomewhat, to me, splitting an existential hair of subtlety.
No, I mean he would say something like: The universe is geocentric. Where 'universe' means 'everything that is', and 'geocentric' means 'the Earth is at the centre'.
He would not say 'Universe' means 'a geocentric system'.
Do you see the difference between a definition, and a statement about reality?
How do think this statment should be discribed as TRUE or FALSE?
"In 1950 there were nine planets in the solar system."
28 Feb 12
Originally posted by jaywillA very big and important hair. When scientist decide to change the name of something or change their classification system, this is not, in any way, shape or form, a sign that science had got something wrong and is now correcting it.
Somewhat, to me, splitting an existential hair of subtlety.
How do think this statment should be discribed as TRUE or FALSE?
"In 1950 there were nine planets in the solar system."
It depends on whether you are using the old definition or the new definition.
I must point out that Pluto is the "tenth-most-massive body observed directly orbiting the Sun" (Wikipedia) and was in 1950 and still is today. This may not have been known in 1950.
29 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead
A very big and important hair. When scientist decide to change the name of something or change their classification system, this is not, in any way, shape or form, a sign that science had got something wrong and is now correcting it.
[b] How do think this statment should be discribed as TRUE or FALSE?
"In 1950 there were nine planets in the solar s e Sun" (Wikipedia) and was in 1950 and still is today. This may not have been known in 1950.
How do think this statment should be discribed as TRUE or FALSE?[/b]
"In 1950 there were nine planets in the solar system."
It depends on whether you are using the old definition or the new definition.
I must point out that Pluto is the "tenth-most-massive body observed directly orbiting the Sun" (Wikipedia) and was in 1950 and still is today. This may not have been known in 1950.
It depends. Okay. It could be correct depending. It could be incorrect, depending.
Just out of curiosity, on the subject of definitions, tell me whether it is the case that "it depends" also whether the following could be possible or not.
"And I saw when He opened the sixth seal ... the stars of heaven fell to the earth as a fig tree casts its unripe figs when shaken by a great win." (Rev. 6:12,13)
Just out of curiosity, could that statement also be possibly true "depending" on definitions of, say "star" ?
"Depending" that might not be scientifically impossible ?
29 Feb 12
Originally posted by jaywillFor every sentence that has a truth value, the truth value depends on the definition of the words in the sentence. If there are multiple known definitions and the sentence does not specify which definition is intended, then the truth value cannot be determined. Why do I need to explain such obvious stuff to you?
It depends. Okay. It could be correct depending. It could be incorrect, depending.
Just out of curiosity, on the subject of definitions, tell me whether it is the case that "it depends" also whether the following could be possible or not.
[b]"And I saw when He opened the sixth seal ... the stars of heaven fell to the earth as a fig tree casts its unripe figs when shaken by a great win." (Rev. 6:12,13)
Just out of curiosity, could that statement also be possibly true "depending" on definitions of, say "star" ? [/b]
Of course it could be true if the definitions of the various words are non-standard. The problem there however is that if they are non-standard enough to make the sentence possible, then it is likely most readers don't have a clue what the sentence means.
Essentially the definitions of the words in any sentence can be manipulated until the sentence is true, or has a given chosen meaning. However, for most communication there is an unwritten contract that the definitions of words are the standard ones unless otherwise specified. So until you (or the Bible) give the new definition for 'star', the sentence remains a description of impossible events.
29 Feb 12
4 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
For every sentence that has a truth value, the truth value depends on the definition of the words in the sentence. If there are multiple known definitions and the sentence does not specify which definition is intended, then the truth value cannot be determined. Why do I need to explain such obvious stuff to you?
[b]Just out of curiosity, on the subject e new definition for 'star', the sentence remains a description of impossible events.
For every sentence that has a truth value, the truth value depends on the definition of the words in the sentence. If there are multiple known definitions and the sentence does not specify which definition is intended, then the truth value cannot be determined. Why do I need to explain such obvious stuff to you?[/b]
You really don't need to.
I am satisfied that you admit Science can be mistaken. And that you suggest the case of Pluto is not such a mistake, I might be willing to say that is arguable.
I am sure that the old textbooks now will be "corrected" or have an error sheet to notify the student of the now better "corrected" information.
me:
Just out of curiosity, on the subject of definitions, tell me whether it is the case that "it depends" also whether the following could be possible or not.
"And I saw when He opened the sixth seal ... the stars of heaven fell to the earth as a fig tree casts its unripe figs when shaken by a great win." (Rev. 6:12,13)
Just out of curiosity, could that statement also be possibly true "depending" on definitions of, say "star" ?
Of course it could be true if the definitions of the various words are non-standard. The problem there however is that if they are non-standard enough to make the sentence possible, then it is likely most readers don't have a clue what the sentence means.
I think most readers reading that passage understand something like "all hell breaks loose" regardless of the definition. I see no particular reason to say someone would have absolutely no clue.
I mean how thick can you get ? It communicates. Probably only skeptics like yourself would read it and say:
" I really have no clue what this means." Basically, whether you want to believe it or dismiss it, it means that "all hell breaks loose" basically.
Personally, I think what John saw may have been a massive meteor shower.
Essentially the definitions of the words in any sentence can be manipulated until the sentence is true,
I don't think so. I tried once, for an experiment, to munipulate this sentence - "The math problem 1+1=2 is false".
I decided that it could [not] (edit) be done, with that many words.
or has a given chosen meaning. However, for most communication there is an unwritten contract that the definitions of words are the standard ones unless otherwise specified. So until you (or the Bible) give the new definition for 'star', the sentence remains a description of impossible events.
So looking backward "the stars fell from the sky" is an impossible event but looking backward saying "In 1950 there were 9 planets in the solar system" is not also an impossible event.
With the stand alone sentence on planet count in 1950 it is "depending".
With the stand alone sentence on falling stars in say approximately 90 AD it is "depending" or definitely "impossible" ?
29 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead
For every sentence that has a truth value, the truth value depends on the definition of the words in the sentence. If there are multiple known definitions and the sentence does not specify which definition is intended, then the truth value cannot be determined. Why do I need to explain such obvious stuff to you?
[b]Just out of curiosity, on the subject e new definition for 'star', the sentence remains a description of impossible events.
Essentially the definitions of the words in any sentence can be manipulated until the sentence is true,[/b]
Show me how to do that with this sentence:
"Every English language sentence consists only of three words."
29 Feb 12
Originally posted by jaywillThree = Any number greater than zero.Essentially the definitions of the words in any sentence can be manipulated until the sentence is true,
Show me how to do that with this sentence:
"Every English language sentence consists only of three words."[/b]
29 Feb 12
Originally posted by jaywillIts not even a case of being 'arguable'. The definition of the term 'planet' is not in itself science. The old definition was not wrong. The new one is not right. Have you not been following, or are you so stubborn it makes you stupid?
And that you suggest the case of Pluto is not such a mistake, I might be willing to say that is arguable.
I am sure that the old textbooks now will be "corrected" or have an error sheet to notify the student of the now better "corrected" information.
No. If thats still what you think, then you haven't been following. The texts books will be 'updated', not 'corrected'.
I think most readers reading that passage understand something like "all hell breaks loose" regardless of the definition. I see no particular reason to say someone would have absolutely no clue.
Because you are suggesting that the 'stars' are not really stars. What other words are defined differently? Most readers will understand the standard definition of the word 'star'. They wouldn't however take the passage literally.
You however want to take it literally and change the definitions to make it true (or at least physically possible).
I mean how thick can you get ? It communicates.
Not if 'star' doesn't mean 'star' as you suggested then no, it doesn't communicate.
I don't think so. I tried once, for an experiment, to munipulate this sentence - "The math problem 1+1=2 is false".
Just redefine the word "false" to mean "true". Simple really.
With the [b]stand alone sentence on falling stars in say approximately 90 AD it is "depending" or definitely "impossible" ?[/b]
It is depending on what you mean by 'star'. If you use the standard definition, then it is impossible - obviously. If you, or the writer, mean something else (shooting stars for example) then it is of course possible.
29 Feb 12
3 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
Its not even a case of being 'arguable'. The definition of the term 'planet' is not in itself science. The old definition was not wrong. The new one is not right. Have you not been following, or are you so stubborn it makes you stupid?
[b]I am sure that the old textbooks now will be "corrected" or have an error sheet to notify the student of the now be hooting stars for example) then it is of course possible.
Its not even a case of being 'arguable'. The definition of the term 'planet' is not in itself science.[/b]
Following you may not be agreeing with you.
For example I do not agree that scientific definitions are themselves not science.
The old definition was not wrong. The new one is not right. Have you not been following, or are you so stubborn it makes you stupid?
I think stupid is probably attempting to propose that scientific definitions are not science. They are a part of the body of scientifc knowledge.
I am sure that the old textbooks now will be "corrected" or have an error sheet to notify the student of the now better "corrected" information.
No. If thats still what you think, then you haven't been following. The texts books will be 'updated', not 'corrected'.
"Updated" .... "corrected" ... ?
Copied from the Free Dictionary:
==================================
update
verb
1. bring up to date, improve, correct, renew, revise, upgrade, amend, overhaul, streamline, modernize, rebrand an updated edition of the book
======================================
I think most readers reading that passage understand something like "all hell breaks loose" regardless of the definition. I see no particular reason to say someone would have absolutely no clue.
Because you are suggesting that the 'stars' are not really stars. What other words are defined differently?
Nope. I think probably any known definition of stars - it communicates. Either way. Bodies falling to the earth from the sky or from the heavens is not cool. That is unless it is snow or rain.
It communcates. I see no reason to remain totally "clueless".
Most readers will understand the standard definition of the word 'star'. They wouldn't however take the passage literally.
I think as in the case of "planets" the informed intelligent reader would consider WHEN the stand alone sentence was written.
You however want to take it literally and change the definitions to make it true (or at least physically possible).
I mean how thick can you get ? It communicates.
Not if 'star' doesn't mean 'star' as you suggested then no, it doesn't communicate.
As far as it being a calamity and rather unnatural. It communicates. That is if you want to be communicated TO.
I don't think so. I tried once, for an experiment, to munipulate this sentence - "The math problem 1+1=2 is false".
Just redefine the word "false" to mean "true". Simple really.
With the stand alone sentence on falling stars in say approximately 90 AD it is "depending" or definitely "impossible" ?
It is depending on what you mean by 'star'. If you use the standard definition, then it is impossible - obviously. If you, or the writer, mean something else (shooting stars for example) then it is of course possible.
Specifics may be an issue of detail. Generally, why would one be clueless ?
Even if it were "movie stars" falling from the sky, it is communicated that a calamity is taking place which is disturbing and out of the ordinary.
Any further puzzlement can be cleared up by the surrounding context.
But the Science, the "Knowledge" certainly includes definitions. I think I hear you saying that the word "planet" is not really science. I follow you. I don't think I agree with you there.
The definitions are part of the body of scientific knowledge and part of Science.
=============================
Middle English, knowledge, learning, from Old French, from Latin scientia
===============================
29 Feb 12
I don't think so. I tried once, for an experiment, to munipulate this sentence - "The math problem 1+1=2 is false".
Just redefine the word "false" to mean "true". Simple really.
You said any sentence can be munipulated to become true.
I think you really mean any sentence can be replaced with another sentence which is true.
Is that your "munipulation" ?
==============================
Ie. 1.) "Mt Everest is the deepest valley in the United States."
2.) "Death Valley is the deepest valley in the United States."
==============================
Is your "munipulation" producing an entirely different sentence ?
Then I can agree in that case, I think. Any false sentence can be replaced by a true one.
29 Feb 12
1 edit
Looks like "identification" and "description" is a part of "Science".
So, I would say "definitions" of words are a part of Science, for the purpose of "identification" and "description".
=====================================
sci·ence (sns)
n.
1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
====================================