Science Stoppers

Originally posted by wolfgang59

I don't think "Science" is about solving problems.
It is about discovery.
It is about the "how" and "why".

How to channel electricity to work for us. A problem solved.
How to make a machine fly in the air. Another problem solved.
How to harness the power of the wind to make energy. Another problem solved.
How to blow your enemy clean away. Another problem solved

All your cited problems were solved by technology and engineering.

In another thread you said my "wall of texts" killed threads.

Well, this is one reason why I sometimes feel to write more than just a few lines. When I take a long chapter and condense down to Forum size the essence of some point discussed, it is quite easy to be misunderstood.

1.) Yes, science is about discovery.

2.) Yes, science talks about some "hows" and some "whys" of certain phenomenon.

3.) Yes, engineering and technology come out of the scientific enterprise.

The concise point I made about a certain school of the philosophy of science is that its main contribution to the world is to furnish solutions to technical problems.

I'll stop here before you get a "wall of text" exhaustively explaining that particular viewpoint.

Originally posted by sonship
I know about his grandfather.

And I also know that a book was just about to be published by someone else dealing with much of the same theorizing. So why not get credit for all the work he had done? So I think publishing of [b]Origin of Species also had the intention of not allowing all of his thunder to be stolen by another scientist.

If you h ...[text shortened]... ed from those raving Right Wing Fundamentalist Christians - National Public Radio (NPR) .[/b]

I read that Darwin was not really a scientist, but an amateur naturalist.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I read that Darwin was not really a scientist, but an amateur naturalist.

So?

Einstein wasn't a scientist, either, when he published his special theory of relativity and a paper on the equivalence of matter and energy. He was just an examiner for the patent office.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Let's go find out *how* He did it.

Don't have to go far. The answer is right there in His Word.

By faith![/b]

No, I don't believe it is.

You have to remember that the Bible (at least the Torah) was written way back around 1200 BC by Moses. Of course it's not going to talk about things like a scientific treatise would today. It was written for the common man, not scientists, because there were no scientists then as they are defined today.

Originally posted by Suzianne
So?

Einstein wasn't a scientist, either, when he published his special theory of relativity and a paper on the equivalence of matter and energy. He was just an examiner for the patent office.

I was just informing sonship, because he mentioned something about Darwin being a scientist.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I was just informing sonship, because he mentioned something about Darwin being a scientist.

He managed to change the world for the better in spite of it.

Originally posted by Suzianne
So?

Einstein wasn't a scientist, either, when he published his special theory of relativity and a paper on the equivalence of matter and energy. He was just an examiner for the patent office.

Good one.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Dr. Hugh Ross is definitely a decent scientist.

Well you say he is decent scientist.
Wiki says he is anti-young earth creationist.
( "Ross believes in progressive creationism, which posits that while the earth is billions of years old..." )
But he is still a creationist, but you cannot get it all.

I'm happy that you find him decent scientist as he believes in an Earth billions of years old! Well done! Good boy!

Originally posted by RJHinds
I read that Darwin was not really a scientist, but an amateur naturalist.

Well, he dedicated his entire adult life to scientific research so I'd say he was a real scientist. 🙄

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] I don't think "Science" is about solving problems.
It is about discovery.
It is about the "how" and "why".

How to channel electricity to work for us. A problem solved.
How to make a machine fly in the air. Another problem solved.
How to harness the power of the wind to make energy. Another problem solved.
How to blow your enemy clean away. An ...[text shortened]... 'll stop here before you get a "wall of text" exhaustively explaining that particular viewpoint.

This discussion may really be about the distinction between basic (or pure) research and applied research.

Well covered at

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

and for people who think the distinction doesn't matter,

http://www.lse.ac.uk/CPNSS/research/concludedResearchProjects/ContingencyDissentInScience/DP/DPRoll-HansenOnline0409.pdf

This paper says basically that "applied' research is too contaminated by economic or ideological interests.

In basic research, a failed experiment is one you don't learn from concerning the phenomenon under study.

In applied research, a failed experiment is one that fails to prove what you want to be true.

Originally posted by Suzianne
So?

Einstein wasn't a scientist, either, when he published his special theory of relativity and a paper on the equivalence of matter and energy. He was just an examiner for the patent office.

No, that doesn't fly.

Einstein was a fully trained up physicist working in a technical position that
used and required is scientific training professionally but which gave him the
free time [with the support of his wife] to pursue his theoretical work.

He was by any reasonable definition a scientist.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, that doesn't fly.

Einstein was a fully trained up physicist working in a technical position that
used and required is scientific training professionally but which gave him the
free time [with the support of his wife] to pursue his theoretical work.

He was by any reasonable definition a scientist.

What about Newton? he penned more words on his love of the Bible than he did on scientific topics.

Originally posted by Suzianne
No, I don't believe it is.

You have to remember that the Bible (at least the Torah) was written way back around 1200 BC by Moses. Of course it's not going to talk about things like a scientific treatise would today. It was written for the common man, not scientists, because there were no scientists then as they are defined today.

This argument does not hold water.

There are contemporary [and older] philosophical and religious ideas that include
much greater time periods, or more accurate views [on particular topics].

For your argument to be actually valid you would have to demonstrate that what
is written in the bible is absolutely the most accurate and useful information that
a being as great as your god is purported to be could inspire at the time.

Which is nonsense, On the moral instruction alone it fails catastrophically.

Originally posted by googlefudge
This argument does not hold water.

There are contemporary [and older] philosophical and religious ideas that include
much greater time periods, or more accurate views [on particular topics].

For your argument to be actually valid you would have to demonstrate that what
is written in the bible is absolutely the most accurate and useful informati ...[text shortened]... ire at the time.

Which is nonsense, On the moral instruction alone it fails catastrophically.

see sir Issac Newton, Biblical scholar extraordinaire.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What about Newton? he penned more words on his love of the Bible than he did on scientific topics.

There are arguments about whether Newton was the first of the modern scientists,
or the last of the mystics.

However you are getting into tricky territory as science as we know it today, or as
it existed even in the time of Darwin, let alone Einstein, was only really starting to
be invented.

It was also still more a branch of philosophy than the separate discipline it is today.

Newton made money doing astrology and was, like almost everyone of the time, a firm
theist. But he also laid much of the foundations of the edifice of science that was to
come... So it's a little bit like asking whether Julius Caesar was the first of the caesar's...
He created the position that took his name, but the first caesar is generally taken to
be his successor Augustus.