Originally posted by @eladarBut that isn't science but merely an observation.
You do not need belief to see that an airplane flies.
Science is about explaining from known natural laws why the airplane can fly at all.
Science isn't just merely observation but generally requires an explanation for that observation.
You clearly don't know what science is.
2 edits
Originally posted by @eladarI just clearly implied the exact opposite.
OK, there is no science in the design of a plane's wing which creates lift and the propulsion system which gives thrust.
The science that explains lift via natural laws is designed into the plane's wing.
Apparently you cannot understand plain English.
So you still deny all science needs to rely on known natural laws.
So give any example of a science that doesn't ever use any known natural law...
Originally posted by @humyNo, you said that there was no science when you see a plane fly. You are a dipstick.
I just clearly implied the exact opposite.
The science that explains lift via natural laws is designed into the plane's wing.
Apparently you cannot understand plain English.
So give any example of a science that doesn't ever use any known natural law...
6 edits
Originally posted by @eladarcorrect.
you said that there was no science when you see a plane fly.
Let me educate you;
"see a plane fly" is not by itself proper science but merely a trivial observation.
"explain how it can fly" is proper science because it explains something.
Comprehend?
If you see a plain fly and don't know the rational explanation of how that is possible, that mere observation of a plane flying isn't much to do with science although it might lead to a proper science if you then go on to try and explain it rationally.
So you still deny all science needs to rely on known natural laws.
So give us any example of a science that doesn't ever use any known natural law...
Originally posted by @humyAs I said, you are a dipstick.
correct.
Let me educate you;
"see a plane fly" is not by itself proper science but merely a trivial observation.
"explain how it can fly" is proper science because it explains something.
Comprehend?
If you see a plain fly and don't know the rational explanation of how that is possible, that mere observation of a plane flying isn't much to do with scie ...[text shortened]... atural laws.
So give us any example of a science that doesn't ever use any known natural law...
Originally posted by @eladarHe is saying science is the difference between someone, anyone can watch a bird fly, but it takes a scientist to come up with explanations just HOW it flies and the same with airplanes.
As I said, you are a dipstick.
Anyone can go to an airport, there are thousands of the things, and watch planes take off day and night.
But it takes science, even if that was primitive 100 years ago, to say how powered flight can come about.
The Wright brothers and others figured out the shape of the wing to generate lift and that was science even if they didn't have a Phd in aeronautics. It is still science if it was invented in someone's basement.
There is no need to come out with the ad hominems.
Originally posted by @sonhouseHe is trying to explain why his assumption of what I was saying is not science.
He is saying science is the difference between someone, anyone can watch a bird fly, but it takes a scientist to come up with explanations just HOW it flies and the same with airplanes.
Anyone can go to an airport, there are thousands of the things, and watch planes take off day and night.
But it takes science, even if that was primitive 100 years ag ...[text shortened]... if it was invented in someone's basement.
There is no need to come out with the ad hominems.
I claim that planes were designed by science to fly, so when you see a plane fly you see science in action.
What I said is perfectly true, but dipstick here wants to try to say what he assumed I meant.
This is what makes him a dipstick and everyone who agrees with him an ass.
Originally posted by @eladarSome people may see science in action but have zero idea what that science is. Some people see taser causing people to flop around on the ground and they say Rocket Science but have zero idea what is actually going on inside a taser.
He is trying to explain why his assumption of what I was saying is not science.
I claim that planes were designed by science to fly, so when you see a plane fly you see science in action.
What I said is perfectly true, but dipstick here wants to try to say what he assumed I meant.
This is what makes him a dipstick and everyone who agrees with him an ass.
When you say 'science in action' that is appreciation, just like watching a bird fly, anyone can appreciate it flying but not many can say HOW it flies.
Originally posted by @sonhouseI simply said science in motion.
Some people may see science in action but have zero idea what that science is. Some people see taser causing people to flop around on the ground and they say Rocket Science but have zero idea what is actually going on inside a taser.
When you say 'science in action' that is appreciation, just like watching a bird fly, anyone can appreciate it flying but not many can say HOW it flies.
True science can be witnessed. It is what science is, repeatable events.
Hypothesis that is believed true and we simply haven't figured out how to do it yet is not science.
Eladar, you are confusing science and technology. Technology is what builds planes and makes them fly. That is what you see with your own eyes, what you are mistakenly calling 'science in action.' Aerodynamics and metallurgy and physics and chemistry and so on are the sciences which make that technology possible. You evidently think that stuff is mere theory, not fact. But consider this: your computer is technology, Maxwell's equations are the science behind it. You think the computer is fact because you see it in front of you and you can touch it. Maxwell's equations you think are 'mere theory' because you can't see and touch them. Your idea of what constitutes a fact is crippled. You seem to think scientific theory is nothing more than someone's opinion, which you are at liberty to dismiss without any embarrassing intellectual consequences. You are wrong about that. No Maxwell's equations, no computer, no reply to this forum. No aerodynamics, no metallurgy, no physics, no chemistry--no planes either. That is not merely my opinion, that's a fact. What's more, you can't touch it.