02 Mar 12
Originally posted by jaywilldefinitions are not knowledge in and of themselves, they may, as you say, describe knowledge among other things.
How dare anyone suggest or even imply that [b]definitions are knowledge.
Definitions cannot be Science or Knowledge.
They can only discribe knowledge. Definitions CANNOT be a part of Science.
Am I right ? Discuss.[/b]
however, it is inaccurate to say definitions cannot be a part of science. i'm not quiet sure what you mean by it. science cannot function without definitions and hypothesis (which are elaborate definitions).
02 Mar 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritAre you sure ?
definitions are not knowledge in and of themselves, they may, as you say, describe knowledge among other things.
however, it is inaccurate to say definitions cannot be a part of science. i'm not quiet sure what you mean by it. science cannot function without definitions and hypothesis (which are elaborate definitions).
Science is different from definitions. Hypothesises, if made up of definitions, must be not a part of Science. Don't you think so ?
Isn't it kind of sloppy inaccurate thinking to assume that definitions are themselves Science ?
Doesn't that sound like something the uninformed would assume, ie. definitions are knowledge ??? Something must be wrong. What do you say now ?
02 Mar 12
2 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpiritIt is more accurate to say definitions are used by science, just as language is. Is English part of science? Is language part of science? Neither language nor definitions are science, but they are required for science.
however, it is inaccurate to say definitions cannot be a part of science.
When a definition is changed, science does not change. One can study the same science using two different languages or two different sets of definitions.
02 Mar 12
Originally posted by jaywilli don't know what you're arguing against. i already said definitions aren't knowledge in and of themselves. that would also extend to science since science is defined as the state of knowing.
Are you sure ?
Science is different from definitions. Hypothesises, if made up of definitions, must be not a part of Science. Don't you think so ?
Isn't it kind of sloppy inaccurate thinking to assume that [b]definitions are themselves Science ?
Doesn't that sound like something the uninformed would assume, ie. definitions are knowledge ??? Something must be wrong. What do you say now ?[/b]
that being said, i already pointed out the relationship between science and definitions. definitions are defined as (among other things) "a statement declaring the essential nature of something."
the scientific method is based on declaring the essential nature of things (and testing those declarations), ergo they are entirely dependent on definitions.
there can be no communication, no passing on of knowledge without definitions. they are an essential part of everything concerning human interest.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
02 Mar 12
Science is a METHOD of determining the nature of the world and how it works.
AND also the things that are discovered USING that method.
Definitions are tools used in science and elsewhere for the accurate communication of ideas
from one person to another.
Science tends to have different and more buttoned down definitions than common use language
due to the greater importance on conveying precise and nuanced meaning.
02 Mar 12
Where does this thread come from ?
Over on the spirituality forum jaywill wanted to make some point about science being wrong, because Pluto was once classified as a planet and isn't any more. This led to a discussion where it was pointed out that this is not an example of scientific thought evolving, but simply the definition of a planet being changed. For some reason jaywill is pretty hung up on the idea that specific definitions are an integral part of science and that they can be wrong or right.
In this thread he's trying to strip that discussion of all context, so someone gives him a quote that he can use.
02 Mar 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritIf that is the case, then I may be mistaken in my stance taken so far. In my defence, I come from a mathematics background where 'definition' is not used in this way.
that being said, i already pointed out the relationship between science and definitions. definitions are defined as (among other things) "a statement declaring the essential nature of something."
I now see that the Wikipedia page on "definition" does mention that usage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition#Essence
02 Mar 12
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillWe need a language we can all understand to discuss science and religion.
How dare anyone suggest or even imply that [b]definitions are knowledge.
Definitions cannot be Science or Knowledge.
They can only discribe knowledge. Definitions CANNOT be a part of Science.
Am I right ? Discuss.[/b]
Without accurate definitions of the words used in the language so everyone
can understand, it would be like the both of us speaking English and everyone
else speaking Chinese. Even when we speak the same language and we use
two different definitons of a word, understanding breaks down. That happens
frequently on the forums on RHP from my own personal experience. 😏
P.S. My question back to you. Is language which requires definitions of the
words that are used knowledge?
03 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Shallow BlueAside from my annoying attitude, what do you think ?
Not with that attitude, you aren't.
Richard
Definitions in Science communcate ideas but themselves are or are not a part of Science ?
What do you think ? And smile when you say it !
03 Mar 12
Originally posted by jaywillDefinitions, like mathematics, are tools that science uses to ply its trade. I think that's fairly clear, dingus.
Aside from my annoying attitude, what do you think ?
Definitions in Science communcate ideas but themselves [b]are or are not a part of Science ?
What do you think ? And smile when you say it ![/b]