Definitions are not knowledge

Originally posted by RJHinds
Am I one of those pigeons that keeps knocking over your chess pieces? 😏

no...you're just a dick

Originally posted by RJHinds
Some people define man as an ape. I say that is an incorrect definition.
What say you?

Actually we are classed by biologists in the same family as great apes. So yes we are apes. I am anyway, you may be a bit lower on the food chain.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Actually we are classed by biologists in the same family as great apes. So yes we are apes. I am anyway, you may be a bit lower on the food chain.

My intelligence greatly exceeds you apes. 😏

Originally posted by sonhouse
I define milk as a nuclear fuel.......

Definitions can be inconsistent with other definitions. In this case your definition of milk is inconsistent with the accepted definition of "nuclear fuel". However, if you redefine "nuclear fuel" as the stuff that comes from cows to feed their offspring then your definition would be consistent.

Definitions require observational knowledge, defining something implies an observational procedure, the terms in this procedure require additional definitions ad infinitum. Is that right lol ?

so definitions require a knowledge we cannot define , is that right?

Originally posted by jaywill
And smile when you say it !

Go to Kansas.

Richard

Originally posted by RJHinds
Some people define man as an ape. I say that is an incorrect definition.
What say you?

I agree with you: you are not an ape, you are an insult to apes.

And to science, and to Christianity.

Hell, you're even an insult to humans.

Richard

Originally posted by RJHinds
My intelligence greatly exceeds you apes. 😏

Doesn't the description of 'intelligent' require that you are able to think for yourself?

The standard epistemological definition of knowledge is “justified, true belief”. In order for this definition to be “part of knowledge”, it would itself have to be “a justified, true belief”. I see no reason why knowledge acquired by scientific methods ought to be considered differently. And although the example is based on defining knowledge itself, rather than this or that known fact (which fact does not change with new understandings or revised definitions), it does, I think, make the point: definitions are not knowledge-itself, or science-itself, in whole or in part.

I don’t understand why people criticize science for being a methodology that is based on in-principle falsifiable propositions, rather than propositions that can be insulated from empirical falsification even in principle (and thus require blind faith)—or think that its insistence on falsifiability is somehow a weakness, rather than a strength; or that science has somehow “failed” when what was thought to factual is disproved, or heretofore accepted explanations must be revised. Such a view would imply that the Copernican Revolution demonstrated that science “failed”—as would the discovery of subatomic particles, or dark matter, or… Every scientific advance would thus be classified as a “failure”, whenever some aspect of prior views was called into question thereby.

To be sure, scientists are human, have egos—and new, potentially paradigm-changing inquiries are sometimes met with resistance by the “old school”. But it is the very principles of testing and falsification that guarantee against the long-term entrenchment of dogma. Religion could take a page…

________________________________________

EDIT: As googlefudge put it elsewhere: “If we detect or observe something that contradicts or doesn't fit in our current models of how the world works then those models get updated to accommodate this new information and we get very excited about it. We like discovering new things.”

Originally posted by jaywill
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]

“...Hypothesises, if made up of definitions, must be not a part of Science ...”

where did you get that from? A valid scientific hypothesis can at the very least be partly made of definitions. To make a hypothesis about something X, it is sometimes (not always) necessary to have to make a formal definition of X to make clear exactly what the hypothesis is actually about.
And, in the case of the science of mathematics, any valid hypotheses made about mathematics SHOULD be, very strictly speaking, made of definitions (because maths is purely deductive and not inductive) although in practice most of those definitions are either implicit or not stated in the actual hypotheses itself but stated separately elsewhere.

“...Isn't it kind of sloppy inaccurate thinking to assume that definitions are themselves Science ? ...”

Exactly what do you mean by definitions ARE "themselves Science”?

Originally posted by RJHinds
My intelligence greatly exceeds you apes. 😏

you are an ape.

Originally posted by Barts
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 ...[text shortened]... trying to strip that discussion of all context, so someone gives him a quote that he can use.

To say that a scientific statement is false or wrong, or a scientific theory is false / wrong, does no harm to Science as a discipline. Science can be wrong about many things and often is. The methods of science are also under continual review. For example, the methodology of social science has an interesting history of innovation and novel approaches. Scientists can and do disagree about what is or is not to be accepted as proper scientific method - especially in terms of particular objects for study. I suppose a safe example is that the use of Relativity to understand the Big Bang breaks down in the initial fraction of a second, when Quantum Physics has to be invoked instead. Some unscientific statements about the Big Bang hang on this issue.

However, to say that Science is (or can be) either wrong or false is a bit hard to enagage with. Does it imply that every single scientific statement is wrong / false? It seems to me to be a meaningless statement - a misuse of words to sound like they say something when they don't.

In the case of Pluto, its classification as a planet is entirely arbitrary and entirely a matter of definition but that need not imply that it is pointless. As I understood the decision, it was that there are other objects orbitting the Sun which are comparable to Pluto, and either we expland our list of planets to include them or we narrow our definition to manitain some simplicity. Pluto's dimensions and trajectory are not affected either in our calculations or in reality (Pluto does not care either way).

In so far as scientists engage in classification that is clearly a part of / aspect of science.

In many cases, correct classification is in fact very important indeed and so is not arbitrary. For example, the classification of humans as members of the family of Apes reflects findings about our place in the evolutionary tree. However it is not accurate to simpy say we "are Apes" if that implies identity, since we clearly are not in many respects. That is why we enjoy a distinct position within the family of apes, which is that of the various types of human species that have arisen over time. We are related in that we share a common ancestor. We also share common ancestors with every other species, but have had separate evolutionary paths to various extents.

Definition, in the case of evolution and common ancestors, turns out to have a huge range of significant, practical acientific implications. For example, we are also mammals, but not rodents, even though rats are also mammals. We have enough in common to permit a lot of research on rats that is relevant to humans however so again, our separate classification is important but does not preclude much common ground.

However, the process of arriving at agreed definitions in this sense is not purely linguistic. For example, access to genetic evidence has altered our understanding of many links between species that were previously hidden. Indeed, prior to the acceptance of evolutionary theory, species and individuals within these were classified on criteria that are now obsolete.

Originally posted by vistesd
The standard epistemological definition of knowledge is “justified, true belief”. In order for this definition to be “part of knowledge”, it would itself have to be “a justified, true belief”. I see no reason why knowledge acquired by scientific methods ought to be considered differently. And although the example is based on defining knowledge itse ...[text shortened]... mmodate this new information and we get very excited about it. We like discovering new things.”

The theory of Evolution does not fit what is observed in science and must be
updated to accommodate this new information from DNA as well as the old
information from the Holy Bible. However, most scientist continue to cling to
Darwin's theories in total even though he cautioned against it, himself. There
is no observable evidence of a cat evolving into a dog or any other kind of
creature by adaptaion by natural selection. I am sure Darwin would eliminate
his idea of evolution of all creatures from one common cell as an ancestor to
all plants and animals, if he were here today to learn of how DNA and RNA
works. I believe he would not think the program information in DNA came
about by accident but was designed and placed in the cell by an awesomely
intelligent designer. I don't believe he was as stupid as you numbnuts. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
The theory of Evolution does not fit what is observed in science and must be
updated to accommodate this new information from DNA as well as the old
information from the Holy Bible. However, most scientist continue to cling to
Darwin's theories in total even though he cautioned against it, himself. There
is no observable evidence of a cat evolving into ...[text shortened]... l by an awesomely
intelligent designer. I don't believe he was as stupid as you numbnuts. 😏

You are half right and half wrong. Darwin't theory of natural selection has been entirely supported and improved by subsequent scientific findings, not least the mechanism of the gene which he did not have available. On the other hand it does not accommodate the literal Biblical account of the creation, which is understood and accepted by most Christians as no longer reliable in its strict, literal reading. So as said, half right and half wrong.