13 Jul 12
13 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell 'yes' but in the interest of science dialogues such as futurism should be maintained in order to progress.
Indeed, however psychiatry is experimental, but then so is conceptual art. Is it a
science, i would say its more jiggery-pokery, for the idea is, at its very basic level,
that mental illness, is caused by aberration at some point in the mind, through
chemical imbalance and thus what the psychiatrist tries to do with the use of therapies,
is ...[text shortened]... mind is so incredibly complex and what works for one person may
have little effect on another.
Have you noticed how I've managed to successfully express myself without using the word 'that' until now?
'That' is my point. Science, in order to be truly methodical needs to be able to address its own context.
I guess I am trying to personify science to an extent. Is it possible to build democracy into science? I'm not saying we should have to vote every time a pipette is squished but certainly for the major projects. Could 'This' become part of a political system?
13 Jul 12
Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Well 'yes' but in the interest of science dialogues such as futurism should be maintained in order to progress.
Have you noticed how I've managed to successfully express myself without using the word 'that' until now?
'That' is my point. Science, in order to be truly methodical needs to be able to address its own context.
I guess I am trying to per ...[text shortened]... but certainly for the major projects. Could 'This' become part of a political system?
Is it possible to build democracy into science?
that makes no sense because science is a method of obtaining knowledge ( and the knowledge so gained but lets not be pedantic ) .
To demonstrate this, what is wrong with this following question?:
Can you “build democracy into” a mathematical method such as calculus to obtain knowledge of a quantity?
I'm not saying we should have to vote every time a pipette is squished but certainly for the major projects.
this is not science you are talking about here but politics. You erroneously equate the two.
Science is not politics but a method of obtaining knowledge. Politics is about governance and making decisions including sometimes decisions about how to USE science and what research should be done but none of that equates with the science itself which is just a method of obtaining knowledge.
So your criticism of science for not having 'democracy' ( along with all your other criticisms of science ) doesn't make any sense.
13 Jul 12
18 edits
Originally posted by humyIs it possible to build democracy into science?
that makes no sense because science is a method of obtaining knowledge ( and the knowledge so gained but lets not be pedantic ) .
To demonstrate this, what is wrong with this following question?:
Can you “build democracy into” a mathematical method such as calculus to obtain knowledge o ving 'democracy' ( along with all your other criticisms of science ) doesn't make any sense.
Can you “build democracy into” a mathematical method such as calculus to obtain knowledge of a quantity?
No, it would be ridiculous but you can have a democratic vote on 'which' quantitities are to be analysed and more importantly 'why'.
this is not science you are talking about here but politics. You erroneously equate the two.
I hear of which it's Japan of whom made this particular mistake...
13 Jul 12
2 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ckCan you “build democracy into” a mathematical method such as calculus to obtain knowledge of a quantity?
No, it would be ridiculous but you can have a democratic vote on 'which' quantitities are to be analysed and more importantly 'why'.
this is not science you are talking about here but politics. You erroneously equate the two.
I hear of which it's Japan of whom made this particular mistake...
No, it would be ridiculous but you can have a democratic vote on 'which' quantitities are to be analysed and more importantly 'why'.
would that vote be part of mathematics? Answer, no.
would a vote on which science to do and why be part of science? Answer, no.
Try looking up the definition of science and see if there is room there for the word "vote" to be included in its definition.
I hear of which it's Japan of whom made this particular mistake...
if that is true, why join them?
13 Jul 12
Originally posted by humyYes, it would be part of a Mathematical supposition which postulates 'that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'...oh dear.
No, it would be ridiculous but you can have a democratic vote on 'which' quantitities are to be analysed and more importantly 'why'.
would that vote be part of mathematics? Answer, no.
would a vote on which science to do and why be part of science? Answer, no.
Try looking up the definition of science and see if there is room there for ...[text shortened]... Japan of whom made this particular mistake... [/quote]
if that is true, why join them?
13 Jul 12
3 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ckFirstly, I said nothing about a “Mathematical supposition” : I said “mathematics”.
Yes, it would be part of a Mathematical supposition which postulates 'that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'...oh dear.
Secondly, 'that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' is not any “Mathematical supposition” found in mathematics but can be better described as merely a moral principle that you may or may not agree with and that's up to you.
The word “vote” could not validly be incorporated into a definition of mathematics nor into a definition of science.
14 Jul 12
1 edit
Originally posted by humyStory of John Nash :-
Firstly, I said nothing about a “Mathematical supposition” : I said “mathematics”.
Secondly, 'that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' is not any “Mathematical supposition” found in mathematics but can be better described as merely a moral principle that you may or may not agree with and that's up to you.
The word “vote” could not validly be incorporated into a definition of mathematics nor into a definition of science.
'Nash comes under increasing pressure to publish, both from the mathematics department chairman and in the form of rivalry with Hansen. But he refuses until he finds a truly original idea. His inspiration comes when he and his fellow graduate students discuss how to approach a group of women at a bar. Hansen quotes Adam Smith and advocates "every man for himself", but Nash argues that a cooperative approach would lead to better chances of success. This leads to a new concept of governing dynamics which Nash develops and publishes. On the strength of this he is offered an appointment at MIT where Sol and Bender join him.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Beautiful_Mind_(film)
Sorry for the cut and paste but 'is governing dynamics a science?'
Nobody knows 'why' quantum waves collapse the way they do. My suggestion is simple. We have a theory which states the conception 'there are an infinite number of possible futures and pasts'. The greater Anthropic principle.
Such a theory belies the one cogent notion we can really rely upon... 'I think, therefore I am'. Descartes.
14 Jul 12
Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Story of John Nash :-
'Nash comes under increasing pressure to publish, both from the mathematics department chairman and in the form of rivalry with Hansen. But he refuses until he finds a truly original idea. His inspiration comes when he and his fellow graduate students discuss how to approach a group of women at a bar. Hansen quotes Adam Smith and adv ...[text shortened]... eautiful_Mind_(film)
Sorry for the cut and paste but 'is governing dynamics a science?'
is governing dynamics a science?'
no
15 Jul 12
3 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ckWe should vote on major projects? What about the idea that 99% of people have no idea of the consequences positive or negative about some project? Only the 1% can make real value judgments on such a project and they would not be the same people from project to project. For instance, if we put out a proposal to build a dam, do you think rocket scientists would have valid points of debate on a geological question?
Nobody knows 'why' quantum waves collapse the way they do. My suggestion is simple. We have a theory which states the conception 'there are an infinite number of possible futures and pasts'. The greater Anthropic principle.
Such a theory belies the one cogent notion we can really rely upon... 'I think, therefore I am'. Descartes.
Or developing a new drug, would you want geologists making decisions about that? Or a taxi driver in NYC?
You are talking politics pure and simple when you bring crowds into scientific endeavors.
You would get opinions based on christian morality when that would be a hindrance not a help, etc.
Opinions based on nothing more than the color of the skin of the scientist involved or the style of his or her clothes, totally useless criteria having nothing to do with the actual science involved.
That is the main problem with science by democracy. Science would go the way of the Dodo bird and we would be left with nothing but building projects and roadway construction with no new development in building materials or highway safety.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
15 Jul 12
Originally posted by Thequ1ck"...'is governing dynamics a science?'"
Story of John Nash :-
'Nash comes under increasing pressure to publish, both from the mathematics department chairman and in the form of rivalry with Hansen. But he refuses until he finds a truly original idea. His inspiration comes when he and his fellow graduate students discuss how to approach a group of women at a bar. Hansen quotes Adam Smith and adv ...[text shortened]... eautiful_Mind_(film)
Sorry for the cut and paste but 'is governing dynamics a science?'
All these questions about whether this or that thing is a science.
Answer this: What attributes make something a science?
Does the this or that thing have those attributes?
If so, it is a science. If not, it isn't.
Now: Why is important to know if this or that thing is a science?
16 Jul 12
4 edits
I'm not talking about ripping all the plumbing out and starting again, I'm talking
about a subtle shift in social-responsibility with regards to language structure.
I would suggest for it to begin in the schooling system. The indoctrination of
social-responsibility and choice into the education system. The encouragement of adults to take interest in disparate subject areas whilst providing a more direct
career path, thus allowing industry to apply sponsorship and support to students.
With regards to poor and misaligned results being part of the consensus, I propose a basic subject test before voting is allowed on any 'particular' matters. This would encouraging leaning and the taking of interest in adults. So no, probably taxi drivers won't be getting the vote.
Quaffing at religion has been a particularly favorite past-time for me historically. But I suggest how it forms a yard-stick with which to measure science. Much in the same way the placebo effect is used as a yard-stick in medicine. I am going on to suggest how, whilst religion points to order in the past and a chaotic and world-ending future. Science should thereby represent the converse. A democratically deterministic rigmarole which points towards order.
16 Jul 12
8 edits
Originally posted by JS357Psychiatry is a backwards Art whose only basis in results is the removal of conceived 'abnormalities' by means of suppression.
"...'is governing dynamics a science?'"
All these questions about whether this or that thing is a science.
Answer this: What attributes make something a science?
Does the this or that thing have those attributes?
If so, it is a science. If not, it isn't.
Now: Why is important to know if this or that thing is a science?
