Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7474091" data-attributes="member: 16814">Huh?&nbsp; Those things can be science by themselves so long as other things happen, too?&nbsp; I'm not sure what work you think 'by itself' is doing in this sentence, but it's not any work I'm familiar with!Not science, but very useful to science.&nbsp; What theory did Banks test with his collection?&nbsp; The method is the science, pieces of the method are not.Not science, but vary useful to science.&nbsp; Astronomers do science, but it's by observing (research) and forming a question which they try to find support or falsify by further observation.&nbsp; The act of observation is, by itself, not science.&nbsp; Necessary, but not sufficient.Your i, ii, and iii are not things that are requirements of science.&nbsp; There's tons of uninteresting science.&nbsp; There's tons of obvious science.&nbsp; There's tons of non-revelatory science.&nbsp; You seem to be making an argument that profundity is a requirement of science.&nbsp; It is not.&nbsp; The method is the only requirement of science.For example, I could run experiments on the number of rice grains that fall from the tumbler I got in Disney World five years ago if I fill it to the brim with dried, white rice and tip it at a 45 degree angle.&nbsp; That's not (i) an interesting feature of the natural world, nor (ii) hard to discover, nor (iii) systematised in various interesting and revelatory ways, but I can still Science! the hell outta it.&nbsp; I must say, I am constantly amazed at the strange woo people keep hanging on science.&nbsp; Science must mean something is really profound, or that my favorite result using stats is science, or...&nbsp; I don't get it.&nbsp; The need.&nbsp; The need to have science be important, to be special.&nbsp; It's a fantastic tool, but it's just a tool.&nbsp; It can be used for boring crap or spectacular, world-altering discover.&nbsp; It can be benign and terrible.&nbsp; But, at the end of the day, it's just a tool.&nbsp; And one wielded by people -- and scientists are just people, with all the usual gamut of vice and virtue.&nbsp; They're not special, either, they're just people.&nbsp; I don't get the reverence.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7474091, member: 16814"] Huh? Those things can be science [I]by themselves[/I] so long [I]as other things happen, too[/I]? I'm not sure what work you think 'by itself' is doing in this sentence, but it's not any work I'm familiar with! Not science, but very useful to science. What theory did Banks test with his collection? The method is the science, pieces of the method are not. Not science, but vary useful to science. Astronomers do science, but it's by observing (research) and forming a question which they try to find support or falsify by further observation. The act of observation is, by itself, not science. Necessary, but not sufficient. Your i, ii, and iii are not things that are requirements of science. There's tons of uninteresting science. There's tons of obvious science. There's tons of non-revelatory science. You seem to be making an argument that profundity is a requirement of science. It is not. The method is the only requirement of science. For example, I could run experiments on the number of rice grains that fall from the tumbler I got in Disney World five years ago if I fill it to the brim with dried, white rice and tip it at a 45 degree angle. That's not (i) an interesting feature of the natural world, nor (ii) hard to discover, nor (iii) systematised in various interesting and revelatory ways, but I can still Science! the hell outta it. I must say, I am constantly amazed at the strange woo people keep hanging on science. Science must mean something is really profound, or that my favorite result using stats is science, or... I don't get it. The need. The need to have science be important, to be special. It's a fantastic tool, but it's just a [I]tool[/I]. It can be used for boring crap or spectacular, world-altering discover. It can be benign and terrible. But, at the end of the day, it's just a tool. And one wielded by people -- and scientists are just people, with all the usual gamut of vice and virtue. They're not special, either, they're just people. I don't get the reverence. [/QUOTE]

Verification