Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7474768" data-attributes="member: 16814">Again, if you say that systemic collection of observations of natural phenomenon is science, you run into the problem of baseball scorekeepers being scientists.&nbsp; This is why you previously added a profundity layer to your argument, which doesn't work because nothing requires any kind of science to be profound -- look at the nature of middle school science fair projects, many of whom actually are science but certainly aren't profound.&nbsp; Verification of previous knowledge isn't profound, but it can still be science.Overall, your argument is outcome based:&nbsp; was the observation recording useful and/or did people call you a scientist.&nbsp; This puts the definition of science as subjective according to who's calling who a scientist or subjective as to which form of formal data collection rises high enough to be science:&nbsp; bird watching notes in the 1700 from far away places is science, but not last nights detailed observations of the baseball game.&nbsp; This cannot be right -- science cannot be defined subjectively and still be a useful tool to find truth.&nbsp; If you wish science to be a useful tool to find truth, then it must be process-oriented not outcome based.&nbsp; This should be self-evident. Again, systemic data collection is necessary for science, it is not sufficient to be science.&nbsp; You know, it just occurred to me that others may be taking my argument to be pejorative about what is and isn't science.&nbsp; If so, you're wrong.&nbsp; I've already held out that science isn't the other way to find 'truth' of our existence in this universe.&nbsp; To me, science is just another tool in the box, to be brought out when it applies.&nbsp; So saying something isn't science doesn't, for me, imply that it isn't valuable, but rather it's no subject to scientific method and subsequent verification via that method.&nbsp; Statistics, on the other hand....</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7474768, member: 16814"] Again, if you say that systemic collection of observations of natural phenomenon is science, you run into the problem of baseball scorekeepers being scientists. This is why you previously added a profundity layer to your argument, which doesn't work because nothing requires any kind of science to be profound -- look at the nature of middle school science fair projects, many of whom actually are science but certainly aren't profound. Verification of previous knowledge isn't profound, but it can still be science. Overall, your argument is outcome based: was the observation recording useful and/or did people call you a scientist. This puts the definition of science as subjective according to who's calling who a scientist or subjective as to which form of formal data collection rises high enough to be science: bird watching notes in the 1700 from far away places is science, but not last nights detailed observations of the baseball game. This cannot be right -- science cannot be defined subjectively and still be a useful tool to find truth. If you wish science to be a useful tool to find truth, then it must be process-oriented not outcome based. This should be self-evident. Again, systemic data collection is necessary for science, it is not sufficient to be science. You know, it just occurred to me that others may be taking my argument to be pejorative about what is and isn't science. If so, you're wrong. I've already held out that science isn't the other way to find 'truth' of our existence in this universe. To me, science is just another tool in the box, to be brought out when it applies. So saying something isn't science doesn't, for me, imply that it isn't valuable, but rather it's no subject to scientific method and subsequent verification via that method. Statistics, on the other hand.... [/QUOTE]

Verification