03-29-2006, 05:59 PM
Groot GoudaMar 29 2006, 01:58 AM Quote: This is only one form of science, if the most generally accepted today. There are other, less empirical forms, as well as purely theoretical forms which are very hard to prove (Theory of Relativity?)[/quote]
Theory of Relativity has been "proven" by experiments. If you can't prove or falsify it, it's not science, and no reason to protect it on a UN level. [/quote]
I just think you're looking at a very narrow part of science; that which is most accepted in today's mainstream, yes, but narrow nonetheless. If you look at the history of science, empiricism and falsification are fairly new ways of proving things (and not universally accepted). I understand your point here, but I just don't think falsification is the only way to show something is science. Of course, I don't have a good definition of what else classifies as science...
Quote: They can be damaging, but the research isn't aimed at damaging. Scientists don't think how they can create a 1000 kilo block of steel to kill pedestrians, they want to get people from A to B in less time.[/quote]What about those cases where something isn't aimed at being damaging, but its damaging effects will be greater than its useful ones? Something like genetically modified food that could reasonably be expected to kill other plants along the way, or destroy pest populations that are integral parts of the ecosystem.... damaging other animals may not be the aim, but it would be the effect. For that matter, what about pesticides, where a) the greater harm is subjective, depending on whether you are an environmentalist or an industrialist, or b) where the pests may cause equal damage as the pesticide, just in a different area (i.e. either the crops or the ecosystem is damaged)
Quote: It doesn't need to be punished. It isn't science, so it isn't protected. Quite simple...And religion is already protected by the UN anyway.[/quote]
Fair enough. That wasn't the way I was reading it, but I can understand your intentions here. I can just see some others (especially n00bs/semi-n00bs) attacking this in the same way, so I wanted to bring it up here.
Quote: The difference between evolution and ID is that evolution is based on theories, observations, and that can all be reproduced and falsified by other scientists.[/quote]
This is debatable... I haven't seen any scientist able to reproduce evolution except with such things as algorithms, and the other evidence can be classified as circumstantial. Evolution as it stands is hard to falsify because of the way the theory is structured, and there is not complete evidence of all the necessary links yet. I agree that ID cannot be falsified either, but under your criteria, I don't think evolution is a science, either.
Theory of Relativity has been "proven" by experiments. If you can't prove or falsify it, it's not science, and no reason to protect it on a UN level. [/quote]
I just think you're looking at a very narrow part of science; that which is most accepted in today's mainstream, yes, but narrow nonetheless. If you look at the history of science, empiricism and falsification are fairly new ways of proving things (and not universally accepted). I understand your point here, but I just don't think falsification is the only way to show something is science. Of course, I don't have a good definition of what else classifies as science...
Quote: They can be damaging, but the research isn't aimed at damaging. Scientists don't think how they can create a 1000 kilo block of steel to kill pedestrians, they want to get people from A to B in less time.[/quote]What about those cases where something isn't aimed at being damaging, but its damaging effects will be greater than its useful ones? Something like genetically modified food that could reasonably be expected to kill other plants along the way, or destroy pest populations that are integral parts of the ecosystem.... damaging other animals may not be the aim, but it would be the effect. For that matter, what about pesticides, where a) the greater harm is subjective, depending on whether you are an environmentalist or an industrialist, or b) where the pests may cause equal damage as the pesticide, just in a different area (i.e. either the crops or the ecosystem is damaged)
Quote: It doesn't need to be punished. It isn't science, so it isn't protected. Quite simple...And religion is already protected by the UN anyway.[/quote]
Fair enough. That wasn't the way I was reading it, but I can understand your intentions here. I can just see some others (especially n00bs/semi-n00bs) attacking this in the same way, so I wanted to bring it up here.
Quote: The difference between evolution and ID is that evolution is based on theories, observations, and that can all be reproduced and falsified by other scientists.[/quote]
This is debatable... I haven't seen any scientist able to reproduce evolution except with such things as algorithms, and the other evidence can be classified as circumstantial. Evolution as it stands is hard to falsify because of the way the theory is structured, and there is not complete evidence of all the necessary links yet. I agree that ID cannot be falsified either, but under your criteria, I don't think evolution is a science, either.