Science and the Search for Truth - Page 3

visionarylink · Nov 24, 2009, 12:22 PM

^^ adherence according imagination-inept, uncreative pretentious "scientists" reducing science into stale, cold mechanism who instead of perceiving it as tool, bark at the wrong tree instead and treating the tool as its cold institution as if a new religion, definitely a myopic viewpoint so far from the caliber of REAL scientists

-=Sniper=- · Nov 24, 2009, 12:38 PM

^^ Which is why I tend to believe that science in reality is nothing more than another Philosophical Thought that adheres to observation and logical reasoning to prove certain premises and conclusions. Despite what people claim, science IS an abstract concept and it is philosophy in every way imaginable; not that different in terms of Confucianism and other philosophical schools of thought.

Though I'd have to agree that this philosophical school of thought is the one which seems the most reasonable, given that you have to empirically observe to arrive at a conclusion instead of usually giving one without even having to prove it..

Ischaramoochie · Nov 24, 2009, 01:52 PM

science used to be called natural philosophy

-=Sniper=- · Nov 24, 2009, 02:00 PM

^ Which is why it is a philosophy. Contrary to popular belief that science isn't philosophical and doesn't use philosophy in the study of observational phenomena, science in itself is a philosophical belief..

Ischaramoochie · Nov 24, 2009, 02:03 PM

quite true

visionarylink · Nov 24, 2009, 02:53 PM

Subjectivity is the issue, a claim about objectivity can easily be used as excuse for subjective purpose by the motive of so called adherents, as evidenced by machinations of materialistic ideologies.

Science in a philosophical viewpoint is far from subjective, rather it is relative to one's environment and of the Human phenomenon, being another facet of Truth.

Science not having detached to the Human Phenomenon is not far from the essence of its Truth, but nearer.

- Ric Vil Hori (my impromptu composition

)

cretinous00 · Nov 24, 2009, 03:43 PM

no matter how you describe it, it's a rigorous discipline that's not for everyone; and it tends to be abused by ordinary folks. there're few things more disgusting than reading sophomoric posts about quantum machanics and entropy from non-scientists whose sole bases are glossy monthly religious magazines or some cockamamy site at yootoobe.

visionarylink · Nov 24, 2009, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cretinous00

no matter how you describe it, it's a rigorous discipline that's not for everyone; and it tends to be abused by ordinary folks. there're few things more disgusting than reading sophomoric posts about quantum machanics and entropy from non-scientists whose sole bases are glossy monthly religious magazines or some cockamamy site at yootoobe.

A rigorous discipline indeed to be efficiently used as a tool, such that erroneous intent to use science for subjective motive by institutionalizing the tool by pretentious "scientists" at the guise of materialistic objectivity, or lacking in depth to the facets of Truth shall render it out of context for the practical demands of evolving Humanity, and even such shallow views may be dangerous to the survival of Humanity itself.

Simply said materialistic ideologies (oops, slip showing) manipulating Science in the 20th century shall be rendered obsolete if we are to progress for the greater challenges of the Future ahead, and the rigourous discipline evolving in standards towards higher awareness of one's environment and Human Phenomenon shall render such obsolete views too inefficient for the coming challenges.

Ischaramoochie · Nov 24, 2009, 06:18 PM

colorless green ideas sleep furiously

cretinous00 · Nov 25, 2009, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by visionarylink

A rigorous discipline indeed to be efficiently used as a tool, such that erroneous intent to use science for subjective motive by institutionalizing the tool by pretentious "scientists" at the guise of materialistic objectivity, or lacking in depth to the facets of Truth shall render it out of context for the practical demands of evolving Humanity, and even such shallow views may be dangerous to the survival of Humanity itself.

Simply said materialistic ideologies (oops, slip showing) manipulating Science in the 20th century shall be rendered obsolete if we are to progress for the greater challenges of the Future ahead, and the rigourous discipline evolving in standards towards higher awareness of one's environment and Human Phenomenon shall render such obsolete views too inefficient for the coming challenges.

i'm getting all these post about so-called materialism. what the hell does it mean? the only scholarly work i'm able to google is about "historical materialism" which is largely an economic concept. what is materialistic objectivity?

Ischaramoochie · Nov 25, 2009, 08:33 AM

^ keep reading his posts and soon you'll realize that they have syntax but are devoid of any semantic value.

clark_kent · Nov 25, 2009, 10:12 AM

^

i was actually thinking they were generated using some automatic sentence generator...

btw, if you want to have your own scientific paper, you can try this:

http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/


Nov 24, 2009, 12:22 PM	#41
visionarylink er, visionary Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Mundo Citizen	^^ adherence according imagination-inept, uncreative pretentious "scientists" reducing science into stale, cold mechanism who instead of perceiving it as tool, bark at the wrong tree instead and treating the tool as its cold institution as if a new religion, definitely a myopic viewpoint so far from the caliber of REAL scientists


Nov 24, 2009, 12:38 PM	#42
-=Sniper=- Member Join Date: Oct 2009	^^ Which is why I tend to believe that science in reality is nothing more than another Philosophical Thought that adheres to observation and logical reasoning to prove certain premises and conclusions. Despite what people claim, science IS an abstract concept and it is philosophy in every way imaginable; not that different in terms of Confucianism and other philosophical schools of thought. Though I'd have to agree that this philosophical school of thought is the one which seems the most reasonable, given that you have to empirically observe to arrive at a conclusion instead of usually giving one without even having to prove it..


Nov 24, 2009, 01:52 PM	#43
Ischaramoochie Praesidium Fora Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Magrathea	science used to be called natural philosophy


Nov 24, 2009, 02:00 PM	#44
-=Sniper=- Member Join Date: Oct 2009	^ Which is why it is a philosophy. Contrary to popular belief that science isn't philosophical and doesn't use philosophy in the study of observational phenomena, science in itself is a philosophical belief..


Nov 24, 2009, 02:03 PM	#45
Ischaramoochie Praesidium Fora Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Magrathea	quite true


Nov 24, 2009, 02:53 PM	#46
visionarylink er, visionary Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Mundo Citizen	Subjectivity is the issue, a claim about objectivity can easily be used as excuse for subjective purpose by the motive of so called adherents, as evidenced by machinations of materialistic ideologies. Science in a philosophical viewpoint is far from subjective, rather it is relative to one's environment and of the Human phenomenon, being another facet of Truth. Science not having detached to the Human Phenomenon is not far from the essence of its Truth, but nearer. - Ric Vil Hori (my impromptu composition )


Nov 24, 2009, 03:43 PM	#47
cretinous00 mad 'bout shiri appleby Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Q.C.	no matter how you describe it, it's a rigorous discipline that's not for everyone; and it tends to be abused by ordinary folks. there're few things more disgusting than reading sophomoric posts about quantum machanics and entropy from non-scientists whose sole bases are glossy monthly religious magazines or some cockamamy site at yootoobe.


Nov 24, 2009, 06:18 PM	#49
Ischaramoochie Praesidium Fora Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Magrathea	colorless green ideas sleep furiously


Nov 25, 2009, 08:33 AM	#51
Ischaramoochie Praesidium Fora Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Magrathea	^ keep reading his posts and soon you'll realize that they have syntax but are devoid of any semantic value.


Nov 25, 2009, 10:12 AM	#52
clark_kent Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Laguna	^ i was actually thinking they were generated using some automatic sentence generator... btw, if you want to have your own scientific paper, you can try this: http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/