Science does not exist?

[amirm]

Read this on another forum:

-----
As James P. Hogan wrote in his book, Kicking the Sacred Cow,
Quote:
Science really doesn't exist. Scientific beliefs are either proved wrong, or else they quickly become engineering. Everything else is untested speculation.
-----

If you ask me, I don't mind it one bit that engineers are where it is at.

What say you?

 

[NorthStar]

---Amir, I totally agree with James P. Hogan's school of thought.

After all, it is man who creates Science from observations, measurements, studies ...
And Science always evolves; it is never a constant. ...New facts are always surfacing.
Our world is full of new discoveries that shape sciences to become newer and better sciences.

So, Science is simply a Development. And in that sense it just doesn't exist as an entity,
as an absolute. You see?

* Who can predict the next sinking of the next Titanic? ...Or that it won't happen again?

=> Methinks.

 

[Keith_W]

In other words, unless there is an application for science - it is "untested speculation"? Don't you think that is a rather long bow

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

This is like saying music is the singing, the song does not exist. True on some level, tree falling in the forest and all that. Absolutely useless on a practical one. No song? No singing. No theory? No implementation. And it leaves out a whole ton of science that has no engineered implementation. Is there no evolution because we didn't engineer it?

Silliness, but entertaining.

Tim

 

[Kal Rubinson]

This is like saying music is the singing, the song does not exist.

Is the song on the printed score or is that merely the instructions for producing it?

Is there no evolution because we didn't engineer it?

Didn't we make ourselves who we are, in a Darwinian sense?

Yes, the original proposals are provocative but, in a way, only a semantic argument. Science is a process as well as the current state of its continually-changing conclusions.

 

[jkeny]

Yes science is analogous to a stem cell & engineering to the final functioning cell.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Didn't we make ourselves who we are, in a Darwinian sense?

No, I think the prey, the predator and the opposite sex made us who we are in a Darwinian sense. All outside influences.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

No, I think the prey, the predator and the opposite sex made us who we are in a Darwinian sense. All outside influences.

Tim

No Kal is correct, Tim - if a genetic flaw (internal change) is advantageous for our survival then by selection it becomes part of our genetic pool i.e we change ourselves based on environmental circumstances!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

No Kal is correct, Tim - if a genetic flaw (internal change) is advantageous for our survival then by selection it becomes part of our genetic pool i.e we change ourselves based on environmental circumstances!

I was joking, but it's really a question of POV. We evolve to survive. Did the weaker example died, and fail to procreate because the tiger ate him. Was it his weakness or the tiger's strength? Yes.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Yes, sorry, Tim I missed the joke - my communication skills still need evolving or I'll become extinct
The answer to your question is contained in the phrase "survival of the fittest"

 

[flez007]

I think Science is a way to uncover truth, of course that we are continiously evolving, but it is thru the scientific method (hypothesis, test, result) that we continue to understand ourselves and the universe at reach. 2 pesos