Originally Posted By: craigd
Originally Posted By: Gnomon


....craig, please think about what was written.

You may find the notion strange, but many do because science is either not taught at all or nobody pays attention!

I walked us through the philosophical....

.....The more evidence that accumulates supporting a theory the "better" the theory is. But it does not "prove" it - the fact that predictions from theory or experiments actually work is nice but it isn't proof....

People built huge buildings in pre-science days. Some fell down and the ones still standing didn't. Modern structures, embarrassingly collapse too. Also, engineering is not science. Please read what I wrote....

....modern philosophers of science....

.....And I never said I'm going to create matter. Where does that come from?



Gnom, you gotta admit your first comment about science is not taught doesn't contribute to understanding any theory, but I'd agree that your buddy nca thinks a scientist is just a decent lab technician where you try to explain how a scientist explores beyond what's currently known. You really muddy the water and prove to me, at least, that global warming is bunk, if you truly believe it's proponents are philosophers.

Structural engineering is most certainly 'science'. Metallurgy, material properties and how they're arranging most certainly are based on scientific finding. When the next office building goes up, it won't be a bunch of big blocks stacked by slaves. If a building falls, it generally won't disprove the science, but highlight corner cutting.

You're right that 'stuff' isn't always arranged according to the books, but science lets the surgeon look before the first cut is made. A fracture can be pinpointed without opening anything up so that it can be seen first hand. The arthroscopic image on a screen has been 'proven' reliable without the confirmation of direct vision. There are times when the best available diagnostic tools don't tell the whole story, but that doesn't disprove anything. It just show how important the application of the science might be.

And, no big deal, but you most certainly asked to ponder the apparent creation of matter if someone took an organic synthesis course. But hey, that was quite a while ago, yesterday. I was just wondering if there was a scientific point to the comment or just philosophizing.


\Craig, let's just agree to disagree. It appears that you simply do not want to learn what science is or isn't and you clearly don't know what "philosophy" is. You use the term "science" in a loose, relatively undefined way that really has no meaning and it can therefore not be discussed. (that's a philosophical point) What you keep proposing are tautologies.

There is a long, formal history of science and the philosophy of science that has defined and codified these terms and science is not synonymous with technology nor with engineering nor with natural history. Indeed the use of the word "science" in the modern sense did not occur until the 18th cent and the word "scientist" as not used until (as I recall) until about 1820.

You (or someone) introduced the idea of "cost" and that is a very valid point. But again arguments about the cost of reducing (for example) environmental mercury is not a scientific issue - it is a matter for politics and ethics.

There are 3 "costs" here - 1) The human or social cost of early death or malformed infants; 2) The economic cost of treating mercury-induced disease and the economic cost of early death; 3) The economic cost of reducing mercury levels.

All of these need to be balanced and those decisions are political.

When I have more energy I'll get back to the point I was trying to make about organic synthesis and the conservation of mass. But it has to do with science.