That's because you write it for yourself when no one else gives a rats ass.
We would rather enjoy the benefits of a messageboard that brings all or most of us together on common subjects we can laugh at and enjoy and rip the mickey out of each other rather then get dragged into subjects that ram personal opinions down peoples throats.
My experiment: I want to prove Newtons second law that something will fall to earth due to gravity etc. I go to the top of a 100 metre building. I drop in sucession, a bowling ball of mass M(b), a toy car of mass M(c), a rock of mass M(r) etc. I have a timer at the bottom to give me the time taken for the objects to land, and I repeat each one three times and take an average. Using a basic equation of motion and taking air resistance into account only as an error, I come up with an average of approximately 9.8 m/s/s thus I have proved the value of gravity.
Personally I was assuming that you were talking about something a tiny bit more complex than this. And the nature of gravity is one of the big scientific unknowns at the moment, no?
If we're talking about the frontline of scientific research, which unless I'm wrong is slightly beyond dropping balls out of skyscrapers, there are a lot more outside factors acting, I'm sure you can appreciate that. Especially in theoretical physics.
While I'm here, I think that maths is as close as we can get to no diplomatic/economic/etc. influences as there's no experiments to interpret, just numbers. That's why they beam values of pi into space and stuff like that.
Hmmm, I would so like to sit and discuss this with yu but you don't want to discuss you just wish to point out what you want to say and us all to agree with you.
I did point out situations where stuff have interfered in science but you poo-pooed that idea. And as I said 'science' itself exists in a philosophical sense outside of everything. Or are you going to tell us that until (for example) the famous apple landed on Newton no-one had a clue about gravity? Of course they didn't name it such nor 'prove' that it was there because like every part of our lives it was intrinsic. What about the Salam witch trials (and other witch trials) where evidence was given about supernatural goings on and believed, when a 'scientific' view was in that communities eyes followed?
Anyway, I said I wouldn't discuss and I have - more fool me!
Personally I was assuming that you were talking about something a tiny bit more complex than this. And the nature of gravity is one of the big scientific unknowns at the moment, no?
If we're talking about the frontline of scientific research, which unless I'm wrong is slightly beyond dropping balls out of skyscrapers, there are a lot more outside factors acting, I'm sure you can appreciate that. Especially in theoretical physics.
While I'm here, I think that maths is as close as we can get to no diplomatic/economic/etc. influences as there's no experiments to interpret, just numbers. That's why they beam values of pi into space and stuff like that.
So it has to be a complicated example in order for what you're saying to be valid? How do you define complicated? I've put forward a basic scientific experiment, alongside a fairly new method of identifying stars, and neither of them are affected by the factors you constantly talk about? Convenient.
Thats why I'm asking you, please give me an example of a scientific process or fact that IS affected! Why is it so hard? Thats all I'm waiting for then I can agree with you.
As for maths being the most important, you're bang on. Everything leads to maths - thats basically refuting your statements - physics leads to maths, biology to chemistry to physics to maths - maths lies underneath everything - look up 'reductionism' and thats WHY nothing is affected - its justs calculations - thats all. I don't sit in primary 1 and say "1 + 1 is 2....??! By god thats got severe diplomatic, ethicial, economic etc factors playing on it...."
Hmmm, I would so like to sit and discuss this with yu but you don't want to discuss you just wish to point out what you want to say and us all to agree with you.
I did point out situations where stuff have interfered in science but you poo-pooed that idea. And as I said 'science' itself exists in a philosophical sense outside of everything. Or are you going to tell us that until (for example) the famous apple landed on Newton no-one had a clue about gravity? Of course they didn't name it such nor 'prove' that it was there because like every part of our lives it was intrinsic. What about the Salam witch trials (and other witch trials) where evidence was given about supernatural goings on and believed, when a 'scientific' view was in that communities eyes followed?
Anyway, I said I wouldn't discuss and I have - more fool me!
I'll say the same thing to you : So it has to be a complicated example in order for what you're saying to be valid? How do you define complicated? I've put forward a basic scientific experiment, alongside a fairly new method of identifying stars, and neither of them are affected by the factors you constantly talk about? Convenient.
Thats why I'm asking you, please give me an example of a scientific process or fact that IS affected! Why is it so hard? Thats all I'm waiting for then I can agree with you.
As for witch-trials - they were all put forward as scientific or convincing evidence which was religeously based and highly biased as in these days everyone wanted to convict everyone of heresy in the hope of getting to heaven. Scientific procedure was NOT used (perhaps procedures that were accepted at the time) but it is and WAS NOT science to say that someone is a witch, or even admit that there is anything 'supernatural' about the world, consdiering science is the study of the natural universe an everything thats in it, and that we do to it.
As for witch-trials - they were all put forward as scientific or convincing evidence which was religeously based and highly biased as in these days everyone wanted to convict everyone of heresy in the hope of getting to heaven. Scientific procedure was NOT used (perhaps procedures that were accepted at the time) but it is and WAS NOT science to say that someone is a witch, or even admit that there is anything 'supernatural' about the world, consdiering science is the study of the natural universe an everything thats in it, and that we do to it.
But that's the point - In those days it was considered Scientific and science it was real to them - so the social (etc) conditions within which they lived affected the science of the day. It's very easy to look back and say it isn't/ wasn't science but to these people it was. Science WAS religion back then and religion science. Is this not an example of how society and other factors affected the peoples of that time's understanding of science. Hindsight is a great thing and an easy leveller of all, but should we really be considering this in hindsight rather than looking at the prevailing views and beliefs of the time.
And by the way, I never said an uncompicated example wasn't good enough - I think you copied and pasted too much on a different reply
No - the witch hunts etcare not a good example of what you're saying.
They are quite simply a brilliant example of the evil of religeon, which is of course incredibly important as well.
Like I've ageed, the judges took the 'evidence' which was sometimes no more than someone elses word, sometimes even just a hunch, sometimes based on the fact that some women could survive underwater for more than 1.5 minutes, sometimes because another (married) man found them attractive.
This is more of a court-case scenario, you accuse someone of something, put forward 'evidence' which is used and almost in these cases, 'forced' to find a guilty verdict. Its no more science, scientific fact, or scientific procedure than anything else.
Think about the execution of my dear ancestor Mary Queen of Scots, was said to be conspiring against Elizabeth I, and evidence was forged, misplaced, misled, and even non-existent. Using today's decution of IMPARTIAL science and deomcracy, the evidence for her case has been reviewed, and now most historians agree she was innocent all along, and the eviedence was forged by Elizabeth's privy council.
Again, its not a matter of Science - but the methodology is close (ish). Just in these days, religeon was allowed to make in impact, as was someones opinion, as was someones authority, as was the economy and the diplomacy between countries.
Science is quite a different matter, and has always remained as it is. Constantly refine, refreshed and peer reviewed completely impartially.
I'm still waiting for a response to my above examples, and a coherent example elsewhere
I'm still waiting for a response to my above examples, and a coherent example elsewhere
I don't know what response you require! Yes they are scientific experiments carried out in the 'correct' way, peer assessed and validated. What more do you want said about them? That doesn't further your point. Gravity, is gravity, is gravity. And nothing can change it - bar a shift in the earths orbit or magnetic field and even then the concept of gravity is still correct. I don't see what you want me to say - do you think i disagree with you in the concept of science.
We aren't going to agree on the socio thing so I think this is the end of the 'discussion'. You may indeed have the last word.
What I "want you to say" is how all of my, some half a dozen, examples are effect by diplomacy / economy / politics / race / etc etc - this is the point you made in the last set of posts and I begged for an example, now I've given you the option of some examples of science and scientific procedure, and given you the option to tell me one which is affected, and you still haven't. I'm not being beliggerant i desperately want to know.
You and the other two have more or less stated that all science is affected by the above factors all the time and always will - above are some (simple) examples of science, one very old, and one very new - I want to know in which way they are flawed by, as has been said befoe, the fact that humans make mistakes and the diplomacy/economy/ etc
I honestly want to know when explaining what something is when someone keeps mistaking what it is from a completely neautral point of view is (as the guy above says) forcing opinions on people - I can't change anyone's mind who doesn't want to know but I can damned well have my say - I'm only passing on the knowledge and understanding I have of my second top subject (after music...). Theres a photo thread or an art thread dotting aroud where people are tlaking about art and society and shadeing and derivatives of paint but thats somehow different...
I always listen to what people say and I always comment explicitly. Whereas if I bring a valid point, you (dubz) are quite often the only one to accept what I'm saying or at least ackowledge it - most otheres just bi-pass it or skate around it. The point is I always make an argument, back it up with evidence, and always give way to anything that will intervene. Where as (again as you'll know dubz) tonne of people will just say something, expect me to sit here and accept it without a scrap of evidence or case in point, and if I don't I'm being arrogant...common sense I'd hope.
You and the other two have more or less stated that all science is affected by the above factors all the time and always will
NO I HAVEN'T! I NEVER SAID THIS AND I NEVER WOULD. NOT ONLY ARE YOU PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH YOU ARE TWISTING THEM!
It is the word ALL that i take the utmost offence at. You have provided a few examples of how science is idscovered, experimented upon etc peer assessed etc and i have agreed with you that the basics of science is always present whether or not it has been discovered or not. 'gravity, is gravity, is gravity' And now you tell me I am disagreeing with you in such an all encompassing way. What a load of shit. You really do know how to wind people up don't you? I'm sorry that you don't like my examples I have given and that's your perogative, I can't refute your examples because they were done in a time when these factors didn't apply. It's like telling me to prove red is green and me telling you that for colour blind people it is and you saying that isn't the point. I am seeing beyond the realms of 'pure science' and you aren't. That's the difference between us. And I don't care what you believe and whether you are right or not. But I do care when you put words into my mouth.
The 'all' was really directed at the other two, if you look at their conversations they actually have said this, so i'm sorry for roping you in on that word, it was a generalisation for the group supporting 'the affects of social factors on science'
So what you're saying, to round it up, is that no scientific matters or principals are REALLY affected by these social factors? Given that you agree that my examples aren't (and that I could give 1000 more), and that the only examples that MIGHT have had some sort of bearing on the social factors are aged and misconceived, and were wrong even in their time?
As for being able to 'see past science' etc, because of the above paragraph you're more or less admitting that you will stubbornly believe something despite there being no examples or ideas to base it on. THAT is the difference - as soon as you give me some examples that anything scientific is affected by these factors, I will be happy to step down from my argument - I've even had a go at finding some examples just so I can see it from you're point of view - don't assume that just because I'm not jumping on your band wagon, and i'm standing passionately for what is the only thing with any evidence - the scientific method.
Its the same reason that I don't believe in an abrahamic god, because thres not a scrap of evidence for his case, and any supposed evidence is completely falsified. Just like crystal healing, reiki, colour therapy, atlantis etc. I'm no being stubborn, I'm merely waiting for the evidence to arrive.
