...personal/racial/social/national etc etc etc factors, and IS completely impartial and neutral, and therefore absolutely trustworthy and acceptable in all manners.
...personal/racial/social/national etc etc etc factors, and IS completely impartial and neutral, and therefore absolutely trustworthy and acceptable in all manners.
...personal/racial/social/national etc etc etc factors, and IS completely impartial and neutral, and therefore absolutely trustworthy and acceptable in all manners.
have a look, watch it through, only 8 or 9 mins, see what you think
BOLLOCKS !!!!
Nations, Governments and other groups will all bend science to suit their own personal interests. Science is not Knowledge but the best explaination therefore is not complete and utterly true.
for example:- Gallileo and Newton questioned gravity and to date it is the best explanation, however if technology advances then we could find another explanation and then just like the people before them they too could also be wrong.
Or the Higgs-Bosun(?) particle, which has been invented out of thin air to make certain mathimatics and physics work. Now they bld a Black Hole Machine to prove it does exsist even though no one actually knows if it does.
Science like anything else is wide open to opinion and best guesses.
You're completely right about the heriarcy of science, but government etc is irrelevant to the SCIENCE
I'll say it again, a scientist may be unsure, or lie, or make a mistake, but the science is always there and correct.
The video explains exactly how these economic / governmental etc etc factors are completely irrelevant.
As for them being opinions and guesses, thats a gross, gross horrification of the fundamental principals.
I know what you're trying to say, but that last statement is wrong on just about every level I can think of - need to go and take asprin now thanks to you :P
I can't see how you are linking these things together. The video talks about science parsay (sp) not economics or diplomatic or government. It doesn't explain how governmnet and opther pressures can affect the way that science is research. Science itself is impirical and yes, can exist outside for the person. But . . . what about what happened in CHina and Korea when all educated people where incarcerated or killed, or made to give up their ways of life and work on the land. Yes 'science' still existed but no-one was taught it, nor did any research happen. In those countries all sorts of governmental, socio-economic, and personal, racial, and national factors came into play. To say that science is NOT affected in these conditions becomes a philosophical aguement then.
I haven't watched the video, and I don't intend to tbh.
But a couple of points:
It depends what you mean by science. The universe will stay the same whether or not we try to understand it (well...), but I think that science is the process of understanding the universe through evidence of things we can observe. And that's definitely subject to politics and whatnot. If science were a pure art, I guess it would be independent, but funders want certain results, society wants other results, and the 'facts' presented are often via opinionated media. Ultimately we can only see things through human eyes and brains.
I don't believe that our science is independent but as it's the best we've got I don't see that as a negative.
I haven't watched the video, and I don't intend to tbh.
But a couple of points:
It depends what you mean by science. The universe will stay the same whether or not we try to understand it (well...), but I think that science is the process of understanding the universe through evidence of things we can observe. And that's definitely subject to politics and whatnot. If science were a pure art, I guess it would be independent, but funders want certain results, society wants other results, and the 'facts' presented are often via opinionated media. Ultimately we can only see things through human eyes and brains.
I don't believe that our science is independent but as it's the best we've got I don't see that as a negative.
I can't see how you are linking these things together. The video talks about science parsay (sp) not economics or diplomatic or government. It doesn't explain how governmnet and opther pressures can affect the way that science is research. Science itself is impirical and yes, can exist outside for the person. But . . . what about what happened in CHina and Korea when all educated people where incarcerated or killed, or made to give up their ways of life and work on the land. Yes 'science' still existed but no-one was taught it, nor did any research happen. In those countries all sorts of governmental, socio-economic, and personal, racial, and national factors came into play. To say that science is NOT affected in these conditions becomes a philosophical aguement then.
What you're saying about china and korea has nothing to do with science. Its nothing to do with the scientific procedure of understanding how scienctific fact is processed and comes to light etc etc - that WAS a political problem based on, yes, the government, not WANTING people to be a PART of science - its not the exclusion of science or the mis-communication of it or even having any basis. The science was always there, it was always teachable, it never changed. A high-ranking group of people's opinion of what people do and don't need to knwo changed.
Here its the same as what the catholic church did to science, pushed it down to preserve their authority. IT still existed and everything was still factual - just depressed
I haven't watched the video, and I don't intend to tbh.
But a couple of points:
It depends what you mean by science. The universe will stay the same whether or not we try to understand it (well...), but I think that science is the process of understanding the universe through evidence of things we can observe. And that's definitely subject to politics and whatnot. If science were a pure art, I guess it would be independent, but funders want certain results, society wants other results, and the 'facts' presented are often via opinionated media. Ultimately we can only see things through human eyes and brains.
I don't believe that our science is independent but as it's the best we've got I don't see that as a negative.
Ditto.
I know for a fact that it really has no point debating with you, because you have and old-fashioned conception of what science is, leading you to deny that social sciences are, indeed, science. But since I just want to say what I think one more time, all I'm going to say about this is that science doesn't exist outside of human beings. Human beings create science and there's no science without human beings. Therefore, social, political and economical factors influence it. You can't abstract yourself from your social and historical context, no one can.
I haven't watched the video, and I don't intend to tbh.
But a couple of points:
It depends what you mean by science. The universe will stay the same whether or not we try to understand it (well...), but I think that science is the process of understanding the universe through evidence of things we can observe. And that's definitely subject to politics and whatnot. If science were a pure art, I guess it would be independent, but funders want certain results, society wants other results, and the 'facts' presented are often via opinionated media. Ultimately we can only see things through human eyes and brains.
I don't believe that our science is independent but as it's the best we've got I don't see that as a negative.
Ditto.
I know for a fact that it really has no point debating with you, because you have and old-fashioned conception of what science is, leading you to deny that social sciences are, indeed, science. But since I just want to say what I think one more time, all I'm going to say about this is that science doesn't exist outside of human beings. Human beings create science and there's no science without human beings. Therefore, social, political and economical factors influence it. You can't abstract yourself from your social and historical context, no one can.
I can't see how you are linking these things together. The video talks about science parsay (sp) not economics or diplomatic or government. It doesn't explain how governmnet and opther pressures can affect the way that science is research. Science itself is impirical and yes, can exist outside for the person. But . . . what about what happened in CHina and Korea when all educated people where incarcerated or killed, or made to give up their ways of life and work on the land. Yes 'science' still existed but no-one was taught it, nor did any research happen. In those countries all sorts of governmental, socio-economic, and personal, racial, and national factors came into play. To say that science is NOT affected in these conditions becomes a philosophical aguement then.
What you're saying about china and korea has nothing to do with science. Its nothing to do with the scientific procedure of understanding how scienctific fact is processed and comes to light etc etc - that WAS a political problem based on, yes, the government, not WANTING people to be a PART of science - its not the exclusion of science or the mis-communication of it or even having any basis. The science was always there, it was always teachable, it never changed. A high-ranking group of people's opinion of what people do and don't need to knwo changed.
Here its the same as what the catholic church did to science, pushed it down to preserve their authority. IT still existed and everything was still factual - just depressed
But now you are refuting your own arguement - you state that government ect do not effect science. But . . . you fail to define science yourself- yes you point us to a video that I find simplistic and something I would have been introduced to at about age 8 (my father is a phyisicist). Both crypic boy and aletways point out that science is science in an impiriacla sense and that it is science whether or not humans understand or research it, but that is the same for any subject or level of understanding. You miss the point that you have taken science to a philosophical level. Why if you want a discussion do you ignore the points that are made and just point peole to a video. If you are old enough to have watched Horizon in the 70's and 80's before TV was dumbed down this sort of stuff was considered a short introduction before proper exploration of a subject began. This was the easy bit.
I would like to know your background and the reason why you feel the need to 'educate' us - cos you ain't discussing - are you clergy? scientist? teacher? author? road-sweeper with an intellectual grudge? Age?
Everything I have said has been groundly ignored. Being a scientist, I refuse to 'submit' to what someone says without there being some sort of evidence or at least a case put forward. I actually asked specifically for a real example of when science as a set of facts or as a procedural understanding of a concept is affected by diplomacy / economy / race / gender / society - and was told that I couldn't possibly be given one, because it would lead to the same argument - I even said I would promise to only put one response, then let them rebuttle, and that would be the end - but still no such commitment.
So once and for all, I'm going to state a very standard scientific experiment, as well as state a scientific principal, and I want a real case for how its affected - then I will be SO glad (honestly) to take properly on board what your'e saying.
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.
Wheres these mysterious factors causing problems when I submit this peer review experiment? (benig probably the 2 or 3 millionth person to do so)
2) In what way is the luminosity of a star given by
L = 4(pi)r^2F
contrived or affected by the above factors? We measure flux F using a bolometer, and simple gemoetry for the radius. This has been done for hundreds of thousands of stars and has proven incredibly accurate.
