WHAT IS SCIENCE?
posted by FractalBob | July 22, 2010
- Login or register to post comments
- Print this page
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
IcerocketHere is a List of different quotes by different people throughout the ages on what the meaning of science is.
WHAT IS SCIENCE?
Science is organized knowledge.
Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) English philosopher. Education.
Science is the systematic classification of experience.
George Henry Lewes (1817-78) English writer and critic.
Science is simply common sense at its best that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.
Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95) English biologist.
Science is nothing but trained and organized common sense differing from the latter only as a veteran may differ from a raw recruit: and its methods differ from those of common sense only as far as the guardsman's cut and thrust differ from the manner in which a savage wields his club.
Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95) English biologist. "The Method of Zadig" in Collected Essays IV.
Science is nothing but developed perception, interpreted intent, common sense rounded out and minutely articulated.
George Santayana (1863-1952) U. S. philosopher and writer. The Life of Reason.
Science is facts; just as houses are made of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.
Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) French mathematician.
Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition.
Adam Smith (1723-90) Scottish economist. The Wealth of Nations, 1776.
Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know.
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) English philosopher, mathematician.
It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious.
Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) English philosopher and mathematician.
[Science is] the labor and handicraft of the mind.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626) English essayist, philosopher, statesman.
[Science is] the literature of truth.
Josh Billings (Henry Wheeler Shaw) (1818-85) U. S. humorist.
[Science is] a series of judgments, revised without ceasing.
Pierre Emile Duclaux (1840-1904) French biochemist, bacteriologist.
[Science is] the desire to know causes.
William Hazlitt (1778-1830) English essayist.
[Science is] an imaginative adventure of the mind seeking truth in a world of mystery.
Sir Cyril Herman Hinshelwood (1897-1967) English chemist. Nobel prize 1956.
[Science is] the knowledge of consequences, and dependence of one fact upon another.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) English philosopher, author.
[Science is] piecemeal revelation.
Oliver Wendell Holmes 1 (1809-94) U. S. poet, essayist, physician.
[Science is] a great game. It is inspiring and refreshing. The playing field is the universe itself.
Isidor Isaac Rabi (1898-1988) U. S. physicist. Nobel prize 1944.
[Science is] not belief, but the will to find out.
Anon
In essence, science is a perpetual search for an intelligent and integrated comprehension of the world we live in.
Cornelius Bernardus Van Neil (1897- ) U. S. microbiologist.
I venture to define science as a series of interconnected concepts and conceptual schemes arising from experiment and observation and fruitful of further experiments and observations. The test of a scientific theory is, I suggest, its fruitfulness.
James Bryant Conant (1893-1978) U. S. Chemist and Educator.
Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary.
Albert Einstein (1879-1955) U. S. physicist, born in Germany.
In Science the credit goes to the man who convinces the world, not to the man to whom the idea first occurred.
Sir William Osler (1849-1919) Canadian physician.
It is a popular delusion that the scientific enquirer is under an obligation not to go beyond generalisation of observed facts...but anyone who is practically acquainted with scientific work is aware that those who refuse to go beyond the facts, rarely get as far.
Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95) English biologist.
Comments
There are two kinds of
— Jul 23, 2010
There are two kinds of truth: the truth that lights the way and the truth that warms the heart. The first of these is science, and the second is art. Neither is independent of the other or more important than the other. Without art science would be as useless as a pair of high forceps in the hands of a plumber. Without science art would become a crude mess of folklore and emotional quackery. The truth of art keeps science from becoming inhuman, and the truth of science keeps art from becoming ridiculous.
Raymond Chandler
Peace
Steve
...
— Jul 23, 2010
To me it seems obvious that Chandler feels they are two sides of the same coin, as well as the seemingly elementary conclusion that one without the other is in danger of extremism leading to a downward entropic spiral.
Peace (in the scientific as well as the artistic sense),
Steve
Science is Knowing
— Jul 23, 2010
The word "Science" originates from "To know". It is that simple. If you can't explain it simply then you don't understand it enough. There are two different types of science, objective science and subjective science. Religion is currently trying to take the place of subjective science. In the future there will be no religion, just objective science and subjective science, internal and external, left brain and right brain. Most of the modern scientific community doesn't give any credit to subjective science. But you know what? Modern science will fall because everything changes at some time or another and it seems to be interested in only material things; we are not material.
So in summary, any way of "knowing" is science. It may not be "modern science". Isn't intuition science? I think current modern day science is obsolete. It is to one sided. One child makes science obsolete. There are many things I know personally to be right, telepathy, telekinesis but can I prove it? Maybe. Also the way scientific theories and data are presented to the community is actually backwards from how it was discovered. They present the end result first rather then the questions they started with to reach the conclusion. The more intelligence you have as apposed to intellect the less you need (objective)science. Here is an except from: Intelligence The Creative Response to Now.
Osho challenges the idea that the best way to promote intelligence is to train the intellect. Intellect is logical, he says, intelligence is paradoxical. Intellect takes things apart to see how they work; intelligence puts things together to see the functioning of the whole. When our education systems put too much emphasis on developing intellect, an imbalance is created and both the individual and the society suffer. It is only through intelligence that we can respond creatively to the challenges of a changing world.
First, know well that intellectuality is not intelligence. To be intellectual is to be phony; it is a pretending intelligence. It is not real because it is not yours; it is borrowed. Intelligence is the growth of inner consciousness. It has nothing to do with knowledge, it has something to do with meditativeness.
An intelligent person does not function out of his past experience; he functions in the present. He does not react, he responds. Hence he is always unpredictable; one can never be certain what he is going to do.
So a good question to start an interesting conversation would be: What of Science, the scientific method i.e. ``peer review'', ``scientific institutions'', ``credibility'', ``scientific theories'', ``hypotheses'', ``double blind'', ``placebo controlled'', ``controlled experiments'', ``type I and type II errors'', ``statistical inference'' is immortal/sustainable/perfectly shareable/Pure Principle? Everything changes but the Pure Principle, that will survive for an eternity.
Did you personally take offense to the picture? I just looked up "science" on google images and that one looked the most humorous so I picked it. You didn't think it was funny?
a quote I've used on evolver before:
— Jul 23, 2010
If rational thought thinks itself out to a conclusion, it arrives at something non-rational which, nevertheless, is a necessity of thought. This is the paradox which dominates our spiritual life. If we try to get on without this non-rational element, there result views of the world and of life which have neither vitality nor value.
Albert Schweizer
Peace,
Steve
Objective would be your
— Jul 24, 2010
Objective would be your normal scientific method and subjective would be your far out religious experiences and the such or "paranormal activity". I try to keep things as simple as possible, no more no less. You said yourself you were a generalist right? The root word of where science comes from is "to know". That is a catch all statement for all of science but that doesn't mean that is as complex as it can get. Still from all of the complex theories and experiments isn't the mission to reach a place of knowing? Also I don't see a split between science/philosophy/art/religion. Not that there is no danger in that, every point of view has its own unique dangers though.
The last time i checked( maybe a year ago?) all of the major universities each took on studying a major subject in "paranormal". One picked telepathy another telekinesis, wish I remembered what article that was. So the questions is: For all the lack of "credible research findings" about telepathy and such, were there still people with telepathy? Where there still people to lift helicopters to save there family? I don't know thats another one of those intelligence things. When you have every world government agency admitting/studying that type of activity, do you think its real? From Chinese super psychics to Native Americans who drive cars even though they are blind? Ever heard of the "World without blindness" foundation? What is the solution for blindness? Well what is the cause and mechanism of perception to start out with? Phase conjugation. So therefore phase conjugation is the solution to blindness. If you are blind from birth you can be taught how to see within weeks, others will take 2years or more. Its very simple: visualize pristine nature(which is the perfect phase conjugation) and your body starts having peek experience. It would be no more difficult for a blind person having peek perception to see then it would be for you to what...repeat the digits for Pi to the hundred place? Assuming that is easy for you. The mission is(or should be) to demystify all of the religious and scientific phenomenon. For all of your schooling do you know how gravity works? How a simple object falls to the ground? If you understand gravity, telepathy and telekinesis is a natural side effect.
Science can not account for personal experience perfectly so it falls short. Unless that is science upgrades to phase conjugation as a basis. Fusion is where its at. When is that mainstream fusion plant coming online again? Last I heard was in 11 yrs?(which was about 4 yrs ago)
Also I think it is irresponsible when you said "turn to the tech for telepathy" and "And what would be the difference if telepathy came by this route, rather than by ``nature''? I see none. It shows you don't know what you are capable of. But then again you might become a priest instead of a scientist! Intelligence is there to make informed decisions, 100% telepathy would mean you have no need for emotions(the borg) therefore losing your ability to compress DNA properly to create ensoulment.(faster then light travel) In one word the Nephilim. The "naturals" will always out power the techies. The Enuma Elish comes to mind: There was always that mysterious guy sending lucid dreams to enki...
I would agree with not taking Osho "seriously". Now does that mean he doesn't know what he is talking about? No. Does that mean the things he says shouldn't be taken into account? No on the contrary, it is the most important things. That doesn't mean you take it "serious", if you did it would be way to much weight to handle and you would most likely have a heart attack.
On the Intelligence part I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Taking things apart is the reason why everything is so fucked up right now, excuse my language. It is the reason for splitting the atom and were did that lead? Not to mention what was the effect of splitting atoms on more subtle dimensions? No one seemed to asked that questions huh? Instead we could be bringing things together through fusion at all levels: Energy, social, economic. Also you said "enormously intelligent, who are `reactive' ". Intelligent and intelligence are two polar opposites. A false coin. Just like the false coin of control/discipline.
I have been sitting thinking about you and science and I'm realizing that "modern science" is in league with religion! Modern science is really a type of religion. So really your argument is against true religiousness(holy/wholey), the true and holy science! No matter how hard you try and fight you have to fail. We are only allowed to be so
destructive(splitting things apart) for a time. The birth of the true
science(fusion) is already taking place.
Supporting evidence here:http://www.osho.com/library/online-library-religions-science-objective-cf2c3fda-dfa.aspx
http://www.evolver.net/user/pod4/blog/sin_disobedience
Now if you take that and apply it to science? In that sense it would be against the sciences not science.
And I didn't think "Science, it works bitches" is really that offensive, definitely not as offensive as naming your restaurant Hitler!
Money-a symbol for the efficient distribution of human energy.
http://emergingvisions.blogsp
— Jul 23, 2010
http://emergingvisions.blogspot.com
avoid blinding (by science)
It is an association
not clear cause/effect.
I smile.
You smile.
Each enjoying a private joke
or hiding embarrassment.
We who claim the primacy of reason
need to give care,
avoid the chasms
of treacherous conclusions.
Open to the highest odds
while grounded on earthly
perspective
go forth ye brave young heroes.
Learn the secrets of
subtle sacrifice
and divine glory.
Just take care the sayer
of your sooth
worships vows of purity.
Even so, keep on your quest
exploring for wealth in
possibilities
not yet discovered.
(c) June 30, 2008 Laurie Corzett/libramoon
good stuff, thanks!
— Jul 24, 2010
"...science is in reality a classification and analysis of the contents of the mind." —Karl Pearson
"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking." —Albert Einstein
—ys.
self-dis-covery.blogspot.com
Wow the description from
— Jul 24, 2010
Wow the description from Amazon looks amazing! If it is at any libraries i'll see about getting a loan for it.
Money-a symbol for the efficient distribution of human energy.
Disenchantment: The Radical
— Jul 25, 2010
Disenchantment: The Radical Dislocation of the ground of meaning from the world as conscious intelligence to the human self alone.
Enantiodromia: The process by which something is transformed into or revealed as being the same as it's opposite.
"Seek not abroad, turn back into thyself, for in the inner man dwells the truth..."
i very much appreciated your latest posts
— Jul 25, 2010
...and I like so many others as well!
You're a great source of information, to say the least - looking forward to more =)
love!
on life and living
you are unique - all you do is ground-breaking
Feynman
— Jul 29, 2010
"The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty damn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained."
- "The Value of Science," address to the National Academy of Sciences (Autumn 1955) Richard Feynman
"There are the rushing waves
mountains of molecules each stupidly minding its own business
trillions apart yet forming white surf in unison.
Here it is standing: atoms with consciousness; matter with curiosity.
Stands at the sea, wondering: I... a universe of atoms
an atom in the universe.
There are the rushing waves...
mountains of molecules,
each stupidly minding its own business...
trillions apart
...yet forming white surf in unison.
Ages on ages...
before any eyes could see...
year after year...
thunderously pounding the shore as now.
For whom, for what?
...on a dead planet
with no life to entertain.
Never at rest...
tortured by energy...
wasted prodigiously by the sun...
poured into space.
A mite makes the sea roar.
Deep in the sea,
all molecules repeat
the patterns of another
till complex new ones are formed.
They make others like themselves...
and a new dance starts.
Growing in size and complexity...
living things,
masses of atoms,
DNA, protein...
dancing a pattern ever more intricate.
Out of the cradle
onto dry land...
here it is standing...
atoms with consciousness
...matter with curiosity.
Stands at the sea...
wonders at wondering... I...
a universe of atoms...
an atom in the universe."
- "The Value of Science," address to the National Academy of Sciences (Autumn 1955) Richard Feynman
"...As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
When someone says, "Science teaches such and such," he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, "Science has shown such and such," you might ask, "How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?"
It should not be "science has shown" but "this experiment, this effect, has shown." And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments--but be patient and listen to all the evidence--to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.
In a field which is so complicated [as education] that true science is not yet able to get anywhere, we have to rely on a kind of old-fashioned wisdom, a kind of definite straightforwardness. I am trying to inspire the teacher at the bottom to have some hope and some self-confidence in common sense and natural intelligence. The experts who are leading you may be wrong.
I have probably ruined the system, and the students that are coming into Caltech no longer will be any good. I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television--words, books, and so on--are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science.
Finally, with regard to this time-binding, a man cannot live beyond the grave. Each generation that discovers something from its experience must pass that on, but it must pass that on with a delicate balance of respect and disrespect, so that the [human] race--now that it is aware of the disease to which it is liable--does not inflict its errors too rigidly on its youth, but it does pass on the accumulated wisdom, plus the wisdom that it may not be wisdom.
It is necessary to teach both to accept and to reject the past with a kind of balance that takes considerable skill. Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers of the preceding generation.
So carry on. Thank you.
"What Is Science" Address at the fifteenth annual meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, 1966 in New York City (1966) Richard Feynman
"Seek not abroad, turn back into thyself, for in the inner man dwells the truth..."
