Eastern philosophy says the self is an illusion

Cypress said:
Observation is not unique to science. It's not what makes up the meat and potatoes of science, although it is important part of the process

MAGA and you can observe Vlad Putin's actions and come to radically different conclusions. MAGA and you can observe changing climate and come to opposite conclusions.

The radical part of the scientific method, and this gets credited to Francis Bacon, is the testing and falsification of a hypothesis that germinates in observation.
Click to expand...

Observation is an essential part of the scientific method: https://snco.com/a-quick-overview-of-the-scientific-method/
Make an Observation

Develop a Hypothesis

Experiment and Gather

Draw Conclusions

Agreed people can observe the same thing and draw different conclusions. Ask any traffic cop interviewing witnesses of an accident. That's why the subsequent steps are important to the process be it a traffic investigation, genetic research or putting mankind on Mars. The search for scientific truth requires all four stages of the scientific method.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Observation is an essential part of the scientific method: https://snco.com/a-quick-overview-of-the-scientific-method/
Make an Observation

Develop a Hypothesis

Experiment and Gather

Draw Conclusions

Agreed people can observe the same thing and draw different conclusions. Ask any traffic cop interviewing witnesses of an accident. That's why the subsequent steps are important to the process be it a traffic investigation, genetic research or putting mankind on Mars. The search for scientific truth requires all four stages of the scientific method.
Click to expand...

Yes, I said observation is important.

You obviously can't have a blind person studying color theory.

But when it comes to science, observation is not the meat and potatoes of the method

Aristotle and Newton made the exact same observation. Objects fall to the ground.

Aristotle came up with some convoluted teleological explanation merely by thinking about it.

Newton came up with a universal attractive force between objects having mass and proportional to the distance between them, and he tested idea scientifically verifying the hypothesis by higher mathematics.

It wasn't the observation that was a key part of the puzzle.

That's why there was a 1500 year hiatus between Aristotle and Newton. Nobody was doing the really critical part of science, testing and verification
 
Cypress said:
Yes, I said observation is important.

You obviously can't have a blind person studying color theory.

But when it comes to science, observation is not the meat and potatoes of the method

Aristotle and Newton made the exact same observation. Objects fall to the ground.

Aristotle came up with some convoluted teleological explanation merely by thinking about it.

Newton came up with a universal attractive force between objects having mass and proportional to the distance between them, and he tested idea scientifically verifying the hypothesis by higher mathematics.

It wasn't the observation that was a key part of the puzzle.

That's why there was a 1500 year hiatus between Aristotle and Newton. Nobody was doing the really critical part of science, testing and verification
Click to expand...

What is the "meat and potatoes" of science? It seems to me it takes all four to make a full plate.

No one is saying any one part is the "key" part since, again, it seems to me all are key parts along with the order of the parts. Making a hypothesis out of the blue reminds me of the "tinkerer" who tries to build a rocket to Mars in his backyard. He obviously hasn't approached his plan with a logical order of analysis and research. He's not experimenting with smaller rockets first; he's just going for the gold ring of success.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Ask BidenPresident. He purports to be the expert.
Click to expand...

She. :) She doesn't like disagreement so I can see who that would come off as being "the expert".

Artificial Intelligence, as discussed, is electronic. However, with advances in genetics, it's possible AI will move into that world such as with genetically-enhanced chimps or dolphins.
 
Last edited:
Doc Dutch said:
What is the "meat and potatoes" of science? It seems to me it takes all four to make a full plate.

No one is saying any one part is the "key" part since, again, it seems to me all are key parts along with the order of the parts. Making a hypothesis out of the blue reminds me of the "tinkerer" who tries to build a rocket to Mars in his backyard. He obviously hasn't approached his plan with a logical order of analysis and research. He's not experimenting with smaller rockets first; he's just going for the gold ring of success.
Click to expand...

What sets apart the science of Bacon, Galileo, and Newton was testing, quantification, verification. Not observation.

Observation is as old as the hills. Aristotle and Anaximander were doing observation and reasoning about the natural world 2,000 years before Newton.

But there were no rapid and dramatic advances in scientific knowledge until scientific inquiry started to include testing, quantification, verification during the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries.

Let's say that was the mojo, the rocket fuel, the key ingredients, if you don't like the term meat and potatoes.
 
Cypress said:
What sets apart the science of Bacon, Galileo, and Newton was testing, quantification, verification. Not observation.

Observation is as old as the hills. Aristotle and Anaximander were doing observation and reasoning about the natural world 1,500 years before Newton.

But there were no rapid and dramatic advances in science until scientific inquiry started to include testing, quantification, verification during the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries.

Let's say that was the mojo, the rocket fuel, the key ingredients, if you don't like the term meat and potatoes.
Click to expand...
The Scientific Method wasn't around in ancient times. If it had been, do you think Aristotle would have stopped at observation? Observation is a crucial part of scientific research, but it's not the only crucial part. All the components are required.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries; see the article history of scientific method for additional detail.) It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; the testability of hypotheses, experimental and the measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.

260px-The_Scientific_Method.svg.png
 
Doc Dutch said:
The Scientific Method wasn't around in ancient times. If it had been, do you think Aristotle would have stopped at observation? Observation is a crucial part of scientific research, but it's not the only crucial part. All the components are required.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries; see the article history of scientific method for additional detail.) It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; the testability of hypotheses, experimental and the measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.

260px-The_Scientific_Method.svg.png
Click to expand...

The modern scientific method wasn't around.

But people have been studying the natural world in a systematic way for two thousand years. The ancient Greeks, Chinese, and Arabs actually had some keen insights on atomic theory, the size and circumference of the earth, even evolution and astronomy.

They didn't have the mojo of testing and verification, which really originates around the time of Galileo.

Scientist as a word didn't even appear until the 1800s. It was all natural philosophy before that.
 
Cypress said:
The modern scientific method wasn't around.

But people have been studying the natural world in a systematic way for two thousand years. The ancient Greeks, Chinese, and Arabs actually had some keen insights on atomic theory, the size and circumference of the earth, even evolution and astronomy.
Click to expand...

The ancient Greeks' concept of atomic theory was hardly anything even remotely like actual atomic theory. That's a great example of "theorizing without observation". There was no actual observation that lead Democritus to propose the "atom" other than there are small parts of larger things.

As it turned out the Greeks' "atom" looks nothing whatsoever like the atoms we know today.

As for the circumference of the earth, that was 'observation' and as such would have been far more likely "scientific". It involved things like shadows in wells and horizon line disappearance. Observation down the line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top