User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 23

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    Ah... we have a difference in terminology. I call the creative work derived from science "technology". Science and technology. Science is understanding, technology is applied. Other than that, I agree with what you're saying.
    I am saying science itself has creative aspects to it. Not just the "technology" derived from science.

    Read the works of Einstein, Bohr, Pauling, Heisenberg, Bohm, Feynman, Watson, Crick, and many others. The creativity is apparent.

    Read a good mathematical proof, and the creativity is really apparent as well.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  2. #12
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Theory is tested using experiments. The creativity is already included in the process.

    Would Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg etc be famous if experiments do not support their theories? No.

  3. #13
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Cool. Nice work. Only glanced at it, but I'l peruse it later.

  4. #14
    Arcesso pulli gingerios! Eldanen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    697

    Default

    Nice work ygolo .

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    Theory is tested using experiments. The creativity is already included in the process.
    I'm not sure I understand the disagreement, here. Are you saying that experimental design does not involve creativity?

    Watson and Crick did do experiments.

    You could read the works of Michelson and Morely, or Hertz, Fermi, and many others as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    Would Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg etc be famous if experiments do not support their theories? No.
    Yes. They would be (and they were)--for similar reasons to why Brian Greene and David Deutsche are these days despite the fact that their theories have yet (an may never be) tested, confirmed or falsified.

    Really, read a really good Mathematical exposition. I think you will see the essence of what gives science its power.

    Euclid's elements would be one real good place to start.

    If you think geometry needed to be "tested" to be confirmed...well, that will spawn an entirely different discussion.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  6. #16
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I'm not sure I understand the disagreement, here. Are you saying that experimental design does not involve creativity?
    There is no disagreement.

    The scientific method means this to me:
    Hypothesis -> Experiment testing -> Summarize experimental results -> Theory -> Theory testing -> Refinement.

    My apologies for misunderstanding what you've meant by creativity in the first place. We're both describing the same thing, just in two different perspectives.

    Really, read a really good Mathematical exposition. I think you will see the essence of what gives science its power.

    Euclid's elements would be one real good place to start.

    If you think geometry needed to be "tested" to be confirmed...well, that will spawn an entirely different discussion.
    The mathematical proof is the testing.

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    If you are ranking them in order of reliability then I essentially agree. (Did you include geology/earth sciences in there somewhere?) Overall I tend to think what makes a science reliable is heavy use of math and experimentation in a controlled environment.
    It is hard to include everything. Geology, astronomy, and many others, I just let go as subsets of other things.

    I had written in the OP that the categorization is largely arbitrary, but they were intended to be in roughly the order or reliability.

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    There is no disagreement.

    The scientific method means this to me:
    Hypothesis -> Experiment testing -> Summarize experimental results -> Theory -> Theory testing -> Refinement.
    Yes. It is an iterative and cyclical process, but in the end, not different from what people do in general when they want to understand something. To see the similarity, we can break the cycle of the rigidity.

    Do you really ALWAYS test your hypothesis? Do you really ALWAYS summarize the results of your testing? Do you ALWAYS form a new "theory" after looking at the results?

    Think about the last time something broke at your place or something seemed a bit mysterious. You may not have followed the "scientific method" but I'll bet the process for discovering what happened was automatically very similar. We simply have no choice.

    Reasoning is reasoning, and that is what is central in science (I use "Math," but it is all really Logic).

    I was implicitly trying to point out the focus on "scientific method" is actually a bit misleading since the "sciences" that try hardest to follow "the method" are actually the ones that are less reliable.


    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    My apologies for misunderstanding what you've meant by creativity in the first place. We're both describing the same thing, just in two different perspectives.
    No problem. It is good to clarify.

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    The mathematical proof is the testing.
    Yes. "Testing" need not be rigidly conceived. We're all scientists in some sense.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  8. #18
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    It is hard to include everything. Geology, astronomy, and many others, I just let go as subsets of other things.

    I had written in the OP that the categorization is largely arbitrary, but they were intended to be in roughly the order or reliability.
    I'd probably put geology at about the same level as biology. I know astronomy is supposed to be a subset of physics, but I'd put it below biology and geology in terms of reliability.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    I'd probably put geology at about the same level as biology. I know astronomy is supposed to be a subset of physics, but I'd put it below biology and geology in terms of reliability.
    I agree with athat assesment.

    Also, this is a very cude hierarchy.

    There are a lot of fringe areas in physics (even if very popular) that is nothing more than speculation alone. The Math part of it may be quite rigourous, but the evidence of the correct choice of model is slim to none. So the level of reliability is correspondingly ver low.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  10. #20
    you are right mippus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    Intp
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    906

    Default

    Nice work Ygolo.
    What to think of the study of literature then?
    Vanitas vanitatum omnia vanitas

Similar Threads

  1. [INFJ] What different kinds of INFJs do exist?
    By Lightyear in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03-26-2010, 06:56 AM
  2. Different Kinds of Absolutisms
    By nolla in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-22-2008, 05:35 AM
  3. Different Kinds of Creativity
    By kuranes in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 10-01-2008, 09:08 PM
  4. Informal Discussion on the Philosophy of Science
    By ygolo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-24-2008, 12:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO