Login

Join for Free!
117018 members


Biology is not a science

Debate and discussion of any biological questions not pertaining to a particular topic.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby canalon » Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:04 pm

There is a scientific method, even if it is quite an idealization of the reality. And I do not see Kuhn disagreeing with the existence of the scientific method. I haven't read Feyerabend's though, so won't comment on that.
But maybe you would not mind providing clear (and concise) explanation on how those 2 philosophers deny the existence of the scientific method. I would be curious. Really.

But I the mean time, maybe you could also try to respond to the main thrust of my message...
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby gamila » Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:50 pm

There is a scientific method, even if it is quite an idealization of the reality. And I do not see Kuhn disagreeing with the existence of the scientific method.


you are obviously not reading the same Kuhn as other
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Scientif ... ience_Wars
Kuhn concluded that falsifiability had played almost no role in scientific revolutions


http://www.inocuo.org/pdf/kuhnwriteup.pdf
Kuhn's model destroys that notion by saying that there is no one Scientific Method,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Struct ... evolutions
SSR is viewed by postmodern and post-structuralist thinkers as having called into question the enterprise of science by demonstrating that scientific knowledge is dependent on the culture and historical circumstances of groups of scientists rather than on their adherence to a specific, definable method. In this regard, Kuhn is considered a precursor to the more radical thinking of Paul Feyerabend. Kuhn's work has also been regarded as blurring the demarcation between scientific and non-scientific enterprises, because it describes the mechanism of scientific progress without invoking any idealized scientific method that is capable of distinguishing science from non-science. In the years following the publication of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, debate raged with adherents of Popper's doctrine of falsificationism, such as Imre Lakatos.
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Postby telanerv » Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:15 pm

GAMILA just learned to type on his keyboard when he found these forums.

GAMILA: is philosophy a science? is political science a science? is science a science?


LETS EXTRAPOLATE:
if Isaac Newton and Galileo observed the same star on the same day fifty years apart, then were they really on the same earth?
How could you begin to deny that which has been brought upon us by our great savior
and this reminds me of my favorite bible verse

Ezekiel 23:19-20
Yet she increased her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth when she engaged in prostitution in the land of Egypt. She lusted after their genitals – as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions.

WHOAH! funky
telanerv
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 4:53 pm


Re: Biology is not a science

Postby DavidDock » Sat Aug 01, 2009 10:36 am

Well, if a philosopher says it, it must be true, because he defines a term his own way and it doesn't conform.

This is all the argument of a compulsive labeler someone who says, "Your area must meet my expectations." You obviously need very black-and-white terminology to trust a discipline, but the disciplines don't really care. Life does not conform to your wishes, and neither does the science associated with it.

And the magical thinking that goes into the idea that somehow there is a "life force" is pretty pitiful. It's not even anti-science, it's pure nonsense.
Which is the best cabbage soup diet? They all seem a little different
Last edited by canalon on Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: To remove spam
DavidDock
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 10:34 am

Re: Biology is not a science

Postby AstusAleator » Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:06 am

DavidDock wrote:Well, if a philosopher says it, it must be true, because he defines a term his own way and it doesn't conform.

This is all the argument of a compulsive labeler someone who says, "Your area must meet my expectations." You obviously need very black-and-white terminology to trust a discipline, but the disciplines don't really care. Life does not conform to your wishes, and neither does the science associated with it.


Well said. Good to see yet another David on the forums :). What is it with biology and the name David...?
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Biology is not a science

Postby MichaelXY » Sun Aug 02, 2009 2:00 am

Gamila, I must say that you have mastered the art of rhetoric, you should be a politician as you write a lot but say very little. Under the guise of fancy speak with such terms as circular(Which you over use), you try to dazzle us with with BS rather than any real content.

I am amazed at the large amounts of text that you have written and yet, you have failed to make any clear point, nor have you offered any insights worthy of thought. I suspect your post are some strange fixation that you have in creating conflict, and for what reason I do not know. Maybe you are somewhat passive aggressive and release your anger on forums as you feel safe in the comforts of internet anonymity.

For whatever the reason may be, allow me to suggest that you grow a pair and try to get along with your peers, otherwise I suggest you allow yourself to ferment in anger in that cubicle of yours as others try to make the world a better place.

It is your choice, join the team or just blow steam and eventually evaporate into your abysmal pit of nothingness.

The human race is a group effort and loners usually end up ... well alone.

One more thing, Your constant overuse of the abbreviation i.e. is irritating to say the least, try not being so lazy and use real words instead, and perhaps look up e.g. as you often misuse the abbreviation i.e..
User avatar
MichaelXY
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 885
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:03 pm
Location: San Diego, Ca

Postby EmmVeePee » Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:51 am

How wonderful.

Now, let's get back to work people.
Greg
Undergraduate, Microbiology
Pennsylvania State University
User avatar
EmmVeePee
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Philadelphia Area, PA

Re:

Postby MichaelXY » Mon Aug 03, 2009 6:47 am

EmmVeePee wrote:How wonderful.

Now, let's get back to work people.


I like your user name. You a baseball fan? :D
User avatar
MichaelXY
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 885
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:03 pm
Location: San Diego, Ca

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Wakwao and 8 guests

cron