The purpose of discussing Life

[Fred56]

(my edits)

Change occurs' date=' not all of it makes it, variation itself is a constant even if life reduces it [or slows it'].

This is a physical reality of life, natural selection or selection which in itself is reflective of an environmental [which is] variable in a major way

Science is observation. Philosophy is understanding (what observation means).

Or alternately, leave Philosophy out of the equation and say Science is application of a method (of observation), which attempts to acquire or collect objective information (which isn't coloured by any thinking --except about 'how' to collect the 'wanted' data).

 

Objective observation is the key to the desired accuracy of any measurement. The noise in any channel must be minimised, if possible, or at least understood, in which case information amongst the background yields to certain arcane "tricks with numbers", and patterns appear.

 

Understanding the nature of the channel, or information source (be it a spectroscopic instrument, or a scintillation counter, or a simple thermometer), is helpful in collecting any source of repeatable and reliable data (messages), and analysing them.

 

P.S. I wrote this last week

[foodchain]

Science is observation. Philosophy is understanding (what observation means).

Or alternately, leave Philosophy out of the equation and say Science is application of a method (of observation), which attempts to acquire or collect objective information (which isn't coloured by any thinking --except about 'how' to collect the 'wanted' data).

 

Objective observation is the key to the desired accuracy of any measurement. The noise in any channel must be minimised, if possible, or at least understood, in which case information amongst the background yields to certain arcane "tricks with numbers", and patterns appear.

 

Understanding the nature of the channel, or information source (be it a spectroscopic instrument, or a scintillation counter, or a simple thermometer), is helpful in collecting any source of repeatable and reliable data (messages), and analysing them.

 

P.S. I wrote this last week

 

I don’t understand the question I think. Do you want to know how for instance biology claims natural selection exists as a process? Well if so for starters there is no certainty as to the exact ramifications of the environment. For instance the presence of DNA, we only have current life, which is open to variation over time, to think all life requires DNA. Its not however that human observation lead to DNA, or its processes. This process can also be mapped.

 

One example of following variation in organisms in which the variation is selected for or against is with microbial life. You can trace for instance a population in time as variation is selected for leading to variants of the original as say dominate aspects of the population. Say population of microbes A to population B over time. Fitness or what that means also changes and life will adapt by selection to the new fitness landscape. This experiment can be carried out by a layman really if you put sometime into understanding such, or at least that’s my opinion. The results also show variation, as in you are dealing with a probability in that repeated results will yield differences in say time of adaptation or even what the adaptation will be. Convergent evolution being what it is shows heavily in life but the selection process I guess is not so narrow as to allow for a mean average really:D Or you can have both fish and crustaceans surviving in the oceans. Yet physiologically speaking the same though not exact reality of following those microbe populations can be used on life in general, such as using biochem or molecular techniques to solve for phylogeny among other ways physically to do such, like fossils, or even behavior. As is different ways of viewing evolution do not reveal radical differences on the reality of such, or its occurrence as a process.

 

*on a side note I don’t know if a layman can conduct such experiments, what I should have said is that such an action is rather basic knowledge really in regards to results.

[mooeypoo]

*sigh*

 

Science is observation. Philosophy is understanding (what observation means).

No, Science has, in it, observations, but saying science "IS" observations is quite lacking

 

Science is:

Science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge'), in the broadest sense, refers to any systematic knowledge or practice.[1] In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[2][3] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word.

 

Philosophy, in contrast, is defined as "understanding", that's a BOGUS definition, because Science is "understanding" as well, in the stricter sense.

 

Philosophy, if you would have cared to check the definition, is:

Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).[1][2] The word is of Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), a compound of φίλος (phílos: friend, or lover) and σοφία (sophía: wisdom).[3][4]

 

Your desire to make up your own definition is noted.. but it doesn't make those definition something they're not.

 

Don't straw-man us, it's unfair, and is also a violation of the rules of this forum.

 

Or alternately, leave Philosophy out of the equation and say Science is application of a method (of observation), which attempts to acquire or collect objective information (which isn't coloured by any thinking --except about 'how' to collect the 'wanted' data).

I already showed what Science is, read above. What we would "Like" science to be is irrelevant. The word means something VERY specific.

 

Open a dictionary.

 

 

Objective observation is the key to the desired accuracy of any measurement. The noise in any channel must be minimised, if possible, or at least understood, in which case information amongst the background yields to certain arcane "tricks with numbers", and patterns appear.

Indeed. For that, we have the Scientific Method, which is a method that defines the set of rule on "HOW" to conduct experiments, collect data, and infer on the results, etc.

 

The Scientific Method, unlike what anyone would LIKE to define it, is defined as:

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

 

It's a set of rules - a "body of techniques". No more, no less. And it works.

 

 

Understanding the nature of the channel, or information source (be it a spectroscopic instrument, or a scintillation counter, or a simple thermometer), is helpful in collecting any source of repeatable and reliable data (messages), and analysing them.

 

P.S. I wrote this last week

 

Another thing that the Scientific Method is defining, and also another thing that works. This, btw, is how the "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation" was first discovered.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Now, I know I promised everyone that I'll restrain myself from answering you, specifically since you don't seem to be honest enough to actually care, but your repeated attacks on the true meaning of science in a science forum while repeatedly ignoring the forum's rules against logical fallacies, trolling, preaching and incredulity is ridiculous and demands an answer.

 

God forbid (pun intended), someone who actually DON'T know what science is and comes here to *learn*, sees your twisted definitions and thinks them true.

 

So I'm sorry if I dissapoint anyone by answering this troll, but I do this in the name of protecting the innocents.

 

Seriously.

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

So I'm sorry if I dissapoint anyone by answering this troll, but I do this in the name of protecting the innocents.

 

The purpose of trolls is to get people to answer them.

 

The purpose to discussing the purpose of discussing life is ... uh, actually, there is no purpose to discussing the purpose of discussing life, at least not with certain people.

 

mooeypoo is much more patient than I am.

[Phi for All]

Stupid thread closed.