AtomicMX Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 Biology is supposed to be a science. then... Which is the approved life definition "by the science"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomc Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 not sure about an 'absolute' definition, but how about a state of delayed entropy via recycling of emitted energy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicMX Posted June 6, 2004 Author Share Posted June 6, 2004 nice one but.... is it official? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomc Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 do you mean red-top brit tabloid official... maybe you should keep your science and your philosophy in perspective Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicMX Posted June 6, 2004 Author Share Posted June 6, 2004 this is the reason i hate biology.. because is too subjective.. the goal of these posts are to get life definitions for another thread that is tittled "computers are alive"... cause if you follow the life definitions you could consider a computers as a living thing. i really do not consider them alive, is mostly to prove how st00pid biology is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiral_ju00 Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 i got smacked by Sayonara for bringing up exactly such a thread(well, i'm exadurating and he told me to use the search function ) but like he said, such threads come up very often here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicMX Posted June 6, 2004 Author Share Posted June 6, 2004 jajajajajaajaja Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomc Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 surely the subjectivity is in the individuals need for an explanation... life is a consequence of physical laws, no matter how improbable those laws (whichever version u choose to accept) appear to be. But anyway, why try to diss the biologists... they are amongst the guys and gals who classify and research, they tell you who you are and why you choose to behave in such a reprehensible way to people that are, ultimately, defining the reasons you can be bothered to open your eyes to science in the first place. these are the true scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crash Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 The definition of life varys depending on what class of biologist you talk to and the country they were taught and of course personal; ideas (e.g. virus's are living/dead) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicMX Posted June 6, 2004 Author Share Posted June 6, 2004 Science cannot be subjective, if that were the case imagine the panic and uncertainty in the world(about who´s right), and those needs are filled with science, things that are. (of course objectives because things are even if you don´t want to see them that way). I try to diss biologist because they are not scientist, they are just notes takers and they call themselves scientists, and biology is no more than a big collection of data no much different from an album.. they are amongst the guys and gals who classify and research, they tell you who you are and why you choose to behave in such a reprehensible way to people that are My little brother could do the same stuff because its only about observation.. no more.. you can be bothered to open your eyes to science in the first place. these are the true scientists. I do not bother, i really love science, the true sciences that are chemistry and physics, if you disagree you could take my challenge "Biology and Psychology are not sciences "... and about the scientist, so the ones that had to rasonate, the ones that dream and build hypothesis and proved them (all together) are not the true scientist for you.. only biologist are the really true scientist.. my god... I am open to science, not to points of view. and you should understand that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicMX Posted June 6, 2004 Author Share Posted June 6, 2004 Exactly crash... for example... in the common life definition is easier to prove that a computer is alive than a virus... That the case in the subjetivity of the biology... and as far as i know chemistry and physics are all perfectly and exaclty the same arround the world with no different points of view. (talking about postulates, because lastests quantum theories, are not theories but hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiral_ju00 Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 i do not to diss a whole field(any), but i may diss or better yet, disagree with individuals....... just don't think it's right. all i can say now, is that it will be an interesting debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomc Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 ok so how do you get rid of biology and related sciences then.this is an enormous amount of informaion to account for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicMX Posted June 6, 2004 Author Share Posted June 6, 2004 I never said it was useless, but it isn´t nor scientific nor precise, not objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiral_ju00 Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 w/o having you give out too much info before the debate, if Biology, Psychology and what ever else you deem is not science(by the way, Economics is also Science), what do you consider them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicMX Posted June 6, 2004 Author Share Posted June 6, 2004 Some ones are tools like economic engineering.. and biology as i said is like a big familiar album, with a lot of notes and stuff... and yes you can disagree with individuals, so do i, but in this case, world is conceptually wrong naming biology science... as far as i can say right now, i only recognize chemistry and physics as sciences.. and probably in the future just physics, but by the moment, i have only arguments to prove that biology and psychology are not sciences. and as i said, i am not saying biology is useless, is just not science... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicMX Posted June 6, 2004 Author Share Posted June 6, 2004 and still no ones dares to take the challenge.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiral_ju00 Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 impressive. you've just reduced the whole of science to a single field(or 2 for the moment). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicMX Posted June 6, 2004 Author Share Posted June 6, 2004 Yeah, you could say that i am weird, but certainly i am not, perhaps in the debate will come to light what i am refering to. And there is a phrase that you may take it as the principle of what i mean. says: "Everything can be calculated, because all systems are related to all the systems". And i really hope a very good biologist take the challenge, in order to explain the most things possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomc Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 out of interest, how would you define the diffrerence between, as you categorise it,physics/chemistry as apposed to biology and others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicMX Posted June 6, 2004 Author Share Posted June 6, 2004 i´ll explain that in the debate... but i can give you this in advance "objectivity and theories" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 this is the reason i hate biology.. because is too subjective Can you explain what that means? the goal of these posts are to get life definitions for another thread that is tittled "computers are alive"... You should probably have checked that before you made the other thread. cause if you follow the life definitions you could consider a computers as a living thing. No. i really do not consider them alive, is mostly to prove how st00pid biology is. No, it proves you didn't think it through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicMX Posted June 6, 2004 Author Share Posted June 6, 2004 Means, biology is not constant, is not accurate, and is not more than taking notes, and well is subjective because biology can be managed from very many point of view, and in physics for example. as physics law will be always the same liking it or not. I did started the other one first (thread), i did this one in order to see which one you consider the life definition is. And yes you can sayonara, actually i did already. It proves biology is not a science. and i´ve thinked it much hard. If you disagree take one of my challenges and prove it the science way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 Physical laws can be stated in many ways, the 2nd law of TD is a good example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicMX Posted June 6, 2004 Author Share Posted June 6, 2004 Like which ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now