Sponsored Links

[Anarchy Praxis]

I stumbled into the evolution/creation thread and apparently no one is interested in discussing science or religion in there. I dont think I'll get any argument that science is a human invention, even though it is worshiped and served like a pagan god. Science is about tools, its first and foremost a philosophy, originally it was called natural philosophy. The term 'science' is a word that simply means 'to know', there are two kinds of knowledge. The kind you know intellectually (theory) and the kind you experience (practice). Science is the kind you experience. Scientific theory is just establish facts organized systematicly. Eventually these theories can be so well establiched that they are called laws, like gravity.

Mechanical aid

Francis Bacon developed the inductive approach to science as a systematic philosophy. Discrepancies in our perception of the world of sense have to be addressed using inductive reasoning. He believed that “Our only remaining hope and salvation is to begin the whole labour of the mind again; not leaving it to itself, but directing it perpetually from the very first, and attaining our end as it were by mechanical aid. (Francis Bacon,1620). Science is about understanding controling the natural world. People are grossly ignorant about what science really is. If it can't be confirmed or denied by an experiment people think that means its not true. I'm constantly being attacked for saying that there is obvious, clear, and distinct proof for God's existance. Not only that God's divine nature has been revealed to everyone, its called natural revelation. At this point people start demanding empirical evidence like I'm supposed to come up with an experiment to prove it. There is no such thing as science, it is itself an intangable like numbers or time. Natural science on the other hand is what we learn about in school

Scientific evidence

Bacon developed the philosophy of natural science but it was Newton who actually established it. He did a lot of experiments with prisms. He wanted to prove that light was actually made up of seven colors. at that time it was belived that the colors from a prism were from the prism. Newton proved that anyone who did this experiment exactly like he did would get the exact same result and natural science was born. If thousands of years for now natural science has a Genesis account of its creation, Newton would be the first Adam.

“If the arrival of the modern scientific age could be pinpointed to a particular moment and a particular place, it would be 27 April 1676 at the Royal Society, for it was on that day that the results obtained in a meticulous experiment - the experimentum crucis - were found to fit with the hypothesis, so transforming a hypothesis into a demonstrable theory.” (White, the Last Sorcerer)


Every time I post a new thread people demand that I clarify a question for debate so here goes. Who gets the credit for the invention of science? Anyone has an alternative view like science was always there waiting to be discovered, jump right in the waters fine. I personally think that the way empirical science is dogmaticly forced on children is perverse. This is exactly what the Catholic church did in the name of religion. Natural science is fine if naturalistic assumptions dont blind you to other truth. Like religion it has to know its place.

[quarkhead]

I'm constantly being attacked for saying that there is obvious, clear, and distinct proof for God's existance. Not only that God's divine nature has been revealed to everyone, its called natural revelation. At this point people start demanding empirical evidence like I'm supposed to come up with an experiment to prove it.

I see what you're saying, but... you are describing your "proof" as basically no different than someone who is mentally ill and sees things or hears voices. Those things are "true" for that person, but that has little bearing on their "truth" in a wider sense.

Who gets the credit for the invention of science? Anyone has an alternative view like science was always there waiting to be discovered, jump right in the waters fine.

Science is the study of that which has been, for all practical purposes, always there. No one person could possibly get the credit. It has been existing and evolving right along with human society. The only thing that has really changed over the centuries is the quality and precision of our measuring devices.

Empirical science is important because we have ways of observing phenomenae upon which we can all agree. Experiential knowledge can be personally important, but it is always being formed and reformed by our psychological and societal paradigms. It's fairly obvious, but what you describe as clear (experiential) proof of god's existence is only "clear" due to your particular "lens" through which you are seeing. It stands to reason that a Bantu tribesman, viewing the same firmament, would not ascribe it all, out of the blue, to Yahweh.

So who invented science? Maybe it was Al Gore!

[Abs like Jesus]

Our question for debate...
"Who gets the credit for the invention of science?"

Preceded by:

There is no such thing as science, it is itself an intangable like numbers or time.

Kind of defeats the purpose of the question, doesn't it?


Edited to add below:
Nobody invented science as it is not an invention or even a tool in and of itself. Science is an extension of philosophy, an attempt to understand the world around us as it truly is, rather than as it truly appears. For centuries people pondered and expressed ideas. Like people looking at a building from opposite sides, though, people realized that while looking at the same object, it was possible to see different things while still seeing the truth. Science is a way in which to peel through the layers of illusion and find out what truths are there for everybody and everything (like the laws of physics).

In addition to your question...
While you and presumably others may view teaching empirical science as perverse, Anarchy, to not teach science and rely solely on personal experience is to leave us in no better shape than the characters in Plato's allegory of the cave.

Things are not always as they appear, our senses and experiences can deceive us. While it may be easier, and in some cases more comforting, to accept things as they appear to be, science seeks to go further. Science is the pursuit of truth rather than the creation of it. While philosophy and theology have their benefits -- and I enjoy them both -- they are also quite prone to error, hence their giving way (however reluctantly) to science over the course of time.

This post has been edited by Abs like Jesus: Jun 22 2003, 07:36 PM

[Anarchy Praxis]

Here we go again, for whatever reason no one is interested in science. All I get are personal attacks. The truth is there was no such thing as natural science as we know it before the Scientific revolution. Science was anything that could be 'known' this included everything, even religion. I'm informed now that science always existed. You mean its eternal like God? It is certainly praised and worship like it is.

Natural science was created by philosophers and scientists who were very specific about what they wanted to accomplish. It is limited to the natural world by design. They did this to keep them seperated not to rationalize God into non existance.The atheistic naturalistic assumptions that are so popular these days didn't materialize untill the mid-nineteenth century. This kind of reasoning was the impetus for the Nazi ideals based on the rants Niezche as was the Nillism of the Soviet Union.

Anyone who thinks science was allways there is like people who hear voices or sees things that are not there. Its delusional, thats why it has to be preached so passionately. People might seriously think about it, if it wasn't.

I consider the first two replies to be off topic and irrelavant to who invented science. I'll get into the epistomology of God's existance when I find someone interested in apologetics. Till then I stand by my previous statement and the birthdate of the greatest pagan idol of the modern world. Praise experimentum meticulas!

[Hugo]

I believe it was a homo habilis who observed the harder you threw a rock the bigger dent it made in an animal's, or human's skull. In southern France you can find an ancient inscription in a cave which reads "F=1/2MV2"

[Jaime]

Here we go again, for whatever reason no one is interested in science. All I get are personal attacks.

If you honestly feel you are being personally attacked, report the post and explain how. Otherwise it appears you are crying wolf in order to dismiss the posted answers to your question.

I suppose I'll take a stab at this one, although I'll preface this with saying I'm no expert on anything related to science and technology.

In high school, I took a class called the History of Science and Technology. We were never taught that there is an "inventor" of science. There was no one even nicknamed "the father" or "grandfather" of science. The lessons did not begin at the Scientific Revolution.

In fact, that lesson didn't come until a few weeks into the class. We started back as far as we could find actual historical writings, for that in itself is a science. We briefly examined things like the Code of Hammurabi in order to show that humans were interested in keeping written records governing the world around them. We could not have "science" as we know if we did not at least start by writing events down.

The class then moved on examining the mathematicians of the Greek and Roman ages. We also learned how parts of the Middle East and the Asian world maintained records of inventions, theories and equations during the Dark Ages of Europe.

Only then was it that we moved into the Scientific Revolution. I'm not sure how you can say natural science did not exist before that period. I realize my example is anecdotal, but I'm not sure how else to counter an argument that says that human curiosity about the world that was undertaken in a systematic manner prior to the Scientific Revolution did not exist and those who fail to realize that science is the "greatest pagan idol of the modern world" are "like people who hear voices or sees things that are not there."

Perhaps I am failing to understand your point but it appears you think that the world cannot co-exist peacefully with people who believe in god and those who "believe" in science. I'm sure it will come as no suprise that Einstein wrote on this issue more articulately than me. Please let me know if this article helps further this debate: Science and Religion: Irreconcilable?

[Anarchy Praxis]

The alegory of the Cave in Plato's republic was the only way he could define, 'the good'. He had defined philosophy, wisdom, the philosopher ruler but when asked to define his central term, he insisted that it was virtually impossible. Basicly he described shadows on the wall of a cave being thought to be reality. They were in reality, human inventions, scholars have often speculated on what he had in mind. I like the one that called it, 'the common market that inslaves us all' or maybe its just the systems of thought that are marketed there. This is what is being forced on us with empirical science, mentally children are being shackled in the experimentum crucis cave. They are brainwashed into believing that these tools of human cognition are the only true reality. Evolution, like biology are just tools. All of natural science is based on experimentation, there is nothing else.

The Idols of Science

’ Bacon believed that obstacles appear in the sources of knowledge. He makes a distinction between the various idols (representations) of cognition. “For it is a false assertion that the sense of man is the measure of things…because the individual man…refracts and discolors the light of nature”. We also have outside influences. “By the intercourse and association…in commerce…because…ill and unchoice words obstructs the understanding” Finally we have to critically discern systems of thought “dogmas of philosophy and wrong laws of demonstration, not only entire systems but many principles of science”. (F. Bacon 1620). This is how you sort through the particulars to find the principles empirically.)

Critically discern systems of thought, dogmas of philosophy, not only systems but principles. Its called the law of immutability and if science was not invented we would have no right to change it.

[Ultimatejoe]

All I get are personal attacks.

You really need to stop disparaging the other posters here, and the sooner the better.

The truth is there was no such thing as natural science as we know it before the Scientific revolution.

Really? There are quite a few Greeks who would probably disagree with you. Now I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that you have a different understanding of what science is than the other posters here. Now since YOU refuse to offer your own definition, and utterly reject definitions that have been offered elsewhere, this debate is becoming extremely tiresome. Why don't you provide your own definition of science so we can proceed more constructively?

[Anarchy Praxis]

Jamie found this really interesting for science. "As to science, we may well define it for our purpose as "methodical thinking directed toward finding regulative connections between our sensual experiences." Albert Einstein. I'd say he qualifys as an authority on science. My only problem with it is that he is describing reason, not science. The inductive approach is thinking with half your brain tied behind your back. In empirical science the is no deductive reasoning, and the people who invented it did this on purpose.

[Abs like Jesus]

The only thing even resembling personal attacks that I see here are from you against science, Anarchy. I'm at a loss how given the discussion of science you've concluded none of us are interested in science.

Science is the laws of physics, biology, genetics, geology, zoology, anatomy, chemistry, geometry and the list goes on and on... nobody invented these things. As hugo briefly touched on (in his own way) and Jaime was kind enough to elaborate, science arose from human curiosity about how the world worked rather than how it appeared. It has existed in rudimentary and advancing forms throughout the course of human history, not simply with perhaps one man, and certainly not only a few centuries ago.

The truth is there was no such thing as natural science as we know it before the Scientific revolution. Science was anything that could be 'known' this included everything, even religion.

Actually, the truth is that people just hadn't discovered much, largely in part because they hadn't developed advanced methods of observation and experimentation. These are the things that were invented, not science itself. And most of those things you say could be "known" were not known but rather believed. Deeper investigation dispelled many of those beliefs to reveal what could be shown as truth.

[Anarchy Praxis]

The only thing even resembling personal attacks that I see here are from you against science, Anarchy. I'm at a loss how given the discussion of science you've concluded none of us are interested in science.

Science is the laws of physics, biology, genetics, geology, zoology, anatomy, chemistry, geometry and the list goes on and on... nobody invented these things. As hugo briefly touched on (in his own way) and Jaime was kind enough to elaborate, science arose from human curiosity about how the world worked rather than how it appeared. It has existed in rudimentary and advancing forms throughout the course of human history, not simply with perhaps one man, and certainly not only a few centuries ago.

The truth is there was no such thing as natural science as we know it before the Scientific revolution. Science was anything that could be 'known' this included everything, even religion.

Actually, the truth is that people just hadn't discovered much, largely in part because they hadn't developed advanced methods of observation and experimentation. These are the things that were invented, not science itself. And most of those things you say could be "known" were not known but rather believed. Deeper investigation dispelled many of those beliefs to reveal what could be shown as truth.

No one invented trees, rocks bugs or people, but biology, geology, and anatomy are human inventions. They are idol (representations) that exist only in your mind

[Ultimatejoe]

The inductive approach is thinking with half your brain tied behind your back. In empirical science the is no deductive reasoning, and the people who invented it did this on purpose.

Did you miss science class in high school? Because all of those experiments you ran were excercises in INDUCTION and DEDUCTION. You arrive at a hypothesis through deduction, and you induce a conclusion from your observations.

This post has been edited by Ultimatejoe: Jun 22 2003, 09:18 PM

[moif]

F=1/2MV2

This is the funniest thing I've read all day...

Who invented Science?

Was Science invented? I would have thought that the urge to know and explore is a natural extension of imagination. Ever since the first ape fell out of the tree and started exploring outside his/ her own environment, we have been pushing the envolope.

That ape 'invented' Science I guess....


editted for spelling

This post has been edited by moif: Jun 22 2003, 09:17 PM

[Abs like Jesus]

No one invented trees, rocks bugs or people, but biology, geology, and anatomy are human inventions. They are idol (representations) that exist only in your mind

Not to interrupt your brilliance on the subject, but trees, rocks and bugs are respectively biology, geology and back to biology.


Edited to add: We may have given each study a name and class, but we by no means invented the science behind it. Biology is our study of life, geology the study of the earth... we invented neither but rather study them. This study has taken various forms throughout the course of history but no one person invented it. The science of biology, geology and all the others I have previously listed and left out have always existed. Science is simply the study and understanding of them.

This post has been edited by Abs like Jesus: Jun 22 2003, 09:22 PM

[Anarchy Praxis]

So let me see if I'm getting this, science is anything that can be 'known' with certainty? I'm not asking for a difinition that walks on all fours. I'm just wondering why the Bible is not considered scientific while Ecliudes Elements is. It has something to do with 'scientific' proof does it not?

[Abs like Jesus]

I'm just wondering why the Bible is not considered scientific while Ecliudes Elements is. It has something to do with 'scientific' proof does it not?

Perhaps you should have started a topic on that then. As it stands, what you gave us was

Every time I post a new thread people demand that I clarify a question for debate so here goes. Who gets the credit for the invention of science? Anyone has an alternative view like science was always there waiting to be discovered, jump right in the waters fine. I personally think that the way empirical science is dogmaticly forced on children is perverse. This is exactly what the Catholic church did in the name of religion. Natural science is fine if naturalistic assumptions dont blind you to other truth. Like religion it has to know its place.

This post has been edited by Abs like Jesus: Jun 22 2003, 09:56 PM

[AuthorMusician]

I'll go with no one person or conspiracy invented science. Aristotle gets the cake for kicking off the philosophical inquiry that would eventually lead to the scientific method referred to here as inductive thinking. But to stress that science is only this one method of thinking is to narrow the definition needlessly.

That is, unless the argument is really about the validity of scriptual texts being equal to that of scientific texts.

Okay, so what constitutes validity? Are scientific texts infallible? No, and nobody promotes that view unless a great deal of politics is involved. I will admit that scientists are merely human and are therefore subject to human weaknesses.

Are scriptual texts infallible? Hehehe, no, and nobody promotes that view unless a great deal of politics is involved. I will admit that theologians are merely human and are therefore subject to human weaknesses.

So, if the underlying premise is that both the scientific and theological communities have their bull-headed absolutists, yep, they do. I just think that this type thrives in theology and tends to be discredited in science.

[Abs like Jesus]

I've started a new topic regarding the Bible as a book of historical or scientific merit...
Bible or babble

Any other religious digressions about why the Bible isn't accepted scientifically can be directed there.

[Anarchy Praxis]

Natural science before the 1600s was the same as theology, they saw no differences in the two forms of knowledge. When Galileo made discoveries useing his telescope the Catholic church said that it couldn't possibly be true because it contradicted Scripture. He said that the Bible tells us how to get to heaven, it doesnt tell you how the heavens work. The Catholic church did not accept Galileo's work untlil about 10 years ago. You have to admit, there is a profound difference of opinion here.

People began to think that science and religion should be keep seperated as indepent disciplines. The idea of seperation of church and state is more or less the same idea. Now lets just assume for a minute that the reasoning on both sides of the debate is flawless, even though one of them is wrong. What is the difference that makes them diametrically opposed to one another?

One side is reasoning deductivly from religios conviction, the other is reasoning inductivly from experiential data. In other words one is reasoning from the inside out, and the other is reasoning from external sources to internal conviction i.e. scientific theory. Both were understood during the enlightningment to be valid ways of acquiring knowledge. The idea that scientic knowledge could not be attained through religious conviction was radically dangerous. It got a number of very accomplished scientists thrown in jail. Modern scientific method was developed and now it is misunderstood to be synanamous with reason the way religion was thought to be in the Middle Ages. Thats what I meant by it being perverse, its not natural for science to be the primary source of truth.

I admit that most of what I know about epistomology (theory of knowledge) is based on Christian apologetics. I keep going back to the Bible because its the reversal of natural science i.e. supernatural revelation. That's why religion excluded form the schools, its uniquely you point of view that defines it. In science its demonstrateable or observable facts that are the heart of the emphasis.

Aristotle did not like experimentation and the anchient Greeks were not really interested in controling nature. Aristotle's science could be just as readily used as a basis for theology and was by the Catholic church. In Aristotle’s logic our thinking must be theoretical as well as practical in order to ‘know’ anything with certainty. R.W Ross describes this parody and progression “From what sort of proposition he should demand proof (singular) and what sort of proofs should be demanded” (plural). Someone had mentioned Aristotle so I wanted to clarify why I didn't think he had invented it. Scientific method applied to everything that could be reasoned, not just nature. The passion of the Greeks was reason and things like natural science and physics were applications philosophy not sources.

[Abs like Jesus]

What you seem to be arguing, Anarchy, is what methods and tools of science were invented by whom and when, not by whom or when science itself was "invented." I would maintain that it wasn't invented and that there is no single person or time for us to give credit for what might only be described as the birth of science.