|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 10/26/2009 : 05:59:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
It took the scientific method to really start advancing knowledge at a breakneck speed. I mean if you look at the pace of discovery prior to the Enlightenment vs. from the Enlightenment until now, it's not even close. Something fundamentally changed the course of human history. That something was the invention of science. |
My point is that the "scientific method" (as if there were just one) was in use long before the Enlightenment. What changed a few centuries ago was the Western ruling classes' attitude towards reason. They finally figured out that the technological output of science was useful and good, and so started to fund scientific endeavors instead of burning scientists at the stake. Also, you can see scientific and technological advances in Asia and North Africa all throughout the "Dark Ages," so it's not like there was no science until Galileo came along. It was just slower, less well-funded science. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2009 : 06:54:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
As brilliant as the horsemen are (well, three out of the four. I think Harris a bit of a hack)
|
That's interesting.
I would much rather see Harris give a talk then any of the others (although Hitchens can be highly entertaining).
I think Harris hits the nail on the head better than anyone. His logic cuts like a knife and is very difficult to refute without looking foolish. I find his arguments the most convincing of the four (unless we're talking evolution). If I had to choose just one that I wanted a religious friend to sit and listen to it would be Harris. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2009 : 08:07:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Dave W.
Raw observations are not science. Nor do raw observations become technology without science. At the very least, someone says, "I wonder if that phenomenon will happen again under the same circumstances," and that is science.
|
That seems like a pretty loose definition of science. So, is simple trial and error science? Were the alchemists scientists? Some were, in a way. The ones who were mixing compounds and grinding concoctions and setting things on fire, but still trying to be methodical about it and taking copious notes. Some of these practitioners did stumble onto beneficial discoveries. Perhaps gunpowder, as Ricky mentioned, but indisputably several other compounds including Hydrochloric and Nitric acid and Potash and Sodium Carbonate.
But these discoveries were always accidental because the alchemists never had the requisite epistemological framework to guide their efforts. They took too much cultural baggage and too many assumptions into their work, which was mixed up with sorcery, astrology, pagan mysticism, Christian theology and the phases of the moon. They were proto-scientists, but I wouldn't call them scientists yet. It would take the formulation of the scientific method before they could start sifting through that trash heap of accumulated "knowledge" to see what held up to scrutiny and what turned out to be horse pucky. In the few centuries since the enlightenment, I think science has done a pretty good job of sweeping out the crap. I know pockets of woo are still everywhere, but theism is really the last thing holding on in any great numbers. It's waaaaaaaaay better than it used to be.
Anyway, my point is, I don't think a caveman making a spear point is doing science. He might be being analytical, he might be using higher reasoning and problem solving, he might even be conducting experiments by trying different materials. But I can't say that that's science. Those are innate abilities. But at that stage it's just instinctual. There's no operating system guiding the thought process. It took the scientific method to really start advancing knowledge at a breakneck speed. I mean if you look at the pace of discovery prior to the Enlightenment vs. from the Enlightenment until now, it's not even close. Something fundamentally changed the course of human history. That something was the invention of science.
In my opinion, of course. I expect there's others here who will make a different argument. I think I remember Sagan saying he considered a cave man making a flint spear point to be doing science, so what do I know?
|
Democritus, Archimedes, Aristotle, Euclid.... To say these men were not engaged in scientific inquiry is madness, I think.
In the last 500 years or so have we refined our methods, found stable political environments that are not threatened by new knowledge, and changed the status of those seeking knowledge from heretic to hero. Those things are responsible for the ever increasing speed with wich we aquire new knowledge.
And yeah, the first guy to pick up a rock and turn it into a spear tip was engaged in science. A primitive form of science compared to the rigorous model we use now, but still science.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2009 : 21:14:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Then why are you curious if any discoveries came about without science? Any discovery by your definition above must be science, saying that is tautological. |
No, I'm wondering if any technology has come about without science. Discoveries are simply new observations, and happen all the time, quite by accident, to scientists and non-scientists alike. Technology is the systematic exploitation of those discoveries, and requires some rather specific intellectual tools (science alone, if my hypothesis is correct) that most people haven't learned.Of course, I think that's a rather horrible definition of science. It encompasses far too much, in my opinion.
I also don't think repeatable phenomenon is a scientific principle, but rather an innate principle that every sentient life on this planet follows. |
The key is the questioning, Ricky, not the learning. Otherwise, you're right, anyone who learns to walk or talk would be "doing science," and that's ludicrous. But anyone who decides to study how we walk or talk is doing science.
Asking "is this repeatable" is a very different thing from simply taking advantage of some regularity in nature. Apes don't compare different kinds of sticks for their efficacy in collecting ants. Your dog isn't wondering how often a random squirrel will run to which tree from which spot. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2009 : 23:17:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Ricky
Then why are you curious if any discoveries came about without science? Any discovery by your definition above must be science, saying that is tautological. |
No, I'm wondering if any technology has come about without science. Discoveries are simply new observations, and happen all the time, quite by accident, to scientists and non-scientists alike. Technology is the systematic exploitation of those discoveries, and requires some rather specific intellectual tools (science alone, if my hypothesis is correct) that most people haven't learned. |
I don't think we can say all technology requires science. It may depend on what is considered a "new" technology. Any piece of technology that is developed deductively has little need for science. One may argue the "new" technology required science while development of technology by deduction doesn't count as new technology, not sure I see a justification for that argument, however.
Consider computer programming, once someone had the idea and science made it possible to put the core components of a computer together and created machine code, any higher level programming could be done without any real need for science (other than troubleshooting, if you want to consider that science). Either way, you should be able to deductively prove the program will do what it should because a program can be evaluated purely with logic. I would certainly consider the development of new software as new technology but not always science.
Same with math -- I may need science to apply a mathematical model to a real world situation, but once I do that, I can figure out all kinds of things deductively without ever looking at anything scientifically again. The original application of the model may not have been anything ingenious or special (probably not technology), but a real breakthrough may be made in the deductions (probably technology). |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2009 : 07:23:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Consider computer programming, once someone had the idea and science made it possible to put the core components of a computer together and created machine code, any higher level programming could be done without any real need for science (other than troubleshooting, if you want to consider that science). Either way, you should be able to deductively prove the program will do what it should because a program can be evaluated purely with logic. I would certainly consider the development of new software as new technology but not always science. |
As a computer programmer, I should have thought of this. After all, I'm not a scientist. Good job.
Well, if we can separate any random computer program from the science that led to the development of computing. The porn industry owes a hell of a lot to Alan Turing and Charles Babbage. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2009 : 10:40:46 [Permalink]
|
Programming is more like the use of technology.
Do you have to have some skill and knowledge to write code? Sure. But I don't think computer programs themselves are technology.
Its like saying the words in a book are technology. The book itself is clearly a piece of technology, but the words inside? That's just information. Same for a computer program, it's a set of instructions telling your piece of technology how to behave.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2009 : 10:50:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Programming is more like the use of technology.
Do you have to have some skill and knowledge to write code? Sure. But I don't think computer programs themselves are technology.
Its like saying the words in a book are technology. The book itself is clearly a piece of technology, but the words inside? That's just information. Same for a computer program, it's a set of instructions telling your piece of technology how to behave.
|
I agree |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2009 : 13:28:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Do you have to have some skill and knowledge to write code? Sure. But I don't think computer programs themselves are technology.
|
How about Neural Networking? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2009 : 00:29:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Programming is more like the use of technology.
Do you have to have some skill and knowledge to write code? Sure. But I don't think computer programs themselves are technology.
Its like saying the words in a book are technology. The book itself is clearly a piece of technology, but the words inside? That's just information. Same for a computer program, it's a set of instructions telling your piece of technology how to behave. |
So the computer itself (hardware) is the only 'technology' involved?
I would probably define technology as something more related to the problems we can solve, the integration of knowledge into some practical application. I would consider a corporation figuring out how to optimize its shipping plan (how many of each product to send to what distribution center to be shipped to what store, etc) or a computer program that does something better than any other method to be technology.
While the program itself is but a list of commands for a computer to carry out, the idea behind the program, the application of that idea, the proof that it works is technology.
Suppose I learn how to create an algorithm to optimize something in polynomial time instead of exponential time (which very well may be grounded entirely in deductive math, this has happened before) -- a whole new set of problems become solvable in a practical sense (e.g. takes an hour of computation time to solve instead of a year). |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 10/28/2009 01:32:55 |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2009 : 01:09:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Democritus, Archimedes, Aristotle, Euclid.... To say these men were not engaged in scientific inquiry is madness, I think. |
What is scientific about Euclid's work? As far as the Elements goes, it seems entirely deductive from what I've read, not sure if he had some other work? Regardless, your point stands with Archimedes etc. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 10/28/2009 01:33:43 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2009 : 11:14:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by Dude
Programming is more like the use of technology.
Do you have to have some skill and knowledge to write code? Sure. But I don't think computer programs themselves are technology.
Its like saying the words in a book are technology. The book itself is clearly a piece of technology, but the words inside? That's just information. Same for a computer program, it's a set of instructions telling your piece of technology how to behave. |
So the computer itself (hardware) is the only 'technology' involved?
I would probably define technology as something more related to the problems we can solve, the integration of knowledge into some practical application. I would consider a corporation figuring out how to optimize its shipping plan (how many of each product to send to what distribution center to be shipped to what store, etc) or a computer program that does something better than any other method to be technology.
While the program itself is but a list of commands for a computer to carry out, the idea behind the program, the application of that idea, the proof that it works is technology.
Suppose I learn how to create an algorithm to optimize something in polynomial time instead of exponential time (which very well may be grounded entirely in deductive math, this has happened before) -- a whole new set of problems become solvable in a practical sense (e.g. takes an hour of computation time to solve instead of a year).
|
By your own reasoning: there is nothing a computer can't do that you can't deduce from the design of the hardware, therefore programs are not technology.
RE Euclid: Euclid was also an astronomer. He authored more books than just "Elements". He wrote on optics, mirrors, and maintaining rigor in your work/observations. I think that puts him squarely in the "scientist" column.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2009 : 14:50:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
By your own reasoning: there is nothing a computer can't do that you can't deduce from the design of the hardware, therefore programs are not technology. |
That seems to be the question, doesn't it?
Actually, most computer programs can be functionally specified without regard to any particular hardware. Java is available for over 10 different platforms, but they all follow the same specification. Writing a computer program involves taking an abstract functional spec and finding the sequence of instructions on the particular processor you want to program that will satisfy the functional spec (if any). In other words, the "technological" part of a computer program - the part that distinguishes a spreadsheet from a word processor from a Web browser - exists apart from any hardware. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2009 : 21:17:51 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by DudeBy your own reasoning: there is nothing a computer can't do that you can't deduce from the design of the hardware, therefore programs are not technology. |
Not sure what you mean. I consider some deductive things to be technology. There are infinitely many deductions that can be made about something, but it takes non-computer (at least sometimes) reasoning to determine which deductions are useful, reasoning which scientific method may or may not be able to provide.
Sorry to go into a specific technical thing, but this is a example I had in mind. Consider problems like this:
There are 2 factories that produce 2 products. Factory 1 makes product A in 2 manhours/unit and product B in 1 manhours/unit, and factory 1 has a maximum of 150 manhours available. Factory 2 makes product A in 3 manhours/unit and product B in 4 manhours/unit, and factory 2 has a maximum of 307 manhours available. Suppose the profit for each unit of product A is $3 and each unit of product B is $5.
Let x1 = # of units of A, x2 = # of units of B
To maximize profit, we could write:
Maximize z = 3x1 + 5x2 (profit)
subject to
2x1 + x2 <= 150 (hours in factory 1)
3x1 + 4x2 <= 370 (hours in factory 2)
x1, x2 >= 0 (can't make less than 0 of a product)
An algorithm (simplex) to optimize any problem in this form (maximization of minimization with linear constraints, and non-negativity) was developed purely mathematically by a person (Dantzig) in 1947, but in some cases, it took exponential time, so for small problems it was quick. However, with much larger problems (for example, if there were 40000 products and 25000 factories in this specific application of the problem), it could be so slow that the fastest computer in the world would take centuries to solve it. So while it was possible to solve it, it was not possible to solve it in any timeframe that was viable.
In the 80's, someone (Karmarkar) developed an algorithm (interior point) entirely unscientifically, proven entirely mathematically (geometrically even). In this case, the formulation of the problem in mathematical terms was nothing at all novel or particularly interesting, if any science was needed to find these constraints, that was an entirely separate thing from developing the method (not sure checking to see how many manhours a factory has available in this case is even science, but science is definitely used to formulate problems of this sort in some cases). All of this could not be deduced from the computer hardware at all, but it was nevertheless deduced mathematically from the formulation of the problem. I'm not sure how this is not technology from my own reasoning.
| RE Euclid: Euclid was also an astronomer. He authored more books than just "Elements". He wrote on optics, mirrors, and maintaining rigor in your work/observations. I think that puts him squarely in the "scientist" column. |
Thought it may have been the case that he had other work. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Kurtz ousted from CFI
