Posts by Brent Jackson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I've always assumed "Pacific's triple star" as being the Great Southern Triangle. Though why it needs guarding I'm not sure.
-
Ben Wilson wrote :
... and I don't really trust people with financial agendas.
I always find it amusing how those opposing the science behind climate change, always argue that the scientists are falsifying their data so as to get funding for their research. I find that statements along these lines, just cast doubt on the commenter, because they imply that that is what the commenter would do if they were in the same situation.
-
Russell Brown wrote :
... and have Smith as the no. 2 tackler, ...
But for some reason, he almost never appears in the missed/slipped tackles column ! He is an awesome player.
-
Steven Crawford wrote:
Insync, is an incredibly difficult word to spell.
That is because it is not a word. "In synch" is what you were after (though it looks like "in sync" is now being used as well).
HTH.
-
Russell wrote :
... the heavily mediated Susan Boyle ...
Heh.
-
Loudest concert I've been to, seems to have been Cheap Trick in the town hall, 1979 (clocked at 124dB IIRC). They banned Rock'n'roll acts from the Town Hall after that one (for awhile at least) because it was too loud (not helped by those silly concert goers who wouldn't stay in their seats, they got up and danced ... on their seats !).
Oh, and Citizen Band were absolutely brilliant as the support act. I think I enjoyed them even more than the main act ...
Cheers,
Brent. -
You mean these friends ?
-
Ben wrote:
Sure, but Brent was following up on your linked definitions, which pretty much tallied with his one-sentence definition of science.
I did not intend my sentence to be a definition of Science. But your attempted counter-example of Einstein was just using a narrow definition of "looking at something". If this was broadened to include "thinking about something" then it is no longer a counter-example.
I originally found this discussion interesting, but of late it has been less so. (Especially Ben's seemingly arrogant - but more probably exasperated - rant about how poorly read everybody he ever argues against is). I am unconvinced by Ben's arguments to justify the claim that science is just an ideology that could end up being replaced. I do acknowledge that Science is not adequately defined. But then neither are a lot of things, such as life, planets, etc. Hell, just trying to define a coffee cup so that all such cups are included, and no non-cups are included is bloody difficult (unless one resorts to tautologies).
Ben wrote :
It seemed to me that philosophers really have little place in science, and it seems weird to me that scientists still seem to love Popper.
I did the Philosophy of Science paper (by Robert Nola), and I wasn't overly enamoured with Popper. I used to maliciously sum up his position as "To be scientific, it must be falsifiable. The only way to prove something is falsifiable is to prove it false. Hence, only false things are scientific". (I used to naively state - to the amusement of friends - "Popper was a jerk", until my Mother countered with "No he wasn't". Turns out she spent some time at Uni with him - that surprised me - I had assumed that (like all philosophers) he was long dead, and was also unaware of his NZ connections).
Cheers,
Brent. -
Haydn wrote:
And everything else can get fucked unless we become world champs (see: multisport, cycling)
Nah, becoming world champions doesn't cut any ice either - NZ were softball world champions 3 times in a row, and softball still gets almost no media coverage whatsoever.
Cheers,
Brent. -
Ben wrote :
I studied computer science ...
Just because it has "science" in the name doesn't mean that it is necessarily science :-). (I have a BSc and a DipCompSci but little of what I studied at varsity in Computer Science I would consider as science).
I am really enjoying following this discussion.
In seeking to treat it as an ideology he is simply contrasting it with treating it as truth . It might not be truth.
Arguably, science could be an ideology, however it is more than just an ideology. However, it is not a "truth". It is a method. A method for explaining, or establishing, facts (not necessarily 100%, definitely true facts, but 90%+, most likely, may need to be refined further, type facts).
The exact same thing happened to magic, mythology and religion. They were once considered true, and this did them, and humanity, damage. They need to be seen for what they are, a viewpoint.
I cannot see it being replaced with anything else, ever. Refined, adjusted, adapted - yes. But, chucked out and replaced - no. There can be no replacement for looking at something, coming up with an explanation for it, and then testing that explanation to establish under what conditions it seems be true.
So I disagree with Feyerabend (as outlined here), and agree with Steve Parks
... seems to be that he wants to knock science off its supposed pedestal down to the level of magic. It’s hard to see how you’re not “against science” to a degree if you want to ...
...do that.