Most of the threads I have made regarding scientific topics have failed because we all come from different backgrounds, making it hard to find a common topic we can actually debate about. But, looking over the types of people the post in the WEPR, I still feel like there is a general interest in science, so, following Moegreche's lead, this is going to be more of a philosophical discussion.
Feel free to join in even if you have no formal scientific education, everyone's opinion can contribute something worthy here. This is intended to be more of an opinion based thread, I'm interesting in what other people think about science. Feel free to make a new thread, however, if you want to talk about how science is different from religion. While it might come up here and there in this topic, religion is really beyond the scope of this thread.
Okay, now that you've read the fine print, lets get down to business. The first questions I would like to address are these:
1) Where do you think science comes from?
2) What is a typical scientist? How do you think one becomes a scientist?
I would to focus on current science for these questions, by the way. Current being the last 20 years.
This is the only part of that I didn't follow on. How is the study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world (science), mostly not about the natural science involving the study of matter (physics)?
Fair question. I suppose its how you look at it- Can the study of physics be applied to most scientific topics? Sure. As you said, most things are somehow related to matter, and physics is all about matter. But I was more looking at it this way- is it important, or even useful, to apply concepts from physics to most scientific concepts? Not really, no. Many studies may incorporate basic concepts from physics, but they don't actively try to progress the field of physics.
So, its like this. Obviously the chemical structure of a toxin can be directly attributed to the physical properties of the particles that make up the toxin. And the chemical structure determines how the toxin will affect organisms.
But, you don't really need to know about or address any of that in order to conduct a study on the predation success of rattlesnakes. You just go out in the field and count how many times the snake is able to consume its prey.
I suppose I should reword that statement, however, to be more specific: Most scientific studies are not in the field of physics. Most studies aren't in the field of any one thing, really. The point being, a huge breakthrough in one field probably won't affect the bulk of research*.
*unless it leads to a major technological breakthrough that influences research methods, which does happen. Like, computers.
In my opinion, science is given far too much credit, or overly glorified, so to speak. Science is more like a process or an art of learning more about everything around humans, inside humans, as far as I know.
One of my friends once beautifully stated, "Science is the art of finding new questions to ask."
Science is more about the quest for me than the actual attainable goal of discovering all knowledge. Anyone who really is interested in science must know that it's impossible to discover all there is to learn, but it is the quest to get as close as we can that drives us as scientists.
Most scientific studies are not in the field of physics. Most studies aren't in the field of any one thing, really. The point being, a huge breakthrough in one field probably won't affect the bulk of research*.
Doesn't mean that Science is mostly not attainable to physics. Physics is exactly how everything even comes into essence and how organisms are able to perceive it. You don't need to know physics to attribute the study of that toxin (Chemistry) or the predation of that rattlesnake (Biology), but you owe that success to the success of physics.
BS in science - You think you know everything. MS in science - You think you know nothing. PhD in science - You know you know nothing, but neither does anyone else.
BS in science - You think you know everything. MS in science - You think you know nothing. PhD in science - You know you know nothing, but neither does anyone else.
So for example, we possess no knowledge about our history, or how the machines we build work. Right?
Scientists these days are here for one things, to make children's school days longer. They make hundreds of formulas, long and drawn out, to solve something so simple. For example, my Chemistry book this year is mentally handicapped. It said,"When righting down our answer, we want to be close, but not too precise. Rounding to two decimal places is probably the best solution." And then two pages later it will be telling me to give answers like 24.0038547 and then ask me which numbers are...AH! it's just so stupid. Mathematicians are exactly the same. The moronic things they make up to find out an answer. 1+1=2, or you can do I-2I - 3(4-4) =2. I just think they've run out of things to do. I think Biologists and Archaeologists are the only scientists that can find out things we don't already know.
This may come off as mean, and I certainly don't intend to be mean. But it looks like you're basing your assessment on a very weak understanding of these particular fields. Maybe your textbooks are sub par, but from the general material (and how it's presented) it looks as if it came from a 6th or 7th grade science book. The same point applies to your critique of maths. Yes, understanding the syntax of mathematics is important to an understanding of maths as a whole. But there are still a number of very interesting problems that mathematicians are currently trying to solve. Some of them are important enough to our understanding of mathematics that prizes are awarded to anyone who can provide a satisfying answer. By the way, here's a really fun (and informative!) Wikipedia list of unsolved maths problems:
Scientists these days are here for one things, to make children's school days longer.
Not discover things previously unknown or improve technology to make our lives easier?
I think Biologists and Archaeologists are the only scientists that can find out things we don't already know.
We still have thousands upon thousands of technological advancements humans will come across in our legacy, something that Physicists are slogging to discover every day.
Honestly though, were these mathematical formulas so easy as you say, we'd be well into a Type-3 Civilization already! Why, some of these formulas are 14 inches long and for good reason XD
"When righting down our answer, we want to be close, but not too precise. Rounding to two decimal places is probably the best solution."
1) Significant figures, as far as your chemistry is observed.
2) In a field where math has a very practical application (Basic biology and hemistry, for example), you have no real need to carry out a decimal past the thousandth place. As the decimal continues, each digit is representitive of less and less a percentage of the whole, and thus has less and less an affect on the results. For example, 1 mL is equal to a cm^3 out to the thousandth place, which is effectively the same for all *practical* purposes. Or in math class, you probably only carry pi out to 3.14, because the numbers after that do very little to change the final answer.
You would need to carry out the decimal in more theoretical fields, or in instances where not enough is known to safely say when you can cut off the decimal. Wavelegnth mechanics and higher order physics, for example, but you wouldn't see that outside of a university or research institute.
nd you flat out deny the corner stones and discoveries from those fields.
Nooo Mage. Obbbbbviously Biologists and Archaeologists are the only scientists that can find out things we don't already know because science has yet to prove his version of God. Once they've done that, then there's nothing left for them to find.
We don't need astronomers, botanists, chemists, etc. Nothing new is gonna happen. Maybe we can have like, five of each, because we're paying way too many for nothing.
We don't need astronomers, botanists, chemists, etc.
Do you really claim that we know every edge of the universe (astronomy), every little plant and all their functions (botany, which is biology btw (just saying as you seemed to think biology still had a future in your previous post)) and every possible chemical compound, their functions and reactions?
Seriously, go talk to actual astronomers, biologists and chemists, they'll tell you we're far from having discovered everything.
