Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/1/08 02:19 PM, Drakim wrote:
No it's not. Not even close.

How do you know that's a tree?

What's the first step? Observation right? Then trial and error to further understand it.

That's all I'm saying. It's a natural process.

At 10/1/08 05:57 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: How do you know that's a tree?

this is not a pipe.

It may not be a pipe. Using a name as a value placer is a bad example your point is correct, the idea is better illustrated for finding the many functions of objects.

Anything we do, let's say, the first time we discovered fire, that was an experiment with unexpected results most likely. Accidents occur in nature as they do in science.

Modern science just applies a formal structure to the natural process that is occurring all the time. How do you choose the bands you like? The food you like? Intuition? Or scientific deduction?

Come on now.

And, on that note. Intuition = successful application of previous scientific deductions to new situations.

So, drakim. What do you mean?

At 10/1/08 05:57 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 10/1/08 02:19 PM, Drakim wrote:
No it's not. Not even close.

How do you know that's a tree?

What's the first step? Observation right? Then trial and error to further understand it.

That's all I'm saying. It's a natural process.

So when we triubte person X and Y for inventing the scientific process, that's bullshit because we had science since we lived in caves?

Just...go to wikipedia or something and read what "science" means.

At 10/2/08 06:23 AM, Drakim wrote:
Just...go to wikipedia or something and read what "science" means.

That's a formal representation of the natural process.

But sure let's do it:

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" or "knowing") is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. Through controlled methods, scientists use observable physical evidence of natural phenomena to collect data, and analyze this information to explain what and how things work. Such methods include experimentation that tries to simulate natural phenomena under controlled conditions and thought experiments. Knowledge in science is gained through research.

I see nothing above that contradicts what I said. So again, what do you mean? I suppose I should be more specific, and not say things like "everything is science." Because that is entirely vague and inaccurate. Still, we do everything in a scientific matter. Let's go through the steps shall we?

Step 1: You have a problem - I want to grow a garden
Step 2: Form a question - Where would be the best place to grow my garden?
Step 3: Research - Where did my neighbor plant their garden? Maybe I should ask them about gardens.
Step 4: Hypothesis - I believe that if I plant the garden here, instead of over there, it will grow better.
Step 5: Experiment - Growing the garden
Step 5: Analysis - How well did the garden grow, should I do it differently next time?

So again, I ask you, what do you mean, that science isn't a natural process?

And yes. We can attribute those persons for developing the formal method, but indeed the natural method was always there.

How did we make animal skins. How did we do anything? How did we learn how to hunt? How does evolution even happen without science being a natural method.

Should I go through the steps again, using evolution as the example? maybe later...

At 10/2/08 09:43 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: So again, I ask you, what do you mean, that science isn't a natural process?

The key phrase here is "Through controlled methods". Simply seeing something is indeed observing, but it's not how we define the scientific method.

I do agree however that we can observe things in a science like manner, but it's not "science" as we use the phrase or have used the phrase.

Christianity has ideals that really put life to shame. You're told your entire life is just a test so you can get into heaven. Life is such a wondrous, complex thing. Christianity makes it so that suffering in the name of God is a good thing, and that if you suffer for him you won't suffer when you die, but instead you go to heaven. I find this kind of thinking almost disgusting. Why should any religion make you suffer? By being happy you're sinning, but as long as you keep all your thoughts away from happiness and instead to God, you will go to heaven.

I've always wondered about how the world would be affected if Constantine did not change the ideals of Rome from that of a pagan society on the brink of social collapse to the first Christian kingdom, how the world would be shaped. If we would have a religion focused more on happiness, peace, and equality (physically, because I can't really argue that Christianity doesn't offer spiritual equality).

At 10/1/08 02:19 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 10/1/08 01:01 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Everything is science.

Science = how our brain understands shit

No it's not. Not even close.

As defined by my AP Physics textbook: Science is the human way humans learn about the natural world.

At 10/2/08 04:40 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 10/2/08 09:43 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: So again, I ask you, what do you mean, that science isn't a natural process?

The key phrase here is "Through controlled methods". Simply seeing something is indeed observing, but it's not how we define the scientific method.

No, it's exactly how we define the scientific method. You gather data through Observation, and then you ask a question about the data you've gathered. You form a hypothesis, and do experiments to come to a conclusion. While not all of these experiments are controlled, where one variable is changed at a time, it is science nonetheless.

I do agree however that we can observe things in a science like manner, but it's not "science" as we use the phrase or have used the phrase.

If you are stating that we are talking only about formal science, you have some misconceptions about science. Their is no such thing as "formal" science, it's all science, whether done in a lab or in a garden.

At 10/3/08 02:10 AM, RedDreadSky wrote: No, it's exactly how we define the scientific method. You gather data through Observation, and then you ask a question about the data you've gathered. You form a hypothesis, and do experiments to come to a conclusion.

Yeah bbecause people do that for basic everday observations.

At 10/3/08 02:05 AM, RedDreadSky wrote: As defined by my AP Physics textbook: Science is the human way humans learn about the natural world.

Lose. High school students have no valid opinions, forum rules.

At 10/2/08 04:40 PM, Drakim wrote: I do agree however that we can observe things in a science like manner, but it's not "science" as we use the phrase or have used the phrase.

At this point, he's made clear he's pulling the Latin term and meaning, so I think the fact that it's not "science" as we use it is moot now. We're all on the same page with what he said because he defined the variables. Savvy?

The key phrase here is "Through controlled methods". Simply seeing something is indeed observing, but it's not how we define the scientific method.

I spent 5 pages trying to argue just that point to Poxpower.....

The irony here is that people presume I argue against Pox because I'm religious, him being anti-religious. Simple truth is that he just makes fucked up arguments.

At 10/1/08 11:34 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:
I review my post and feel I must apologize. It is undeniable that science, pretty much anything, will be biased. But you're talking about society's interpretation of misuse of science, not science itself. True scientific method is not biased. Political is another way of saying biased.

No need. Just wasn't initially clear.

And no, while the scientific method in and of itself is not biased, the stigma of human hands manipulating it is.

Coming up with a hypothesis and testing it to find out accuracy and validity is great. But a lot of that is confined first and foremost by the question initially asked, and that is always biased.

I found this, not that is proves a damn thing. I just thought it funny that a medical journal would actually have an article entitled "Why most published research findings are false"

SO I guess, being human, this is something impossible to achieve.

Yup.

The interpretation of any given experiment, and the interpretation of a popularized notion that is intentionally presented in a way to gain faith among the masses, will be fundamentally different.

Yup. "scientific fact" is not much more than the consensus of interpretations of research results. In actuality, that's still a powerful scope, despite how tiny I just made it look.

This argument itself is about interpretation. Most people view science as nearly infallible, but in another light it is just as faulty as the mortals who research it.

So all I'm saying is, if you're going to debate atheism vs. non atheism, to do so on the basis of religion is completely unscientific. You could examine religion and its effects I suppose. But I feel like that's a different topi.

No, that'd be too smart and educated. You're on newgrounds. You've gotta argue why your belief makes you smarter/faster/stronger/bigger/manlier than me and my stupid belief.

In any case, I made a blog specifically for that point.

At 10/3/08 02:01 AM, RedDreadSky wrote: Christianity has ideals that really put life to shame. You're told your entire life is just a test so you can get into heaven. Life is such a wondrous, complex thing. Christianity makes it so that suffering in the name of God is a good thing, and that if you suffer for him you won't suffer when you die, but instead you go to heaven. I find this kind of thinking almost disgusting. Why should any religion make you suffer? By being happy you're sinning, but as long as you keep all your thoughts away from happiness and instead to God, you will go to heaven.

Ever occur to you that religion is the explanation behind those things, rather than the cause of them?

Saying something like "why should any religion make you suffer" assumes without religion, there'd be no suffering.

Here's a no brainer: Religious dogma is the product of unaccounted for suffering. The explanation for why "good people die young (but pricks live forever)". Why "bad things happen to good people", etc.

In any case, you've got it completely backwards almost. The point in Christianity is that life is a miraculous complex thing, so you shouldn't let it go to waste.

And the point is that suffering in the name of OTHERS is a good thing. Ie, being a self-centered egotistical moron who looks out for only #1 is no way to go through life.

As far as your last sentence (ie, the conclusion to your nonsense), look up the word "appositive", then realize in the Christian sense, happiness is in apposition to God.

Did I already say high school kids' points are invalid? Yeah....cheers buddy.

At 10/3/08 02:41 AM, Imperator wrote:

The irony here is that people presume I argue against Pox because I'm religious, him being anti-religious. Simple truth is that he just makes fucked up arguments.

My theory is that you have a really strange sense of reading comprehension that also seems to make you able to understand what the fuck Jack is saying in a way that doesn't make him sound like a moron every time he posts.

Sorry jack.

At 10/3/08 02:10 AM, RedDreadSky wrote:

At 10/2/08 04:40 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 10/2/08 09:43 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: So again, I ask you, what do you mean, that science isn't a natural process?

The key phrase here is "Through controlled methods". Simply seeing something is indeed observing, but it's not how we define the scientific method.

No, it's exactly how we define the scientific method. You gather data through Observation, and then you ask a question about the data you've gathered. You form a hypothesis, and do experiments to come to a conclusion. While not all of these experiments are controlled, where one variable is changed at a time, it is science nonetheless.

To me that sounds all wrong, since you are in effect saying that we used science from the second the first life form evolved sensory input (basic seeing, etc)

That means, seeing the lighting in the sky and concluding that it's Thor is perfectly normal science.

I do agree however that we can observe things in a science like manner, but it's not "science" as we use the phrase or have used the phrase.

If you are stating that we are talking only about formal science, you have some misconceptions about science. Their is no such thing as "formal" science, it's all science, whether done in a lab or in a garden.

But that means, einstein figuruing out his theories is no more scientific than a child that sees the sun and says it's a big piece of candy.

At 10/3/08 04:11 AM, poxpower wrote:
My theory is that you have a really strange sense of reading comprehension that also seems to make you able to understand what the fuck Jack is saying in a way that doesn't make him sound like a moron every time he posts.

Sorry jack.

Just a matter of being able to approach the topic with an open mind really.......
95% of the time the argument sucks or is so personalized the message is lost. Essentially I just "re-translated" Jack's post into what his "opponents" would look for in their own words. Nothing he said was inherently stupid, it's simply that the manner in which he said it differed from yours to the extent that you thought he was stupid.

That's what reading comprehension is though.....A matter of being able to identify cultural or temporal clashes and still understand a given text by a given author; The ability to see why the author said what he did in the manner he said it.

Now I know what you're thinking.......and yes......

Yes, I am God, and know exactly what it is you want to hear, and in what matter you want to hear it. I can make Jack sound smart, Drakim sound dumb, Grammer sound sagacious, and I can argue this topic 5 ways to heaven.

Observe:

At 10/3/08 04:19 AM, Drakim wrote: But that means, einstein figuruing out his theories is no more scientific than a child that sees the sun and says it's a big piece of candy.

To the extent that each deduced their conclusions off of their previous experiences and observations that statement's actually true Drakim......

And I think that's precisely the point Jack's making. He's intentionally opening the definition of "scientia" to the wider Latin weight. You're not gonna see that unless you also, for the sake of argument, open your own definition to his parameters and see where he's coming from.

At 10/3/08 04:55 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 10/3/08 04:19 AM, Drakim wrote: But that means, einstein figuruing out his theories is no more scientific than a child that sees the sun and says it's a big piece of candy.

To the extent that each deduced their conclusions off of their previous experiences and observations that statement's actually true Drakim......

And I think that's precisely the point Jack's making. He's intentionally opening the definition of "scientia" to the wider Latin weight. You're not gonna see that unless you also, for the sake of argument, open your own definition to his parameters and see where he's coming from.

Yeah but even so, it's nowhere close to the real everyday usage we have of "science" and "scientific".

At the best, I'd agree that it's "technically true", but it's far from practice in everyday life. No way in hell I'm going to agree that whatever some dumbass says is science because he observed it with his eyes.

At 10/3/08 04:11 AM, poxpower wrote:
Sorry jack.

I'm just trying to contribute. It's kind of disrespectful, what you say. If you think that then illustrate that in the way you're supposed to. What did I say that was moronic? So I can better myself.

And yes, all conclusions are reached through a trial and error process.

How do you think our brains would learn anything. They just magically understand things around us? No. It's through experiments. Just because they aren't formal doesn't mean it's a similar process. Observation: There's fire in the sky. Hypothesis: There's a man up there banging a hammer. But it was really not even like that most likely. I see it like this (this is a hypothesis I have arrived at from guess what).

Step 1: You have a problem - My tribe is scared of storms
Step 2: Form a question - Why is my tribe scared of storms?
Step 3: Research - What are the reasons behind this, well my tribe doesn't know a lot about anything. This is a big big world we are living in.
Step 4: Hypothesis - My tribe fears things that has unknown causes.
Step 5: Experiment - Make nature familiar through myths that give reasons for natural phenomenon.
Step 5: Analysis - Tribe happier.

Want me to do another one? Let's see if pox wants to actually talk to me. I'd love that. Instead of just name calling.

At 10/3/08 07:06 AM, Drakim wrote:
No way in hell I'm going to agree that whatever some dumbass says is science because he observed it with his eyes.

That is one step that is often misused you are correct.

At 10/3/08 07:06 AM, Drakim wrote: Yeah but even so, it's nowhere close to the real everyday usage we have of "science" and "scientific".

At the best, I'd agree that it's "technically true", but it's far from practice in everyday life. No way in hell I'm going to agree that whatever some dumbass says is science because he observed it with his eyes.

Drakim buddy, Jack has already essentially said "Let's say for the sake of argument that.....".

He's aware it's not the everyday usage. We're aware it's not the everyday usage. He's been specific in stating "this is the Latin root, not the everyday usage". So what's the problem? He's constrained his argument, and you're criticizing him for things outside of his constraints.

Judge the argument based on its own criteria and merit, rather than the criteria you set up for it.

At 10/3/08 11:46 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 10/3/08 07:06 AM, Drakim wrote: Yeah but even so, it's nowhere close to the real everyday usage we have of "science" and "scientific".

At the best, I'd agree that it's "technically true", but it's far from practice in everyday life. No way in hell I'm going to agree that whatever some dumbass says is science because he observed it with his eyes.

Drakim buddy, Jack has already essentially said "Let's say for the sake of argument that.....".

He's aware it's not the everyday usage. We're aware it's not the everyday usage. He's been specific in stating "this is the Latin root, not the everyday usage". So what's the problem? He's constrained his argument, and you're criticizing him for things outside of his constraints.

Judge the argument based on its own criteria and merit, rather than the criteria you set up for it.

My problem is pretty much that this is a clone of an older debate, where I was arguing in his position, and absolutely nobody agreed because they said the everyday usage was the real definition and not some old latin stuff.

So I thought I'd switch sides, and now suddently people sprung up arguing that "it's the orginal real meaning!" >:

ty for saying that I thought I was going crazy.

i would also like to indicate that "everyday usage" begets a meaning more in line with natural process than what you mean.

I would say "formal usage."

At 10/5/08 05:51 AM, altmeister wrote: atheism sucks, lol. how can something come from nothing? you crazie people will say that we evolved from monkeys.

You're a terrible troll.

At 10/5/08 06:05 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 10/5/08 05:51 AM, altmeister wrote: atheism sucks, lol. how can something come from nothing? you crazie people will say that we evolved from monkeys.

You're a terrible troll.

I'm sure you say that to anyone who disagrees with you, you are as much of a troll as anyone.
You should really try and understand the other side before you start hacking up things in attempt to discredit it, not to mention have knowledge of the actual thing you're trying to disprove.
But oh well, I'm sure you'll grow out of it.

At 10/5/08 07:06 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: You should really try and understand the other side before you start hacking up things in attempt to discredit it, not to mention have knowledge of the actual thing you're trying to disprove.
But oh well, I'm sure you'll grow out of it.

Oh lordy, the irony is killing me here.

At 10/5/08 08:07 AM, dySWN wrote:

At 10/5/08 07:06 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: You should really try and understand the other side before you start hacking up things in attempt to discredit it, not to mention have knowledge of the actual thing you're trying to disprove.
But oh well, I'm sure you'll grow out of it.

Oh lordy, the irony is killing me here.

Indeed it is. I think my heart grew just a little heavier after reading that post.

Shaggytheclown, just, think about the fact that most atheists (in the US) used to be Christian
earlier in their life, while a large amount of Christians barely know what atheism even is (confusing it with naturalism, satanism, communism, evolutionists, etc)