Okay, so now take the questions in this thread (which I believe are not original thoughts) and toss in questions about what is fringe science, pseudoscience, protoscience?etc?
Folks seam to get hot about these questions. Just check out the archive discussion on the Polywell Wikipeda page. It appears that a vote of ten or so folks determined weather or not the Polywell page would be labeled as fringe-science or science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polywell/Archive_1
It also appears that Dr. Carlson was in on a debate about Homeopathy and pseudoscience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Art_Carlson
Which brings on questions of who is in the right place to make these kinds of decisions and just how many people is an appropriate number for consensus?
All of these efforts would be moot if everyone could agree on what science is and what it is not.
________
Gy6 engine
Science...What Is It...Good For
Sorry I think I miss posted. Aaaanywho.
So now take the questions in this thread (which I believe are not original thoughts) and toss in questions about what is fringe science, pseudoscience, protoscience?etc?
Folks seam to get hot about these questions. Just check out the archive discussion on the Polywell Wikipeda page. It appears that a vote of ten or so folks determined weather or not the Polywell page would be labeled as fringe-science or science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polywell/Archive_1
It also appears that Dr. Carlson was in on a debate about Homeopathy and pseudoscience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Art_Carlson
Which brings on questions of who is in the right place to make these kinds of decisions and just how many people is an appropriate number for consensus?
All of these efforts would be moot if everyone could agree on what science is and what it is not.
________
Teen vid
So now take the questions in this thread (which I believe are not original thoughts) and toss in questions about what is fringe science, pseudoscience, protoscience?etc?
Folks seam to get hot about these questions. Just check out the archive discussion on the Polywell Wikipeda page. It appears that a vote of ten or so folks determined weather or not the Polywell page would be labeled as fringe-science or science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polywell/Archive_1
It also appears that Dr. Carlson was in on a debate about Homeopathy and pseudoscience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Art_Carlson
Which brings on questions of who is in the right place to make these kinds of decisions and just how many people is an appropriate number for consensus?
All of these efforts would be moot if everyone could agree on what science is and what it is not.
________
Teen vid
Last edited by ckrucks on Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
If you want have some fun, do a web search on "Steorn" and "Orbo". You will find a lot of pseudo-science. It boils down to the difference between testable and believable. That can be a fine line, because we have to believe our tests. But sometimes, it's pretty darn obvious that belief is all there is and nothing was tested.
Wrong. Modern western science as we know it started during the Middle Ages, and was carried forward by men like Albertus Magnus who trusted God and knew He had a plan. Natural philosophy was simply an attempt to find out what the "nature" part of the plan was by observation - "He has ordered all things by measure and number and weight."MSimon wrote:One of the first things that science depends on is that there are no miracles.
Miracles aren't random betrayals of the laws of nature. They're "special exceptions" to the rules, made for good reasons. You will NEVER observe a miracle in the lab; God wouldn't mess with us like that.
Muslims believe that reason is just a human thing and that Allah isn't bound by it. You're entirely correct - that's no more conducive to science than belief in some capricious pagan pantheon...Which is why "whatever Allah wills" is not conducive to science.
Hey, this is the "General" section... and I couldn't leave a statement like that unchallenged...
I guess it depends on how you define "miracle". If you line things up exactly right, magic happens. Sometimes that "exactly right" is one part in 100, sometimes it's 1 part in 10^8. Knowing how to get things lined up right is the work of a magician, or scientist.93143 wrote: Miracles aren't random betrayals of the laws of nature. They're "special exceptions" to the rules, made for good reasons. You will NEVER observe a miracle in the lab; God wouldn't mess with us like that.
I would say the "first place" you see a miracle is in the lab. Repeating it a few billion times is then "just engineering". Wasn't Clarke who said any technology advanced enough appears as magic to those who don't understand it? For the vast majority of people on this planet, most technology is a miracle.
