Well one of your conclusions seems to be that science can involve not using the scientific method. And you’re just wrong. That’s magic. Alchemy. Religion. But not science.
Oh i provided multiple conclusions?? The plot thickens, how actually intriguing. I am really trying hard to be as obvious and literal as i can and yet people read stuff that not there.
But no i have not expressed such opinions on the scientific method which i do respect much more then your interpretation of it (nothing personal, I promise)
I believe every belief i have held has always remained true to its principles (as far as i can be aware) so no this was never a point to be changed.
It does shed some light on the crux of our debate which is apparently about what is defined as the foundation of science.
You see the scientific method was summarized in the 17th century. Science is recorded to be much older.
Personally i found that post education i relate much more to the ancient greek ideas of science. Particularly in using philosophy to expand once thinking but also seeing the mathematics in the world around me.
What is my interpretation of the scientific method?
And “science” before the scientific method was not science. It was magic and alchemy and religion. It was not tested. Experiments were not repeated to test them. Things were taken on literal faith.
And you can relate to the Ancient Greeks, but they were wrong. About pretty much everything.
The way you describe the scientific method it may as well be a magical spell.
It is a really awesome summary of sensible ideas and a notably agreement of prominent western intellectuals.
But to disregard anything before it is a very strong and not at all scientific opinion.
Imagine trying to tell your math teacher that
pythagoras was to stupid to double test their ideas or your doctor that hippocrates was but a religious nutjob.
Imagine going to a thousand year old building and being utterly blind for the intens mathematical knowledge coded within your surroundings because you don’t believe “quality science” has been invented yet.
From where do you derive the faith to trust in all the science that is done ever since?
I don’t trust people since then much more then those from before which is why i vouch personal experimentation, using your own senses and internal logic to come to conclusions. For me those just happen to align largely with platonism. Which has though mechanics that appear just as relevant to quantum mechanics now as it did for psychologically when i first externally heard about them.
Nope. Responding to something silly you said by pointing out that the so-called Ancient Greek scientists you like were wrong on virtually every explanation of how the universe worked is not trolling.
On one hand wielding “the scientific method” like its the literal bible that shan’t be questioned and it somehow being relevant to us not having found archeological evidence of ancient agriculture.
In the same breath you dismiss the entirety of contributions that were brought by the ancient greek as a whole. An entire culture and people with so much rich history?
I can only conceive your just trying to use the very little personal opinion i gave to diss is. In which case at least diss on plato specifically (or decartis cause i mentioned liking him to)
You can praise the contributions of the Ancient Greeks, but that doesn’t change the fact that they were wrong about practically everything.
Nothing you can possibly say will make their conceptions of the universe correct. Democratus will never be correct about atoms no matter how much you want him to be. Similarly, Pythagoras will never be right about beans.
Well one of your conclusions seems to be that science can involve not using the scientific method. And you’re just wrong. That’s magic. Alchemy. Religion. But not science.
“One of”
Oh i provided multiple conclusions?? The plot thickens, how actually intriguing. I am really trying hard to be as obvious and literal as i can and yet people read stuff that not there.
But no i have not expressed such opinions on the scientific method which i do respect much more then your interpretation of it (nothing personal, I promise)
I believe every belief i have held has always remained true to its principles (as far as i can be aware) so no this was never a point to be changed.
It does shed some light on the crux of our debate which is apparently about what is defined as the foundation of science.
You see the scientific method was summarized in the 17th century. Science is recorded to be much older.
Personally i found that post education i relate much more to the ancient greek ideas of science. Particularly in using philosophy to expand once thinking but also seeing the mathematics in the world around me.
What is my interpretation of the scientific method?
And “science” before the scientific method was not science. It was magic and alchemy and religion. It was not tested. Experiments were not repeated to test them. Things were taken on literal faith.
And you can relate to the Ancient Greeks, but they were wrong. About pretty much everything.
The way you describe the scientific method it may as well be a magical spell.
It is a really awesome summary of sensible ideas and a notably agreement of prominent western intellectuals. But to disregard anything before it is a very strong and not at all scientific opinion.
Imagine trying to tell your math teacher that pythagoras was to stupid to double test their ideas or your doctor that hippocrates was but a religious nutjob.
Imagine going to a thousand year old building and being utterly blind for the intens mathematical knowledge coded within your surroundings because you don’t believe “quality science” has been invented yet.
From where do you derive the faith to trust in all the science that is done ever since?
I don’t trust people since then much more then those from before which is why i vouch personal experimentation, using your own senses and internal logic to come to conclusions. For me those just happen to align largely with platonism. Which has though mechanics that appear just as relevant to quantum mechanics now as it did for psychologically when i first externally heard about them.
Cool. The Ancient Greeks were still wrong about pretty much everything.
Full mask off trolling are we now?
Or really that pitty about being unable to hold yourself in an argument you just have to trow a tantrum.
I mean i don’t want to go this low but you didn’t even try reply intelligently so what else am i to describe this
“Cool. The Ancient Greeks were still wrong about pretty much everything.”
Print this on something for your philosophy teacher to hang on their wall, they will unironically love it, i am”
Nope. Responding to something silly you said by pointing out that the so-called Ancient Greek scientists you like were wrong on virtually every explanation of how the universe worked is not trolling.
How are you the same person.
On one hand wielding “the scientific method” like its the literal bible that shan’t be questioned and it somehow being relevant to us not having found archeological evidence of ancient agriculture.
In the same breath you dismiss the entirety of contributions that were brought by the ancient greek as a whole. An entire culture and people with so much rich history?
I can only conceive your just trying to use the very little personal opinion i gave to diss is. In which case at least diss on plato specifically (or decartis cause i mentioned liking him to)
Come on, it like your not even trying anymore.
You can praise the contributions of the Ancient Greeks, but that doesn’t change the fact that they were wrong about practically everything.
Nothing you can possibly say will make their conceptions of the universe correct. Democratus will never be correct about atoms no matter how much you want him to be. Similarly, Pythagoras will never be right about beans.