larry

Aristotle was not known as a scientist, he was known as a philosopher. At his time, he speculated on facts, but did not claim that what he speculated on was not just the understanding of what he observed. He did not claim science as a unrelated force of reality. His methods should be a model for today's scientists, but it isn't because today's scientists have drifted away from inquiry to assumed power of creativity. Which they do not have.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Oh contrary once again larry. His was the beginning of the scientific method; not in its form as we know it today but he laid the roots for it.

larry

Sure, why should it? If everything is unchallenged, it remains static. We humans have adapted many things for our benefit because of challenge. So do trees. when challenged in their growth formation by obstacles, they change to avoid it. It is part of our created nature to overcome barriers to our needs and desires. I does not just happen, something must incite it.

larry

I agree, but he laid down a system that science should continue to follow instead of trying to create something out of imagination. Scientists can only work with reality, but to do so, they have to understand what they are working with, sometimes it takes a while to figure it out. Failed experiments are usually discouraging, but way signs to the correct path. To ignore the way signs leads to getting lost in false results.

larry

Now you know that is nonsense, if you do not know you can fall, you will fall anyway, reality overcomes false belief. But if you do not know you will fall in your ignorance you will step off the cliff and fall anyway. Then you gain the knowledge not to do it again. It could have been avoided by talking to those that have already fallen off the cliff if any survived, but if all died and could not tell you about the danger of it, what would keep you from making the same mistake. If all died, more will die without the t***sfer of knowledge. It is not some inherent instinct that keeps you from stepping off a cliff, it is observed reality. If you do not understand the consequences, you keep doing it. It is like taking drugs. Even when you understand it, you still do it because it feels so good. Do you want to fall off a cliff to see what it feels like?

larry

Yes but at the time, science was just being born. He recognized the need for investigation of phenomena so that better use could be made of it. It was not known as science at the time, Those that wanted to be like him decided to make a career out of investigation of phenomena, and called it scientific, Science was born. Stick to finding t***h, and it will flourish.

Singularity

A DNA model researched and produced by a 14 year old. Once you can do this, and describe it accurately as to structure, function and utility, we might talk again.

Singularity

And by the way, a measure of how 'true' ones facts are is the degree to which they allow one to make useful applications that "work, . . . b***hes!" Quoting the irascible Richard Dawkins.

Science works! It flies us to the moon, predicting our aim so we actually reach the vicinity of the moon. Meficine based on science WORKS! Faith Healing is a s**m! Honing in on scientific facts of evolution allow us to selectively breed our livestick, our pets, our biological enemies (i.e., releasing sterile male insects into a population in order to reduce the number of successive offspring)!

Religion flies us into buildings (twin towers)!

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

You of all people should not suggest that others create something out of imagination.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

And that has what to do with DNA changing?

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

I agree and that's my point.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

It was not Aristotle that began the scientific method but his mentor's mentor, Socrates. In classical Greece, it was Socrates that started the method based upon Solon. Then Plato picked up on it, and Aristotle refined it.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

I disagree to the quote: "Things happen because they happen", science proves by its nature that everything happens for a reason. The "reason" may or may not be known however, thus the statement, "Sh@t happens" occurs. Louis Pasteur proved that in a given environment nothing is spontaneous.

Using this as a founding law and t***h of science, we then can see, that everything happens for a reason. And that reason may or may not have direct contradiction, yet still exist, because for lack of reasoning here, on this part, the subject appears to contradict yet when looked at under a different perspective we see how the physical world and the nature of the physical world found a way to make it work, therefore the subject comes to be, and it is up to science and human reasoning to prove or disprove the hypothesis that explains the wonder.

Wonders occur everyday in the form of miracles. Does anyone gamble? If you do, stripping all modern medicine off of a subject, what are the natural odds at that subject multiplying? If one were to research this, the odds are astronomical against reproduction. Thus, the nine months of a child, inside the mother, is a labeled a miracle or wonder. But because of medical science and modern technology, we have increased the odds of reproduction in favor of the miracle.

Now this simple wonder/miracle, has always and traditionally have been attributed towards the heavens or a God. For it is explained in faith and belief, that it is the work of God. Science comes along and describes how God did it, then eliminates God from the equation calling it natural. However, nature is against the reproduction of the species. How do we explain this phenomenon?

For the odds researched against reproduction and the destruction of the female body, are high. Therefore, naturally it takes great effort on the newly created wonder to survive. But in the confines of this post, based upon the same science that denies God, they say "We do not know." However, to the faithful, the mind is put at ease saying, "It was a miracle of God" so there is a comfort issue here, to maintain the health/ mental health of the subjects involved.

Solon, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, all acknowledged an all powerful, all knowing God. However, the questions and mistakes they made, were solved by Jesus Christ in His teachings. For the basis of thought, I believe in these Greek Philosophers but to go beyond their teachings to a higher level of knowledge, one must fit the teachings of Christ, to complete the thoughts where these Philosophers fail to explain certain aspects of the system.

But the above is philosophy not science. And in many circumstances Philosophy plays a vital role in science. For no one will study what is already known. We just leave it as, "It is what it is", however, when one challenges the Laws of Newton, and the Pythagorean Theorem and finds a new explanation which justifies Newton's Laws or Pythagoras, then we say that the new explanation is true. Which is what had occurred in what I like to call the revolution of philosophy. For the knowledge of Solon, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, were well known to both Roman and Greeks in Palestine at the time of Jesus Christ. And those who put two and two together through Christ's teaching mixed with the foreknowledge of the philosophers saw the true meaning and left the philosophers and started following Christ. But again this is philosophy not science.

In the case of science, however and it is here that Christ plays a role hidden from the human heart, is in the fact, of stepping outside the box. All of Christ's teaching in philosophy, showed in simple terms for the simple, complex mysteries of the universe. In time knowledge increased until the lust for this knowledge was to be controlled by p***e. For Galileo should never had been put on trial by the Church according to the teachings of Jesus Christ. And because of this principle and the principle of observation, Galileo was proven correct. And since Neil Armstrong, proved both Galileo and Copernicus correct, it fulfilled a prophecy of Christ, "Through your ignorance the Church will be persecuted." But again this is philosophy not science, however science was used.

What I have demonstrated is the state of mind that man must be in to overcome the ordinary day, and create extraordinary technology. The saying from Thomas Edison, "I did not fail 99 times in creating an electric light bulb, but rather found 99 ways not to make the lamp" would never have been a reality if it wasn't for the revolution of philosophy through Jesus Christ.

Notice in this post, I left out all of the Jewish Belief before Christ, because Plato and Aristotle pointed out the failures of that belief system. And they questioned the Jews on their failings, which they could not respond to until Jesus came. For the last true philosopher of antiquity, was Jesus Christ, no man after him as revolutionized so many different areas of human life, with a single action, than Christ, Himself. He completed the philosophy started by Solon, and ended with Aristotle and Alexander the Great. Thus with the Christian new movement at the time, science excelled much further than it would have ever.

Now, forgive me, this post is also an observation. Because of the fact that this observation also includes the fact that as knowledge was increased in a foolish way at first, p***e tried to limit the knowledge that was obtained by using this knowledge against the people. This was never intended by Christ, nor the first generation of Apostles but came later as the failures of the Apostles created fissures in the religion until the Reformation. Thus, after(or is it before, can't remember), modern science came out of the Age of Enlightenment, not the age of the Reformation.

Science is knowledge. Plain and simple. Philosophy, is religion, and how soon we all jump on the band wagon, to explain everything by either Science or Philosophy. Science is based on probability made from observation, and so is Philosophy. It is here in observation that religion is also born, and superstition.

How one interprets observation is how one shows understanding of the world, and the universe. This interpretation leads towards religion, superstition, philosophy, or science. Wisdom is often used to determine the solid t***h of an explanation, which is required to satisfy the human heart. Therefore philosophy, and superstition tend to melt away, and all that is left is faith in the observation by science or blind faith in the observation by religion.

But when events of the human person, in an order to satisfy the human heart, show that religion is far more advanced then science, and there is a mystery with in the religion, science then takes over the explanation. Then some who are faithful, and in time, watch as I have as science explains, the same religious story, but religion got to the conclusion quicker. Is this a coincidence? But if it is a coincidence, then how can that happen in a world that coincidence does not exist? For everything happens for a purpose, therefore there are no coincidences.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Just sticking to the first point, everything does not necessarily have a purpose. I assume you mean cause. Ei stein showed tbe random nature of many things in the universe. At first he refusedto accept it but later made the admission that he was wrong, God does indeed play dice with the universe.

larry

Of course, why should it. knowledge can come by continued resistance to an action, or sudden ease or relief of stress. In either case, it is outside influence that provides the stimulus to make a change. It does no happen spontaneously. And unfortunately, unless the knowledge of a working change is passed on, in generational reproduction, each entity has to learn again the hard way.