Lol...right (obvious sarcasm)...that's why science lab activities and experiments ask YOU to DO the experiments and DESCRIBE YOUR observations. Here is a middle school example for a chromatography lab where the students themselves conduct the experiment and make notes of what they see: http://www.middleschoolscience.com/chrom.htm
P.S. If you're not smarter than a middle schooler (or a 5th grader of age 9-10 years)...
Lol, this nonscientific nonsense again. We already tried to explain evolution to you several times in the religion thread including addressing those false "facts" you linked. You're just unable to accept reality because it doesn't conform to your preconceived beliefs (confirmation bias). If you want to continue, feel free to reopen or make a new religion thread. Meanwhile, this thread is moving on with fACTUAL science. Science is your friend.
I was going to reply to all your points seperately, but after some consideration I came to the conclusion that literally all of it is a semantics problem that shows best in your translation of the word 'philosophy'. I know it does not translate to critical thinking, but I'm equating it to that because that is what it is in its most basic form. 'To perform philosophy' is basically 'asking why'. I'm not saying curiosity necessitates philosophy, but rather that the two are one and the same. This is what I mean when I'm saying it 'drives' science: thinking is the baseline for all of it and (modern?) philosophy is mostly 'practicing thinking'. Science is a more practical form of it. I'm not claiming that every scientist goes and reads Kant before performing an experiment. It was mostly a response to Gradius who initially seemed to claim that, aside from ultimate origin, science has answered any questions we might have while religion hasn't. Which, I think, is simply not true.
Curiosity and philosophy are not the same. You ask "Why?" because you are curious, not because you practice philosophy. You can be curious and not be a philosopher. However, you cannot be a philosopher without being curious. Likewise with curiosity, the same goes for critical thinking. You can be a critical thinker without practicing philosophy, but to practice philosophy requires critical thinking. That is why philosophy does not drive science. Philosophy and science are different paths to answer "Why?". In philosophy, you make up an answer from your mind, regardless of the answer's basis in reality. In science, you use data gathered from reality to answer the question.
Now, I am not entirely versed in the differences between what people in the age of Plato called philosophy and what people in different times called philosophy, but I'm pretty sure that "How does lightning work?" was never really considered a philosophical question (even though ancient philosophy was a lot closer to ancient science than the two fields are right now). Give me some examples here?
Actually, "What is lightning?", used to be a philosophical question. Before science was a separate field, all inquiries about phenomena were philosophical. If you want recent examples, look at the progress of development of neuroscience and the decrease in "philosophicalness" regarding the brain, personality, emotions, thought, behavior, etc. As science and technology progress, our descendants would likely consider today's "philosophical questions to be a lot closer to science."
Curiosity comes from the mind. Curiosity doesn't necessitate philosophy. However, science and philosophy necessitate curiosity. Examples: curious cats, curious monkeys, curious dogs; science has yet to show that curious animals other than humans practice philosophy. Some animals seem to practice a form of "primitive science" through trial and error as in figuring out that rocks and twigs can be used as tools.
@FDFederation: Go
Philosophy, being quite literally 'critical thinking', is pretty much the father of science. It's not the philosopher's fault that most scientists these days forego learning about the field in their raw 'pursuit of knowledge'. Just because these days philosophy is no longer necessary to perform science it doesn't mean that philosophy doesn't 'drive' science? Every scientific research done tries to give a partial answer to a philosophical question formulated by Kant.
Philosophy literally means "love of wisdom", not "critical thinking." Science did branch off from philosophy, but philosophy doesn't drive science. In philosophy, you can argue with the absence of data and your claim would be considered acceptable (that's why lawyers are required to take philosophy instead of design of experiments). Most scientific research has nothing to do with Kant's views ("nothing to do" meaning that Kant's views were subject of research as in to prove or disprove Kant's views). Most scientific researchers are even unaware of Kant and other philosophers, so philosophy doesn't even influence research.
@Bogdan254: Go
Yesterday, we had William J. Borucki speak at our seminar. :)
You just made me wonder if there is in fact any philosophical question that science has ever managed to answer. Regardless - I don't think philosophy is the domain of god and superstition, but my point was that a lot of religious answers correspond to philosophical questions, and seeing how (as you so aptly pointed out) we haven't really answered much of those, it seems overkill to say that 'pretty much everything that used to be the domain of god and superstition has been explained away by science'.
I'm not saying philosophy has any definitive answers, though, the field only has three jobs; trolling scientists, providing them with ideas for theories and reasons to perform their research, and self-improvement.
Questions about natural phenomena used to be "philosophical questions", questions that have been answered by science.
The statement "providing them with ideas for theories and reasons to perform their research" is quite a stretch. Creativity generates new ideas, while curiosity drives scientists to perform research.
How do you do that if a field in science is revolutionary and new, though? Every new idea comes from one source. There may simply be a lack of studies, as was the case for many great scientists when they first came up with their ideas. You can't just disregard any new point because there isn't any independant research about it yet.
Then, you can't claim it as "theory" and most definitely not "standard truth". Until there are experiments and evidence, then it's just speculation and hypothesis. (See Neil degrasse Tyson's discussion on argument from ignorance; ignorance being lack of evidence.)
Your comment is strange as to why you compare it to a religion. (Trolling?)
Have you seen his credentials? That guy is a genius and over accomplished in many fields of science. On what grounds or counter evidence do you make your assertion(with emotional bias I might add)?
The obvious reality of the soul/consciousness will eventually be realized/modelled by real science(the older models and theories are broken with holes and are not sufficient). What religion(and most simple logical individuals) have known all along as common sense will be mapped as a standard truth at some point.
Its a shame for objective reasoning when some people pigeon-hold their understanding on dogmatic beliefs.
Lol...
Biology is a subset of science. His specialty is in medicine and stem cells, a subset of biology. He doesn't have any credentials in any other fields of science such as physics, materials science, astronomy, geology, paleontology, etc., so how did you come to the conclusion that he "over accomplished in many fields of science"?
I guess you didn't realized that his website was made to sell his ideas and his books. It lacks substance, evidence. You should try again and find those experiments that were conducted independently of Lanza. Confirmation bias is the reason why you selectively choose to listen to a biologist's perspective about the universe, while ignoring the the perspectives of the chemists, astronomers, astrophycisists, paleontologists, geologists, etc; just like how you selectively believe religious dogma about creationism, while ignoring the evidence discovered by paleontologists, anthropologists, geologists, and, especially, biologists in support on evolution. You trust the biologist only when it's convenient to your beliefs. That's confirmation bias, not science.
P.S. Remember what Neil degrasse Tyson said about evidence and argument from ignorance?
Unless Lanza has the evidence to support biocentrism, he's the police officer in Tyson's discussion.
+6.022e23
"Biosphere 2"
http://www.asme.org/kb/news---articles/articles/construction-and-building/engineering-biosphere-2%E2%80%A6again
"Political ideology affects energy-efficient attitudes and choices"
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/04/26/1218453110
Latest NOVA episode:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/australia-first-years.html#australia-creatures
Self-assembly of nanoparticles:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130419171645.htm
Latest NOVA episode:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/australia-first-years.html#australia-monsters
@TheZizz: Go
Lol...right (obvious sarcasm)...that's why science lab activities and experiments ask YOU to DO the experiments and DESCRIBE YOUR observations. Here is a middle school example for a chromatography lab where the students themselves conduct the experiment and make notes of what they see: http://www.middleschoolscience.com/chrom.htm
P.S. If you're not smarter than a middle schooler (or a 5th grader of age 9-10 years)...
@EternalWraith: Go
Lol, this nonscientific nonsense again. We already tried to explain evolution to you several times in the religion thread including addressing those false "facts" you linked. You're just unable to accept reality because it doesn't conform to your preconceived beliefs (confirmation bias). If you want to continue, feel free to reopen or make a new religion thread. Meanwhile, this thread is moving on with fACTUAL science. Science is your friend.
http://video.pbs.org/video/2334144059
http://video.pbs.org/video/2364992087
http://video.pbs.org/video/2364995158
http://video.pbs.org/video/2332614200
http://video.pbs.org/video/2358778286
http://video.pbs.org/video/2334359551
http://video.pbs.org/video/2364993588
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/what-plants-talk-about/video-full-episode/8243/
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/the-mystery-of-eels/video-full-episode/8251/
http://www.asme.org/kb/news---articles/media/2013/04/video--stem-in-action--first-robotics-competition-
http://www.materials360online.com/newsDetails/39080
http://www.materials360online.com/newsDetails/39040
http://www.materials360online.com/newsDetails/38980
http://www.materials360online.com/newsDetails/38940
P.S. Are you smarter than a middle schooler (11-14 year old)? Middle school activities: http://www.weston.org/schools/ms/biologyweb/evolution/assignments.htm
Today's Science Friday program:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/playlist/#play/program/1673
Victims of confirmation bias as usual.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/confirmation_bias.htm
Anyways, here are some ACTUAL science links:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/mind-rampage-killer.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/pharaoh-chariot.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/earth-from-space.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/meteor-strike.html
Science is your friend.
@Mozared: Go
Lol, you will understand when you become a scientist. Teehee!
http://www.academia.edu/317781/Rat_pups_and_random_robots_generate_similar_self-organized_and_intentional_behavior
Curiosity and philosophy are not the same. You ask "Why?" because you are curious, not because you practice philosophy. You can be curious and not be a philosopher. However, you cannot be a philosopher without being curious. Likewise with curiosity, the same goes for critical thinking. You can be a critical thinker without practicing philosophy, but to practice philosophy requires critical thinking. That is why philosophy does not drive science. Philosophy and science are different paths to answer "Why?". In philosophy, you make up an answer from your mind, regardless of the answer's basis in reality. In science, you use data gathered from reality to answer the question.
Actually, "What is lightning?", used to be a philosophical question. Before science was a separate field, all inquiries about phenomena were philosophical. If you want recent examples, look at the progress of development of neuroscience and the decrease in "philosophicalness" regarding the brain, personality, emotions, thought, behavior, etc. As science and technology progress, our descendants would likely consider today's "philosophical questions to be a lot closer to science."
Curiosity comes from the mind. Curiosity doesn't necessitate philosophy. However, science and philosophy necessitate curiosity. Examples: curious cats, curious monkeys, curious dogs; science has yet to show that curious animals other than humans practice philosophy. Some animals seem to practice a form of "primitive science" through trial and error as in figuring out that rocks and twigs can be used as tools.
Philosophy literally means "love of wisdom", not "critical thinking." Science did branch off from philosophy, but philosophy doesn't drive science. In philosophy, you can argue with the absence of data and your claim would be considered acceptable (that's why lawyers are required to take philosophy instead of design of experiments). Most scientific research has nothing to do with Kant's views ("nothing to do" meaning that Kant's views were subject of research as in to prove or disprove Kant's views). Most scientific researchers are even unaware of Kant and other philosophers, so philosophy doesn't even influence research.
@Bogdan254: Go Yesterday, we had William J. Borucki speak at our seminar. :)
http://www.space.com/19792-spacex-cargo-mission-space-station.html
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/energy/article/Hot-work-Oregon-State-to-test-mock-reactors-4283322.php
Questions about natural phenomena used to be "philosophical questions", questions that have been answered by science.
The statement "providing them with ideas for theories and reasons to perform their research" is quite a stretch. Creativity generates new ideas, while curiosity drives scientists to perform research.
http://www.asme.org/kb/news---articles/articles/bioengineering/true-progress-in-false-hearts
Then, you can't claim it as "theory" and most definitely not "standard truth". Until there are experiments and evidence, then it's just speculation and hypothesis. (See Neil degrasse Tyson's discussion on argument from ignorance; ignorance being lack of evidence.)
It would be beneficial to learn about design of experiments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_of_experiments
Lol...
Biology is a subset of science. His specialty is in medicine and stem cells, a subset of biology. He doesn't have any credentials in any other fields of science such as physics, materials science, astronomy, geology, paleontology, etc., so how did you come to the conclusion that he "over accomplished in many fields of science"?
I guess you didn't realized that his website was made to sell his ideas and his books. It lacks substance, evidence. You should try again and find those experiments that were conducted independently of Lanza. Confirmation bias is the reason why you selectively choose to listen to a biologist's perspective about the universe, while ignoring the the perspectives of the chemists, astronomers, astrophycisists, paleontologists, geologists, etc; just like how you selectively believe religious dogma about creationism, while ignoring the evidence discovered by paleontologists, anthropologists, geologists, and, especially, biologists in support on evolution. You trust the biologist only when it's convenient to your beliefs. That's confirmation bias, not science.
P.S. Remember what Neil degrasse Tyson said about evidence and argument from ignorance?
Unless Lanza has the evidence to support biocentrism, he's the police officer in Tyson's discussion.
http://www.asme.org/kb/news---articles/articles/robotics/mini-robot-reconfigures-in-seconds
http://www.space.com/19708-mars-rover-curiosity-rock-drill-sample.html
http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/first-bionic-eye-sees-light-130206.htm