Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Necessity and sufficiency, I can go with that. But then, at what stage of Science is "full rigour" required?
Last edited:
Science versus technology
- Thread starter timojin
- Start date
Necessity and sufficiency, I can go with that. But then, at what stage of Science is "full rigour" required?
Because science and technology are a cycle. You are correct in saying that technology fosters more science. I was only pointing out that the first step is (usually) a scientific one. Science produces technology which produces new science which produces new technology....
expletives deleted
Registered Senior Member
@ sideshowbob:
As I posted for timojin's fuller understanding of the subtleties involved in the spectrum of subconscious behavioural and conscious intellectual evolutionary systems of observation and application, there is a difference and a priority involved between the innate evolutionary faculties for 'pattern recognition' which operates subconsciously without much conscious direction or recognition. Only later does the subconscious feed the 'survival directed' (ie, more food etc) behavioral mofifications based on an insinctive assessment of probability for accessing food which may otherwise have been beyond reach.
For example the ravens learn how to modify twigs and wire to 'hook' some food inside a bottle in the lab. That is an instinctive application of the evolutionary 'mental map tool kit' it has evolved as part of the long string of bird ancestry and their survival fitness when certain random behavior produced results whoch their 'pattern recognition' and 'automatic habit' brain pathways become 'imprinted' and default to such behavior in the future (much as 'memory maps' become imprinted automatically over time.
So, unless you claim that the Raven is 'doing science', then it must remain that it's only the subconscious 'pattern recognition' and other automatic evolutionary brain paths and habits which trigger animal-level observing and problem solving behavior.
Early hominids were also at that stage of 'observation and problem solving' behavior when it came to employing easily available 'technology' from their environment (shards of stones for cutting/weapons; exploiting lightning-initiated fire, etc.). The hominid advantage was in its greater capacity for more brain pathways due to its evolutionary enhanced brain structure/capacity etc).
Which led to the recently developed higher level, consciously directed and interpreted and enhanced etc processes for 'doing science' (as distinct from primitive technology exploitation from nature's products and cues). Most recently formulating a FORMAL process overlaid on all those precursor processes (from random observation, undirected trial and error, limited-understanding applications of 'pattern recognition' benefits; ending with the modern form of science process with strict rules for all stages of the process, which has also made the old trial and error process into 'pure research' phase of the whole scientific methodology to understand the world and create technology and 'pure knowledge' as well.
So you see, it's not as black and white as you have summarized it in your post, sideshowbob. Best.
PS: I posted the above also for timojin to help him work through his own understanding of the issue and definitions etc (and, hopefully, also for paddoboy; who, from his posted comments, appears enamored with 'simplistic explanations' at all costs; to the point of him missing all the important subtleties and information and understanding between his cartoon-comic version of reality and the fuller complex and subtle reality and understanding itself).
As I posted for timojin's fuller understanding of the subtleties involved in the spectrum of subconscious behavioural and conscious intellectual evolutionary systems of observation and application, there is a difference and a priority involved between the innate evolutionary faculties for 'pattern recognition' which operates subconsciously without much conscious direction or recognition. Only later does the subconscious feed the 'survival directed' (ie, more food etc) behavioral mofifications based on an insinctive assessment of probability for accessing food which may otherwise have been beyond reach.
For example the ravens learn how to modify twigs and wire to 'hook' some food inside a bottle in the lab. That is an instinctive application of the evolutionary 'mental map tool kit' it has evolved as part of the long string of bird ancestry and their survival fitness when certain random behavior produced results whoch their 'pattern recognition' and 'automatic habit' brain pathways become 'imprinted' and default to such behavior in the future (much as 'memory maps' become imprinted automatically over time.
So, unless you claim that the Raven is 'doing science', then it must remain that it's only the subconscious 'pattern recognition' and other automatic evolutionary brain paths and habits which trigger animal-level observing and problem solving behavior.
Early hominids were also at that stage of 'observation and problem solving' behavior when it came to employing easily available 'technology' from their environment (shards of stones for cutting/weapons; exploiting lightning-initiated fire, etc.). The hominid advantage was in its greater capacity for more brain pathways due to its evolutionary enhanced brain structure/capacity etc).
Which led to the recently developed higher level, consciously directed and interpreted and enhanced etc processes for 'doing science' (as distinct from primitive technology exploitation from nature's products and cues). Most recently formulating a FORMAL process overlaid on all those precursor processes (from random observation, undirected trial and error, limited-understanding applications of 'pattern recognition' benefits; ending with the modern form of science process with strict rules for all stages of the process, which has also made the old trial and error process into 'pure research' phase of the whole scientific methodology to understand the world and create technology and 'pure knowledge' as well.
So you see, it's not as black and white as you have summarized it in your post, sideshowbob. Best.
PS: I posted the above also for timojin to help him work through his own understanding of the issue and definitions etc (and, hopefully, also for paddoboy; who, from his posted comments, appears enamored with 'simplistic explanations' at all costs; to the point of him missing all the important subtleties and information and understanding between his cartoon-comic version of reality and the fuller complex and subtle reality and understanding itself).
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Permit me to applaud your analysis.
The fact that *apparently* mathematical reasoning and applications is used by some of the most primitive life forms, such as the *brainless* slimemold, ants, termites, and the *intuitive* (subconscious) ability of recognizing *more of this, and less of that* in a host of other higher level (evolving brains) animals, and the *use of tools* in still more advanced animals, all seem to support you excellent presentation.
The fact that *apparently* mathematical reasoning and applications is used by some of the most primitive life forms, such as the *brainless* slimemold, ants, termites, and the *intuitive* (subconscious) ability of recognizing *more of this, and less of that* in a host of other higher level (evolving brains) animals, and the *use of tools* in still more advanced animals, all seem to support you excellent presentation.
Last edited:
Simplistic explantions rather than pretentious nonsense you mean expletive deleted?
Let me again reinforce the view that all science is, is the systematic organized categorisation of knowledge and data: In other words, the application of common sense.
Let me remind you of what a great man said.....
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough".
Albert Einstein:
Bingo! That's certainly about the size of it!
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Question: Are the organisms mentioned by ED and me employing science or simple evolutionary refinement of life sustaining functions?
I see it as the distinction between "instinct" and science.
Even human behavior is a mixture of instinct and "science"
Babies are able to suck, swallow cry laugh etc as examples of instinctive behavior. But they also learn quickly that crying for example, will gain attention: That learning can be and is related to science and how science by categorising experiences etc, leads to more learning, experience, technology etc...That technology than can lead to more knowledge/discoveries/learning, or the progression of science.
eg: Telescopes as technology increases, enables us to see further etc
expletives deleted
Registered Senior Member
@ paddoboy:
You obviously missed it all.
You just repeated someone else's 'simplistic definition of science' without understanding why it's limited.
Moreover, all the experts here and elsewhere often remind us, to the effect:
Insisting on "common sense" doesn't get you very far in Quantum and Relativity theory concepts; requiring one to "just shut up and calculate" etc and set aside intuition and common sense for the duration.
You should show some "common sense" and add something like this to your last quoted advice: "...but don't explain it so simplistically that it is useless, or worse, totally misleading and/or just plain wrong".
Listen instead of attacking people, paddoboy; you learn more that way; and learn to understand more science stuff 'correctly' rather than just 'simplistically'. Best
You obviously missed it all.
You just repeated someone else's 'simplistic definition of science' without understanding why it's limited.
Moreover, all the experts here and elsewhere often remind us, to the effect:
Insisting on "common sense" doesn't get you very far in Quantum and Relativity theory concepts; requiring one to "just shut up and calculate" etc and set aside intuition and common sense for the duration.
You should show some "common sense" and add something like this to your last quoted advice: "...but don't explain it so simplistically that it is useless, or worse, totally misleading and/or just plain wrong".
Listen instead of attacking people, paddoboy; you learn more that way; and learn to understand more science stuff 'correctly' rather than just 'simplistically'. Best
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I agree with that at the human level, and in a few other closely related species.
But the insect developed wings 200 million years before we were able to use science and technology to construct wings and airplanes. Fish developed fins and tails (rudders) long before we were able to use science and technology to construct sub-marines. (Note that our first attempts at flight was by means of flapping wings, until we figured out that using a propeller was more efficient both in the air and in water).
These were evolved natural technologies which we observed and basically copied in our technology and as you indicated, allowed us to then consciously refine and use for various purposes. But without those natural observable examples and our desire to attain some of the those remarkable natural abilities, I doubt that we would be were we are today.
IMO, the mathematical functions of nature itself invented (through evolution and natural selection) technologies of all kinds long before man and science came along, it just took a lot longer to get there.
Last edited:
Actually I hit it fair square on the head! I repeated what science is and what most accept it to be, rather than listen to forum inhabitants.
You seem obsessed with the application of maths for some reason: remember my friend, maths is the language of physics.
Common sense of course moves along with what knowledge we gain and as science reveals to us.
We now understand that the universe is a weird and wonderful place, and some of it will certainly insult our "face value" common sense.
No really and truly, as I said earlier, if you are unable to explain something as simple as the definition of science simply, then you yourself are confused and do not understand it properly.
I wasn't attacking you, I was simply replying to your rather childish condescending post thus.......
Understand?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
And our maths work because the universe functions mathematically. Is that succinct enough?
expletives deleted
Registered Senior Member
@ paddoboy:
You intruded with your usual simplistic mind and commentary and opinions while making unwarranted and ill informed disparaging mischaracterizations about fuller explanations and those prepared to take the trouble explain more fully the whole subtle and complex situation.
And apparently you still haven't understood why your simplistic definition is inadequate for the purpose in the context of teasing out and addressing timojin's discussion points and so helping his fuller understanding (something which you apparently go through life without with not a qualm; apparently self satisfied with mere simplistic cartoon-comic 'understanding'; which is not a very good approach to discussion if you seek to deride people who DO want to know, understand and/or explain things much more and better than you, here and elsewhere).
Thanks anyway, paddoboy. Best.
I repeated what science is and what most accept it to be, rather than listen to forum inhabitants.
You seem obsessed with the application of maths for some reason: remember my friend, maths is the language of physics.
Common sense of course moves along with what knowledge we gain and as science reveals to us.
We now understand that the universe is a weird and wonderful place, and some of it will certainly insult our "face value" common sense.
No really and truly, as I said earlier, if you are unable to explain something as simple as the definition of science simply, then you yourself are confused and do not understand it properly.
I wasn't attacking you, I was simply replying to your rather childish condescending post thus.......
Understand?
You intruded with your usual simplistic mind and commentary and opinions while making unwarranted and ill informed disparaging mischaracterizations about fuller explanations and those prepared to take the trouble explain more fully the whole subtle and complex situation.
And apparently you still haven't understood why your simplistic definition is inadequate for the purpose in the context of teasing out and addressing timojin's discussion points and so helping his fuller understanding (something which you apparently go through life without with not a qualm; apparently self satisfied with mere simplistic cartoon-comic 'understanding'; which is not a very good approach to discussion if you seek to deride people who DO want to know, understand and/or explain things much more and better than you, here and elsewhere).
Thanks anyway, paddoboy. Best.
Last edited:
That was poorly worded. [give myself an uppercut] I know the value of maths and physics...as I said maths is the language of physics.
expletive deleted is obviously critical of the maths, particularly when the maths shows solutions that "some" would conclude to be their "god of the gaps"
expletives deleted
Registered Senior Member
@ paddoboy:
Don't you read or understand anything properly, paddoboy? Your mischaracterizations and misattributions are becoming legendary here.
Get things straight before pretending to be any judge of any matter let alone what others say to you. You confuse everybody with your scattergun irrelevances and mischaracterizations etc. Please talk to a friend about those bad 'personal' habits.
PS: paddoboy, your above comment about me was off-topic here. It belonged in the other thread/discussion re ER=EPR, wormholes etc. And there I am not critical of the maths as such; I am critical of taking the maths construct beyond its physically tenable domain of applicability----as those "wormhole" etc conjectures have done---and then trying to tell people that you are 'doing science' when it's just pop-sci maths fantasy stuff. Again: It is THE science ITSELF which already says 'wormholes' etc are non-physical 'solutions' and 'conjectures', hence not real physical possibilities. Twigged yet?
Don't you read or understand anything properly, paddoboy? Your mischaracterizations and misattributions are becoming legendary here.
Get things straight before pretending to be any judge of any matter let alone what others say to you. You confuse everybody with your scattergun irrelevances and mischaracterizations etc. Please talk to a friend about those bad 'personal' habits.
PS: paddoboy, your above comment about me was off-topic here. It belonged in the other thread/discussion re ER=EPR, wormholes etc. And there I am not critical of the maths as such; I am critical of taking the maths construct beyond its physically tenable domain of applicability----as those "wormhole" etc conjectures have done---and then trying to tell people that you are 'doing science' when it's just pop-sci maths fantasy stuff. Again: It is THE science ITSELF which already says 'wormholes' etc are non-physical 'solutions' and 'conjectures', hence not real physical possibilities. Twigged yet?
I would in fact be more wary of your own legendary status....
you know the ones...the ones that I have often requested, and that PhysBang requested, and Dave requested, and James requested...you know the ones!
Again in a nutshell science is the systematic orginization, classification and gathering of knowledge...science drives technology, and technology in turn drives science.
Common sense is applied as per our knowledge of science reveals.
Remembering the universe is a weird and wonderful place and in time, you can bet your short n curlies, that the science we gain from improving technologies, will again in turn, change our view of "common sense"
expletives deleted
Registered Senior Member
@ paddoboy:
More off-topic and irrelevant diversions and fantasy from you, paddoboy.
And your nutshell was no use to the purpose of addressing timojin's more subtle points and explaining things in such a way as to bring out all the pertinent distinctions and explanations which helped fuller understanding. What was even more useless was you ill informed disparagement of fuller explanations just because you operate on 'simplistic' level.
Please learn to listen and stop attacking based on personal enmities which you have cultivated for yourself here. Such things are irrelevant, and you clutter up the threads with all your antics. Try to resist it. Thanks. Best.
I would in fact be more wary of your own legendary status....
you know the ones...the ones that I have often requested, and that PhysBang requested, and Dave requested, and James requested...you know the ones!
Again in a nutshell science is the systematic orginization, classification and gathering of knowledge...science drives technology, and technology in turn drives science.
Common sense is applied as per our knowledge of science reveals.
Remembering the universe is a weird and wonderful place and in time, you can bet your short n curlies, that the science we gain from improving technologies, will again in turn, change our view of "common sense"
More off-topic and irrelevant diversions and fantasy from you, paddoboy.
And your nutshell was no use to the purpose of addressing timojin's more subtle points and explaining things in such a way as to bring out all the pertinent distinctions and explanations which helped fuller understanding. What was even more useless was you ill informed disparagement of fuller explanations just because you operate on 'simplistic' level.
Please learn to listen and stop attacking based on personal enmities which you have cultivated for yourself here. Such things are irrelevant, and you clutter up the threads with all your antics. Try to resist it. Thanks. Best.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
....sorry to disappoint, but there are no more gaps.The glue that binds it all together has been found now too. The Higgs what?
p.s. sorry, that was not necessary.
Last edited:
Boson, Higg's Boson.....
The glue that binds it all together has been found now too. The Higgs what?
p.s. sorry, that was not necessary.
Ravens are known to be self-conscious to some degree - they alter their behavior in circumstances in which they perceive that they might - maybe - be under observation, even when they cannot tell for sure they are being watched, for example.
So the presumption of "subconscious" is not safe. There seems to be a middle ground, between formal science and automatic behavior. People, as well as ravens, appear to spend most of their evaluative and technologically complex behavior in that ground.