homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums   » Techno-Talking   » Science!   » The aim of science

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: The aim of science
cyber_junkie
Geek Apprentice
Member # 3861

Rate Member
Icon 3 posted May 21, 2005 09:15      Profile for cyber_junkie     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The aim of science is to formulate a theory which tells us how everything is governd. This 'theory' is broken down into sub-theories like gravity, relativity etc.
With these we can predct things such as the orbit of planets etc.
well then this theory would also predict human behavior and thus would decide if we were to find this theory at all.

--------------------
"My crime is that of curiosity." -Mentor

Posts: 42 | From: India | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
dragonman97

SuperFan!
Member # 780

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted May 21, 2005 19:23      Profile for dragonman97   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't get it. If you're stating a fact, or postulating a theory, I'd expect it to be a lot more elaborate. If you're asking a question, I'd still expect more, something in the vein of a interrogative, and a question mark. So what exactly was that post all about?

--------------------
There are three things you can be sure of in life: Death, taxes, and reading about fake illnesses online...

Posts: 9331 | From: Westchester County, New York | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
cyber_junkie
Geek Apprentice
Member # 3861

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted May 22, 2005 02:39      Profile for cyber_junkie     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Its not a theory its just something i thaught about.

--------------------
"My crime is that of curiosity." -Mentor

Posts: 42 | From: India | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
littlefish
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 966

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted May 22, 2005 05:26      Profile for littlefish   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A lot of science actually tells us that we can't predict stuff. Some things are essentially random, and only allow us to predict the probability of something happening.
Posts: 2421 | From: That London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 1 posted May 22, 2005 12:51      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
... then there's statistics. (technically still scientific)

While science may let you know why something happens and predict certain events, statistics is along the lines of "I don't know why, but this is will (very likely) be the result."

I would say people generally use "statistics" in day to day prediction of other people's actions and motivations, instead of a rule based science.

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
ewomack
Highlie
Member # 3225

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted May 22, 2005 15:14      Profile for ewomack   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah. I don't get the point either, but a lot of scientists themselves are skeptical about the GUT (Grand Unified Theory of EVERYTHING). It would be quite a theory, indeed. Stephen Hawking called it "The Mind of God". There those scientists go again, bringing in the Deus Ex Machina. [Big Grin]

--------------------
Ed Womack
Get Milked

Posts: 735 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
cyber_junkie
Geek Apprentice
Member # 3861

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted May 23, 2005 09:36      Profile for cyber_junkie     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
what i meant to say was the GUT(or something on tha same lines) would prdict human behavior and therefore would predict when GUT itself would be found.
Posts: 42 | From: India | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sxeptomaniac

Member # 3698

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted May 23, 2005 10:06      Profile for Sxeptomaniac   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cyber_junkie:
what i meant to say was the GUT(or something on tha same lines) would prdict human behavior and therefore would predict when GUT itself would be found.

This makes no sense. If there is a GUT, it can't predict until after it's formulated. So it couldn't predict or determine when it will be "discovered" because it doesn't exist yet.

A theory is an idea, not some pre-existing object waiting to be discovered. A theory is our explanation of how things work, not the things themselves.

--------------------
Let's pray that the human race never escapes from Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. - C. S. Lewis

Posts: 1590 | From: Fresno, CA | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted May 23, 2005 18:17      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
While science may let you know why something happens and predict certain events, statistics is along the lines of "I don't know why, but this is will (very likely) be the result."

Uh, say what?

Science tells us a whole lot about how things happen, but not much about why. The only answer to a why question I've ever found in science is the very classic and very pithy "because it can".

Statistics play an enormous role in the world around us. In fact, I'd even stick my neck out and say they are the world around us. Pretty much everything you observe is an ensemble of molecules and the properties exhibited are the average. If you have the right methods, you can get down and look at the single molecule level and damn is there some weird shit happening.

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 5 posted May 23, 2005 20:04      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Xanthine, I'll try to restate what I said:

Some scientific formulas do not use probability,
  other scientific formulas are strongly influenced by probability.

There is no probability in calculating the resistance of a length of wire with a uniform cross-section area.

Does it make sense now? (You could nit-pick and say that probability = 1.)

Or were you trying to make a point that we don't know "why" anything happens because when units of measure become small enough the nature of the universe is unexplained?

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted May 23, 2005 21:33      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, it doesn't.

It's been a while since I had to do anything with EM, but IIRCC you need to know a few things about the current coming through the wire and you're going to have to apply a few laws. The observations these laws were based on were made on an ensemble of electrons. Some of the electrons in that population are behaving a wee bit differently from the others. In the end, because there are so many electrons, you're going to see the net effect your calculations predict, but there's a still a statistical component to all this people rarely take into account. Don't knock statistics. They keep your engine running and your cells burning.

As for the why...ask why something is the way it is. Find the answer. Ask why the answer is the way it is. Keep on going. You'll hit the dead end pretty darn quick. Or just go take physical chemistry. Even if it's just the undergrad course I took, it will change your life.

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
littlefish
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 966

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted May 24, 2005 00:30      Profile for littlefish   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Or just go take physical chemistry. Even if it's just the undergrad course I took, it will change your life.
Yes- it may turn you into an embittered lout who wanders round shouting at computers, cursing broken machinery and being more of an engineer than a scientist. Or you might turn out differently to me. [Wink]
Posts: 2421 | From: That London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted May 24, 2005 06:52      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, I fled back to biochem. Scarred for life but I know what delta-delta G is about and why the single-molecule people are insane.

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
cyber_junkie
Geek Apprentice
Member # 3861

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted May 27, 2005 09:22      Profile for cyber_junkie     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
now that u all put it that way.... it sets me thinking in a different direction

--------------------
"My crime is that of curiosity." -Mentor

Posts: 42 | From: India | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mel
Alpha Geek
Member # 3553

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted May 29, 2005 12:12      Profile for Mel     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This topic just makes me think of this:

Goals for Canadian Science Education

To promote scientific literacy, the following goals for Canadian science education were developed as part of the Pan-Canadian Science Framework and are addressed through Manitoba science curricula.

Science education will...

* encourage students at all grades to develop a critical sense of wonder and curiosity about scientific and technological endeavours

* enable students to use science and technology to acquire new knowledge and solve problems, so that they may improve the quality of their own lives and the lives of others

* prepare students to critically address science-related societal, economic, ethical, and environmental issues

* provide students with a proficiency in science that creates opportunities for them to pursue progressively higher levels of study, prepares them for science-related occupations, and engages them in science-related hobbies appropriate to their interests and abilities

* develop in students of varying aptitudes and interests a knowledge of the wide variety of careers related to science, technology, and the environment

Posts: 309 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
spungo
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1089

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted May 30, 2005 06:42      Profile for spungo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course, in reality, the aim of Science is to justfy the next grant application. Language skills are the prime assets as it generally involves baffling the funding bodies with enough buzz-words and topical gibberish so that they think you're pursuing bleeding-edge research, when in fact you're merely exploiting their ignorance and professional conceit. Corruption in Science is endemic: how many conferences are initiated on one premise only to be run as a shameless junket for the organisers' cronies?

Me cynical? Nah. True cynics are the ones that tell you everything will be alright. [Wink]

--------------------
Shameless plug. (Please forgive me.)

Posts: 6529 | From: Noba Scoba | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
littlefish
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 966

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted May 30, 2005 08:27      Profile for littlefish   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
bleeding-edge research
Yargh! I hate that phrase. What is wrong with cutting edge for heavens sake?
Posts: 2421 | From: That London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
dragonman97

SuperFan!
Member # 780

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted May 30, 2005 09:14      Profile for dragonman97   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by littlefish:
quote:
bleeding-edge research
Yargh! I hate that phrase. What is wrong with cutting edge for heavens sake?
Some scientists caught the wrong side of Occam's razor...

--------------------
There are three things you can be sure of in life: Death, taxes, and reading about fake illnesses online...

Posts: 9331 | From: Westchester County, New York | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted May 30, 2005 09:52      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hehe dman.

quote:
Originally posted by littlefish:
[quote]bleeding-edge research[\quote]

Yargh! I hate that phrase. What is wrong with cutting edge for heavens sake?

No idea. But it does make for some interesting puns if your research isn't panning out...

I did some bleeding edge research concerning gravity, a sink, and large, wet, glass plate a couple weeks ago. I knew it was bad when I looked down and saw red glass in the sink. On hindsight, I should have gotten stitches but now I'll just have a groddy scar and a lame story behind it. Fortunately there's a glass shop in town so it was cheap to replace.

The whole cutting edge thing seems a little over the top, to be honest. Research is, by definition, a foray into the unknown. But cutting edge and bleeding edge make the grant reviewers (or, if you're in industry, investors)happy so we're stuck with 'em.

quote:
Sayeth Spungo:
Corruption in Science is endemic: how many conferences are initiated on one premise only to be run as a shameless junket for the organisers' cronies?

So THAT'S why there were so many talks on RNA structure and catalysis at the meeting I was at last week...not that I'm going to complain. Structure is my field. [Smile]

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted May 30, 2005 13:43      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The true aim of Science is to woo women (or men, if you're that way inclined)

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10668 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 1 posted May 30, 2005 21:08      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by littlefish:
quote:
bleeding-edge research
Yargh! I hate that phrase.
I always thought of it as a derogatory term, in that it's not "leading-edge," and it may be "harmful." Apparently, it was more intended as a statement of risk. [Geek]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
dildo_bangings
Geek Larva
Member # 4090

Member Rated:
2
Icon 1 posted June 25, 2005 01:42      Profile for dildo_bangings         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
isnt science about weapons of mass destruction or as einstein will put it e=mc2, which means that all you need is energy to destroy mass. throughout history science was all about improving the instruments of war. its a fact that most big science projects are paid by the military. for instance star wars, the internet, all nasa projects and biotechnology projects. the aim of science is to increase knowledge and maybe even make our lives easier. a society cannot have unlimited knowledge. at a certain point critical mass is reached and then knowledge is misused by a privileged minority in all kinds of unholy ways. therefore i conclude that science is bad and must be exterminated. also its byproduct technology should be destroyed. i urge you no i demand that you denounce all technology. start by smashing the pc in front of you. throw your mobile phone against the nearest wall. collect all your books, cd's and magazines and burn them while chanting NO MORE TECHNOLOGY! NO MORE SCIENCE!

--------------------
Your attitude is unacceptable please punish yourself.

Posts: 28 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jonathan
Geek
Member # 2724

Member Rated:
1
Icon 1 posted June 25, 2005 07:52      Profile for Jonathan   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dildo_bangings:
isnt science about weapons of mass destruction or as einstein will put it e=mc2, which means that all you need is energy to destroy mass. throughout history science was all about improving the instruments of war. its a fact that most big science projects are paid by the military. for instance star wars, the internet, all nasa projects and biotechnology projects. the aim of science is to increase knowledge and maybe even make our lives easier. a society cannot have unlimited knowledge. at a certain point critical mass is reached and then knowledge is misused by a privileged minority in all kinds of unholy ways. therefore i conclude that science is bad and must be exterminated. also its byproduct technology should be destroyed. i urge you no i demand that you denounce all technology. start by smashing the pc in front of you. throw your mobile phone against the nearest wall. collect all your books, cd's and magazines and burn them while chanting NO MORE TECHNOLOGY! NO MORE SCIENCE!

I guess I'll never see you in the forums again. [crazy]
Posts: 147 | From: Somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
nerdwithnofriends
Uber Geek
Member # 3773

Icon 1 posted June 25, 2005 21:26      Profile for nerdwithnofriends     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 


--------------------
"The Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in the circuits of a digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at the top of a mountain or in the petals of a flower." - Robert M. Pirsig

Posts: 948 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time  
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0


homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam