What is science?

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Mathew James

my brother asked me this, I am a very God created everything and he is a very reality guy, So we have conflict with this question. I love science and studied geology at the University of Texas, which is all about finding the oil. So there is a area of were facts meets fiction. It comes down to what you believe and that it not something that facts can change.

And yet even scientists cannot agree on the origins of oil. The biotic theory considers oil as being produced through the decay of animal and plant matter. Thus oil is limited and is being depleted faster than it can be regenerated. The abiotic theory considers oil as the result of natural processes within the Earth without the need for once-living organisms. Thus oil is continually being renewed.

The biotic theory dominates in the West, while Russia favours the abiotic theory. Perhaps there are two different sources of oil, one biotic and one abiotic. To quote quirkyscience.com:

The truth could prove to be that both mechanisms are correct, or that neither provides a completely accurate picture of how crude oil comes to us. What is certain is that scientists need to avoid letting previous ideas, politics, or even scientific competition prevent them from accepting the truth, whatever that proves to be.

Peace.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Kioma

What do you think science is?

For example: I believe science is a method for expansion of consciousness - an expansion that transcends through the meditation of study and examination of phenomena outside our immediate sphere.

In that spirit, I want to know what you believe.

Perhaps we need to differentiate between the material sciences and the non-material sciences.

The material sciences, such as chemistry and biology, are very good at investigating and understanding the material aspects of existence. The technological sciences have transformed human existence in so many ways, for better or for worse. But such material sciences can only take human understanding so far.

The non-material sciences deal with the more subtle aspects of our existence such as energy and consciousness. Here the human body is the laboratory. The methodology requires a focused mind, and the only proof is subjective experience. It often requires a teacher who can guide another person through the processes involved. But this can still be considered a science because by doing certain practices, perhaps breathing in a certain way, concentrating on different areas of the body, perhaps repeating certain mantras, then particular results will be obtained which may transcend what is considered humanly possible.

So the accomplished Yogi is a scientist but this science is still a long way from being accepted. Perhaps one day.

Peace

[Gem]

Originally Posted by iamthat

Perhaps we need to differentiate between the material sciences and the non-material sciences.

The material sciences, such as chemistry and biology, are very good at investigating and understanding the material aspects of existence. The technological sciences have transformed human existence in so many ways, for better or for worse. But such material sciences can only take human understanding so far.

The non-material sciences deal with the more subtle aspects of our existence such as energy and consciousness. Here the human body is the laboratory. The methodology requires a focused mind, and the only proof is subjective experience. It often requires a teacher who can guide another person through the processes involved. But this can still be considered a science because by doing certain practices, perhaps breathing in a certain way, concentrating on different areas of the body, perhaps repeating certain mantras, then particular results will be obtained which may transcend what is considered humanly possible.

So the accomplished Yogi is a scientist but this science is still a long way from being accepted. Perhaps one day.

Peace

But can the yogi math?

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by hallow

Yup, just like some were in the past. New technology happens everyday. Improvements are made everyday. It's not uncommon for a scientist ooops this was wrong. Because of this new tool I have. The science of a given topic is the study of a given topic.

So we should be cautious in trusting the scientists' consensus in any given field, because the scientific "truth" isn't decided democratically, by vote ... :)

[hallow]

Originally Posted by inavalan

So we should be cautious in trusting the scientists' consensus in any given field, because the scientific "truth" isn't decided democratically, by vote ... :)

There's truth in it ,you can't totally disregard it. Just information to help you think for yourself. Also like anything where big money is involved it can easily be influenced by the person signing the pay check. Look at modern medicine for a good example. Or the latest topic of vaping. 5 year's ago it was a harmless substitute for cigarettes. Now it's killing people. I love science but as with most anything, it's not " in stone"..... Yet

[hallow]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

What are you talking about?

I talked to one chap yesterday and he did not realize back in the 60's, if you wanted a
computer to do anything, you showed up with a box of IBM 'Hollerith' cards.

Yelp, things change.

I grew up in the 80s and 90s when the internet didn't exist. Aaaahhhh what a time to be alive. Hahaha.

[hallow]

Originally Posted by Kioma

What do you think science is?

You would think these days that would be an easy question to answer, but when I actually question people I get a great variety of answers. Everyone seems to think they know what science is, but few actually fit the traditional definition.

That's why this is not in the 'science' subforum - I'm not looking for the traditional definition, if I wanted that I could just look in the dictionary. What I want to know is your belief, so I put it here.

For example: I believe science is a method for expansion of consciousness - an expansion that transcends through the meditation of study and examination of phenomena outside our immediate sphere.

In that spirit, I want to know what you believe.

. In spiritual science, I have a really hard time putting spiritual and science within the same meaning. Nothing wrong with it, what you do in your spare time is entirely up to you. Guess it's to formal for me, just like most other religions.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by hallow

I grew up in the 80s and 90s when the internet didn't exist. Aaaahhhh what a time to be alive. Hahaha.

My internet account I still use, I acquired in the early 1990's. At the time, it was super fast - 300 baud.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by hallow

. In spiritual science, I have a really hard time putting spiritual and science within the same meaning. Nothing wrong with it, what you do in your spare time is entirely up to you. Guess it's to formal for me, just like most other religions.

I would say theology is not science.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Kioma

How interesting! Radar is how I first learned electronics, in the USAF back in the '80s. I was a radar technician, working on a large search radar for years, one of the last of the old JSS sites.

Your project sounds interesting because of the limitations involved. I can see the difficulty with a monostatic system, as duplexer recovery time does leave you with a significant blind range. A phased array system would have made things much simpler, IMO, as you can vary the focus and they tend to use ferrite circulators. Personally, if it were me, I would have just put the radar a mile or so away. Problem solved. I know the government has plenty of land to do such things.

And yes, that very much is science! It was no less than Einstein himself who helped in the early development of radar.

It is very much conventional science, which is only partly what I am talking about. As I said, this thread isn't just about conventional science per se, it is about people's views of science, which have been most interesting so far.

After September 11, 2001, a leading magazine published an article about that site.
The article claimed when they suspected that event was a terrorist attack, a major ran to the top of the hill
were the site was located. Boarded his fighter plane and pursued for interception.

My question was why did he run up a tall hill? Why did he not drive up the hill in a vehicle?
Sure there are jets there, but none of them were flyable, besides, there was no runway.

This was the outside worlds' understanding at what went on at that location. The experiment I was involved in was technology that had not been developed. We were developing the technology. The project consisted of an air frame (airplane) upside down on a pedestal. The pedestal could rotate 360 degrees at a regulated speed. There were 3 radar antennas about 100 - 200 feet from the air frame that were 120 degrees apart from each other. My job was to design the firmware to control the radars with precision while at the same time, receiving information from the plane at the microwave level which was digitized, sent to a mini computer which was used only to store the data. As I was leaving that job, a B-2 was being brought in.

I also worked at another site. The news media claimed the people working there were experimenting on animals. The truth was, they were tracking the debris in space, etc. The military personnel were part of Space Command.