Posted by:
FR
at Mon Aug 20 14:17:52 2007 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by FR ]
Lets have a big fat discussion. I ask you this because your about the only one to kick my bum at times(hmmm to many times). You also have been here very long and has particapated in the subject I want to discuss. You have taken both sides in the past, so I see no one better. And the fact your so darn creative and actually a genius in that area. Of course, only if your feeling up to it. So please, ease up a little and try to make the point, and not destroy me in the process. hahahahahaahha
AS you know, so many want to think they are "scientific" and try to point out that I am not scientific. I QUESTION THAT. I have givin that some thought and have come up with a fun way of explaining why that could be wrong. I want you to defend the scientific view point, and of course I will take my old non science/actually science stance.
So to throw the first punch, I will say that these science folks have lost the meaning of science(the mission statement) And have confused science with religion. (a large bomb)
Let me clarify, in this case, its not about god as a focal point of religion. But as a subject based on faith. As in, religion is to have faith, not necessarily from proof/or results. So, they believe in science, and seem to have faith in science. To the extreme of treating science as a religion, based on faith not from the practice of.
Let me define my view of science a little bit. Science is a way of thinking, deductive, pragmatic, etc is substantiated with repeated results. simply put, science is to ask questions and have them answered in a consistant repeatable way.(applied science)
It appears to me, the possibility that some of those that argue or dicsuss this with me, use science as an approach, but do not have results to support their opinions. They base their opinions on their believe(faith in science) and not on actual recieved repeatable results(in the context of this forum, the keeping and breeding of monitors)AND HERESAY, banter from others without scientific support.
Of course with different individuals, there have been various degrees of their actual results, but in all cases, it was very limited. Science is to quantify. That is, It must be supported with numbers. Many superceeds the few. To be a little Lt. Spock like.(the needs of the many, outweights the needs of the few)
Next I will put this out. How scientific is it to argue theory(or faith) over repeated results. For instance, many argue a hatchling or ten, and a few clutches, over many thousands of hatchlings and clutches. That is not being scientific, is it? Or to argue against quantified results, with theory and faith. Again, that is not within the rules of science.
So heres what I am saying, those that do argue against my results, are doing so, not based on THE PRACTICE of science, but instead because of their faith in science(religion). Again science is not about religion or faith, its about results. Or they simply find benefit to ignore my results. which is also non scientific. Truthfully, To be scientific they should investigate my results.
As silly as it sounds and yes, to some it does sound silly, I appear to be one of the few to practice science. You see, science is not something you are, its something you practice. All my results, tools, opinions and suggestions are based on trial and error, which is a scientific approach. And the recieving of benefitual results through testing, again, scientific. Because I think like a reptile and spell funny, does not make my approach unscientific.
One of my faults is, I am poor at the language of science(hmmmmm english too) is that worse then, to use the language of science without actual science(results)? This again appears to be confusing science with, faith and religion. Its not being scientific. Science is a result, not a forumula. (That last sentence is Key to understanding this)
Let me refresh folks, there are many forms of science, such as applied science(what we do here) academic science( knowledge, teaching, theory) academics is knowledge not applied. Its in the dictionary. Of course there are many more areas of sciene, But those are the two most commonly confused on these forums. Another definition is, technological enterprises. What does that mean?
So Jobi, can you add to that? or are you going to, "hit me with your best shot" I am ready to duck. I ducking now. Thanks if you play or not. Cheers
[ Hide Replies ]
 Jobi, lets debate(have a big fat discus - FR, Mon Aug 20 14:17:52 2007
|
