This seems fun...
That seems like fun...
(EDIT- The post title isn't showing up...manually inserted.)
Well, If you like semantics so much...
Aim:An analysis of the OP.
Thread title-
Interrogator said:
Science is the study of non-science
Analysis- Science (defined later by OP as a systematic enterprise that
builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.) is a study of non-science (defined by "www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonscience" as something (as a discipline) that is not a science- interpretation disciplines where scientific method of testing assumptions, principles and conclusions through repeatable experimentation are not always or never possible. Eg. History, Literature and philosophy).
Inference- OP is either not clear on the definition of non-science or in that of science or possibly both. Reasons- OP doesn't define non-science and then provides no supporting facts or hypotheses to support the Title.
Opening Statement-
The line between the observer and the observed needs to be re-enforced.
Analysis: The Op calls for a distiction between observer and the observed.
Rebuttal: Observer in this case is the Scientist who employs science as means of observing some object in order to glean new facts or verify existing knowledge. Nothing in the OP suggests a confusion regarding that Eg. astrophysicists and Supernovas are never confused for each other(hopefully)...
Main argument #1
Apparently science is a whole list of things nowadays, from evolution to nature. I didn't know nature was science. I did know nature was studied by science.
Analysis- In contemporary time the meaning of science has changed to include things from evolution to nature.
Acknowledgement- Under no definition of either science or nature can nature be a sub-set of science.
Rebuttal-OP shows no examples to support the statement that nature is identified as science. Clarification on behalf of the Op would be appreciated.
Acknowledgement-Similarly evolution can not be classified as a subset of science.
Clarification- Theory of evolution is a subset of science and evolution is a fact/conclusion the theory.
Main argument #2
Mainstream media and pop-sci is rampant with this non-sense, promoting science as a way of life, borderline new-age religion.
Analysis- OP contends that science is promoted as a way of life.
Acknowledgement- Science may not be classified as a way of life under any accepted definitions.
Clarification-
The scientific method may very well be assimilated in daily life.
Main argument #3
Let's remind ourselves of what science is:
"Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Analysis- OP quotes a definition from wikipedia and from the context (main argument #1- word nowadays) it may be inferred that OP desires to state that this is the original definition of science which has been now corrupted.
Rebuttal- OP ignores the second part of the paragraph the definition is extracted from:
Wikipedia said:
In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied
Main argument #4
Science organizes knowledge, but science is not the knowledge itself.
Analysis- OP states science organizes knowledge and is not the knowledge.
Rebuttal- In addition to the previous rebuttal which applies to this statement too it is desirable to point out that OP ignores a part of his own quote referring to the function of science as building the body of knowledge.
Main argument #5
Because the knowledge itself isn't always necessarily good or efficient (e.g. observations of dogs eating their own vomit).
Analysis- The OP contends knowledge is not necessarily 'good or efficient'.
Clarification required as to context of 'good or efficient'.
Assumption- Context refers to errors in accuracy and precision of data collection.
Clarification- A good theory requires explanation of all data collected and explanation of errors.
The statement is stated in support of statement "science is not the knowledge itself" which has been already refuted.
Example #1
Nothing about a dog's habits is scientific - the scientific part coming in data collection and study.
Analysis- An example proposed to support existing arguments.
Acknowledgement- It follows from definition of scientific-
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific
done in an organized way that agrees with the methods and principles of science
Rebuttal- Statement is ineffective in explaining any of the arguments proposed.
.
.
.
Some people need to learn to separate work from play.
mmm...I would have said painting(verb) and painting(noun)...
Ah well, more people need to make their work as fun as their play.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was fun...now for work:
What's your favourite fish?
