Science is the best idea humans have ever had.

[EdEarl]

 

I agree. Science has resulted in medical improvements that have increased the human life expectancy from 20-30 (before 20th century) years to 67 (now). I think philosophy, especially secular humanist philosophy is second, and art is third. What do you think?

[Nicholas Kang]

Don`t let an artist see this post/picture and your comment. I am afraid of maybe he/she will punch you if he/she is pessimistic.

But I love Science, so I agree.

Edited August 2, 2014 by Nicholas Kang

[Ten oz]

Science has been a double edged sword. While it has allowed humans to flourish it has also allowed humans to kill. For every person saved by medicine there has been a person shot or blown up. Add to that what we are doing to this planet and I almost wonder if it wouldn't have been better if we remained hunter gathers?

We are where we though and science is the single best way forward.

[Fuzzwood]

Science is a tool, it's the people who (mis)use tools.

[timo]

I think society, ethics and language aren't that bad ideas, either.

[EdEarl]

I think society, ethics and language aren't that bad ideas, either.

Umm, I hadn't considered language, previously. Science would not exist, except for language. However, it is questionable whether we invented language or not. We don't know if H. erectus used language or not. It can be argued that some animals have rudimentary languages, and no one can deny that organisms communicate via chemicals (odor and flavor), sight and sound. Think I recall Neanderthals had the right physiology to speak.

 

Don`t let an artist see this post/picture and your comment. I am afraid of maybe he/she will punch you if he/she is pessimistic.

 

But I love Science, so I agree.

The Hubble Telescope Gallery contains some of the best eye candy I've seen, and the science is awesome. Edited August 2, 2014 by EdEarl

[Dekan]

It seems to me, that only a minority of people have an inborn interest in "Science".

 

I learned this as a child, when I was fascinated by microscopes, telescopes and chemistry sets. At the age of 10, I could name the planets in the Solar System, in order, with their diameters (as then known) and orbital distances in millions of miles. And all kinds of other scientific stuff. But none of this was of any interest to the other kids. They were only concerned with shouting and fighting, and behaving like animals.

 

Not that the other kids were unintelligent in any absolute sense. Rather, their brains clearly lacked some essential "factor" necessary for an appreciation of Science.

Whatever this "factor" may be, it's quite rare. Most people haven't got it. This is proved by any conversation you have with members of the general public.

 

Thanks be, there's this Science Forum, which offers welcome relief to the scientific minority!

[EdEarl]

It seems to me, that only a minority of people have an inborn interest in "Science".

 

I learned this as a child, when I was fascinated by microscopes, telescopes and chemistry sets. At the age of 10, I could name the planets in the Solar System, in order, with their diameters (as then known) and orbital distances in millions of miles. And all kinds of other scientific stuff. But none of this was of any interest to the other kids. They were only concerned with shouting and fighting, and behaving like animals.

 

Not that the other kids were unintelligent in any absolute sense. Rather, their brains clearly lacked some essential "factor" necessary for an appreciation of Science.

Whatever this "factor" may be, it's quite rare. Most people haven't got it. This is proved by any conversation you have with members of the general public.

 

Thanks be, there's this Science Forum, which offers welcome relief to the scientific minority!

True, only some people like science. However, almost everyone takes advantage of science in one way or another, because it is difficult to live without using some kind of electronic device, even if it is only a light bulb...for sure, the power a person uses is from a generator developed by a scientist. People wear clothes made from materials developed by a scientist, eat food somehow helped by science, etc. Few lifestyles have not been enhanced by science.

[Roamer]

Who is this great inventor who made up science ?

[timo]

Who is this great inventor who made up science ?

It is a common misconception to assume that inventions must be neccessarily attributed to a single person or a well-defined small group of people. That is only required for the newspapers to write an article about the invention (basic rule of journalism: put a face on your story). And maybe for companies who need to justify putting a patent on buttons on the computer screen.

 

EDIT: But maybe I should also try to anwer the question from my very limited historical knowledge: As far as I know modern (natural) science started with the guy around the time of Newton, where mere philosophising about how things could work was being backed-up with systematic quantitative experimenting. In reality it was probably a much more gradual process than my limited understanding of history suggests, though. And one thing one should also keep in mind is that western society probably does not sufficiently take into account the development in other parts of the world.

Edited August 4, 2014 by timo

[arc]

It is a common misconception to assume that inventions must be neccessarily attributed to a single person or a well-defined small group of people.

 

Well, I believe our ancestors first scientific endeavour in "Biochemistry" lead to the formation of the first civilisations.

 

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

Chemical tests of ancient pottery jars reveal that beer was produced about 7,000 years ago in what is today Iran, and is one of the first-known biological engineering tasks to utilize the process of fermentation. In Mesopotamia, the oldest evidence of beer is believed to be a 6,000-year-old Sumerian tablet depicting people drinking a beverage through reed straws from a communal bowl. A 3900-year-old Sumerian poem honouring Ninkasi, the patron goddess of brewing, contains the oldest surviving beer recipe, describing the production of beer from barley via bread.

 

And the rest, as they say, is (our) history. (hic)

Edited August 4, 2014 by arc

[Nicholas Kang]

The Hubble Telescope Gallery contains some of the best eye candy I've seen, and the science is awesome.

 

The gallery simply tells you galaxies name, not art. Art is more subjective, science is objective. For you galaxies are beautiful, for the others, they simply mean nothing.

[EdEarl]

Not everyone sees every work of art as beautiful. Perhaps there are some everyone agrees is beautiful.

[Roamer]

It is a common misconception to assume that inventions must be neccessarily attributed to a single person or a well-defined small group of people. That is only required for the newspapers to write an article about the invention (basic rule of journalism: put a face on your story). And maybe for companies who need to justify putting a patent on buttons on the computer screen.

 

EDIT: But maybe I should also try to anwer the question from my very limited historical knowledge: As far as I know modern (natural) science started with the guy around the time of Newton, where mere philosophising about how things could work was being backed-up with systematic quantitative experimenting. In reality it was probably a much more gradual process than my limited understanding of history suggests, though. And one thing one should also keep in mind is that western society probably does not sufficiently take into account the development in other parts of the world.

True that, people have been gathering knowledge in all kinds of ways for as long as they were around, and i think "science" is just a face we've put on - most - of that gathering(and storing) of knowledge.

 

[Nicholas Kang]

Not everyone sees every work of art as beautiful. Perhaps there are some everyone agrees is beautiful.

 

For example?

[Ten oz]

The gallery simply tells you galaxies name, not art. Art is more subjective, science is objective. For you galaxies are beautiful, for the others, they simply mean nothing.

I think you are on to something. Science is terrific but hasn't necessarily been the spark that's driven wonderment thoughout history. Art has inspired humans from the begin. Whether it was poetic oral history or giant architectural achievements like Pyramids the desire for beauty was at the very least equal to the desire for technology.

[Nicholas Kang]

On to something? I don't really get what you mean. I am always on in science. When Aristotle was convinced that the earth is round, it was a wondrous exploits to most of the public members. When Maxwell had his theory of electromagnetism published with 8 formulae, it sets the tone for future electromagnetism development and continue to be part of the foundation of quantum electrodynamics. Obviously, istm that science differs from the orthodox way of thinking. For scientists, beauty means accurate theories, plausible evidences, and solid convincing facts but to the public, it simply means application of technologies in daily life that ease and help us. The public gain satisfaction by enjoying smartphones and tablets. Scientists and engineers enjoy science by describing and explaining working principles behind them.

[EdEarl]

 

EdEarl, on 06 Aug 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

Not everyone sees every work of art as beautiful. Perhaps there are some everyone agrees is beautiful.

For example?

 

LOL. I don't know the minds of everyone, so how can I give you an example of a work or art that everyone thinks is beautiful.

Ugly art: http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/worlds-ugliest-public-art

[Nicholas Kang]

That's the point. Art is subjective. So no problem. It's alright.

[Ten oz]

On to something? I don't really get what you mean. I am always on in science. When Aristotle was convinced that the earth is round, it was a wondrous exploits to most of the public members. When Maxwell had his theory of electromagnetism published with 8 formulae, it sets the tone for future electromagnetism development and continue to be part of the foundation of quantum electrodynamics. Obviously, istm that science differs from the orthodox way of thinking. For scientists, beauty means accurate theories, plausible evidences, and solid convincing facts but to the public, it simply means application of technologies in daily life that ease and help us. The public gain satisfaction by enjoying smartphones and tablets. Scientists and engineers enjoy science by describing and explaining working principles behind them.

"On to something" is just another way of saying I liked what you posted.

[Ophiolite]

I once put chilled rhubarb in a wrap of smoked salmon. It may not be the best idea ever, but it is probably the best one I shall ever have.

[Nicholas Kang]

"On to something" is just another way of saying I liked what you posted.

 

Sorry for bad(maybe worst) English. Do the phrase "on to something" means you agree with somebody everytime he talks?

[Phi for All]

 

Sorry for bad(maybe worst) English. Do the phrase "on to something" means you agree with somebody everytime he talks?

 

I think the "something" one finds themselves "on to" when this phrase is used is "the right path/trail". As in, you've stumbled on to something that feels like it has a lot of potential, a path that may lend us some insight.

 

Alternately, if I say, "I'm on to you", it could mean I've figured out your unspoken motives and now understand what you're doing. It's mostly used when there is something to figure out that requires some investigation.

 

/off-topic clarification

[Nicholas Kang]

What?! I lend Ten oz some insight? How could it be? And he seemed to just agree with me and I think he would have said he was same as me, on to something in this context, instead of just I am on to something. I mean on to something refers to the person himself/herself, not the third party who describe them, am I right? For example, in the above example, Ten oz had written I am on to something(which means I feel like I have a lot of potential in that thread) but this didn`t tells you that he agrees with my idea.

[Phi for All]

What?! I lend Ten oz some insight? How could it be? And he seemed to just agree with me and I think he would have said he was same as me, on to something in this context, instead of just I am on to something. I mean on to something refers to the person himself/herself, not the third party who describe them, am I right? For example, in the above example, Ten oz had written I am on to something(which means I feel like I have a lot of potential in that thread) but this didn`t tells you that he agrees with my idea.

 

I think it's more a case where he liked the direction you were taking the discussion. He doesn't necessarily agree with what you're saying, just that it's a potentially good direction to explore.