The stars in the heavens - God promise to Abraham

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:09:07 +1000, SolomonW
wrote:

But let us get a definition first for what science is

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is the effort to
discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world
works.

I consider that a very poor definition of science- at the least,
obsolete. Science isn't simply the effort to discover how the physical
universe works; it is that effort carried out in a very specific way,
one that requires testing and rejection of ideas that fail testing.

If you wish to use "science" as a synonym for "physical knowledge", then
you can say they had "science". But saying that serves little purpose.
What's important is that ancient people seem not to have had any method
for correcting errors in their physical knowledge base. Without a
scientific method, errors introduced by their mythology simply stood for
thousands of years.


If you said modern science, I would agree. However if you look here you
can see a section about ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian science so it
was around.

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

I don't see any good examples of what I would call a scientific approach
to understanding nature. It seems very likely that some individuals must
have employed the scientific method, but what evidence of that is left
now? What some of these ancient cultures developed were excellent
observation skills. That- and the data they collected- were important
elements in the eventual development of science.


There was little or no science to be found a few thousand years ago,

There is a big difference between little and no in this context.

Well, what I meant was that I think people were using the scientific
method, but they were doing so rather unconsciously, and mostly as a
tool for understanding things other than natural law. I don't think
there was any systematic approach available that could be used to
significantly improve the quality of physical understanding.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

I rather enjoy the fact that every new discovery by space travel
rewrote the book on the solar system.

If I had a pound (or two dollars) for every new discovery regarding
the Solar System since we no longer relied on ground based
observations Í'd be looking forwards to my pension.

Over a fairly long lifetime I have repeatedly heard astonished
astronomers and scientists on TV saying how shocked they were by the
view from the latest flypast, lander or orbiting observation platform.

It's not that I like seeing scientists with egg all over their faces.

It's the fact that they are able to cheerfully accept they were
completely wrong and immediately add the new discovery to the colossus
of multi-discipline, scientific theory and move on. No doubt elated by
having new tools and ideas to work with.

Religion would torture and murder the discoverers of anything which
undermined their dusty old beliefs. (unless they decide they could
make a nice fortune out of the discovery to build a few more palaces
for their upper hierarchy )

Aids/condoms and the attempted genocide of rthe African people is the
perfect example of the difference between science and religion.
Scientists would be delighted to discover that the Aids virus was
blocked by simple rubber condoms. The church cannot change its
doctrine so will see millions of innocent African children born with
Aids simply because of their perverted and corrupt superstition. When
will we see the pope in the same court as Milosevic and Karadzic?
Answers on a postcard to: The Vatican Palaces c/o The Hague.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:05:35 -0400, Pastor Dave
wrote:

Scientists can be and are quite a number of times.

Of course. And the knowledge obtained by science can be wrong as well,
although it will be replaced with more accurate knowledge sooner or
later. The knowledge obtained by science improves with time.


But folks are dumb enough to think that what the
scientists say, is science, when lots of times, it's
just their faith.

That's rarely the case. Some scientists speak out on unscientific
matters. But the knowledge collected by scientists is, largely, of high
quality. Again, what scientists _do_ is science, what they say is not.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Pastor Dave wrote:
Scientists can be and are quite a number of times.
But folks are dumb enough to think that what the
scientists say, is science, when lots of times, it's
just their faith.

In my experience people are "dumb" when they don't understand what
science is. And worse they don't often realize it. We teach kids facts
but we aren't careful enough to teach them what science *is* and many
teachers don't understand it themselves. Yet at the same time everyone
takes it for granted that everyone knows what science is and how it
works. The very fact that some people are "dumb enough" (your words)
to confuse science with faith is a prime example. It is painfully
obvious to me that you, for instance, don't really understand what
science is and how it works. Of course, you *think* you do...

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com

To reply take out your eye

On Aug 1, 3:05*am, Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:10:18 -0600, Chris L Peterson
spake thusly:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:28:36 +1000, SolomonW
wrote:

By the same token biblical cosmology was science when the bible was
written.

It most certainly was not. You are confusing "science" with "knowledge".
Science cannot be wrong; it is merely an approach to developing
knowledge.

Scientists can be and are quite a number of times.
But folks are dumb enough to think that what the
scientists say, is science, when lots of times, it's
just their faith.

--

The Last Days were in the first century:

1 Corinthians 1:7-8

7) So that *YE* come behind in no gift;
WAITING FOR THE COMING OF OUR LORD
JESUS CHRIST:
8) Who shall also confirm YOU unto the end,
that *YE* may be blameless in the day of
our Lord Jesus Christ.

** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

I am a Christian who just happens to post in sci.astro.amateur and the
responses you are receiving are from particpants of that group,they
actually have distinct set of beliefs which can be isolated and
studied and generally their beliefs come under a system that
reallyonly took off in the late 17th century via Newton,this system
is the empirical cult and it promotes the so-called 'scientific
method'.I have a God-given gift for astronomy that I was unaware of
until I discovered it by taking the time to understand the older
astronomical heritage of substance from behind all the novelsitic
empirical junk dumped into the celestial arena under the name of
astronomy

In all respects,the fault does not exist with the empiricists who are
going to believe whatever they wish irrespective of what is brought
before them to demonstrate where they take a wrong turn,jump to a
wrong conclusion or base things on false premises,the fault is with
those who do not take the time to look at what our ancestors thought
as they looked into the celestial arena .The best place to start
removing some of the fiction is to put the discovery of Copernicus in
perspective of the Western Christian background into which it
emerged,this short explanation is not designed for the empricists who
just ignore it but for you and other Christians.

The first arguments for the motions of the Earth or the absurdity of a
stationary Earth at the center of the Universe were actually
theological in nature.The idea that the Earth at the center would be
at variance with the theological belief of God in all things and to
locate the Earth at the center would be contrary to such a Christian
tenet of faith.Before Copernicus there was Archbishop Nicolas of Cusa
who promoted these ideas.To borrow the argument -

"Suppose person A were on the earth somewhere below the north pole of
the heavens and person B were at the north pole of the heavens. In
that case, to A the pole would appear to be at the zenith, and A would
believe himself to be at the center; to B the earth would appear to be
at the zenith, and B would believe himself to be at the center. Thus,
A's zenith would be B's center, and B's zenith would be A's " Hence
Cusa could write in the early 15th century -

"And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the
center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that
the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see--
through the intellect, to which only learned ignorance is of help--
that the world and its motion and shape cannot be apprehended. For
[the world] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and a sphere in a
sphere-- having its center and circumference nowhere. . . " Nicolas of
Cusa

If you look at the letter Copernicus wrote to the Pope,you will not
see a man cowering for fear of censure but a man showing the technical
arguments for the Earth's axial rotation and orbital motion with just
a little trepidation that his ideas would be ridiculed by those who
would not make the effort to understand the physical considerations of
these things -

"...And they did so, it seems to me, not, as some suppose, because
they were in some way jealous about their teachings, which would be
spread around; on the contrary, they wanted the very beautiful
thoughts attained by great men of deep devotion not to be ridiculed by
those who are reluctant to exert themselves vigorously in any literary
pursuit unless it is lucrative; or if they are stimulated to the
nonacquisitive study of philosophy by the exhortation and example of
others, yet because of their dullness of mind they play the same part
among philosophers as drones among bees. When I weighed these
considerations, the scorn which I had reason to fear on account of the
novelty and unconventionality of my opinion almost induced me to
abandon completely the work which I had undertaken." Copernicus to
Pope Paul III

http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars...opernicus.html

In short, the original arguments for the Earth's motions went from
theological to technical via Copernicus and only later,at the time
when Galileo tried to make a fool of the Pope over the same issue,did
a line become drawn between heliocentric reasoning and political
maneuvering of denominational Christianity. This division is now
exploited by the empiricists who are all too eager to show an
unenlightened Church and Copernicus even though history shows
otherwise.

Copernicus discovered that the Earth has an orbital motion between
Venus and Mars around the central Sun by making sense of the motions
of the other planets.Can you do the same with the help of modern
imaging showing the motions of Jupiter and Saturn over the course of a
year ? -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

Hint - think of a car overtaking another on a traffic roundabout and
then look at the planetary motions again.

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:09:07 +1000, SolomonW
wrote:

But let us get a definition first for what science is

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is the effort to
discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world
works.

I consider that a very poor definition of science- at the least,
obsolete.

Interesting term obsolete.


Science isn't simply the effort to discover how the physical
universe works; it is that effort carried out in a very specific way,
one that requires testing and rejection of ideas that fail testing.


Say a better method came up today that was better is doing this effort!
Would that mean that what we are doing now is not science or we cannot
change over to the new method because it is not science?

If you wish to use "science" as a synonym for "physical knowledge", then
you can say they had "science".

I never said that. I said that science is the effort....

But saying that serves little purpose.
What's important is that ancient people seem not to have had any method
for correcting errors in their physical knowledge base. Without a
scientific method, errors introduced by their mythology simply stood for
thousands of years.


It still does not change the fact that they made an effort.


If you said modern science, I would agree. However if you look here you
can see a section about ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian science so it
was around.

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

I don't see any good examples of what I would call a scientific approach
to understanding nature. It seems very likely that some individuals must
have employed the scientific method, but what evidence of that is left
now? What some of these ancient cultures developed were excellent
observation skills. That- and the data they collected- were important
elements in the eventual development of science.


Observation can only tell you so much. The sun can rise a thousand days,
on the 1001 day you are making a theory if you say the sun will rise.


There was little or no science to be found a few thousand years ago,

There is a big difference between little and no in this context.

Well, what I meant was that I think people were using the scientific
method, but they were doing so rather unconsciously, and mostly as a
tool for understanding things other than natural law. I don't think
there was any systematic approach available that could be used to
significantly improve the quality of physical understanding.

So even by your definition, it was science.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 09:38:16 +1000, SolomonW
wrote:

Say a better method came up today that was better is doing this effort!
Would that mean that what we are doing now is not science or we cannot
change over to the new method because it is not science?

As we use "science", the method requires the formation of a theory,
testing, and feedback. If a completely different method were to be
developed, I don't know what it would be called. Realistically, the
basics of this scientific approach have never changed, and I doubt they
ever will.


Well, what I meant was that I think people were using the scientific
method, but they were doing so rather unconsciously, and mostly as a
tool for understanding things other than natural law. I don't think
there was any systematic approach available that could be used to
significantly improve the quality of physical understanding.

So even by your definition, it was science.

Unfortunately, it wasn't applied to physical laws, except in the most
trivial manner. Hence, there is no science to be found in ancient
writings, and precious little evidence of physical knowledge arrived at
by scientific examination.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Say a better method came up today that was better is doing this effort!
Would that mean that what we are doing now is not science or we cannot
change over to the new method because it is not science?

As we use "science", the method requires the formation of a theory,
testing, and feedback. If a completely different method were to be
developed, I don't know what it would be called. Realistically, the
basics of this scientific approach have never changed, and I doubt they
ever will.


Two points
1) I said if.
2) If they have never changed then we can talk of science in those days
too.


Well, what I meant was that I think people were using the scientific
method, but they were doing so rather unconsciously, and mostly as a
tool for understanding things other than natural law. I don't think
there was any systematic approach available that could be used to
significantly improve the quality of physical understanding.

So even by your definition, it was science.


(a)
Unfortunately, it wasn't applied to physical laws, except in the most
trivial manner.

Again we are back to a little. A little means there WAS.

Hence, there is no science to be found in ancient
writings,

see (a) above

and precious little evidence of physical knowledge arrived at
by scientific examination.

I think we have established that by the definition of the word
scientific examination is not required although highly desirable to
make science.


_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:05:35 -0400, Pastor Dave
wrote:

Scientists can be and are quite a number of times.

Of course. And the knowledge obtained by science can be wrong as well,

A fundamental rule of logic is that a truth cannot give a false but a
false can give a truth.

If knowledge is obtained by science and it is wrong. Then it means
logically that science is wrong. QED

although it will be replaced with more accurate knowledge sooner or
later. The knowledge obtained by science improves with time.


(a)
That is what I am trying to say. Science is not the actual knowledge it
is the effort....


But folks are dumb enough to think that what the
scientists say, is science, when lots of times, it's
just their faith.

That's rarely the case.

????

Outside of their speciality, and often inside it is the case.

Some scientists speak out on unscientific
matters. But the knowledge collected by scientists is, largely, of high
quality. Again, what scientists _do_ is science, what they say is not.


Are you saying I am right at (a)

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 13:42:37 -0600, Chris L Peterson
spake thusly:


On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:05:35 -0400,
Pastor Dave
wrote:

Scientists can be and are quite a number of times.

Of course.

Then that should be all you respond with. But hey,
you decided to go on, right?


And the knowledge obtained by science can be
wrong as well,

No, it can't. Once again, I will say, that what scienTISTS
gather and claim is fact, may not be science and so, your
comment is wrong, since you are associating what the
scienTISTS say is science, with actual science.


although it will be replaced with more accurate knowledge
sooner or later.

No, it can be replaced with another answer.

And btw, I don't buy into your lie that you try to perpetrate,
when you use word games like this! It isn't, "more accurate"!
They were and are W-R-O-N-G many times and that has
nothing to do with "science", but rather, their F-A-I-T-H
and it has nothing to do with "more accurate" information,
but rather, they were wrong and got corrected!

You want to pretend that if a scientists says that rocks are
dirt and then later says that they're rocks, that we now have
"more accurate information". No! What we have, is a damn
idiot with an agenda, who remains an idiot and should be
discounted as a valid source!


The knowledge obtained by science improves with time.

Bull! Your believe is that their initial assumption is true
and then they improve upon the information. In reality,
the initial assumption, which is all it is is wrong!

People like you keep claiming, "Science corrects itself",
but what you never do, is say, "The whole concept is
wrong".


But folks are dumb enough to think that what the
scientists say, is science, when lots of times, it's
just their faith.

That's rarely the case.

Bull! Students are taught crap all the time and you
damn well know it! So cut the crap and get honest!

--

He did not make us alive and new that we might
give Him something old and dead. - Unknown

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **