Quote:
Originally Posted by lemit
Look at this again. Remember, there is no evidence beyond what you see in the words printed below. Tell me where you find the descriptions of the child that have been thrown around in this thread:
does a child exercise science when walking - down a staircase? I think I've tried this before. I think it failed. Does anybody else see that this discussion has gone beyond the evidence presented to it? Does anybody else see there isn't enough information in the question to form an answer?
Are anybody out there interested in the examining the precise information given, or does everyone want to chase phantoms? |
I'm sure the professional scientists understand your critique of the question, but I'll bet they understand the implied message that I was trying to convey, as well. Would it help if I constructed the question as: does a child exercise science when learning how to walk? If not, you would be better served if you could provide better examples and they're corresponding solutions. We are not here to criticize others for their human failings, we are here to make science more social.
We can parse words and phrases all day long, and that is basically what I am doing in my criticism of the definition of science. I believe I am recognizing several definitions of science and I do not think that is a good situation. I believe the definition for science should be precise, there by building a stronger foundation to begin eliminating errors in communication, and ultimatly, social organization. I sincerely believe that when most people are asked what is science, they would refer to the extensive list of defined information of natural phenomena (physics, biology, geology), they would not be inclined to describe science as the act of performing the scientific method.
