Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: strange mod going on this thread (Score 1) 236

Feel free to mark this OT, it is. I'm just surprised by the mods on this thread. My comment was not meant to be offensive or trolling.

As an American, I find corporate tax evasion much more important ($337 billion a year).

Other comments further down are also modded very strangely, with people at -1 for saying the same exact thing as people with +3, +4, +5.

Comment: Re:The article is more extreme than the summary (Score 1) 733

by schneidafunk (#47975483) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

First, I agree with you about philosophers being relatively useless (a bit harsh I suppose) compared to scientists. And science has been relatively established now so even discussing it philosophically has become redundant and as you pointed out, done more harm than good. The majority of my friends & family are in science fields actually doing research at universities (unlike me who is using my computer science education for selfish reasons). The few philosophy graduates I know all ended up becoming lawyers. So yea, I feel scientists are more useful to society than philosophers.

Anyway, the philosophy of science is exactly what I am talking about but I reached a much different conclusion. You said "It in NO WAY determines what science is or is not", whereas I would say that's exactly what exploring the foundations, methods, implications, and purpose of science is supposed to do. I'm a bit baffled how to even argue with your conclusion because I would have to take a bill clinton approach and start arguing the definition of 'is or is not'. I'm guessing you are going to argue that the results of science do not fall into the category of exploration, whereas I would disagree. Regardless, we are just arguing semantics and I have to get back to doing my work. :)

Comment: Re:The article is more extreme than the summary (Score 1) 733

by schneidafunk (#47965541) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Wrong, science as "natural philosophy" is an outdated concept from 17-19th century.

I never called it a natural philosophy, I said it was a branch of philosophy and it is.

Science now is considered outside the realm of philosophy.

Says who? Show me some proof.

The Latin degree names are just holdover, but you are free to imagine yourself in that quaint era.

Yes, it is old and it is still being used today. So you are willing to ignore that every scientist who invested in their education has a doctorate of philosophy in their title as evidence that science is a part of philosophy.

Well then let's define philosophy.
"Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group".[4]

The word "philosophy" comes from the Ancient Greek (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom"."

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

Science is the "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.". So science is a subset of philosophy because it is a more specific way of 'the study of general and fundamental problems' than philosophy, which is not so rigid.

Comment: Re:AGW (Score 1) 733

by schneidafunk (#47965325) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

I agree, I just want to add that I believe the last part of the scientific process, confirming results, needs more attention. We should have more confirming experiments when possible. For example, why did it take so long to discover male researchers were effecting lab rats? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04...

Comment: Re:The article is more extreme than the summary (Score 1) 733

by schneidafunk (#47964863) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

I agree. I started skimming after hearing that he dismissed psychological experimentation, which in my viewpoint is one of the most exciting fields around. Living with a cognitive science PHD scientist was an eye opening experience. And contrary to the author's opinion (with what credentials?) they are taking real evidence in their experiments, such as saliva samples, heart rate readings, etc.

Comment: Re:they will defeat themselves (Score 1) 952

by schneidafunk (#47931587) Attached to: ISIS Bans Math and Social Studies For Children

I respectfully disagree. The obvious counter-example is Nazi Germany & Imperial Japan. Ignoring them or peace protests would have been pointless, the solution was regime change through violence. And now Germany and Japan are allies with the countries that destroyed them.

As for Israel? The peace treaties that exist have been created through violence, such as Egypt & Jordan. And the current 'peace' in Gaza is because Israel utterly devastated Hamas (and the civilian population) after they continuously launched rockets into Israel (from civilian areas), every single day for months until Israel finally responded.

Do you honestly think a hunger strike or peace protest would dissolve ISIS?

Comment: Headlines (Score 4, Interesting) 185

by schneidafunk (#47723585) Attached to: New Research Suggests Cancer May Be an Intrinsic Property of Cells

This seems like an overly dramatized article based on one sentence. Obviously there's been progress in cancer treatments and some cures for specific cancers.

FTA: One strategy might be to against these cells. Yervoy, a drug that does just that, eliminated melanoma in — and counting. An infusion of Yervoy and a similar drug, nivolumab, has kept some lung cancer patients disease-free for about six years so far. "Their cancer hasn't come back yet. It might never come back," Ben Creelan, an oncologist at Moffitt Cancer Center. "I think it's the most exciting thing in decades."

The Tao doesn't take sides; it gives birth to both wins and losses. The Guru doesn't take sides; she welcomes both hackers and lusers.

Working...