So I just saw a headline "5 creepy real places that science can't explain".
So many problems. First of all, science defined:
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 is science a person? No. Further how certain people practice a scientific approach does not make them science. In the very outset this sentence isn't doing well because it doesn't show who is expected to do the explaining. Am I the one who is doing the science? Because I only have a few undergrad courses in biology.... I'm afraid I'm under qualified. Are scientists doing the explaining? If so, why not say scientists?
Now to the meat of the issue: can't.
Which is the infinitive way of saying that it is not possible for this particular noun to do the thing. In a sense they are right as an idea (which this is) does not have a mouth, or fingers to type out an explanation. In other news feminism can't install a speed bump and my tiny ass can't ride democracy to mars.
What it comes down to in the end is incomplete data, which an educated person would have figured out. The intent is to state that the process of science hasn't figured out some of nature's mysteries. I don't see how that's a big deal as science hasn't figured out every quantifiable and definitely knowable problem either. People practicing science may never actually investigate the items in question, but it wouldn't change a thing. The challenge brought was that it was impossible that a scientific approach could explain certain things, and that is patently wrong.
First of all an idea is practically immortal, so trying to draw limits is a practice in futility. Second it was not stated that the person using science needed the right answer. It said that they couldn't provide an answer. I'd say that given enough funding some scientific institution could provide some answer as to what is going on. It might not be very good. It might fall apart under scrutiny, but you didn't ask for good.
I'm just sick of this constant attack on knowledge. I'm tired of under educated people getting mad at the more educated. There is a dogmatic approach in some sectors that distrusts anything under the banner science. Science is at least three thousand years old, and many good and bad people have used it. However it is no more the fault of science than the battle of Normandy was the fault of the beach.
So many problems. First of all, science defined:
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 is science a person? No. Further how certain people practice a scientific approach does not make them science. In the very outset this sentence isn't doing well because it doesn't show who is expected to do the explaining. Am I the one who is doing the science? Because I only have a few undergrad courses in biology.... I'm afraid I'm under qualified. Are scientists doing the explaining? If so, why not say scientists?
Now to the meat of the issue: can't.
Which is the infinitive way of saying that it is not possible for this particular noun to do the thing. In a sense they are right as an idea (which this is) does not have a mouth, or fingers to type out an explanation. In other news feminism can't install a speed bump and my tiny ass can't ride democracy to mars.
What it comes down to in the end is incomplete data, which an educated person would have figured out. The intent is to state that the process of science hasn't figured out some of nature's mysteries. I don't see how that's a big deal as science hasn't figured out every quantifiable and definitely knowable problem either. People practicing science may never actually investigate the items in question, but it wouldn't change a thing. The challenge brought was that it was impossible that a scientific approach could explain certain things, and that is patently wrong.
First of all an idea is practically immortal, so trying to draw limits is a practice in futility. Second it was not stated that the person using science needed the right answer. It said that they couldn't provide an answer. I'd say that given enough funding some scientific institution could provide some answer as to what is going on. It might not be very good. It might fall apart under scrutiny, but you didn't ask for good.
I'm just sick of this constant attack on knowledge. I'm tired of under educated people getting mad at the more educated. There is a dogmatic approach in some sectors that distrusts anything under the banner science. Science is at least three thousand years old, and many good and bad people have used it. However it is no more the fault of science than the battle of Normandy was the fault of the beach.
No comments:
Post a Comment