If it cannot interact with you... (On the definition of science)

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kmarinas86

Guest
If it cannot interact with you, then you cannot interact with it.<br />If it cannot interact with you, then you cannot study it, for studying that something implies interaction with its material.<br /><br />So if it cannot interact with you, could it be studied scientifically?<br /><br />The answer, which I have come to, happpens to be "no."
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Indirect observation and secondary effects (such as decay products). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
<font color="yellow">Indirect observation and secondary effects (such as decay products).</font><br /><br />Control variables set up by humans can influence these effects. That closes the loop, and <i>loops are necessary for interaction</i>. Therefore particle physics stands to be scientific.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
kmarinas86 - There are, as noted by Yevaud, indirect observations.<br /><br />There is also philosophy which often involves study of things that are not observed. You are exploring not only the boundaries of theoretical (vs. actual) science, but also the boundaries between philosophy and science.<br /><br />Imagination has its place in science - provided you keep it in its place!<br /><br />Consider, for example, this invitation to scientific fields of study:<br /><br />(Romans 1:19-20) . . .because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. 20 For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship,. . .<br /><br />Now, we cannot see God. Those of my faith, for example, do interact with God through prayer and Bible Study. And many of us also study the sciences (me more than the average) to get to know God's qualities - such as by observing how the mathematical ratios between the 4 basic forces of physics are incredibly fine tuned to allow for the existence of stars and life.<br /><br />Simply, while we cannot see God we learn about God by both Bible study and all of the fields of scientific study.<br /><br />A simple comparison would be learning about extrasolar planets without actually visibly seeing these planets.<br /><br />We nevertheless prove their existence and some of their properties by studying cause and effect. <br /><br />The study of cause and effect, including whether there is a first cause or where informational input originated, etc., are possible through indirect effects - or a chain of causes and effects which can be scientifically studied.<br /><br />For example, how did life originate on earth? Why are many of life's molecules informational rather than merely statistical considering that chance synthesis of relevant to life complex molecules (e.g. polypeptides in protein synthesis) produce statististical rather t
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
There is no problem in investigating life as a the origin of other life. It happens all the time. It's such a convenient mechanism that may apply, not just across generations, lands, continents, etc., but even across planets (althought this last part would happen less frequently with concern to our ability as an earth-bound progenitor). Billions of times this happens with life before we see it happen with raw materials by themselves. If evolution maintains its logarithmic pace, it will eventually be complemented by the macrobiology the involves mutiplication of life from world to world, much like Will Wright's very recent game Spore.<br /><br />However, there is a huge problem with observing life coming up by itself. Infact, all bottom-up approaches to creating synthetic life in laboratories infact involve scientists and not conditions of the wild. These scientists trying the bottom-up approach try to understand how life could orginate, by of all things, making their attempt to create synthetic life in a laboratory. The conditions set up by all experiments are synthetic, or defined by an intelligence. Hence, what it involves is an interaction with life's ingredients by an human interventionist rather than discovering a natural cause of formation of life from raw materials which requires everything be controlled "by the wild" with no intelligence "setting it up".<br /><br />Science is intelligently designed, and so are all the experiments that involve effectively studying life at the cellular and molecular level, something which the wild cannot do.
 
S

Saiph

Guest
well...one of the things behind synthesizing life is that if it can't be done under controlled conditions...odds of it happening in the wild are slim to nill. Another is they try to do so using situations they believe could occur naturally. <br /><br />Sorta like observing captive chimps in a really nice habitat made to be relatively natural. Sure, it isn't gonna be perfect, but it's a start, and better than a concrete cubic room with a food trough. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
N

newtonian

Guest
kmarinas - I mostly agree - though I should add that scientifically discovered laws and properties of our universe do give evidence both of intelligent design and informational input.<br /><br />Life from life, aka biogenesis, is what you believe? Me too - as all observational evidence shows life from life.<br /><br />BTW, did you know that some informational molecules are shared across species boundaries as recently discovered scientifically?<br /><br />This is known simply as gene sharing. <br /><br />One problem with this is that bacteria can share antibiotic resistant informational genes with other species of bacteria - a problem for us, i.e. Not a problem for the bacteria!<br /><br />Mathematically, it is not possible for some of the more complex biomolecules to have been produced by chance within our section of universe, i.e. within our visibility horizon of less than 10^80 amu in mass during the limited age of our universe.<br /><br />To understand this you need to use math, of course. <br /><br />Very important is the law of large numbers, which indicates that in a large number of trials, and/or a large number of steps (both of which are required, for example, for the the origin of complex informational proteins such as enzymes and their corresponding receptors) the actual results (e.g. chemical reaction products by atoms in our universe since the universe began.) will correspond closely to predicted (accurately) probability.<br /><br />Of course, one must also calculate the predicted probability for the specific chemical reaction product - e.g. the specific statistical protein.<br /><br />Note that math alone cannot account for informational proteins - since chance cannot input information let alone translation of information. Math can, however, be used to calculate statistical proteins analagous (comparable albeit not equal to) to life's complex informational biolmolecules.<br /><br />BTW - life also untilizes and requires statistical biomolecules. However, some statisti
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Saiph - True. If....<br /><br />However, often origin of life experiments do not fit plausable early earth environments.<br /><br />A glaring example is assuming water is reacting with NH3 (ammonia) and CH4 (methane) and HCN (hydrogen cyanide), etc., without metal (chemical definition, e.g. Na {sodium}, Ca {Calcium}, K {Potassium} ions in said water.<br /><br />Not only do the vast carbonate deposits in earth's crust prove early earth had vast amounts of carbon in the form of CO2 (carbon dioxide) rather than the anoxic (without oxygen) CH4 (oxygen is the most abundant element in earth's crust) but also the means of deposition of these carbonates was the geologic carbon cycle which requires said ions in earth's primordial waters!<br /><br />In reality, origin of life experiments do not reflect early earth's environment but rather the environment most conducive to the specific type of molecule the chemist is trying to synthesize.<br /><br />Note also that life requires many different molecules to simultaneously be created in the same time and place, yet the many different molecules require different environments to be synthesized.<br /><br />For example: wet vs. dry, even sometimes requiring condensing agents; cold vs. hot; acid vs. alkaline; etc.<br /><br />Another factor often ignored is interfering cross reactions between the very different molecules required.<br /><br />One huge set of such ignored (by chemical evolutionists) interfering cross reactions is the reaction of the Carbonyl group ( in the set C=O, i.e. carbon double bonded with oxygen) with the amino group (H2N) producing, not polymers required for life, but rather Imine (C=N, i.e. carbon double bonded with nitrogen) plus H2O (water).<br /><br />The amino group includes not only amino acids (basic building blocks of complex proteins including enzymes) but also the free amino group in purines and pyrimidines.<br /><br />The carbonyl group includes reducing sugars, aldehydes (incluiding formaldehyde) and some ketones.<br />
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY