The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science

[MaxBuck]

...just out of curiosity, I went to the OED to determine the definition of science ...

According to Wikipedia (I don't pay for a subscription to OED, so can't speak from direct reference), the OED has this to say about "science":

In modern use, science is "often treated as synonymous with 'natural and physical science', and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use."

QED, pretty much.

 

[Gatorubet]

Let me not speak for Gator, but I've been waiting three pages now for the "science of why we don't believe in science" to start getting discussed, as opposed to more philosophical ramblings. If in fact there WERE some science that had been done on this topic, I'd be very interested in it. Theology, philosophy and epistemology not so much.

So when you're saying, "off target," that seems pretty ironic to me.

Ah.....Max

I have to say, for a thread that purports to discuss "the science of why we don't believe in science," there's essentially no science here. A lot of Logic Theory, a lot of philosophy, but no science.

This is, of course, the Philosophical Musings forum, so muse away.

:p

Get off my definition!!!!

 

[muffler dragon]

Quite possibly the most bizarre pissing match I've ever read. Have you guys determined who can write their whole name in the snow yet?

 

[MaxBuck]

Quite possibly the most bizarre [censored]ing match I've ever read. Have you guys determined who can write their whole name in the snow yet?

I used to could, but not since I got too old. My name's pretty long, though, so I got a handicap going in.

Is there a scientific study of what goes into pissing one's own name? I'd like to see one, for sure.

 

[muffler dragon]

I used to could, but not since I got too old. My name's pretty long, though, so I got a handicap going in.

Is there a scientific study of what goes into [censored]ing one's own name? I'd like to see one, for sure.

A shit ton of urea. Literally. No source available, but you know I wouldn't lie to you.

 

[Gatorubet]

A [Mark May] ton of urea. Literally. No source available, but you know I wouldn't lie to you.

There's is an old joke about piss and snow and Teddy Kennedy's DNA and Nancy Reagan's handwriting...if it helps.

 

[muffler dragon]

There's is an old joke about [censored] and snow and Teddy Kennedy's DNA and Nancy Reagan's handwriting...if it helps.

No quiero.

 

[Diego-Bucks]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-smerconish/semengate-stuns-scientifi_b_853164.html

Dr. Greenfield cites a publication to make a funny joke on Valentines Day about the anti-depressant effects of insemination on women. Says the best V-Day gift of all is not chocolates, but semen. It was lighthearted and backed up by an interesting study Dr. Steven M. Platek, Ph.D and others.

Feminists pick up the article and get infuriated at the implication. Greenfield (an author of 100's of medical science publications) resigns from his American College of Surgeons for making a scientific inquiry in popular culture, and gets blacklisted by some anti-science group. Bitches.

 

[MaxBuck]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-smerconish/semengate-stuns-scientifi_b_853164.html

Feminists pick up the article and get infuriated at the implication.

And I find this so surprising, feminists having well established themselves as a fun-loving, humorous crowd.

 

[Gatorubet]

And I find this so surprising, feminists having well established themselves as a fun-loving, humorous crowd.

At least regarding semen related hi-jinks.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Feminists pick up the article and get infuriated at the implication.

Fuck 'em. Pud intended.

 

[Gatorubet]

[censored] 'em. Pud intended.

Thank God. For a minute I thought you were going to make a pun.

 

[buckeyegrad]

According to Wikipedia (I don't pay for a subscription to OED, so can't speak from direct reference), the OED has this to say about "science":

Why did you go to wikipedia for that? I posted that very definition earlier in this thread (and no, I don't have a subscription to the OED, but the university I work for does!).

Anyway, all this has been fun. I'm just trying to get you to broaden your horizons and realize that empiricism/positivism does not have a monopoly on the word.

And as a fellow elitist, I think you would have to agree, just because something is common or popular among the people does not make it factually correct.