JCC Gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo science!

Discussion in 'Community' started by VadersLaMent, Sep 4, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Quixotic-Sith Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 22, 2001
    star 6
    It's more than philosophy of science. We're talking epistemology, ontology, etc. Hell, the basic question of ontology is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Natural dovetail with physics. ;)
  2. Lord Vivec Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2006
    star 7
    EDIT: Even if it jives with physics, one should refrain if possible from drawing philosophical conclusions from physical theories.
    Last edited by Lord_Vivec, Sep 10, 2012
  3. Quixotic-Sith Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 22, 2001
    star 6
    I can read, Vivec, and rather well. There's just more to the relationship between science and philosophy. Quoting yourself does less to foster discussion than simply indicating what fields in philosophy you want to divorce from science, which lets us have a conversation.

    Edit:

    Just saw the edit.

    Again, it depends on the conclusion being reached. But the naturalistic fallacy is a big concern.
    Last edited by Quixotic-Sith, Sep 10, 2012
  4. Lord Vivec Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2006
    star 7
    Quix, the goal wasn't to create an iron curtain between science and philosophy nor to segregate various fields of philosophy. I wouldn't even attempt to do that knowing my lack of study on the subject.

    The goal was to prevent the average layperson from drawing metaphysical conclusions from physical theories, i.e. Classical physics means a deterministic universe, quantum mechanics means chaos, order means god, etc.
  5. Quixotic-Sith Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 22, 2001
    star 6
  6. malkieD2 Ex-Manager and RSA

    Member Since:
    Jun 7, 2002
    star 7
    I'm feeling the love in the thread :) Not sure about these new boards though - seem a bit busy and cluttered :p I appreciate I'm pee'ing all over the extensive hard work of getting this place built and bringing over the old database. I guess it brings finally brings the boards into the 21st century though. I'm even using forumrunner on my iPhone :D

    In other news I visited Australia this year for a wedding, and I'm going back to the US soon for a long weekend in NYC.

    I'm stilling tackling the diseases of the world one at a time, but only really having an impact in respiratory disorders.
    Having only have one publication in 2011 I'm on for 4 this year - which is brilliant given publishing work in my occupation isn't valued in the same way as it is in academia.

    Great to be back though :)
    Juliet316 likes this.
  7. SithLordDarthRichie London CR

    Chapter Rep
    Member Since:
    Oct 3, 2003
    star 8
    Certainly Peter Higgs should get one.
  8. jp-30 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Dec 14, 2000
    star 9
    I'm hoping Andrew Boson isn't overlooked.
  9. jp-30 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Dec 14, 2000
    star 9
    TJCCINAGAIUTB.
  10. malkieD2 Ex-Manager and RSA

    Member Since:
    Jun 7, 2002
    star 7
    Well, it hasn't been since I was demoted, not that I'm bitter obviously.
    It's good to see so many old faces still here at the new place. I didn't register at the temp boards.
    I guess with new boards there's a chance to build a new environment and increase membership.
    VadersLaMent likes this.
  11. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
  12. malkieD2 Ex-Manager and RSA

    Member Since:
    Jun 7, 2002
    star 7
    and

    We can do that in a dish, we have as yet been unable to translate that into feasible therapies. The problem is delivering the agents in vivo, and it's proven impossible this far. the RNAi approach has been largely dismissed as impossible, after many companies pumped billions into research. It's a great in vitro tool, but unlikely to ever be a therapy. Greater chance using gene therapy via viral infection, but that's still a tall order at present.
    VadersLaMent likes this.
  13. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
  14. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
  15. Ramza JC Head Admin and RPF Manager

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Jul 13, 2008
    star 7
    That's completely untrue for the standard reason commonly documented with robotic car issues - insurance. Unless there's a massive upheaval in liability law (Haha yeah right) this'll never pan out.
  16. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    It depends on the reliability of the technology.
  17. darthhelinith Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 10, 2009
    star 5
    I for one welcome our new robotic cars.
  18. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    I'll kill this off and someone else can go ahead and do it. You might want to discuss a separation of science threads versus space exploration. Each did rather well on the temp forums.
  19. Darth_wanderguard Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 26, 2005
    star 6
    I heard that science doesn't like minorities. True story. Also, creationism.
  20. Barriss_Coffee Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2003
    star 6
    I worked in a genetics lab briefly with a creationist. She certainly had a uh... answer to everything. Sort of like if you stuck an atheist in the Vatican Council.

    Actually, that would be a great premise for a sitcom...
    GrandAdmiralJello likes this.
  21. Darth_wanderguard Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 26, 2005
    star 6
    Fanatics are generally similar personalities regardless of their opinions, I've found.


    "You'll note I wasn't talking about philosophy of science and the like. Hence my mention of metaphysics.
    EDIT: Even if it jives with physics, one should refrain if possible from drawing philosophical conclusions from physical theories."

    I don't know if I agree with that, Vivec. In fact I'd say it's the other way around. Forming philosophical conclusions based on tangible physical theories doesn't sound so bad to me. I would be more troubled by forming physical theories based on sentimental philosophical thought.
    Last edited by Darth_wanderguard, Sep 22, 2012
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.