Guest hellokitty818 Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 I do not understand this concept..your inputs are greatly appreciated What knowledge issues are involved in the websites? Can Intelligent Design be a scientifically prove-able theory? Why or why not? Which theory is more scientifically viable?http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/sep/04/science.researchhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.htmlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7955846.stm Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1529 Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 (edited) I do not understand this concept..your inputs are greatly appreciated What knowledge issues are involved in the websites? Can Intelligent Design be a scientifically prove-able theory? Why or why not? Which theory is more scientifically viable? http://www.guardian....cience.research http://www.pbs.org/w...sign-trial.html http://news.bbc.co.u...ine/7955846.stm I'm not going to develop a long answer to this because it's much more complex and long than what I'm going to write but it's basically that people have a "perception" (a way of acquiring knowledge) which may not be the same as the so-called "reality" which has to do with the object itself rather than the interpretation of one to the object - called subjectivity. And with science, this is the question: Is what we really see in microscopes and all that the reality? or is it something "else"? Plus, is the method we are using the one that leads to knowledge or are we just rediscovering something that has been long here? These are the main questions put on the knowledge that is acquired from Science However, other main problems are the utility and the way Science works. Science is based on observations which then lead to experimentation finally giving a conclusion. This conclusion may be just a theory and as you know, theories are simplifications of the reality and an interpretation of it so it's almost impossible for a theory to describe reality as it really is. Now, what is more is that theories are based on predictions and predictions are not enough to a Science which calls itself the source of knowledge. Theories such as the Hybridisation or the Electron Configuration/Arrangement in Chemistry come from mere approaches to probability of the location of an electron in space thus, it's possible that they may be proven "not complete" (because Science claims that no theory is fully wrong). Also, Science, because of all this, cannot explain everything and prove everything... When it comes to artificial intelligence the question lays upon the perception: whether the machine can or not really apprehend reality as in humans. This question comes from the fact that humans use empirical knowledge and rational thinking at the same time to interpret something and not only one of them). It's needed an external stimulus to the brain to develop and process a nerve impulse and this is what lacks in machines - mainly emotions. For this, "Blade Runner" is an excellent example of this artificial intelligence Did this answer to your question? Edited June 11, 2011 by 1529 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hellokitty818 Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 I do not understand this concept..your inputs are greatly appreciated What knowledge issues are involved in the websites? Can Intelligent Design be a scientifically prove-able theory? Why or why not? Which theory is more scientifically viable? http://www.guardian....cience.research http://www.pbs.org/w...sign-trial.html http://news.bbc.co.u...ine/7955846.stm I'm not going to develop a long answer to this because it's much more complex and long than what I'm going to write but it's basically that people have a "perception" (a way of acquiring knowledge) which may not be the same as the so-called "reality" which has to do with the object itself rather than the interpretation of one to the object - called subjectivity. And with science, this is the question: Is what we really see in microscopes and all that the reality? or is it something "else"? Plus, is the method we are using the one that leads to knowledge or are we just rediscovering something that has been long here? These are the main questions put on the knowledge that is acquired from Science However, other main problems are the utility and the way Science works. Science is based on observations which then lead to experimentation finally giving a conclusion. This conclusion may be just a theory and as you know, theories are simplifications of the reality and an interpretation of it so it's almost impossible for a theory to describe reality as it really is. Now, what is more is that theories are based on predictions and predictions are not enough to a Science which calls itself the source of knowledge. Theories such as the Hybridisation or the Electron Configuration/Arrangement in Chemistry come from mere approaches to probability of the location of an electron in space thus, it's possible that they may be proven "not complete" (because Science claims that no theory is fully wrong). Also, Science, because of all this, cannot explain everything and prove everything... When it comes to artificial intelligence the question lays upon the perception: whether the machine can or not really apprehend reality as in humans. This question comes from the fact that humans use empirical knowledge and rational thinking at the same time to interpret something and not only one of them). It's needed an external stimulus to the brain to develop and process a nerve impulse and this is what lacks in machines - mainly emotions. For this, "Blade Runner" is an excellent example of this artificial intelligence Did this answer to your question? wow thanks that really helped but what science is more scientifically viable? Why or why not? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1529 Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 There's no science more viable... what people call as the perfection and the ultimate science - Mathematics - may already have a problem in their starting point: if the axioms that define Mathematics are correctly and completely established or is there any missing or wrong? Then, Mathematics is an abstract science and so, we cannot know if the way we're doing is correct or not. Maybe, in real mathematics 1+1=11, who knows? The same happens with Physics. You don't know if the Laws of Physics are true, in fact. They're just approaches...That's how you should consider whether sciences are or not viable. They have their advantages and disadvantages Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.