IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags science

Reply
Old 24th February 2012, 05:13 PM   #1
Humes fork
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,358
When did science start?

This is something for you philosophers of science out there.

Modern science is typically said to have started in the 16th and 17th centuries during the scientific revolution. However, there was clearly research earlier, in the Middle Ages (both in Europe and the Islamic world) as well as in the ancient world. Not just ancient Greece, but also in places like Babylonia and Egypt (though heavily mixed with superstition). Carl Sagan talked quite a bit about the experiments and theories of the pre-Socratic philosophers in Cosmos (easily found on Youtube). He also referred to Lucretius as the first popularizer of science.

Are these ancient thinkers properly referred to as scientists or not? If what they did was not science, what was it? Certainly many of the questions they tried to answer would be considered scientific today. That itself is not enough though, as many of the questions religions try to answer are scientific questions.
Humes fork is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2012, 05:20 PM   #2
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
I don't think that this is an answerable question, because no-one is going to agree on what science is.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2012, 05:29 PM   #3
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
The components of observation and replication imply the need for accurate recording of data, and true writing goes back a long time. (Sumeria?)

If they used the scientific method, then why wouldn't they be scientists?
crimresearch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2012, 05:34 PM   #4
azzthom
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 994
IIRC, the first scientist known by name was called Imhotep, an ancient Egyptian (obviously), who is recorded as designing one of the pyramids. IMO, an architect is a valid nomination for an early scientist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imhotep

As far as science itself goes, it is highly debatable what constitutes science. My suggestion would be that it started long before any of the early civilizations with what might be called 'Genetic Engineering'. Our very ancient ancestors were selectively breeding animals. I think it is reasonable to believe that they learned how to get the best results by a process of experimentation.

Both of these suggestions are open to debate, challenge, discussion etc.

As was stated by the previous poster, a lot depends on how you define science.
azzthom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2012, 05:39 PM   #5
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by Humes fork View Post
Modern science is typically said to have started in the 16th and 17th centuries during the scientific revolution.
According to who?

Who claims this, even the Wiki article you linked too does not make such a claim
MG1962 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2012, 05:39 PM   #6
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
I think this question, while at first interesting, is really just one of semantics. Before the scientific revolution people asked scientific questions, and sometimes answered them with reason and experiment, and sometimes not. But the methodology wasn't really developed, and that's why progress was so haphazard, and why mixed in with that progress was so much superstitious thinking.

There's a certain sense in which science is being done when you give a name to an animal species, a constellation in the night sky, or a type of rain. In that same sense recording the motion of the planets is science, and more deeply, so is building a theoretical framework to explain that motion.

But once you being that last step, lacking the full tools of the scientific method, it's difficult to separate the true framework that explains observations, from the false. Nevertheless, the ancients certainly had some of those tools, and used them some of the time.

Which suggests to me that the best answer is that sometimes they did science, but they didn't know how to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2012, 05:51 PM   #7
Complexity
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,242
Humes Fork - Once again, rather merely asking a question in an OP, do us the courtesy of expressing your own opinion at the outset.
Complexity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2012, 05:52 PM   #8
Complexity
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,242
Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
According to who?

Who claims this, even the Wiki article you linked too does not make such a claim

I think he merely makes things up.
Complexity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2012, 06:04 PM   #9
Lowpro
Philosopher
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
Science started when I gave my Sim his first chemistry set
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers
Lowpro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2012, 06:07 PM   #10
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by Complexity View Post
I think he merely makes things up.
Me thinks you are onto something there
MG1962 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2012, 06:12 PM   #11
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 44,024
Originally Posted by Humes fork View Post
When did science start?
When the first human being said: "I think such and such phenomena is due to such and such cause. What would be a good experiment to find out whether or not this is true?" And then went ahead and did the experiment, and reached an objective, verifiable, repeatable conclusion.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2012, 06:13 PM   #12
Complexity
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,242
Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
Me thinks you are onto something there

I was recently reading an Anders thread (yes, I know, I know). The idea just popped out at me and said 'Boo!'.
Complexity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2012, 06:46 PM   #13
C_Felix
Master Poster
 
C_Felix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Just outside Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,953
The same time curiosity started.
__________________
Eqinsu Ocha!
Eqinsu Ocha!
C_Felix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2012, 07:08 PM   #14
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,209
Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
According to who?
Well one of the science of the discworld books makes the claim. In that case it is based on an assertion that it isn't really science unless you have peers who are also doing science.

There is some validity to this assertion since otherwise the system tends to boil down to noted sage says X and people belive it based on the reputation of the sage rather than the evidence presented.
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2012, 08:23 PM   #15
Halfcentaur
Philosopher
 
Halfcentaur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,620
Democritus learned it from some strange man down in the creek.
Halfcentaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2012, 09:26 PM   #16
Gazpacho
Master Poster
 
Gazpacho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,136
There's a book called A People's History of Science that kind of addresses this question, pointing out for example that even hunter-gatherer existence requires a great deal of practical knowledge rivaling present-day naturalists.
__________________
Google search help
Gazpacho is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2012, 10:16 PM   #17
crimresearch
Alumbrado
 
crimresearch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,600
Originally Posted by Gazpacho View Post
There's a book called A People's History of Science that kind of addresses this question, pointing out for example that even hunter-gatherer existence requires a great deal of practical knowledge rivaling present-day naturalists.
I would agree with that... even the simplest weapons required some of the skills of science in terms of observing what worked and rejecting the poorer choices.
Survival in terms of figuring out where food and water was probably depended on oral transmission and processing of data.
crimresearch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2012, 11:04 PM   #18
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by crimresearch View Post
I would agree with that... even the simplest weapons required some of the skills of science in terms of observing what worked and rejecting the poorer choices.
Survival in terms of figuring out where food and water was probably depended on oral transmission and processing of data.
And when you think about it - we are the product of those successful experiements
MG1962 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2012, 05:43 AM   #19
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I think this question, while at first interesting, is really just one of semantics. Before the scientific revolution people asked scientific questions, and sometimes answered them with reason and experiment, and sometimes not. But the methodology wasn't really developed, and that's why progress was so haphazard, and why mixed in with that progress was so much superstitious thinking.

There's a certain sense in which science is being done when you give a name to an animal species, a constellation in the night sky, or a type of rain. In that same sense recording the motion of the planets is science, and more deeply, so is building a theoretical framework to explain that motion.

But once you being that last step, lacking the full tools of the scientific method, it's difficult to separate the true framework that explains observations, from the false. Nevertheless, the ancients certainly had some of those tools, and used them some of the time.

Which suggests to me that the best answer is that sometimes they did science, but they didn't know how to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience.
Another reason for the lack of progress was the relative lack of usefulness of the results of science. It all took off in a large way at the time of the industrial revolution when the benefits of scientific knowledge became available to other disciplines such as engineering and architecture. War helped as well
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2012, 06:03 AM   #20
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,214
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
When the first human being said: "I think such and such phenomena is due to such and such cause. What would be a good experiment to find out whether or not this is true?" And then went ahead and did the experiment, and reached an objective, verifiable, repeatable conclusion.
Frequently considered to be Galileo.
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours.

Three Word Story Wisdom
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2012, 07:18 AM   #21
Humes fork
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,358
Originally Posted by azzthom
As far as science itself goes, it is highly debatable what constitutes science. My suggestion would be that it started long before any of the early civilizations with what might be called 'Genetic Engineering'. Our very ancient ancestors were selectively breeding animals. I think it is reasonable to believe that they learned how to get the best results by a process of experimentation.
That's interesting, but I'd guess that's the first instance of applied science then.

Originally Posted by azzthom
As was stated by the previous poster, a lot depends on how you define science.
I guess so. I've even seen it claimed that science proper didn't start until the 20th century when Popper established the falsification criteria (though Popper is disputed). I myself found that very narrow. It would mean that Darwin was not a scientist.

Originally Posted by Roboramma
Before the scientific revolution people asked scientific questions, and sometimes answered them with reason and experiment, and sometimes not. But the methodology wasn't really developed, and that's why progress was so haphazard, and why mixed in with that progress was so much superstitious thinking.
Well yes. The pre-Socratics could never really test their ideas.

Originally Posted by Roboramma
Which suggests to me that the best answer is that sometimes they did science, but they didn't know how to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience.
I don't think they had a concept of pseudoscience, because they didn't have our concept of science.

Originally Posted by Lowpro
Science started when I gave my Sim his first chemistry set
Edited by LashL:  Edited for civility.


Originally Posted by MG1962
Me thinks you are onto something there
Edited by LashL:  Edited for civility.


Originally Posted by Halfcentaur
Democritus learned it from some strange man down in the creek.
Thales (among others) was before Democritus.

Originally Posted by Gazpacho
There's a book called A People's History of Science that kind of addresses this question, pointing out for example that even hunter-gatherer existence requires a great deal of practical knowledge rivaling present-day naturalists.
Based on what I found on Amazon, it's a crackpot book.

Originally Posted by crimresearch
I would agree with that... even the simplest weapons required some of the skills of science in terms of observing what worked and rejecting the poorer choices.
Survival in terms of figuring out where food and water was probably depended on oral transmission and processing of data.
Those capabilities, especially the transfer of information, is one of humanity's key abilities in why it has been so successful compared to other species.

Last edited by LashL; 25th February 2012 at 11:03 AM.
Humes fork is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2012, 01:18 PM   #22
Gazpacho
Master Poster
 
Gazpacho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,136
Originally Posted by Humes fork View Post
Based on what I found on Amazon, it's a crackpot book.
Based on what I found on Amazon, the one-star reviewers all criticize the same chapter, and otherwise miss the author's point.

If the mention of homeopathy triggered a reaction on your part, I can tell you that the book has all of two paragraphs about it and those two paragraphs "praise" it only insofar as it gave "real" medicine a reason to purge the quackery in its own ranks.
__________________
Google search help

Last edited by Gazpacho; 25th February 2012 at 01:38 PM.
Gazpacho is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2012, 02:15 PM   #23
drewid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,257
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Frequently considered to be Galileo.
Eratosthenes had a proposition, designed an experiment, took experimental data, and performed calculations to reach a conclusion, (the circumference of the earth). I'm sure his peers would have reviewed his reasoning and methods.
drewid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2012, 02:39 PM   #24
Complexity
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,242
Cooking or earlier.
Complexity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2012, 02:43 PM   #25
Humes fork
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,358
Originally Posted by Gazpacho View Post
Based on what I found on Amazon, the one-star reviewers all criticize the same chapter, and otherwise miss the author's point.

If the mention of homeopathy triggered a reaction on your part, I can tell you that the book has all of two paragraphs about it and those two paragraphs "praise" it only insofar as it gave "real" medicine a reason to purge the quackery in its own ranks.
"People's history", "elites". Any bells ringing? It also erects strawmen. Who is claiming hunter-gatherers were stupid? Is mainstream history rejecting that the Greeks recieved many influences from other peoples?
Humes fork is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2012, 02:57 PM   #26
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by Humes fork View Post
"People's history", "elites". Any bells ringing?
Only the ones that signal that your perception of the book have nothing to do with its content.

Originally Posted by Humes fork View Post
It also erects strawmen.
Asserting that something is a straw man doesn't make it so. The fact that the book addresses the socio-historical aspects of science doesn't make it a "crackpot book".

Originally Posted by Humes fork View Post
Who is claiming hunter-gatherers were stupid?
Where did Gazpacho claim that hunter-gathers were stupid?

Originally Posted by Humes fork View Post
Is mainstream history rejecting that the Greeks recieved many influences from other peoples?
Where was this suggested?
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2012, 03:17 PM   #27
Gazpacho
Master Poster
 
Gazpacho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,136
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
Where did Gazpacho claim that hunter-gathers were stupid?
The title of the book's first chapter is "Were Hunter-Gatherers Stupid?" The chapter starts by presenting a historical foundation for the question.

Originally Posted by Humes fork View Post
"People's history", "elites". Any bells ringing?
I prefer to judge books by their content, not by "bells." You can read the book or not.
__________________
Google search help

Last edited by Gazpacho; 25th February 2012 at 03:19 PM.
Gazpacho is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2012, 03:59 PM   #28
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
I'm certain that we all know that for most of mankind's existence, the world around us was explained by invoking gods, spirits and similar fictitious entities. Nevertheless, I think it's likely that many individuals in prehistoric times sought natural explanations for the things they saw and experienced and they probably came up with a few good ideas. Of course such musings died with the individual and are not documented.
Within recorded history, gods and spirits dominated the thinking of the ancient world and only occasional references to natural explanations can be found. The first systematic and persistent efforts for natural explanations are documented to have been made by the Ionian Greeks, sometimes called the Ionian Enlightenment. Was this the first real science or were the musings of those earlier individuals real science? Or does it necessitate experimentation (e.g. Archimedes) to call it science? I guess that brings us back to how we define science, as someone has already said.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2012, 04:20 PM   #29
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by drewid View Post
Eratosthenes had a proposition, designed an experiment, took experimental data, and performed calculations to reach a conclusion, (the circumference of the earth). I'm sure his peers would have reviewed his reasoning and methods.
He would have sieved his results.
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2012, 04:33 PM   #30
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
I'm certain that we all know that for most of mankind's existence, the world around us was explained by invoking gods, spirits and similar fictitious entities. Nevertheless, I think it's likely that many individuals in prehistoric times sought natural explanations for the things they saw and experienced and they probably came up with a few good ideas. Of course such musings died with the individual and are not documented.
Within recorded history, gods and spirits dominated the thinking of the ancient world and only occasional references to natural explanations can be found. The first systematic and persistent efforts for natural explanations are documented to have been made by the Ionian Greeks, sometimes called the Ionian Enlightenment. Was this the first real science or were the musings of those earlier individuals real science? Or does it necessitate experimentation (e.g. Archimedes) to call it science? I guess that brings us back to how we define science, as someone has already said.
Perhaps it happened earlier:-

When the race moved from hunter gatherers to farming, observation, hypothesis, prediction and experiment will have been used. This must have happened in various areas such as heredity, fertilisation and stock keeping.

Similar scientific processes must have occurred with architecture, rafting and finally sailing.
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2012, 04:39 PM   #31
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,814
Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
According to who?

Who claims this, even the Wiki article you linked too does not make such a claim
Originally Posted by Complexity View Post
I think he merely makes things up.
In Quicksilver, Neal Stephenson, in a fictional setting with (mostly) real characters, explores early development of science as it started with people who called themselves Natural Philosophers in the mid 1600s.

Of course, it's like saying, "What was the first Rock and Roll song?" Still, he is correct that this was a very important time as important issues were worked out.

Prior to then there was little, if any experimentation, and it was all just trying to reason with geometric analysis how the world worked. Oh, one of the major things in the book is the development of calculus to handle things geometry couldn't.


So, yes, it is reasonable that he says, "Modern science is typically said to have started in the 16th and 17th centuries during the scientific revolution."

Some of you knee-jerk way too quickly.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2012, 05:26 PM   #32
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by Acleron View Post
Perhaps it happened earlier:-

When the race moved from hunter gatherers to farming, observation, hypothesis, prediction and experiment will have been used. This must have happened in various areas such as heredity, fertilisation and stock keeping.

Similar scientific processes must have occurred with architecture, rafting and finally sailing.
I don't think that's an unreasonable way to look at it.
On the other hand, when they planted their seeds they probably invoked the fertility god and the wind god for their sails, etc. When asked how they accomplished something, their explanation likely would have included the intervention of that god.
So the question is: Is it science only when natural explanations are believed or is the mere use of experience (regardless of beliefs) that makes it science?
Mankind has been aware of how some things work for a very long time. I'm not sure that constitutes science.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2012, 06:23 PM   #33
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
I don't think that's an unreasonable way to look at it.
On the other hand, when they planted their seeds they probably invoked the fertility god and the wind god for their sails, etc. When asked how they accomplished something, their explanation likely would have included the intervention of that god.
So the question is: Is it science only when natural explanations are believed or is the mere use of experience (regardless of beliefs) that makes it science?
Mankind has been aware of how some things work for a very long time. I'm not sure that constitutes science.
I wonder if early man had such a problem with gods as modern man.
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2012, 07:28 PM   #34
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by Acleron View Post
I wonder if early man had such a problem with gods as modern man.
Ha! Good question. It seems to me that they were so overwhelmed with everything they perceived, that they used gods and spirits to deal with and explain everything around them including their own being. They probably even attributed their own thoughts to gods/spirits talking to them.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2012, 08:19 PM   #35
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Ha! Good question. It seems to me that they were so overwhelmed with everything they perceived, that they used gods and spirits to deal with and explain everything around them including their own being. They probably even attributed their own thoughts to gods/spirits talking to them.
We have so little data from that time period and I wince every time I see some artifact being displayed and given a religious slant.

I've recently been drawn to the Lascaux cave paintings site by the excellent blog of Dan Chure. To me, they are beautiful depictions of animal life but I fail to see any representation of religion.

Another reason I doubt religion was so oppressive then was that they were too busy just staying alive. The economy wouldn't support a useless religious section. I am not saying they didn't ascribe certain aspects of life to gods, just that the god belief wouldn't have got in the way of some sort of scientific process. Of course, if my hypothesis is correct, then religion was caused by the scientific method. As soon as there was a surplus to the economy from farming, the hucksters and shamans could move in. Much as we see today.
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2012, 09:07 PM   #36
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by Acleron View Post
We have so little data from that time period and I wince every time I see some artifact being displayed and given a religious slant.

I've recently been drawn to the Lascaux cave paintings site by the excellent blog of Dan Chure. To me, they are beautiful depictions of animal life but I fail to see any representation of religion.

Another reason I doubt religion was so oppressive then was that they were too busy just staying alive. The economy wouldn't support a useless religious section. I am not saying they didn't ascribe certain aspects of life to gods, just that the god belief wouldn't have got in the way of some sort of scientific process. Of course, if my hypothesis is correct, then religion was caused by the scientific method. As soon as there was a surplus to the economy from farming, the hucksters and shamans could move in. Much as we see today.
We have stone age people around us today. To my knowledge, they all have rather rich and complex religious beliefs. It does not seem that these religions are necessarily oppressive; they are simply universally accepted. For Example. It seems to me that this is how our ancestors dealt with the mysteries around them. In my view we have little basis for religion today and it's persistence is perverse -- but that's for another thread.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ

Last edited by Perpetual Student; 25th February 2012 at 09:12 PM.
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2012, 09:20 PM   #37
Almo
Masterblazer
 
Almo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 6,843
Science started like this:

http://xkcd.com/242/
__________________
Almo!
My Music Blog
"No society ever collapsed because the poor had too much." — LeftySergeant
"It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." –Issac Newton in the Principia
Almo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2012, 11:09 PM   #38
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 6,006
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
So, yes, it is reasonable that he says, "Modern science is typically said to have started in the 16th and 17th centuries during the scientific revolution."

I agree. That's something I recall hearing repeatedly, in school and other places.

It's true that science (the attempt to answer questions about the physical universe) goes back much further. But that kind of science included such things as alchemy and astrology.

The statement in the OP doesn't refer to the origins of science. It refers to the origins of modern science. And what I was taught when I was growing up is that modern science began around the 1600s.

So the statement in the OP, that modern science is typically said to have started in the 16th and 17th centuries, seems quite reasonable to me. That is what was typically said by my science teachers.
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2012, 05:22 AM   #39
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
Originally Posted by Humes fork View Post
I don't think they had a concept of pseudoscience, because they didn't have our concept of science.
That was basically my point: until the development of modern science what we would currently consider scientific thinking and well developed and well supported scientific ideas were mixed up with what we would currently consider to be pseudoscience, and in general the people who developed them couldn't tell the difference.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2012, 06:55 AM   #40
Dani
Master Poster
 
Dani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sometimes
Posts: 2,240
Originally Posted by Humes fork View Post
I've even seen it claimed that science proper didn't start until the 20th century when Popper established the falsification criteria (though Popper is disputed). I myself found that very narrow. It would mean that Darwin was not a scientist.
Of course that's very narrow, but not for the reason you pointed out, but because there were existing theories that used that criteria before the 20th century. This is like saying primates only began to exist when humans started making taxonomic classifications.

And why Darwin doesn't pass the falsification critaria? Is there anything in his theory that isn't falsifiable?
Dani is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.