|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Is science becoming more philosophical?
#5773140 - 06/20/06 04:44 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I was just thinking about how ideas like string theory and dark matter don't really conform to the scientific method, yet they're widely accepted by credible scientists. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. I think we're starting to see a new era in science in which scientists are realizing that while the scientific method is the best known tool for testing the validity of ideas, it has its limitations, and that science can actually still be science without necessarily being confinced to it. It seems like we're entering a sort of "post-science" period, in which mathematical models can be used for figuring out things that can't be tested in the traditional way. Thoughts?
--------------------
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger
Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Is science becoming more philosophical? [Re: Silversoul]
#5773411 - 06/20/06 06:09 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Even though math relies on the mind rather than the senses (a brain in a pickle jar can do Math), I think you'll have a hard time finding an area of science that is divorced from mathematics. I don't think science has ever been strictly confined to the "Scientific Method" (a method which seems to change about every twenty years or so.)
(Science comes from the Latin word "scientia" meaning simply "knowledge.")
Edited by MushmanTheManic (06/20/06 09:46 PM)
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Is science becoming more philosophical? [Re: Silversoul]
#5773452 - 06/20/06 06:18 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I disagree.
We are at a point in the development of science where theory has pushed beyond experimentation, that's all. During times where new, unexpected experimental results are few and far between, scientists will tend to start theorizing more freely than they might when they have a great deal of experimental data to use. That's what we're seeing now.
Our technology has progressed far enough for us to validate many of our pre-existing theories in science...but not far enough to truly push the boundaries of current theories. String Theory is a great example. It's not that it doesn't follow the scientific method...it's just that we are unable to perform any experiments on string theory because of technological limitations. When/if those limitations are lifted by new tech, we will either validate String Theory or cast it aside for an entirely new theory.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: Is science becoming more philosophical? [Re: Silversoul]
#5773513 - 06/20/06 06:34 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: I was just thinking about how ideas like string theory and dark matter don't really conform to the scientific method, yet they're widely accepted by credible scientists. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. I think we're starting to see a new era in science in which scientists are realizing that while the scientific method is the best known tool for testing the validity of ideas, it has its limitations, and that science can actually still be science without necessarily being confinced to it. It seems like we're entering a sort of "post-science" period, in which mathematical models can be used for figuring out things that can't be tested in the traditional way. Thoughts?
Psychiatry and Psychology have been merging assumption and semi-scientific methods for the past 40 years......atleast.
How does someone really go about measuring "attention span"? How can someone try to claim that their study of purely subjective matters produced objective and reasonable conclusions?
Not only has the "scientific community" accepted this bullshit "science", but has begun to widely advocate it. Excluding famous psychological experiments like Pavlovs dog and rat studies with mazes and cheese, modern psychology/psychiatry has become less and less objective and now works solely on the premise of textbook "normalcy" and flat-out ignores or fails to attempt to discover CAUSE, while continuing to barrel forward trying to "cure" effects which "are often a culmination of biochemistry, environment and behaviour".
|
ictoasnrnsigwt
Weirder
Registered: 03/30/06
Posts: 136
Last seen: 15 years, 28 days
|
Re: Is science becoming more philosophical? [Re: SneezingPenis]
#5773742 - 06/20/06 07:21 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Scientists used mathimatical equations to come up with the string theory which created the sigularity which they in turn had to create an equation to solve so now there is M theory. Atleast thats how I remember it; feel free to correct me.
|
Schwammel
Auk
Registered: 12/10/05
Posts: 845
Last seen: 17 years, 5 months
|
Re: Is science becoming more philosophical? [Re: ictoasnrnsigwt]
#5773774 - 06/20/06 07:33 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
TV is a dangerous source to be quoting...
|
spud
I'm so fly.
Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
Re: Is science becoming more philosophical? [Re: trendal]
#5773989 - 06/20/06 08:30 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Familiar with Thomas Kuhn?
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Is science becoming more philosophical? [Re: spud]
#5774025 - 06/20/06 08:40 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
No, actually, though I've just read his wiki article
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: Is science becoming more philosophical? [Re: ictoasnrnsigwt]
#5774057 - 06/20/06 08:50 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ictoasnrnsigwt said: Scientists used mathimatical equations to come up with the string theory which created the sigularity which they in turn had to create an equation to solve so now there is M theory. Atleast thats how I remember it; feel free to correct me.
this post makes no sense.
|
spud
I'm so fly.
Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
Re: Is science becoming more philosophical? [Re: trendal]
#5774066 - 06/20/06 08:51 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I HIGHLY recommend you read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn. I'm not even into science much, and I have to say it's by far one of the best books I've ever read.
Feel free to read reviews/research it prior to reading it. I'm sure the more you investigate it, the more eager you will be to read it. It's a truly phenomenal work.
Here is the wiki on it, check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Is science becoming more philosophical? [Re: trendal]
#5774246 - 06/20/06 09:33 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
trendal said: I disagree.
We are at a point in the development of science where theory has pushed beyond experimentation, that's all. During times where new, unexpected experimental results are few and far between, scientists will tend to start theorizing more freely than they might when they have a great deal of experimental data to use. That's what we're seeing now.
Our technology has progressed far enough for us to validate many of our pre-existing theories in science...but not far enough to truly push the boundaries of current theories. String Theory is a great example. It's not that it doesn't follow the scientific method...it's just that we are unable to perform any experiments on string theory because of technological limitations. When/if those limitations are lifted by new tech, we will either validate String Theory or cast it aside for an entirely new theory.
Science is still science.
Peace.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger
Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Is science becoming more philosophical? [Re: trendal]
#5774294 - 06/20/06 09:47 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
String "Theory" is really a hypothesis... yes/no?
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger
Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Is science becoming more philosophical? [Re: SneezingPenis]
#5774416 - 06/20/06 10:09 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Psychiatry and Psychology have been merging assumption and semi-scientific methods for the past 40 years......atleast.
More like 140 years! Psychology's mother was Philosophy and later it's father showed up, Mr. Physiology. Orginally, psychology was purely introspective and was quite far from being qualified as a hard science. It was just a specialized area of philsophy, concerned with the mind. Later, thanks to John Watson and Behaviorism, psychology lost it's mind and began to follow the scientific method quite well. (John Watson was blacklisted from every University after impregnating one of his assistants... he started a new career in advertising. ) But, even while studying observable behaviors, due to the gross amount of variables and ethical standards, it is very hard to create a psychological study that wholly follows scientific methods. Especially when such studies are conducted on human subjects.
How does someone really go about measuring "attention span"?
Probably using an EEG.
modern psychology/psychiatry has become less and less objective and now works solely on the premise of textbook "normalcy" and flat-out ignores or fails to attempt to discover CAUSE
Granted, Gelstat eventually dissappeared into the fog of subjectivism, but Behaviorism seems too objective for its own good. Cognitive-behavior therapy and especially Psychoanalysis are both subjective, but both deal with practice more than theory. Humans are dynamic beings and these therapies reflect that.
Plus, some of psychological theory has been reduced to neurophysiology, and physiology seems awfully objective.
continuing to barrel forward trying to "cure" effects which "are often a culmination of biochemistry, environment and behaviour".
I'm not aware of any human traits that aren't a combination of heredity and environment. What else do you expect?
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: Is science becoming more philosophical? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
#5775076 - 06/21/06 12:58 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said:
How does someone really go about measuring "attention span"?
Probably using an EEG.
what exactly is your reasoning for this?
Quote:
modern psychology/psychiatry has become less and less objective and now works solely on the premise of textbook "normalcy" and flat-out ignores or fails to attempt to discover CAUSE
Granted, Gelstat eventually dissappeared into the fog of subjectivism, but Behaviorism seems too objective for its own good. Cognitive-behavior therapy and especially Psychoanalysis are both subjective, but both deal with practice more than theory. Humans are dynamic beings and these therapies reflect that.
maybe the therapies reflect it, but the studies that lead up to the conclusions which formed those therapies does not reflect the dynamic of human emotion and thought. Can you name any other branch of professional doctors that deal with the quality of human life where mere theories allow unsound practices to be carried out on the unsuspecting populous under the guise of rigorous scientific study?
Quote:
Plus, some of psychological theory has been reduced to neurophysiology, and physiology seems awfully objective.
that is like saying the orgasm is related to sexual attraction, and sexual attraction is related to emotional/mental attraction, so the orgasm is equal to true love. Every single study in the realm of neurophysiology regarding mental illness ends up stating that the cause of Illness X is a mixture of environment, genetics, physiology and external factors.... which leaves what? basically they are saying that Life causes distress and mental illness, but we have a pill that helps you ignore life.
Hey, guess what! the pill works! wow! who would have thought that drugs worked! I am happier! kind of like when I am drunk, or tripping!
Quote:
continuing to barrel forward trying to "cure" effects which "are often a culmination of biochemistry, environment and behaviour".
I'm not aware of any human traits that aren't a combination of heredity and environment. What else do you expect?
that is because psychiatry/psychology cannot accept the concept of autonomous consciousness. It must be a pretty bleak outlook on life if you seriously believe that you have no free will and that everything you do, think, or act upon is only a result of chemical levels in your brain. How is one supposed to assume responsibility for anything whenever we are constantly being told nothing is our fault?
Sorry, I can't sit still and stop talking, I am afflicted with ADD, and there is nothing I can do about it unless I take large daily doses of amphetamines. Sorry, I can't even get out of bed or eat, I am afflicted with depression and there is nothing I can do to overcome it unless I take a pill which floods my brain with dopamine..... kind of like X. Sorry, I can't go out in crowded places, I am afflicted with anxiety and there is nothing I can do about it but take this pill.......
SEE THE PATTERN? 1) are you not as happy as you would like to be? 2) you have an illness. 3) you are powerless to overcome this horrible illness by yourself. 4) we have a pill to help you.
We gave parts of life the names of illnesses..... we createed the problem within you and sell you the cure.
While many neurophysiology studies find this allele, or this neurotransmitter to be linked to some "illness", none of them have ever proven that allele/transmitter is even a CAUSE of the "illness" and consistently ignores the possibility that your emotions and behaviour could alter your neurophysiology.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger
Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Is science becoming more philosophical? [Re: SneezingPenis]
#5776820 - 06/21/06 02:51 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
the studies that lead up to the conclusions which formed those therapies does not reflect the dynamic of human emotion and thought.
What? First you say the studies are too subjective and semi-scientific, now you're saying they're not subjective enough and too scientific?
Can you name any other branch of professional doctors that deal with the quality of human life where mere theories allow unsound practices to be carried out on the unsuspecting populous under the guise of rigorous scientific study?
Physicians.
Every single study in the realm of neurophysiology regarding mental illness ends up stating that the cause of Illness X is a mixture of environment, genetics, physiology and external factors
First off, I don't see why you have a problem with this concept. Do you think certian human traits are not effected by heredity or environment? Secondly, that is true of nearly any illness, not just a psychological illness. Cancer seems like an excellent example. Heredity and environment both play a role in a persons risk for cancer, why should a neurological disorder be any different?
that is because psychiatry/psychology cannot accept the concept of autonomous consciousness.
Behaviorists cannot, but all the other schools do.
Sorry, I can't sit still and stop talking, I am afflicted with ADD, and there is nothing I can do about it unless I take large daily doses of amphetamines. Sorry, I can't even get out of bed or eat, I am afflicted with depression and there is nothing I can do to overcome it unless I take a pill which floods my brain with dopamine..... kind of like X. Sorry, I can't go out in crowded places, I am afflicted with anxiety and there is nothing I can do about it but take this pill.......
It's more like: Sorry, Doctor. I can't sit still and stop talking... honest! I am afflicted with ADD, I tell ya! Look at my grades! I need something to make me smarter. Now, gimme some pills. Sorry, I can't even get out of bed or eat, I am afflicted with depression and I'm unwilling to make an effort to change myself. Please give me a pill which floods my brain with dopamine so I can go back to sitting on the couch, eating potato chips, and complaining about how bad things are. Sorry, I can't go out in crowded places, I am afflicted with anxiety, I'm too lazy to try therapy and fix it myself, oh please Doc, give me some pills.
3) you are powerless to overcome this horrible illness by yourself.
Incorrect. One of the main focuses of most psychotherapy (CBT, REBT, etc) is emphasizing that the patient, sometimes going as far as saying only the patient, can overcome their illness. Unfortunately, most patients are unwilling to take time out of their busy lifestyle to work towards changing themselves, they'd rather just take a pill.
|
Sinbad
Living TheMoment
Registered: 12/23/04
Posts: 2,571
Loc: Under The Bodhi Tree
|
Re: Is science becoming more philosophical? [Re: Silversoul]
#5776868 - 06/21/06 03:12 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: I was just thinking about how ideas like string theory and dark matter don't really conform to the scientific method, yet they're widely accepted by credible scientists. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. I think we're starting to see a new era in science in which scientists are realizing that while the scientific method is the best known tool for testing the validity of ideas, it has its limitations, and that science can actually still be science without necessarily being confinced to it. It seems like we're entering a sort of "post-science" period, in which mathematical models can be used for figuring out things that can't be tested in the traditional way. Thoughts?
Both string theory and dark matter theories totally confrom to scientific method, in theroy.
The problem is that our advancement into technological implementations of string theory and dark matter theories are many ceturies out of reach. We have been stuck buliding expensive technologies that are based upon applied point-particle physics. No one can afford a galaxy of enegry focused upon a single point that could directly verfy the exitence of strings.
Of course there is always the unlikely scenario of an astromoner seeing a macroscopic string that has been expanded in size due to space time warping and quantum fluxutuations that theoritically would make a string visible through a powerful enough telescope.
Our logical anaylisis and intellect coupled with rough gueesses and accidental breakthroughs mean that we stumble helplessley in a desperate attempt to understand the "fabric" of the universe, not realizing that when matter collides with anti-matter, anti-matter is not destoyed becuase it has exactly the oppisite qualities to matter .Therefore it could be that immortal, immaterial consideration of the formless realms which the great mahasiddhas have been teaching about for centurires.
But now with string thoery one can speculate that if the smallest phenomenon that exists within this material realm is in fact of string like configuration, then there are 11 dimensions, 7 of which are curled up in on each other.
M-theory (which is based upon string theory) suggests that there are infinte universes, which is also held up by Tibetan Buddhist scripture related to Guru Padmasambhava which states that there are infinite world systems, and inifite universes, each with omnipotent beings manifesting in each dimension, for benefiting the evolution of conciosuness. Inifinite in a sense that the formless, anti-material aspect has the unlimited potential for manifetstation. Krishnas call it the expansion of the supreme lord, Buddha called it enlightened activity, but when one wakes up from distraction it is entirely liberating regardless of religious inclination.
So really i think that it is science that it catching up to eastern religions and philosophy, by two means. One, through speculation, and Two through the use of logical analysis. But we have no epxerimental verification of string theory at the momeent, which is sad. If only we could use Arjunas nuclear wepaons (which are spoken of in the vedas) to raise money for research materials!
Edited by Sinbad (06/21/06 03:57 PM)
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Is science becoming more philosophical? [Re: Sinbad]
#5777246 - 06/21/06 05:21 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
M-theory (which is based upon string theory) suggests that there are infinte universes
I keep seeing people say this...but it's just not true.
M-theory suggests a multiverse, yes, but neither it nor the original multiverse theory either require or suggest infinite universes.
The only way there could be infinite universes in a multiverse was if each of those infinite universes was also infinite in size. The universe is not believed to be infinite in size, so the suggestion that there are infinite universes in the multiverse is without merit.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
Sinbad
Living TheMoment
Registered: 12/23/04
Posts: 2,571
Loc: Under The Bodhi Tree
|
Re: Is science becoming more philosophical? [Re: trendal]
#5777253 - 06/21/06 05:27 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
If what your saying is correct, then the Jet Lei's film "The One" is actually theortically plausable.
--------------------
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Is science becoming more philosophical? [Re: Sinbad]
#5777259 - 06/21/06 05:29 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I've only got 5 more of myself to kill off before I am The One!!
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: Is science becoming more philosophical? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
#5778505 - 06/21/06 10:41 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
So, I guess there is no answer for how an Encephalogram (sp?) can measure attention span?
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said: the studies that lead up to the conclusions which formed those therapies does not reflect the dynamic of human emotion and thought.
What? First you say the studies are too subjective and semi-scientific, now you're saying they're not subjective enough and too scientific?
No, what I am saying is that it is impossible to try and create a textbook example of "normalcy", and then attempt to seriously compare the numerous variables which make up human complexity to this "normal" quotient. Does it make sense to you to put numbers on emotions? on a scale of 1-10, im feeling about a 3 right now..... compared to what? your entire life subjectivly perceived and filtered through social conditioning? I am perfectly fine with people doing "studies" regarding the subjective human nature, but to claim that its findings are scientifically backed and then to further act upon those delusions of objectivity in the vain attempt of helping "inferior" people with your superior wisdom of emotional and mental mechanics, disgusts me. The majority of modern mental health studies use societal taboo's or norms as constants, which is absurd when you imagine how often and quickly societal taboo's and norm's change. We made-up society, and we made-up the rules, then we said if you don't follow these rules, there is something genetically wrong with you..... make sense? i hope not. Since when were we ever promised happiness? why does everyone feel that it should be their default position in life? happiness doesn't lie in a pill, or in blaming all your problems on your parents.
Quote:
Can you name any other branch of professional doctors that deal with the quality of human life where mere theories allow unsound practices to be carried out on the unsuspecting populous under the guise of rigorous scientific study?
Physicians.
care to give an example which supports your answer? or is this another "EEG".
Quote:
Every single study in the realm of neurophysiology regarding mental illness ends up stating that the cause of Illness X is a mixture of environment, genetics, physiology and external factors
First off, I don't see why you have a problem with this concept. Do you think certian human traits are not effected by heredity or environment? Secondly, that is true of nearly any illness, not just a psychological illness. Cancer seems like an excellent example. Heredity and environment both play a role in a persons risk for cancer, why should a neurological disorder be any different?
ok, this is funny that you are comparing neurological DISORDERS to directly observable disease's like cancer. First of all, cancer is observable, we can create a textbook example of what a physically normal human being is, and then objectivly compare the difference between a cancer ridden patient, and a perfectly healthy person. We can observe the CAUSE and EFFECT with cancer. We can actually take the tangible lump of cells, and look at them under microscopes and observe their behaviour upon healthy tissue masses. With psychiatry, you can't take out someones depression and look at a tangible mass, and then observe its behaviour, nor can we rightfully determine a cause and effect unless we take a control group of atleast 100 infants and study them psychologically and physiologically for 20 years..... that is just a small amount of what it would take to verify cause and effect of emotional disorders.
Quote:
that is because psychiatry/psychology cannot accept the concept of autonomous consciousness.
Behaviorists cannot, but all the other schools do.
then why does the majority of psychiatry and psychology advocate the use of drugs that alter your biochemistry in such a way as to make you "ok" with your life?
Quote:
3) you are powerless to overcome this horrible illness by yourself.
Incorrect. One of the main focuses of most psychotherapy (CBT, REBT, etc) is emphasizing that the patient, sometimes going as far as saying only the patient, can overcome their illness. Unfortunately, most patients are unwilling to take time out of their busy lifestyle to work towards changing themselves, they'd rather just take a pill.
Like I have said before, there is no illness, only a perceived disorder compared to other peoples lives, and most often, the lives portrayed on television. The only thing that is sick in this world, or insane, is American society (other societies as well). The way you have portrayed psychotherapy is equivalent to making someone believe that the brown stuff growing from the top of their head (hair) is deadly and detrimental to their wellbeing, and we cannot cut it for you, but you can pay us lots of money so that one day, you just might be able to rid yourself of this horrible affliction call "hair", or you can take the easy way out and take chemotherapy which will get rid of all your "hair" as well as some other side affects.
|
IamHungry
Stranger
Registered: 01/12/03
Posts: 220
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
|
Re: Is science becoming more philosophical? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
#5780298 - 06/22/06 11:52 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said: It's more like: Sorry, Doctor. I can't sit still and stop talking... honest! I am afflicted with ADD, I tell ya! Look at my grades! I need something to make me smarter. Now, gimme some pills.
Actually, it doesn't usually work that way. I agree that amphetamine use in the name of "therapy" has run rampant as of late, but I doubt it would have ever been a problem for society if it didn't help at least some people.
I was not prescribed Adderall due to my grades. I was prescribed Adderall because I could not focus my thoughts very well. It doesn't "make me smarter," it lengthens my attention span and lets me educate myself. I never had any behavioral problems, other than some antisocial issues which I worked out myself. But as far as the "I can't sit still, I must need amphetamines!" attitude goes, it's misleading and simply untrue. Being restless isn't a symptom of ADD, as I have always been more laid-back than any of my peers.
I wouldn't consider ADD a "disease" any more than I would consider a broken leg to be a disease. Just as a person with a broken leg needs crutches to move themself without others' help, so the person afflicted with ADD needs medication to help autonomize their life.
-------------------- Here comes the sun, do n do do, Here comes the sun, and I say, It's alright...
|
DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Is science becoming more philosophical? [Re: Silversoul]
#5780576 - 06/22/06 01:55 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
read:
The Tao of Physics by Fritoff Capria
my father made me read this when I was a teenager.
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: Is science becoming more philosophical? [Re: IamHungry]
#5782638 - 06/23/06 12:36 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
But as far as the "I can't sit still, I must need amphetamines!" attitude goes, it's misleading and simply untrue.
How about looking in the PDR or just online before you go making bold statements like this.... if you were to really look this up, you would find that almost the exact words you typed come up as one of the top three "symptoms" of ADHD (or ADD).
|
|