Starship Asterisk*

aristarchusinexile wrote:So, does your definition, Chris, of the type of science acceptable to this forum include astrophysics which wasn't considered acceptable by astronomers a mere few years ago? Does your definition include synthetic biology, which has become a recognized form of research investigating potential life forms on other planets but perhaps not recognized as such by you here and now (I just read about it this week)?

Chris wrote:It isn't my definition.

True, you share it solidly, it seems, with one or perhaps two other participants/moderator in this forum.

Chris wrote:And what you are missing, and I think always have, is that I'm not talking about any particular body of knowledge- be it astrophysics, biology, whatever. Knowledge changes, and it's wise to remain skeptical and not get too attached to any particular piece of it. What I'm talking about is science as a method of discovery ... ... Indeed, I noted that all people use certain rational approaches to gaining knowledge that are a subset of scientific methods. But scientists are very systematic about their efforts to understand nature and build and extend upon past knowledge. That isn't a trait generally found in pre-technological cultures, which is why I said they wouldn't generally be called "scientific".

I urge you to examine the technologies of the cultures you assume to be pre-technological.
I am aware that science includes all the scientific categories .. however, all aboriginal cultures remembered and built upon past events, and knew them as history, and improved upon them (Stonehenge, Boomerang, cutting edges sharper than stainless steel surgical tools, Maya Calendar being easy examples); but to the "scientist" working within historic and cutting edge Babylon the technological instruments according status .. the expensive, merchandiseable instruments such as printed books and laptop computers and memory sticks which demoted 'memory' to 'the garbage bin of unreliability', the merchandising of those instruments necessitated the relegation of aboriginal and modern memory (true knowledge and history unaltered over hundreds or thousands of years) to the realm of 'myth'. How else could the Babylonian scientist maintain his facade as Discoverer of knowledge when the aboriginals had known these things long before Babylon, not needing the merchandiseable instruments? How could the Europeans, for instance, have "Discovered" the Americas when trans-Atlantic trade between North Africa and South and Central America had been historical fact for 2000 years prior to the Vikings .. with cobs of corn featured even on temples in India? With Cocaine found in Mummies in Egypt? Getting blunt, and not meaning this in any way insulting, I would say your definition of science is a desperate last gasp of the institutionalized intellect to keep from becoming unhinged in the face of the enormity of admission that it is like a newborn child which has just opened its eyes and found itself born within a prison, while beyond the bars are beings, children running free, touching trees, looking at stars mirrored in a river, smelling flowers .. and discovering priceless and unfathomable truths at each sight and touch. This is tragic for the newborn.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:There is another point of equilibrium not mentioned: A major decrease in human population expediting a recovery.

In ancient scientific history, around the 1970s I think it was, primitive United Nations scientists estimated the earth could easily sustain a population of (I can't recall exactly) either 40 billion or 80 billion. However, those scientists have been seen to have been found working with flawed data, the data flawed by the exlusion of 'household necessities' like high-powered automobiles in every driveway, and a t.v. and computer in every room in the house. Modern estimates, including these necessities, probably max out at 1970s levels.

aristarchusinexile wrote:Getting blunt, and not meaning this in any way insulting, I would say your definition of science is a desperate last gasp of the institutionalized intellect to keep from becoming unhinged in the face of the enormity of admission that it is like a newborn child which has just opened its eyes and found itself born within a prison, while beyond the bars are beings, children running free, touching trees, looking at stars mirrored in a river, smelling flowers .. and discovering priceless and unfathomable truths at each sight and touch. This is tragic for the newborn.

Modern science has demonstrated its immense superiority over the methods of extending knowledge used by current non-technological cultures, as well as by nearly all cultures more than a few hundred years ago. It is the primary reason for the exponential growth of knowledge over recent centuries. To believe otherwise strikes me as a bizarre viewpoint, counter to very obvious history. The methods of modern science are here to stay- because they work!

aristarchusinexile wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Science is a search after knowledge, Chris.

That's where you are wrong- or at least, imprecise. In the modern sense, science is the search for knowledge using a specific, rational process. Philosophy is a search for knowledge as well, but it isn't remotely scientific.

There are many routes to knowledge, and I'm not offering any comparisons (although I obviously have my own opinions about how effective or useful different methods are). I'm just pointing out that this forum is about modern science, and that means that arguments that don't follow the dictates of the modern scientific approach are, by definition, unscientific. And for the most part, they don't belong here.

So, does your definition, Chris, of the type of science acceptable to this forum include astrophysics which wasn't considered acceptable by astronomers a mere few years ago? Does your definition include synthetic biology, which has become a recognized form of research investigating potential life forms on other planets but perhaps not recognized as such by you here and now (I just read about it this week)? Plus - how much more "specific and rational" can science get than by touching, seeing, feeling, hearing, smelling, examining, uprooting, cutting open, removing bark from, cooking, observing ingested effects on wild animals, tasting, classifying, testing balistically, shaping aerodynamically (is the Boomerang an invention of science?) etc .. all there aspects of science used by aboriginals everywhere, allowing them to thrive in conditions in which you and I would find ourselves dead in in a few days, despite scientific applications of DEET and anti-malaria potions and hi-tech camp stoves. Your idea of science allows you to speculate on the nature of a virtual world, while their true science allows them to live in a real world.

Here is an interesting site on indiginous peoples and their respective sciences/innovations
http://www.edwardwillett.com/Columns/ab ... cience.htm

BMAONE23 wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Science is a search after knowledge, Chris.

That's where you are wrong- or at least, imprecise. In the modern sense, science is the search for knowledge
using a specific, rational process. Philosophy is a search for knowledge as well, but it isn't remotely scientific.

Here is an interesting site on indigenous peoples and their respective sciences/innovations
http://www.edwardwillett.com/Columns/ab ... cience.htm

Does "the search for knowledge using a specific, rational process"
really involve much more than systematic learning through trial & error?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus wrote: <<Octopuses are highly intelligent, probably more intelligent than any other order of invertebrates. The exact extent of their intelligence and learning capability is much debated among biologists, but maze and problem-solving experiments have shown that they do have both short- and long-term memory. Their short lifespans limit the amount they can ultimately learn. There has been much speculation to the effect that almost all octopus behaviors are independently learned rather than instinct-based, although this remains largely unproven. They learn almost no behaviors from their parents, with whom young octopuses have very little contact.

In laboratory experiments, octopuses can be readily trained to distinguish between different shapes and patterns. They have been reported to practice observational learning, although the validity of these findings is widely contested on a number of grounds. Octopuses have also been observed in what some have described as play: repeatedly releasing bottles or toys into a circular current in their aquariums and then catching them. Octopuses often break out of their aquariums and sometimes into others in search of food. They have even boarded fishing boats and opened holds to eat crabs.>>

Monkeys imitate humans and other monkeys but
man is probably unique in actually wanting to teach others
(including monkeys, octopi & middle school students).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4V8-SodVwQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_umYYoqaGl4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8cf7tPoN5o

neufer wrote:Does "the search for knowledge using a specific, rational process"
really involve much more than systematic learning through trial & error?

I think so. Your definition isn't wrong, but I think it fails to capture much of what we mean by "science" in the modern sense. For one thing, it doesn't address the key components of observation and explanation. It also doesn't capture the idea of a method that is rigorously applied to wide range of knowledge. I think you'll find that most (I'd probably say all) pre-technological societies (and some technological ones as well) developed their knowledge base slowly and somewhat accidentally, and that they have many beliefs that are quite contrary to simple observation and have never been put to any test.

Chris Peterson wrote:

neufer wrote:Does "the search for knowledge using a specific, rational process"
really involve much more than systematic learning through trial & error?

I think so. Your definition isn't wrong, but I think it fails to capture much of what we mean by "science" in the modern sense. For one thing, it doesn't address the key components of observation and explanation. It also doesn't capture the idea of a method that is rigorously applied to wide range of knowledge. I think you'll find that most (I'd probably say all) pre-technological societies (and some technological ones as well) developed their knowledge base slowly and somewhat accidentally, and that they have many beliefs that are quite contrary to simple observation and have never been put to any test.

One difference I can see between your definition and what science really is, Chris, is your use of language which elevates the users of to a preferred status established by the users of. However .. point by point ..

"it doesn't address the key components of observation and explanation." Do you mean like an Inuit father observing a seal, pointing the seal out to his child, telling the child "This is the meat you ate this morning. Now you will stand and observe as I capture and kill the seal for tomorrow's meal. Then, someday, you will use this science to support your family who you will teach these same sciences to." Or perhaps this was done in France, and the information recorded in paintings on cave walls instead of university textbooks and computer code.

"pre-technological societies (and some technological ones as well) developed their knowledge base slowly and somewhat accidentally," Do you mean like the 4,000 year old idea of aether being accidentally rediscovered in the new idea of Dark Matter/Dark Energy? Or perhaps like the modern computer slowly developing from a deliberately placed series of rocks (1, 2, 3) used to teach in a cave classroom, then the abacus, then the mechanical adding machine, then the primitive electronic computer, then the less primitive electronic computer, then today's computers, then tomorrow's biological computers? Or do you mean the development of the telescope from someone looking into and through an accidentally shaped lump of glass taken from a fire or picked up off a beach, then refining the lump's shape, then creating a proper lens, then setting two lenses in a tube, then a larger lens and larger tube, and larger lens and larger tube, and then the reflector telescope, then the electronic image stabilizers, then the linking of smaller lenses, then radio, then radar, then radio telescope, etc.? Sorry Chris .. but science as it is today did not just suddenly burst onto the scene unannounced .. it is direct development from a cave man noticing two rocks struck together would spark .. and then by experimenting he discovered it was only specific rocks struck together would spark while others would not, and instead of noting the information in a computer he noted it in his mind, and taught it to his tribe.

"...and that they have many beliefs that are quite contrary to simple observation and have never been put to any test." And yet those beliefs stood the test of time and allowed them to live for thousands of years in extremely hostile environments with technology they could carry in a sealskin bag. And yet again .. read the life story of Michael Faraday and his beliefs which were contrary to the simple observations of those in the consensus of his day, those in the consensus having been forgotten, Faraday's name illuminated by his discoveries.

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Getting blunt, and not meaning this in any way insulting, I would say your definition of science is a desperate last gasp of the institutionalized intellect to keep from becoming unhinged in the face of the enormity of admission that it is like a newborn child which has just opened its eyes and found itself born within a prison, while beyond the bars are beings, children running free, touching trees, looking at stars mirrored in a river, smelling flowers .. and discovering priceless and unfathomable truths at each sight and touch. This is tragic for the newborn.

Modern science has demonstrated its immense superiority over the methods of extending knowledge used by current non-technological cultures, as well as by nearly all cultures more than a few hundred years ago. It is the primary reason for the exponential growth of knowledge over recent centuries. To believe otherwise strikes me as a bizarre viewpoint, counter to very obvious history. The methods of modern science are here to stay- because they work!

Modern methods of science with the latest cutting edge technology and math and thought has taken us in a time loop 4000 years to the idea of 'Aether' -- Dark Matter & Dark Energy being the new Aether.

aristarchusinexile wrote:One difference I can see between your definition and what science really is, Chris, is your use of language which elevates the users of to a preferred status established by the users of.

I don't know where you're getting that. There is no value judgment here. The simple fact is that modern science has a demonstrated efficiency in extending knowledge that seems to go far beyond other methods, either current or past.

"it doesn't address the key components of observation and explanation."

Do you mean like an Inuit father observing a seal, pointing the seal out to his child, telling the child "This is the meat you ate this morning. Now you will stand and observe as I capture and kill the seal for tomorrow's meal. Then, someday, you will use this science to support your family who you will teach these same sciences to." Or perhaps this was done in France, and the information recorded in paintings on cave walls instead of university textbooks and computer code.

No, I don't mean anything like those examples- neither of which are remotely akin to the observation process of science.

pre-technological societies (and some technological ones as well) developed their knowledge base slowly and somewhat accidentally

Do you mean like the 4,000 year old idea of aether being accidentally rediscovered in the new idea of Dark Matter/Dark Energy?

Of course, I don't mean any such thing, since this observation is simply wrong.

Or perhaps like the modern computer slowly developing from a deliberately placed series of rocks (1, 2, 3) used to teach in a cave classroom, then the abacus, then the mechanical adding machine, then the primitive electronic computer, then the less primitive electronic computer, then today's computers, then tomorrow's biological computers?

Indeed, I do mean something similar to that. It took generations to work out ways of using rocks to calculate, and only a generation to go from barely understanding electrons to full-blown digital computers. That increase in the rate of developing knowledge comes from the application of the modern scientific approach to investigation.

Or do you mean the development of the telescope from someone looking into and through an accidentally shaped lump of glass taken from a fire or picked up off a beach, then refining the lump's shape, then creating a proper lens, then setting two lenses in a tube, then a larger lens and larger tube, and larger lens and larger tube, and then the reflector telescope, then the electronic image stabilizers, then the linking of smaller lenses, then radio, then radar, then radio telescope, etc.?

There's no evidence that the telescope developed that way. But the telescope is just a piece of technology... what's really important is how we use technology to advance knowledge.

...and that they have many beliefs that are quite contrary to simple observation and have never been put to any test.

And yet those beliefs stood the test of time and allowed them to live for thousands of years in extremely hostile environments with technology they could carry in a sealskin bag.

So what? I haven't remotely suggested that science is the only way to advance knowledge, nor that knowledge obtained by other methods is somehow inferior. The intelligence of humans has not changed for tens of thousands of years, maybe longer. What has changed is our knowledge base, and one important piece of knowledge has been the development of the modern scientific method. And I see nothing to suggest that this isn't the most efficient method ever developed for deriving information about natural processes.

Defining Science:

wiki wrote:Defining science

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge of the natural world without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called methodological naturalism. Intelligent design proponents believe that this can be equated to materialist metaphysical naturalism, and have often said that not only is their own position scientific, but it is even more scientific than evolution, and that they want a redefinition of science as a revived natural theology or natural philosophy to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design". This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific, it is expected to be:

• Consistent
  Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
  Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
  Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
  Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
  Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
  Progressive (refines previous theories)
  Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency, violates the principle of parsimony, is not scientifically useful, is not falsifiable, is not empirically testable, and is not correctable, dynamic, provisional or progressive.

Perhaps we need to revisit Nereid's attempt to arrive at an agreement as to what we mean by Science. Start here:
http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... 611#p97611

Today's "alarming" headline in my e-mailbox:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090221/ap_ ... e_stranded

It's just a link, not an endorsement.

Has anyone seen the Naked Science episode "Earth's invisible sheild"? It's still on right now. They show a pattern of earths magnetic sheild over the last 3-400 years as measured by mariners and scientists. They point out that there is a large variation of this magnetic "flow" near Antartica. Based on the fact that these are actual measurements taken over hundreds of years and accuratly recorded this could be referred to as a cute brunette on some tv commercials says "real science".

In a nutshell--the earths magnetic sheild protects the earth from the sun (I shouldn't have to elaborate) and right now---as we speak there is large and growing variation of this--right next to Antartica. I would bet that the scientisits working on this are not the ones signing on to AGW.

jlfonz wrote:Has anyone seen the Naked Science episode "Earth's invisible sheild"? It's still on right now. They show a pattern of earths magnetic sheild over the last 3-400 years as measured by mariners and scientists. They point out that there is a large variation of this magnetic "flow" near Antartica. Based on the fact that these are actual measurements taken over hundreds of years and accuratly recorded this could be referred to as a cute brunette on some tv commercials says "real science".

In a nutshell--the earths magnetic sheild protects the earth from the sun (I shouldn't have to elaborate) and right now---as we speak there is large and growing variation of this--right next to Antartica. I would bet that the scientisits working on this are not the ones signing on to AGW.

Why? The effects of the Earth's magnetic field on climate are certainly subtle at best, and remain an active area of investigation. In general, the particles that we are shielded from play no obvious role in climate. It has been proposed that an increase in charged particles penetrating the atmosphere might change the dynamics of cloud formation- most likely leading to global cooling due to a higher albedo. But this theory is- so far- poorly modeled or tested.

Since the people studying this are scientists, they certainly know that AGW is real (you can't be a scientist and think otherwise). Of course, they will presumably cover the spectrum of scientific opinion as to the balance between man made and natural components of change, and as to the likely long and short term ramifications.

jlfonz wrote:Has anyone seen the Naked Science episode "Earth's invisible shield"? ...Based on the fact that these are actual measurements taken over hundreds of years and accurately recorded this could be referred to as a cute brunette on some tv commercials says "real science".

It's true...it's all true!

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlin ... ullet1.htm

http://www.alienmania.org/earths-invisible-shield.html

[quote="Since the people studying this are scientists, they certainly know that AGW is real (you can't be a scientist and think otherwise). quote]

Good Greif

jlfonz wrote:

"Since the people studying this are scientists, they certainly know that AGW is real (you can't be a scientist and think otherwise).

Good Greif

*GREIF* : griffin, *GRYPHON* (German)
----------------------------------------------
<<*GRYPHON* (in Orlando Furioso), son of Olivero and Sigismunda, brother of Aquilant, in love with
Origilla, who plays him false. He was called White from his armour, and his brother Black. He overthrew
the eight champions of Damascus in the tournament given to celebrate the king's wedding-day.
While asleep Martano steals his armour, and goes to the King Norandino to receive the meed of high deeds.
In the meantime Gryphon awakes, finds his armour gone, is obliged to put on Martano's, and, being
mistaken for the coward, is hooted and hustled by the crowd. He lays about him stoutly, and kills many.
The king comes up, finds out the mistake, and offers his hand, which Gryphon,
like a true knight, receives. He joined the army of Charlemagne.>>
----------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Greif wrote:
<<*Operation Greif ("Gryphon")* was a special false flag operation commanded by the notorious Waffen-SS commando Otto Skorzeny during the Battle of the Bulge. The operation was the brainchild of Adolf Hitler, and its purpose was to capture one or more of the bridges over the Meuse river before they could be destroyed. German soldiers in captured US Army uniforms and using some US vehicles were to cause confusion in the rear of the Allied lines. So great was the confusion caused by Operation Greif that the US Army saw spies and saboteurs everywhere. Perhaps the largest panic was created when a commando team was captured near Aywaille on 17 December. Comprising Unteroffizier Manfred Pernass, Oberfähnrich Günther Billing, and Gefreiter Wilhelm Schmidt, they were captured when they failed to give the correct password. It was Schmidt who gave credence to a rumour that Skorzeny intended to capture General Eisenhower and his staff.>>

----------------------------------------------

They very soon came upon a Gryphon, lying fast asleep in the sun. (If you don`t know what a Gryphon is, look at the picture.) "Up, lazy thing!" said the Queen, "and take this young lady to see the Mock Turtle, and to hear his history. I must go back and see after some executions I have ordered"; and she walked off, leaving Alice alone with the Gryphon. Alice did not quite like the look of the creature, but on the whole she thought it would be quite as safe to stay with it as to go after that savage Queen: so she waited.

The Gryphon sat up and rubbed its eyes: then it watched the Queen till she was out of sight:
then it chuckled. "What fun!" said the Gryphon, half to itself, half to Alice.

"What is the fun?" said Alice.

"Why, she," said the Gryphon. "It`s all her fancy, that: they never executes nobody, you know."

Chris Peterson wrote: The intelligence of humans has not changed for tens of thousands of years, maybe longer. What has changed is our knowledge base, and one important piece of knowledge has been the development of the modern scientific method. And I see nothing to suggest that this isn't the most efficient method ever developed for deriving information about natural processes.

The intelligence of humans according to brain size and IMOPO potential was less than Neanderthal. Why did Neanderthal not prevail? Because, I believe, they were a gentle-souled people lacking the savage blood lust of their 'human' competititor.
But even post Neanderthal cultures had to scientifically identify and maximise the use of every material element in their geographical location, including herbal elements known only to modern botanists because they were told them by the aboriginals. "Modern' science, for instance, saw early European explorers dying of scurvy until the natives introduced them to soup of boiled Cedar bark .. even though the Cedar was known in Europe (and even though 'Cedar' is not native to North America, our Arbor Vitae being given that name in mistake by 'our' scientists.) What has changed is the diminishing capability to use our brains' capacities, for memory for instance, that need being replaced by technology, but was essential in aboriginal culture. Simple 'awareness' of immediate time and space is also diminishing, as we isolate and insulate ourselves more and more competely from our natural surroundings. Knowledge Base? What good is a computer full of knowledge if the possessor thereof doesn't know how to use that knowledge in simple ways .. like the boiling of the bark of Arbor Vitae as one terribly simple example. What is the science of the identification of fungi called, Chris? The aboriginals, and some people in remote areas today, can identify and use or avoid use of every fungus in their region. Are they given a PHD? No. They're told they're uneducated, unsophisticated, not possessor of diplomas. The Polynesians knew astronomy so well they could navigate thousands of miles of open ocean by stars, sun and moon. Does whatever diploma you possess allow you to do that? Do your standards credit Polynesians as astronomers? How about Cartography? The Europeans, when exploring North America, despite possessing navigational instruments, relied on the computer precise memories of aboriginal guides to take them across the continent. Sorry Chris, but a wide data base stored up in a computer does not make a scientist, and does not measure intelligence. Your 'advanced' system of science has been in use for thousands of years .. and it even awarded prestige, like the titles "Medicine Man" and "Excellent Hunter" and "Mushroom Soup Woman".

apodman wrote:Today's "alarming" headline in my e-mailbox:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090221/ap_ ... e_stranded

It's just a link, not an endorsement.

IMOPO the AIDS virus was a created instrument intended to slow the Black African migration towards Europe.

bystander wrote:Perhaps we need to revisit Nereid's attempt to arrive at an agreement as to what we mean by Science. Start here:
http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... 611#p97611

Oh yeah .. Boggle me, Bystander! However, in a brief search of your references, and looking into Wiki, I easily see that the definitions of science are far too branched to be navigated except with a huge devotion. For instance, a simple definition .. 'science is a search after knowledge' brances into 'Applied science is the application of knowledge from one or more natural scientific fields' .. those fields being innumerable, with new sciences being created all the time (Synthetic Biology, for instance) ... so at this time I must be content with 'searching for and using knowledge', because the use of knowledge is totally natural,and seemingly unavoidable.

Chris Peterson wrote:The effects of the Earth's magnetic field on climate are certainly subtle at best, and remain an active area of investigation. In general, the particles that we are shielded from play no obvious role in climate. It has been proposed that an increase in charged particles penetrating the atmosphere might change the dynamics of cloud formation- most likely leading to global cooling due to a higher albedo. But this theory is- so far- poorly modeled or tested.

Radiation may have played no obvious role so far, but if radiation increases, and alters the small life forms in the oceans' surface waters, the plankton, etc., say, by mutating them, this could cause jelly like coverings over huge areas, preventing precipitation, preventing mixing of thermal layers, etc. In fact, huge blooms of jellyfish are already doing this, to what is presently a small degree.

neufer wrote:Operation Greif was a special false flag operation commanded by the notorious Waffen-SS commando Otto Skorzeny during the Battle of the Bulge. The operation was the brainchild of Adolf Hitler ....

This weakness of Hitler's in identifying strategies with names in history/literature/culture was a weakness which identified to the British the advanced German radar technology. I believe it was a British physics major who had been working on encryption, who used his knowledge of literature to alert the British High Command of the radars. A commando raid was successful in capturing an intact radar unit.

aristarchusinexile wrote:The intelligence of humans according to brain size and IMOPO potential was less than Neanderthal. Why did Neanderthal not prevail? Because, I believe, they were a gentle-souled people lacking the savage blood lust of their 'human' competititor.

Brain size is a poor indicator of intelligence. And nobody really has a clue what the behavior patterns of Neanderthals were. IMO you're drawing far too specific a conclusion based on far too little evidence.

But even post Neanderthal cultures had to scientifically identify and maximise the use of every material element in their geographical location, including herbal elements known only to modern botanists because they were told them by the aboriginals.

No, they did not. They had to accumulate knowledge, that's all. There was no requirement that that process be scientific in any modern sense, and I doubt very much that it was.

"Modern' science, for instance, saw early European explorers dying of scurvy until the natives introduced them to soup of boiled Cedar bark .. even though the Cedar was known in Europe (and even though 'Cedar' is not native to North America, our Arbor Vitae being given that name in mistake by 'our' scientists.)

Nope. People were dying of scurvy precisely because there was no application of modern science to the problem. Accidentally discovered herbal cures are not good examples of science. By the mid 18th century, European scientists had actually worked out a range of cures, and within a few decades understood something of the active chemical required (ascorbic acid). Had the plants used in native herbal remedies died out, the people would have started getting sick. In Europe (and extending worldwide these days) the active chemical can be extracted from any of hundreds of sources, or synthesized. That's a whole different approach to knowledge.

What has changed is the diminishing capability to use our brains' capacities, for memory for instance, that need being replaced by technology, but was essential in aboriginal culture.

I don't buy it. We use our brains in different ways. I don't see any diminishing capability.

What is the science of the identification of fungi called, Chris? The aboriginals, and some people in remote areas today, can identify and use or avoid use of every fungus in their region. Are they given a PHD? No. They're told they're uneducated, unsophisticated, not possessor of diplomas.

Mycology. And again, a knowledge of the uses of the fungi in your environment need have nothing to do with science.

The Polynesians knew astronomy so well they could navigate thousands of miles of open ocean by stars, sun and moon. Does whatever diploma you possess allow you to do that? Do your standards credit Polynesians as astronomers?

The Polynesians knew nearly nothing about astronomy. They knew where the stars were in the sky, and when they would be there. That describes most pre-technological people. Their ability to use this information to good purpose just shows that they were intelligent people who could draw conclusions from repeated observations. It doesn't mean they were astronomers, certainly not in any scientific sense. They didn't know what stars and planets were, and- most important- didn't seem to have an ambition to explore that question. They were happy with what their religion told them. That is most unscientific.

Sorry Chris, but a wide data base stored up in a computer does not make a scientist, and does not measure intelligence. Your 'advanced' system of science has been in use for thousands of years .. and it even awarded prestige, like the titles "Medicine Man" and "Excellent Hunter" and "Mushroom Soup Woman".

I don't know if you're being deliberately dense, but you're certainly missing the point, as well as putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that data makes you a scientist. In fact, I said that that you don't need to be a scientist to collect data. And I also said that elements of the modern scientific method have been present as long as humans had good enough brains- hundreds of thousands of years, probably. But I don't think there's any evidence of pre-technological cultures systematically applying science like we do. And I think it is beyond dispute that the modern scientific method is the most efficient method of acquiring knowledge about natural processes that has ever been developed.

Chris Peterson wrote:Brain size is a poor indicator of intelligence. And nobody really has a clue what the behavior patterns of Neanderthals were. IMO you're drawing far too specific a conclusion based on far too little evidence ... ...
But I don't think there's any evidence of pre-technological cultures systematically applying science like we do. And I think it is beyond dispute that the modern scientific method is the most efficient method of acquiring knowledge about natural processes that has ever been developed.

Like I've said nearly from the beginning of our exchanges, Chris, you need to read far more than you do. As far as I can see this discussion is merely repeating itself for about the third time, so I'm ending my part in the repetition.

Chris Peterson,

figure 10.5 of the IPCC AR4 still looks like the resolution is much finer than your ten year claim, and the accompanying text in that fourth assessment report still says The surface air temperature was used and averaged over each year.

StACase wrote:Chris Peterson,

figure 10.5 of the IPCC AR4 still looks like the resolution is much finer than your ten year claim, and the accompanying text in that fourth assessment report still says The surface air temperature was used and averaged over each year.

I have no idea. I don't know where the explanatory text is, or what exactly it says about this image. It is most common for historical and projected data to be presented as a decadal average, but that doesn't mean all data is. There is no way of determining visually if the data on this chart has been averaged decadally or not- that doesn't mean you can't have fine structure in the chart with a period that is arbitrarily short.

I guess I don't really know what your point is.