Science as we know it today began with scholars like Rene Descartes and Kevin Bacon. No Francis Bacon… sorry.
Give Sean Penn.
Give 'til it hurts.
Just in case you run out of things to watch here.
October 18th, 2007 
Science as we know it today began with scholars like Rene Descartes and Kevin Bacon. No Francis Bacon… sorry.
9 Comments
Snowmanincave [22]
Commenting on an old video? What? I swear, every time a religion vs science debate comes up at XGen, this video gets posted. So kudos once again, guys. It's a classic.ItzMeRon
Posted: http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=3&func=view&catid=6&id=50685DocSea
I commend your call to the public to think critically about what they hear or are taught regarding science. As a scientist I always teach my students to question the media, especially when it comes to science. I even encourage them to question me! Scientists are generally well versed in the literature in their own field, but they are often expected to teach more general courses. Sometimes teachers make mistakes as they attempt to interpret science for non-scientists. That’s why scientists go the primary literature (peer reviewed journals) to better understand the science behind a ... lots moreJustAmes
Thank you, I was just talking about public schools teaching evolution/big bang theory in my government class. It's amazing how people can take a theory, accept it as truth and refuse to see that science is turning into a belief system very similar to religion.Allan
It's so true. The motivator is the same as the use of "war" for psychological motivation: power and/or money. But today, $1 = 1 unit of power. So it's really redundant.Meandering
Nice!Mike
I think both of you are right on each of your points. There are phenomenon in the natural realm that are not directly observed, and there are some who think they can define science to include or exclude such phenomena...albeit according to their own philosophical worldview. The danger of the latter, is that it may define "science" with such narrow parameters, that future research with better technology may reveal certain questionable phenomena today to be quite a real part universe and reality....but it won't be considered legitimate or credible because it "isn't science". I think it doesn't matter what it is called (religious, ... lots moreTodd
The most important thing to remember is that the answer to the question "What is Science?" isn't science, but philosophy. Words matter because meaning matters.Dave
The problem with saying that theoretical physics is not science is that there are lots of unobservable phenomena in science. What does mass look like? Have you ever seen an electromagnetic field? Or for that matter, photons or space-time? All of these phenomena has observable side-effects however, and the theories that describe these phenomena do a stellar job of explaining these observable phenomena is a repeatable, consistent and measurable way. Sure, the more theoretical you get, like massless 11-dimension vibrating vectors, the harder it is to find observable phenomena, but that's why it's not well accepted science. That's different from not at ... lots more