Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (142293)	8/2/2004 10:00:30 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

We are talking about the necessity of Empires for human progress. Which is to say, do we need some sort of hegemony across massive lands to enhance humanity (and not just scientific progress)? Nothing you have said leads to the claim that empires are necessary or natural to human societies or that science did not exist prior to 16th C. I have provided plenty of examples of how non-imperial societies made great progress both culturally and scientifically. >> The principal Greek city- state was Athens, and it was, indeed, considered an Empire... Athens was a city-state. How can it be an empire? Athenians did contribute plenty to culture, but they were not unique. Sparta did a good job too. They developed a socialist system way before Lenin and theirs was easier and better to maintain (for example they used copper coins so that old money would rust and you had to put capital to work rather than box it in as a treasure). >> I said that medicine in the ancient world was "hit or miss". The fact that some remedies were discovered to work is not a contradiction of my point. How is this different from modern day medicine? Doctors still can't diagnose most patients accurately. At best they recognize there may be some viral infection or bacterial infection or some physical imbalance. There are huge differences between individual physiologies and they are almost never taken into account. By and large modern day doctors, at least in America, know little of physiology and pharmacology. The drugs we use are still of the shot-gun variety rather than a sniper gun. And misdiagnosis is quite common. By and large most ailments take care of themselves, and when they don't, your doctor either changes your prescription or you change him to someone else. I see no reason to believe that 4000 years from now our medicine is not considered as "hit or miss" as you are considering the ancient Egyptian's to be. So does this mean some future generation may claim that Science per se did not exist until 5468 AD? >> Nothing that you post contradicts my points,it merely shows that you do not understand what I have said. Science is not philosophy (or religion), which is the provenance of most of the ideas you mention. And you have brought no premises for your claims that (A) Science did not exist prior to 16th C. and that (B) Empires are essential for human progress and (C) Empires are natural to human societies. I am well aware of the differences between Science and Arts. I just don't think that when discussing human progress, science should get all the credit. And this is why I brought up other subjects. >> I did not say that there was nothing important in human life or history but science. However, the rise of science and technology has been very beneficial, and it is a boon of the modern world. No you did not. But you did imply that scientific achievement and modern gizmos are the most important aspects of human achievements. BTW, I have an issue with your statement that "the rise of science and technology has been very beneficial, and it is a boon of the modern world". In what way this has been so? Yes, modern science can better recognize many ailments. But it also created many bio-weapons. Yes the industrial revolution created an increase in material well being. But it also led to pollution, depression, increase in suicide, stress, high blood pressure, and a lot of pain as well. Are we, as modern people, happier than our ancestors were? Science by itself brings nothing. It is just a tool, like a sword. How you use that tool is what really matters. And how science should be used is not a question answered by science but by philosophy...And that is why IMO the humanities disciplines are more important than scientific ones. Sun Tzu There are but two powers in the world, the sword and the mind. In the long run the sword is always beaten by the mind. -- Napoleon Bonaparte

To: Neocon who wrote (142293)	8/2/2004 10:38:39 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Scientific Method: What is it? Who Invented It? What is the Scientific Method? What do teachers always tell to include in a science experiment? They tell stuff like the purpose, hypothesis, materials, procedure, etc. These are all parts of the scientific method. The scientific method is learning science through observation and experimentation. Before the invention of the scientific method, people used to make guesses, could not prove or disprove any thing, and had vague theories. The scientific method changed all that. That is why all these inventions are here. The first step in the scientific method is to ask a question that you will do the experiment to solve. The next step is to gather information, which you will use to make a hypothesis. You predict what will happen in the results. Next, you do the experiment, gather data, etc. After that, you draw a conclusion out of all your work, in which you answer your question and find out if your hypothesis is correct. Lastly, you report the results so that other people may verify your results as well as get the knowledge that you learned during the whole experiment. The difference between a hypothesis and a thesis is that a hypothesis is a possible explanation to an event or a possible solution to a problem. It is based on information gathered and is done before conducting an experiment. A thesis on the other hand is an explanation of an event or a solution to a problem formed after many repeated carefully controlled experiments' results are examined. Who Invented It? The credit of this important invention usually is given to Western scientists such as Roger Bacon. However, the Muslims really invented it, perfected it, and presented it to the West. Al-Biruni (d. 1050 CE), the Persian genius of the time perfected it. He conducted precise experiments on laws of gravitation, momentum, and motion. Among his successful experiments, were the most precise measurement of the specific gravity of precious stones and metals, mathematical calculation of earth's radius, mathematical determination of earth's solar orbit, and the measurement of the height of mountains by seconds and degrees. He also discovered the First Law of Motion. Ibn Sina (Avincenna) (d. 1037 CE) and other Muslims of the Islamic Era relied on carefully constructed experiments to prove their theories. These developments were made at the Bayt Al-Hikmat (House of Wisdom) in Baghdad, Iraq. Ibn Sina also made an accurate description of the geological origin of mountains and was the first to construct the theory of the formation of sedimentary rock. Ar-Razi (Rhases) (d. 925 CE) used the scientific method to find out the most hygienic places in Baghdad to build hospitals by hanging chunks of meat in different places. The place where the meat decayed the least over a period of time was the place where the new hospital would be built. Will Durant writes that the Muslim scholars "introduced precise observation, controlled experiment, and careful records." George Sarton and Max Vintejoux both describe the era of scientific achievement that started after the development of the scientific method as a miracle. albalagh.net