God/1st Law of Thermo, Part 2, Science

[StreetScooby 5]

Introduction
============
This thread is a continuation of the following threads:
Introduction - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2396715;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread
Language - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2398138;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

Summary
=======
This thread gives a simple definition of science.

Discussion
==========

Science can be defined as "observation and correlation".

Observations are taken by many different people, and written down. Over time, the people actually start using the same words to describe their observations. At this point in time, the observations are deemed to be "reproducible". The only observations that count in science are reproducible observations.

Correlations, in very simple terms, are when the math people take reproducible observations and summarize them in meaningful terms (e.g., equations, laws, etc). In general, lots of new words are created in the language during this process.

Then, the cycle repeats itself.

Conclusion
==========
The process of science is simple to understand. In practice, it's very difficult due to the burden of language, and the absolute mandate for reproducible observations.

We are all engines of karma

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Introduction
============

The only observations that count in science are reproducible observations.

this I disagree with, observations that are not reproduceable also count in science eliminatyiing what we cant do allows us to develop and understand what we can

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

this I disagree with, observations that are not reproduceable also count in science eliminatyiing what we cant do allows us to develop and understand what we can

I agree conceptually with what you're saying. This discussion is going to lead us directly into what you're saying. Should I elminate that phrase from this basis? Or, is there a better way to phrase the importance of reproducible observations in accepted science? There's alot of observations out there, especially in the "occult" area, that are not considered to be valid observations by most scientists.

We are all engines of karma