Science and Bushcraft

[EdS]

Personally, I'd say technology is the practicle application of science.

Science says X should work then proves it. Technology says we can now use X for Y purpose.

 

[ESpy]

Science is just one way of having a deeper understanding of what goes on around you.

Being able to apply it is quite another thing entirely...

 

[greg2935]

A better word for science is now not used often:namely natural philosophy (PhD = doctor of philosophy!), personally, this is the phrase I prefer to use: it describes my world view far better than say words like physics, or biology. It also puts my beliefs and ideas of everything into its correct context.

 

[Hoodoo]

Well, I don't want to get too pedantic here :rolmao: but I do want to correct what is generally a common misunderstanding. Scientists generally do not propose theories and then test them. They propose hypotheses that are then tested. These hypotheses may or may not support a general theory.

In common language usage, ‘theory’ often means imperfect fact, part of the hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. In science, theories are over-arching explanations, i.e., structures of ideas that explain and interpret scientific facts. And facts in science do not mean absolute certainty. In science ‘fact’ can only mean that we have confirmed our findings to the point that it would be ridiculous not to accept them for the time being, until new ‘facts’ come along to disprove old ‘facts’.

Also, hypothesis testing generally does not prove something is right but that something is wrong. Scientists are very good at disproving hypotheses. Those that we cannot disprove and have withstood the challenge of testing over time, are generally accepted by science and become part of a general theory, at least until new hypotheses and facts come along that serously challenge the theory. In such cases, we generally refer to this as a paradigm shift.

Also, science is not based soley on hypothesis testing. There is a lot of intuition, logic, and common sense that permeates science that has led to some elegant concepts and theories that have little or no empirical data to support them.

Here's an example. I wonder if day lillies are edible? I will test that hypothesis. I will sample them and see what happens. So I eat them and nothing happens except that I gain weight. I conclude that day-lilies are edible. I publish my results. Bob reads this and becomes convinced of this "fact." Bob gets lost in the woods and in order to survive, he remembers that he read that day-lilies are edible. So he finds some day-lilies to eat and gorges himself. Next thing you know, Bob is very, very sick. Obviously the "fact" that day-lilies are edible is not a universal fact but has a certain probability factor associated with it. That's real science. :rolmao:

:wave:

 

[JimH]

Well, I don't want to get too pedantic here ...That's real science. :rolmao:

Much fuller and more eloquent than my version. I know the hypothesis/theory argument has especial currency in the US at this time.

Pedantry is not always a vice. To hijack and mutate a bit of common parlance:

"Never apologise, ALWAYS explain."

Pedants 'R' Us :super:

Jim.

 

[Tantalus]

sooooooooo..............

the scientist tell us facts that are not really facts at all and then deny responsibility when exceptions occur, claiming that theories need to be revised due to new facts being dicovered?

wow

i think i need an evening with a mug of coffee and a campfire to mull over all the implications :chill:

Tant the sceptical

 

[Hoodoo]

I know the hypothesis/theory argument has especial currency in the US at this time.

'Tis so true...

Pedants 'R' Us :super:

I've been to that store. :rolmao:

 

[Hoodoo]

the scientist tell us facts that are not really facts at all and then deny responsibility when exceptions occur, claiming that theories need to be revised due to new facts being dicovered?

I find that a rather cynical interpretation of what I just wrote, especially the implied insult about denying responsibility.

I suppose you would have preferred that Newton should never have published his work because of the possibilty that someone might come along later on and challenge it? Like Einstein for instance? :roll:

 

[jamesdevine]

My head hurts. :Slam_anim


It's Friday afternoon guys. :wave:


james

 

[Tantalus]

sorry hoodoo not a personal attack

perhaps it would be better explained if i said , i personally try not to take science too seriously. Preferring to believe that all theories are open to question and that some of the greatest leaps have been a result of challenging the "status quo".

Although it is a long time since a discovery was declared heretical, sometimes the establishment still does not take kindly to challenges from outside.

my posts were intended as lighthearted attempt to encourage enquiring minds rather than rubbishing of your post

Tant

 

[Hoodoo]

No probem Tantalus. I firmly believe there are other ways to know things besides the path of science. Science though, has a pretty strong track record. And its very method is based on skepticism and challenging ideas. Like I said, we are very good at disproving things, but claiming absolute truth is only for those who go beyond the current ability of science, imo. :wave:

 

[C_Claycomb]

Hoodoo, I stand corrected on my use of "Theory" vs "hypothesis", which is the word that I really wanted....but couldn't remember Anyway, I couldn't think of a good way of rewriting the paragraph I used it in...so wiped that bit entirely. It didn't matter that much.

:rolmao: "Dangerous Forum Topics".....Religeon, Politics, and.......Science
:Crazy_071

 

[Kim]

:rolmao: "Dangerous Forum Topics".....Religeon, Politics, and.......Science
:Crazy_071

I could never have imagined what this thread would do...!!! :shock:

 

[Hoodoo]

I could never have imagined what this thread would do...!!! :shock:

But sometimes that's the beauty of conversation. This is tame compared to how scientists often discuss things among themselves. The famous philosopher of science, Karl Popper, believed in stating your hypothesis boldly so that everyone knew clearly what it was and could take a clean pot shot at it.


Chris, I realize that might have seemed like a trivial point about hypothesis vs theory but people outside of science including the press often perceive them as one and the same and often belittle major ideas in science as saying that they are "just a theory." There is a vast chasm between hypothesis and theory although not so much in casual conversation.

In science, we make every attempt to define our terms rigorously although we are not always successful because even in science, the meanings of terms often change with the passage of time. :?:

 

[Moine]

I think we must make a clear difference between science and technology. Science is, basically, a method for testing things and sharing those tests with others so that they can criticize and help us test... Putting all those tests results together makes theories and allow people to understand how things work.

Technology is an application of those theories. Gore Tex and Ferro-Cerium rods and complex heat treatments are technology, for example...

Now science couldn't keep going without technology (testing machines, computers, Internet... etc.). And technology couldn't evolve much more without science. They are a closely intimate couple, so to speak

To me, bushcraft is a form of technology. And the science behind it can come from milleniums of this "patient interrogation of the land" as Barry Lopez puts it so well, or from a CogSci lab, or from whatever renouned university... I don't care. If it makes my bushcraft efficient, if it works, if it keeps me alive, I take it.

Cheers,

David