Ultra-sensitive microscope reveals DNA processes

New Scientist ^ | November 15, 2005 | Gaia [sic] Vince

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

No, geometry and mathematics are not science.

Really? Einstein, the mathematician, was not a scientist?

You are an idiot...

[Dimensio]

Einstein, the mathematician, was not a scientist?

Einstein was a mathematician?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Okay, you've revealed yourself. No one would willingly make statements this rooted in ignorance who wasn't trolling.

[ml1954]

Really? Einstein, the mathematician, was not a scientist?

IIRC, Einstein admitted that math was not one his strengths.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"It was not axiomatic before Pythagoras..."

And we can be thankful that Pythagoras (or one of his students, it isn't possible to know who actually came up with it) figured out the theorem. That doesn't make it science. Mathematics is a subset of logic, not science. It is an integral tool of science, but science is a different thing. It's possible to prove a mathematical theorem only because you can set the premises as true. When a formula is used to describe the real world, the math may be correct, but the relationship of that formula to reality will always be approximate. Newton's theory of gravity is an excellent example. It works for most objects in our normal experience but breaks down when you are dealing with very massive objects or very tiny objects. It has not been proved, nor can it be. It's still useful.

[Dimensio]

I'm pretty sure that any good high-school Physics teacher would mention this.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

E = mc² is not science, but simply a deluded creationist's theory???

Albert Einstein was not a scientist???

Get over it...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

It may be creative but it doesn't explore the unknown or add to our knowledge of the universe.

The chip sets in your computer don't add to your knowledge of the universe?

In your case, maybe not....

[ml1954]

I'm pretty sure that any good high-school Physics teacher would mention this.

But, but, but how important are facts and details, like really, when you are trying to do God's work and change the world for the better for everyone?

[PatrickHenry]

Internet abuse placemarker.

[grey_whiskers]

Molecule and cell factories are applications in their infancy at present but the 4th and 5th generation technologies according to some of the roadmaps I have seem are nothing short of breathtaking

See if you can get in with "founder's shares" before the IPO :-P

Cheers!

[longshadow]

Wake-up DarwinCentral™!

We have a new nominee for tha all-time most unintentionally funny post in the history of FR:

"It [a² + b² = c²] was a theory Pythagoras proved..."

[see post #913]

This is the first serious contender for dislodging the reigning champion of intended irony:

"Wildly elliptical planetary orbits"

[ml1954]

If you had attempted to converse about what I wrote I might respond in kind. But you didn't.

[Dimensio]

The chip sets in your computer don't add to your knowledge of the universe?

Keep in mind that the original statement was 'our' knowledge, referring to the universal body of knowledge shared by humanity. And in that respect, no, an already existing computer chip does not, by itself, do that. Are you really incapable of admitting that you're not fully up to snuff with respect to what exactly science is? Your attempts to lump the mere tools of science as fields of science in themselves is starting to look rather desperate.

[longshadow]

make that: "UNintended" irony....

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Keep in mind that the original statement was 'our' knowledge, referring to the universal body of knowledge shared by humanity...

Oh, you are a collectivist... that explains everything...

[Dimensio]

E = mc2 is not science, but simply a deluded creationist's theory???

E = mc² is simply a mathematical formula. Without definitions for E, m and c it has no meaning. With E, m and c defined it isn't a theory, but a definition of the relationship between them.

[longshadow]

Internet abuse placemarker.

drinking problem, most likely.

[Dimensio]

Oh, you are a collectivist... that explains everything...

Are you so utterly devoid of rational arguments of your own that you have to take to dishonest misrepresntation of the statements of others?

You made a mistake about what is and is not science. Admit it and move on.

[PatrickHenry]

This is the first serious contender for dislodging the reigning champion of intended irony

It's a winner, no doubt about it. But the other guy was good for frequent laughs. The current situation just isn't interesting at all.

[grey_whiskers]

No sir, that is not what is meant by supernatural in the case of God or in these discussions about science. What is meant by supernatural is a phenomena or cause that not only is exempt from the physical laws we utilize in testing science but can willfully change or circumvent those laws. This potential inconsistency in physical laws makes any result of tests we perform useless.

Useless for what? A good "99.9% of the time" rule of thumb is pretty useful for lots of stuff. :-)

Why don't you spell out your underlying assumptions a little more clearly for those of your disputants who were not trained in science? A little pinch of "mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive" here, a smidgeon of "uniformity of causes within a closed system" there, and, ...presto!

Full Disclosure: Mutually exclusive, collectively exhausting is a pretty good description of many of the flame wars on these threads, too ;-)