I think it is to find the set of rules by which everything operates. (if that is possible)

Rob,

I think I agree, but a close second must be -'to improve our lot'.

Regards,

Blacknad.

The purpose of science is to get reliable information about the world.

Try google.

All close.

The purpose of science is to acquire natural laws to describe a natural universe.

that's exactly what I said!

No, that's just getting information.

Science is the process of getting information that is RELIABLE, by means of scientific method.

Also, "to explain the natural universe" is A motive for engaging in science, but that doesn't mean it's THE reason for it.

science explains everything in this world...

Not yet

I think it depends on who is doing the aiming of science!

If it is a large corporation that is involved in some process
that damages , then they might aim a little off in order to miss
the target.

If it is an individual who is aiming to correct
the large corporations projectile so that it might
hit the target then it will depend on the amount
of force that that single individual can apply to
the corporations projectile in order to correct its
path to the target.

science is bought and paid for today to fullfill needs.

that is why buildings and bridges fall down so easily
these days.

or maybe its just a result of cheat sheets or peer pressure.

...

What is the ultimate aim of science?
knowledge...

...

What is the current aim of science?
to aim science in a manner that science can be used for
denial , deciet , etc ... for gain or profit...

...

I thought, "to get reliable information about the world" was a damn good stab at an unanswerable (because of meaninglessness) question. It is the main aim of most scientists. I am curious why you found it funny.

Why does it have to be a corporation that is doing bad science, and why can't you imagine it might be doing good science? (You don't say these things explicitly, but you assume them, and this strikes me as sloppy).

Whats the aim of evolution?

To better enable and enhance...
life's purpose of more efficiently converting light into heat (increasing entropy).

...maybe?
...gotta run: lunchtime!

~

That's right. While the purpose of science should be to understand an universe naturally...

We all know what science is (or at least can find out easily enough through a little research!). Example:

"Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" or "knowing") is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works" - Wikipedia

The answer to 'What's the aim of science?' Or in other words, 'Why do we do science?' may appear absurdly obvious, but it is a philosophical question:

"The philosophy of science seeks to understand the nature and justification of scientific knowledge" - Wikipedia

It would seem that there are many reasons for doing science - individuals, groups, corporations, governments may have specific reasons for scientific investigation, such as the acquisition of power, wealth, prestige - but in my opinion two basic reasons cover most of the possibilities (a) curiousity, and (b) the enablement of technological development for survival, the enhancement perceived life quality, and longevity.

All good information, Rede.

Has anyone asked: When we speak of science, what are we talking about here? Just the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, mathematics, and the like? Or, is there room for ethics, economics, dogmatics, psychology, sociology, whatever.

In his book, Dogmatics in Outline, the Swiss theologian, Karl Barth (1886-1968) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth writes, "Dogmatics is a science....I propose that by science we understand it is an attempt at comprehension and exposition, at investigation and instruction which is related to a definite object and sphere of activity."

He goes on to point out that, for us human beings, all science is an attempt at understanding, not a final one. It is a preliminary and limited process. For us human beings there is no absolute science or final art. In life we are in an eternal process.

Yes, the question has been raised elsewhere in the forum.

I am using the definition of science that pertains to the discovery of "how the physical world works", hence my reference to "technological development" as a means of meeting what most of us consider our fundamental material needs and wants.

However, the inclusion or exclusion of other aspects of the sphere of human knowledge - such as economics and sociology - as 'science' does, in my view, make no real difference in defining the aims. Those studies involve the acquisition of knowledge for purposes that are broadly the same, except that terms like "the enhancement of technological development" are omitted.

The question to be asked seems to me to be 'Why do we have science?"

When did science break away from necessity? At first humans lived as part of the natural environment and, as do many tribal societies today, lived from the natural resources available on this planet. I think it is the desire to change this environment that gave birth to the growth of science. The development of civilisation led to the establishment of science. Once humans found that they were able to adapt things to their own advantage reliably by codifying the methods used, science was established and civilisation began its relentless movement.

"Real" science-- "hard" science, ie that which is not banished to the NQS section here (and you all know what I mean!!!) evolved as the result of deliberate imposition designed to improve the human condition. There is no science without humans, it codifies natural events for the benefit of humanity.

Science does all the things mentioned here such as increasing knowledge and so on but its main purpose is to extend human influence--- even to beyond the planet.

That suggests that you think the majority of scientists are conducting research not with the primary aim of solving the riddles of the task at hand, but rather to extend human influence.

I'm tempted to jump in with both feet and call that nonsense, but it could be that don't fully understand what you're saying.

Interestingly, our word 'technology' comes from the Greek 'teknon', for carpenter.

BTW, I have used a technique for testing the ability of individuals and groups to see to what extent they have the ability to accept, and/or reject, suggestion. Hypnotists use it all the time when they work with groups and want to select the best "subjects" to come on stage. It is, in sense, a way of measuring people's imagination, faith and trust.

Rede: I understand your criticism of my take on the reason for science. Normally I would say that science is the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, because 'it is there' and because there is a need to understand and find out, and importantly, codify and reproduce the results we find. But underlying this idea I was wondering why does science exist? It's a chicken and egg thing I think. There cannot be civilisation without science-- and there cannot be science without civilisation, because once you have these, things will never be the same.

I know it sounds woolly, it's much clearer when I just think it. I'll go back to NQS!!!

Yes, Ellis, I can see what you mean in that science promotes civilisation and civilisation promotes science, but there are two issues:

(a) the specific aims of scientists
(b) the global effects of scientific research

I see them as being seperate.

Don't let my criticism dishearten you. I'm probably wrong much more often than I care to admit, and it's always a pleasure to have a thread enhanced by your gracious presence.

Hi, Mike.

Like Ellis, you are describing an effect. Could you possibly restate your point to indicate how you see those effects as the specific, primary aim of science?

Regards

Absolutely, Mike, and that's my point: to emphasize the difference between the aims the effects.

Well Rede, I have put on my special regal hand-waving gloves and am smiling my best beatific smile to reply to your post.

Yes there is a difference to the aim of individual scientists and the global effects of their research sometimes. However take the case of the weapon maker about 3 or 4 thousand years ago. His arrow heads, brilliantly crafted from flint, shattered easily. He then discovered that by taking a hunk of rock he could turn that rock into metal and mould it into a far superior tool. In doing so he knowingly changed the rock into something else. He did more than experience the effect, he initiated the change, deliberately, in a way that was planned and solved a big problem he had. We still feel the effect of that first planned exploration of the possibilities that lie universally all around us. It is the driver of our civilisation, initiated by the actions of those first scientists. We still today seek to change our environment and advance our knowledge.

Why do we do this? Who knows--- perhaps we just can't resist the urge to try to understand everything around us. However I still think that the aims of science are still linked to the growth of civilisation.

I think we all know why. Evolution has provided us with our famous, or notorious, curiosity - some of us anyway - and having learned from our inquiries, we find ways, for various reasons, to use that knowledge. The discovery part is the science. The way of applying it is the technology. A specific goal, other than satisfying curiosity, is not required for scientific inquiry, even though most modern research is, for socio-economic reasons, probably directed toward specific applications. Take Isaac Newton for example; it could hardly have been his aim to send robots to Mars - in fact, if it hadn't been for Edmund Halley, the Principia might never have been published. He was just curious. Intensely curious. Our human curiosity begins just about as soon as we're born. Then, when we learn to say a few words, it becomes, "What's that?", and "Why?", sufficiently often to drive many a parent up the wall!


Of course.

As a scientist, I think its operational purpose describes science's aim best.

It is to make 'Perfect Predictions' where we ain't doing so yet, using objective measures of cause and effect we all can potentially see used.

Trying to reach this goal implies that we seek to discover fundamental constants, the hard objective edges of our universe like pi = Cir of Circle/Dia Circle = 3.1415, or e = mc^, or Newtons Law of Gravitation.

Thus a practicing scientist working at a fundamental level first seeks the "edge" between what we now know/do not know. Finds or asks a question that has not been answered, and steps across the edge into the unknown.

To find these questions, start by looking for logical and observational discrepancies in existing theory. I got lucky early and found a great question that someone gave the wrong answer to. Figuring out the right answer taught me how to do science.

Ultimately success at this would imply a complete and accurate picture of reality. Luckily, reaching perfect is easier said than done. Scientists are not going to run out of work any time soon.

I discuss science and how its done more fully in my forum on http://www.no1stcostlist.com/index.php and elsewhere on the site.

There you will also find a really neat Sun prediction with a real deadline.

Dan Alter

The main aim of science is to sharing all the information which is reliable and here we can share many things in this science forum, and can any one explain in detail with this topic

http://www.bizblogged.com/

The operative word is 'reliable', and a methodical approach - the scientific method - enables verification, to the limits of current knowledge, that the information is reliable. Information that is unverifiable in this way is considered to be non-scientific.

I would dispute your notion that the main aim of science is the sharing of such verifiable information. Even though contemporary science is dependent upon that sharing, especially (as Ellis indicated) in an already scientifically developed civilisation, the sharing is not an aim but rather a most effective way of achieving the aims, e.g:

RM: "...to find the set of rules by which everything operates."

TheFallible Fiend: "...to acquire natural laws to describe a natural universe."

redewenur: to enable "technological development..."

A brain storming session would no doubt produce a much longer list.

RM says the ultimate aim of science is A noble gaol, RM. You suggest that

SCIENCE includes: THE RULES BY WHICH EVERYTHING OPERATES
=========================================================
RM, IMO, science, as you imply,is simply the knowledge of everything--physical, mental and spiritual. This prompts me to ask: What category interests you?

Once we establish a category, the next question is: What are the rules? And, who makes the rules?

Rules are relegated to states of consciousness.
The world is multidimensional, so Science could be ultimately effective in communicating and operating with universal mind rather than trying to define it and control it.
This would ultimately free humanity from the pitfalls of greed and limitation that arise from ignoring the underlying principles of the manifest world.

".... would ultimately free humanity from the pitfalls of greed and limitation that arise from ignoring the underlying principles of the manifest world."

TT -- That will only be the case if you can bottle it and hum the jingle!

Ellis, very funny!

Would you like to buy a bottle of pneuma? As a pneumatologist, I will sell you a bottle of spiritual hot air, any time!!!

BTW, I accept barterBUX!!!
==============================
BTW 2, talking about hot air: Do you remember the scientists, technologists and economists who, back a few decades ago, promised us an age of leisure?

They forgot to mention the financial meltdown, unemployment and the loss of homes, etc; that they meant the leisure time would be spent on the street, in the poor house, or--for some, the few who got caught selling the hot air (or was it paper?)--in jail.

That is the unfortunate state of conscious awareness that can identify our ability to feed and heal the population of the planet while providing the means to actively destroy the planets ability to sustain life.

When you refer to the "ultimate AIM of science", you assign "science" a sentient characteristic. Science is not a character. It is not a being and it has no "Aim" any more than evolution has a goal or purpose. I read atheists referring to science and/or evolution, quite frequently, as if these concepts possessed a mind capable of having a goal. All they are doing is rejecting a god or designer and assigning that same characteristic to a concept. You can’t have it both ways. If the universe has no designer or purpose, none of the aspects of the universe can have designs or purposes either. It’s Logic 101.

Science has no aims. Scientists have aims and those aims vary drastically from simple curiosity to altruistically providing comfort to humanity to getting rich from some invention that sells well.

The question “What is the ultimate aim of science?” is not really a question. It is merely a string of words with a question mark at the end.

"natural universe"? As opposed to the Un-natural one?

But then the statement above is just a string of words with a period at the end, and doesn't really express the extent of reality. Maybe an opinion or belief or an experience...
Expansion of consciousness or the ongoing movement of reality that is absolute is reflected in our actions and our interaction with the manifest which includes strings of words even if they have little conscious meaning. How clear the intellect is or how clouded the intellect is as the mirror of the absolute, is part and parcel to the active absolute and how it is expressed and experienced in conscious awareness.
The science of conscious awareness is the discovery of consciousness as the source and the expansion of it into manifestation and the exploration of its potential regardless of the fact that it has no boundaries or limits.

Relative Sciences deal with relative ideals, opinions, beliefs and the structures within natural laws that can only exist within the manifest reality of awareness of the absolute.
It still happens to be consciousness being aware of itself, and is not an illusion, but a heartbeat of life as immortal as infinity is to the extent of ideas regarding who we are and what the world is.

You cannot stop it even if you decide its not real, or if you decide it is meaningless.
Science is a rhythmic reflection of the evolution of the intellect in the soul.
Not unlike a child wandering in life discovering what it can do and what it wants to do.
Only ego puts on the labels of what it is and what it isn't and holds it there.
Consciousness is free to express itself any way it wishes, even if it's a string of words with a period or a question mark, or even capitol letters in quotations...

I'm not trying to stop anything, and, I certainly did not attach any subjective values to my statement such as "not real" or "meaningless" as regards science. My statement referred to a question that can have no answer. Science is a concept and concepts cannot have "aims'.

"Absolute, The Absolute, evolution of the intellect in the soul..."? Sounds more like New Age Religion than science. "Immortal"? You mean something, of us, could survive a Big Crunch? Where do you get the data for this stuff?

I understand there is a topic here called Not Quite Science or something like that. I think that's where rhythmic reflections and heartbeats of the soul belong.

I'm sure you know better. It should be obvious that in this thread 'the aim of science' = 'the aim of doing science". Failure to acknowledge that (and the rest of your post) suggests that you're splitting semantic hairs in an attempt to denigrate atheists.

This forum has become bogged down in such NQS, but I guess it's a sign of the times.

Denigrate atheists? You read a lot into a simple statement. A lot that just isn't there. As an avowed agnostic, I have no wish to denigrate atheists... or anyone else, for that matter. And in fact I was not. But, just because I identify with atheists and agnostics doesn't mean that I should hold them to a lesser standard in logic than I would a theist.

What is "obvious" is subjective. Intuitive. If you mean "doing science", say "doing science". Intuition and subjectivity have no place in science. They have a place in our emotions and they do just fine there. But to use them in science is to dilute the meaning of the word. It becomes pseudo-science instead.

If Science cannot have aims it must be limited by beliefs. That would be dogma, same as that of religion.

It's the interest in reality that motivates the mind toward greater understanding.
Just because someone doesn't believe spirituality is relative to science doesn't mean it doesn't have a place in science, it just means someone thinks one way and doesn't want to think any other way.
Where is the data that says there is something of us that can't survive a big crunch?
Have we reached an absolute in knowledge that we must rule out a universal intelligence that has designed and bred order into creation?

I can understand prejudice and the need to specialize when it stretches the mind to uncomfortable limits. Some will always demand certain subjects be defined as not worthy of fitting in a category. But where does our search begin and end when the potential for understanding continues to evolve and expand beyond the boxes we insisted could not expand further than the projections of theory and belief that must be democratic to be real?
How much of science is a belief, and what really separates it from the definitions of religion if one insists it be narrowed by certain thoughts and beliefs?

One God is the same as another. You worship the nuts and bolts of the universe or the mechanism as a living entity, or thru superstition and fear you shut out what you fear could take your identity of reality away because it doesn't fit your belief in the world.

Today's data is going to give way to tomorrows discoveries and a whole new way of thinking.
How does mankind fit into the scheme of things? Are we part of the process or subject to its process without any consequence?

Should Science automatically assume we humans are nothing more than a meatbag within some haphazard and random ocurrence, and that we are destined to remain insignificant to forces we assume we have no connection to other than as observers to mechanical process?

I think science, is waking up to a much bigger picture, leaving those who are so stubborn as to deny any intelligence other than what we can prove today within the limits of our knowledge in humanity as the rule and only reality in the universe behind.


Then humans are victim to knowledge and expansion of knowledge rather than part of it, and beliefs can never evolve into awareness without being subject to ridicule.
Our ideas must be thrown aside, beliefs detached from thought and we must hypnotize ourselves into pure objectivity without thought of who or what we are.

How do you separate imagination inspiration and intuition?

Apologies, I did indeed misinterpret you.


You'll note that I'm not discussing intuition in science (where it has evidently lead to a great deal of productive work), but rather the false idea that it's necessary, or even helpful, to subject many of the minutiae of daily events to logical analysis, and thus miss that which can be grasped intuitively without difficulty.

However, this is a digression from the topic.

Perhaps I misused the word intuition. Like you, I hate getting mired in the minutia but definition goes a lot further than the dictionary. It goes to the individual interpretation of the standard definition. To some, intuition is something mysterious that comes from the aether or some concept of a "collective conscience". I'm afraid I may have used it thus. I believe it is actually the result of familiarity with a subject through study. Valuable, as you indicate.

The only thing I meant to say, in the beginning of this debate, is that we should be careful in assigning sentient-like qualities to a concept. A concept has no aims. It is a tool no different than a ruler or a compass.

As to the "aim" of those "doing" science, the possible ideas are infinite. As infinite as the designs of fingerprints or irises or snowflakes. The best we can do is arrive at a consensus. And a hundred and fifty years ago the general consensus on flight was: "If God wanted mankind to fly, He would have given them wings."

I'm not saying that scientific thought is the only thought worthwhile. Emotional thought is just as important. As you implied, it can lead to the research that discovers a cure or leads to some kind of improvement in our lives. But the inspiration is not the science. E does not equal inspiration times the speed of light*(*Knowhattimeanhere?). We need both the emotion/inspiration/gut feeling and science to make things work. But... when we mix them, we wind up with snake-oil hucksters and nutritionists, Pat Robertson and Deepak Chopra, urban legends and apocrypha. We need both but we must cook them in different pots.

I'm afraid I can't debate with you. If I answered to everything I disagreed with or see as logical fallacy in your posts, I would use up all the space others, who could possibly learn something from each other, might use. I think it would be better if we just agreed to disagree. I know that's cliche but hey, sometimes ya just gotta.

Regards.

No problem, there is opportunity to gain something from the approach to debate. That is self reflection. People often take too much for granted on the basis of who they are and measure themselves according to data rather than from their own subjective and objective experience.
Debates become meaningful for textbook thinking, but eventually one has to stop thinking from their software programs and discover who they are and how intimately they are connected with the universe to really see what it is.
Then debates can evolve into the ongoing expression of the universe and all that it is.

C'mon now. Tell me the truth. You're stealing this stuff from Shirley McClain aren't you.

If I was to steal something of hers she would have something she could lose. In this case she hasn't lost anything. And you have everything to gain.

Everybody wins.

Isn't it fascinating the way this 'simple ' query has become so bogged within the various competing ideologies?

Surely the aim of science is to find out all about stuff!! With all due respect to the 'real' scientists who post here, I think that they would mostly agree that this simple wish to understand EVERYTHING is what motivated them when they asked why the sky is blue when they were a child, and it still motivates them now.

I 've suggested that civilisation runs parallel to science. I still think it does, but I also think it is a rare scientist, for example, who starts out an area of research with the end of discovering a substance that allows eggs to slide around the pan instead of sticking as a primary aim. It's much more likely that such a great innovation happened by chance, perhaps whilst exploring something different, like Space Travel. Certainly research into the nature of the atom took a drastic turn unanticipated by the scientists involved at the start.

So that's what I think is the aim of science...to find out all about stuff! (Even if the stuff that is found out ha nothing to do with the original idea! )


TT-- He's/she's on to you!!!

"You're stealing this stuff from Shirley McClain aren't you."

Damn! I hate when that happens.

I find this statement interesting, "Our ideas must be thrown aside, beliefs detached from thought and we must hypnotize ourselves into pure objectivity without thought of who or what we are."

what do you mean by;"and we must HYYPNOTIZE ourselves into pure objectivity without thought of who or what we are."

I was being partially facetious in order to stimulate the cut and dried statement toward a greater idea. Responding to the statement..
The Human mind is connected to the flow of the Universe which has intelligence. It is what connects us to ideas that become part of our reality when something new is discovered or invented.
In one sense the wheel wasn't invented but realized. It was only unknown until someone brought it forth from potential. Same as anything that has been discovered. Nothing we say is impossible is impossible when it becomes reality.
A Man that doesn't comprehend ideas before he is ready to put those ideas into experience and gain something from it, does not limit potential, potential is just ignored or not realized.

There is a saying: If you can conceptualize something it exists somewhere in time and space. Intuition is part of universal mind, it is what inspires us or draws our awareness to greater potential like a moth is attracted to a flame.

In one sense hypnosis is the cause of limited sight. We condition ourselves to believe in a particular thought about life and being.
If we remove belief from awareness it becomes innocent to potential. If we add belief to potential it can focus potential into manifestation.
If we hypnotize ourselves into thinking we are separate from universal intelligence and potential then science that has no room for intuition and belief is unfocused and unimaginative.
A software program specifically designed to run in one direction only.

The human potential is only limited by those beliefs that are self imposed. Science then follows limitation of belief like a 5th wheel behind a truck. If you drive it over a cliff the 5th wheel follows you.

Belief if applied objectively can be constructive. Belief applied religiously destructive.
One has to become self aware to utilize potential, otherwise one can only see on road and one destination.

Science in order to be effective is without boundaries or limitations. Can't as an absolute is always such a limited thought when it is loosely applied without deeper thought and awareness.
You can take anything and make it into something, and take something and make it into anything.

I would certainly agree with your first two statements and would also agree with the rest in a general way. However I don't think it is as rare as you think for a scientist to prove or disprove what he/she started out to discover. True, there are a lot of accidental discoveries along the way. I spent 40 years in a scientific occupation and neither me or any of my peers, that I know, ever discovered anything. Tens of thousands of "scientists" are engaged in pursuits that do not lend themselves to discovery. They simply practice their science in practical applications. Practical scientists don't get the press. Theoretical scientists do. In my line, geophysics, most are involved in data acquisition. Acquisition scientists are not headliners. The geophysicists who get the press work in the lab and formulate predictive theory. If you live in CA., that's what you want to hear about, not the guy who collected the data. So, for every discovery you hear about, whether accidental or not, there are a thousand times more scientists who just follow the algorithm and report the result.

You are certainly correct in that civilization follows innovation. Every major discovery is quickly embedded in the culture. American cities, for instance, are literally designed around the automobile.

While your idea that it's all curiosity is fine as far as it goes, go one layer down from there and things get sticky. What causes curiosity? Is the mind simply a product of the brain and curiosity just got wired in by some supreme designer or a-causal chance? Or not? Where I draw the line is when I hear some "authority" whipping out his deep knowledge to beat you over the head with it. These people are, quite simply, full of s***. When you analyze the "logic" in their statements and cross out the logical fallacy, you end up with 100% woo. I ain't got time. There are too many rational people out there I want to talk to.

Where most draw lines is when personal belief is shadowed by alternative thinking that doesn't fit within the box of belief.
When you analyze reality and it refuses to be forced into compliance it is easily dismissed without attempting to expand vision to a new level.
The idea that anyone could act as the absolute authority is only the reaction to ones fear they might lose control of their ideals be they standardized by rationality founded by democratic social standards that will have little meaning when those who believe in those standards are dead and buried.

One can make time or not, that is the condition of a closed or open mind. Life is full of choices, for some. Without choice for the suffering.

"Where most draw lines..."

Classic weasel words. A staple of politicians, lawyers and snake-oil hucksters. "Well, we all know..." "It's common knowledge that..." "Anyone with a brain can tell you..." "If you really think about it..." "Common sense would tell you..." There are lists of these classics all over the net. It's Logical Fallacy 101. It's in the required course load for liberal arts courses at any JuCo in the country. Anytime you read a statement prefaced with weasel words, you can bet what comes next is woo. Nothing but woo. Your diatribe here is no exception. All your posts, that I have read, consist primarily of weasel words, tautology, circuitous statements and bad cliché.

"One can make time or not,"
Thanks for that! Nice to know that I can "make" time. I'll try to get that to Stephen Hawking as quickly as possible. He'll probably want to abridge his books.

"that is the condition of a closed or open mind."
Wow! You are so full of new facts.

"Life is full of choices, for some."
A new type of rhetorical statement. Not just rhetorical but a Qualified Rhetorical Statement with the qualifier at the end of the statement. Let's call it QRS just for S&Gs. Or, we could just call it RRBC (Really Really Bad Cliché)

"Without choice for the suffering."
I think MS Word would flag this as a fragment. You are in bad need of another clause.

So... like I implied when I tried to opt out of further dialog with you, it would take a week to cross out your errors in logic in just one post. Now, I've gone and wasted a big block of time talking to a big block of basalt. I guess I'm just a sucker for this brand of metabolic by-product.

Stick wih it Izzy---he's annoyingly addictive!

Well, maybe so but... I come to these forums to learn. I'm looking for that rare "surfer dude" with something cogent to offer. I have to keep in mind that these people don't just show up every time you dial in. The occasional side-trip argument can be fun but they wear out pretty quickly and I find myself moving on when no more interesting responses are posted. How much time are you willing to spend trying to punch a hole in a cloud? I may be a little quixotic but there are limits.

But thanks for the encouragement.

Predictable would be the word I would use, because of your limits.

Izzy-- Read some of Redewenuar and Samwick's posts for
A) stuff you can understand and discuss
B) Interesting ideas.

Plus there are others who have an original take on everyday ideas.

I usually only visit here, as I am not a science-y person, but my personal aim is to "find out about stuff'.

Thanks Ellis. I've got the genius tutor who doesn't want to be one anymore on ignore. I've read some Redewenuar. In fact, I look for his posts in other threads. He commented on one of my posts with a criticism and I responded. He apologized for a misinterpretation and I was thus able to see a misinterpretation of my own which I clarified. That's what I call communication but I think he got tired of my obsessive detail. He has a point there. I'll check out Samwick.

I retired from science 4 years ago and am currently pursuing digital art and reading some of the current philosophers. Art was my first love but I got tired of starving and got into science for 40 years. With technology advancing at a dizzying rate these days, it's all I can do to stay but a few years behind. And, I get tired of the stodgy old societies and white papers of yesterday's giants. That's why I haunt these forums. Most of them are saturated with people who read the occasional SciAm and become giants in their own mind. I'll lurk around a bit and see if I can contribute anything.

Appreciate the tips.

Ellis, thanks for the reference - that's done the infamous ego no end of good.


Izzy (good tag, that), I don't object to detail. Bring it on. We can always argue about it

Rede; Good to hear that. I'll be gone for a few days but when I get back, I'll be coming at you with a level of nit-picking that would put Wittgenstein to sleep.