Science is the study of laws or models with substantial spatial and temporal generality. Who did what at a specific time and place is not a science because it lacks spatial and temporal generality.
On Sep 6, 12:06 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sep 6, 5:20 pm, aruzinsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 5, 3:04 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Every country does that. American too. They claim to have the first > > > example of an electric light, but this is false. The first working > > > electric light was invented by Farraday in 1859. The South Foreland > > > Lighthouse was the world's first ever man made electric light, and got > > > its power from another of Farraday's inventions the electrical > > > generator. > > > > On Sep 5, 4:52 pm, aruzinsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 22, 10:17 am, Awori <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Is there such a thing as an original idea? Can ideas originate from > > > > > without? > > > > > Is imitation the opposite of your concept of "original idea"? Many > > > > ideas are repeated without imitation, e.g., reinventing the wheel. It > > > > used to be a joke that the Soviet Union/Russia claimed that many > > > > things were invented by its citizens before famous American inventors > > > > such as Thomas Edison. Many of those claims were true. Since there > > > > is no way of knowing whether something was previously invented by > > > > intelligent life on another planet, there is no point on dwelling on > > > > the concept of first idea. Instead, you should concentrate on the > > > > concept of imitation. For example, look at all the people jumping on > > > > the DNA bandwagon in this thread. > > > > > "As each organism is unique, then all DNA arrangements are original." > > > > - Identical twins are not unique in any way related to DNA. Any > > > > uniqueness of identical twins should be attributed to environment. > > > > Same for organisms that reproduce asexually.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Small talk: > > > As a child in the early 1950s, while watching a quiz show on TV, a > > contestant selected "Science" as a topic. The question was, "Who > > invented the steam engine?" I shouted at the TV, "That's not > > science. That's history!" Apparently, some immoral history buffs > > had wormed their way into positions of authority on that TV show just > > to shove history lessons, disguised as science, up my ass. Probably, > > the same kind of assholes who like to say, "Those who do not learn > > from history are doomed to repeat it." Regardless of my learning from > > history, I am not doomed to reinvent the steam engine. > > I'm not so sure I'd so easily disregard history of science as part of > science. As a piece of trivia Newcomen's (or was it Watt's) > achievement on a developmental level is highly significant to an > understanding of science which is far more contingent on historical > interests than scientist would like to admit. Steam Power massively > enhanced our understanding of the nature of heat, energy and its > relation to fuel and power.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
