NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, so we've all had our basic science class; good science is observing something, doing background research, forming a hypothesis, designing an experiment and testing said hypothesis, coming to a conclusion and reporting it, and testing again and again and again, depending on whether or not the results were what you expected.

My question: Is this traditionalist view of science, (Western Science) the best and why?

Its borrowed a hell of a lot of its data from the non-sciences (Obstetrics, for example, are very, very similar to old school midwifery, medicine from herbology, etc.)

Why are those practices which Western Science borrowed so much from not considered "science," by modern science?

what?

Science isn't about ideas. You don't just borrow ideas and mash them together. You evaluate the facts objectively. FYI this thread has nothing to do with the arts.

What the fuck is western science?

I thought this was going to be a debate about the merits of treating cancer with chemo vs. doing an interpretive dance of healing. :(

Of course medicine uses plants as herbology does. A lot of good stuff comes from plants. Proper medicine, however, observes that certain plants seem to have beneficial effects and it conducts a series of tests to determine how, why and what part of the plant works, what the side-effects are, what the long-term impact of such use is, how the essential part can be isolated, concentrated and delivered in a more efficient form, etc. etc.

As for obstetrics being similar to midwifery... there may be many ways to skin a cat, but how many ways are there to get a baby out of a uterus?

Science isn't about ideas. You don't just borrow ideas and mash them together. You evaluate the facts objectively. FYI this thread has nothing to do with the arts.

What the fuck is western science?

O-chem with cowboy hats.

Wow, way to totally mislead with that title new poster! Alright!!

Okay, so we've all had our basic science class; good science is observing something, doing background research, forming a hypothesis, designing an experiment and testing said hypothesis, coming to a conclusion and reporting it, and testing again and again and again, depending on whether or not the results were what you expected.

My question: Is this traditionalist view of science, (Western Science) the best and why?

Its borrowed a hell of a lot of its data from the non-sciences (Obstetrics, for example, are very, very similar to old school midwifery, medicine from herbology, etc.)

Why are those practices which Western Science borrowed so much from not considered "science," by modern science?


Several other posters were correct; your initial idea might have had merit as a discussion point, but it comes across very muddled. Perhaps if you rework your post, there might be something to discuss.
1) I do agree that your title does seem to have nothing to do with your post.
2) Your second paragraph implies there is some non-traditionalist view of science out there that may be superior, but you provide no discussion of such other options. This does not give much of a basis for discussion. Propose some alternate scientific method, and there may be something to talk about.
3) Lose the third paragraph. It is obvious and adds nothing to the discussion. Who says some process similar to the scientific method was not applied to those disciplines as well?
4) Your final question, outside of being a grammatical nightmare, makes no sense whatsoever. What is your point? I'm not saying you don't have a point, just that you haven't communicated to us what it is.

...and for the 'new poster' slam, don't take that to heart. Based on what I saw a few years ago and what I have seen upon my recent return, number of postings and value of postings are completely uncorrelated. I've seen posters with thousands of posts to their credit who couldn't generate a coherent thought to save their lives. Some just exist to annoy, but many seem to be genuine idiots.

Cool, it's a genuinely helpful person.

It doesnt matter for our Alien Overlords from Xenthu will eventually come and take over Planet Earth, and bring about the end of Traditional Science and The Arts...

Science borrows things from "psuedo-science" when those things work. Science isn't some sort of religion where traditional herbal medicines and ancient technologies are deemed blasphemous one-way tickets to the deepest regions of hell, even though some people treat it that way. It's a modern way of learning how everything in the universe works, from the largest galaxies to the smallest sub-atomic particles. Science doesn't simply dismiss things because they predate modern technologies and understandings. Science simply investigates them to determine if there's something to them or if it's all simply BS.

Also, the title is misleading. I thought it was going to be about science vs. "the Arts", like painting and music.

Science borrows things from "psuedo-science" when those things work.
Could you elaborate a bit further? I accept your later point that science does investigate the claims of pseudoscience, but how does 'borrowing' take place?

Could you elaborate a bit further? I accept your later point that science does investigate the claims of pseudoscience, but how does 'borrowing' take place?

when the legit scientists realize that the crackpot with the tin foil hat's predictions have actually been pretty close to what is going on. Normally it gets at least one of the legit people to test what they say more closely.

when the legit scientists realize that the crackpot with the tin foil hat's predictions have actually been pretty close to what is going on. Normally it gets at least one of the legit people to test what they say more closely.

For example, St John's Wort.

Though the end result usually isn't to the pseudoscientists liking (in this case the arguement that because St John's Wort does "work," there should be some kind of quality control)

What the fuck is western science?

aka, science that works ;)

Okay, so we've all had our basic science class; good science is observing something, doing background research, forming a hypothesis, designing an experiment and testing said hypothesis, coming to a conclusion and reporting it, and testing again and again and again, depending on whether or not the results were what you expected.

My question: Is this traditionalist view of science, (Western Science) the best and why?

If you ended here it would have been an interesting topic (with a very misleading title... but you can't have everything)

Its borrowed a hell of a lot of its data from the non-sciences (Obstetrics, for example, are very, very similar to old school midwifery, medicine from herbology, etc.)

It didn't borrow the data. It grew out of those disciplines. Added rigour, refined the process and changed its way of looking at the world.

Why are those practices which Western Science borrowed so much from not considered "science," by modern science?

Because they are rigourous enough, and there proponents have a basic lack of understanding on how science works.