My pet peeve, Science is everything

Hyping the science or scientific theory behind a mediocre knife, won't make it any better...

It just makes it and the science look worse.
 
Remyrw said:
Science is often just the means of studying and learning more about something we already knew.
For example, Isaac Newton didn't discover gravity, he simply studied and wrote about something that already existed and was an accepted fact.

Obviously this isn't always the case, scientific study can occasionally discover something new and unexpected, generally in fields that cannot be perceived by humans without technological assistance. Likewise, many aspects to life cannot really be explained through science. Yes, they can generally be defined, terms can be created as needed to do so, but defined and explained are not the same thing and science is nothing if not picky about terminology.

Think of all the work done in studying psychology and sociology, much of it funded by groups who's motivation was to learn how to increase sales or better manipulate people. Essentially, the science is attempting to figure out and quantify things that skilled leaders and other charismatic individuals have known or done instinctively throughout history.
Click to expand...


I agree with that. A lot of this has to do with heat treating and what not. People have been making blades for hundreds of years and adjusted their process even tho they didn't know what was happening on a molecular level. Also science isn't a absolute fact!! Hell in recent years we are being told pluto isn't a planet when it was considered fact for sooooo long. Science always finds out it was wrong or it happens different from what it thinks. I'm far from anti science but I also realize science isn't the answer for everything and science doesn't equal fact all the time. Its usually a matter of time before we have a new means (even new instruments) to tweak or totally discredit our old theories with.

For example I once had a professor talk about carbon dating. He said we accept it as pure fact and base the history of the earth and everything else on it. What if we find out after 5000 years carbon just start falling apart at exponential rate. We cant know till we see for ourselves. Interesting thought.

Long story short you might disagree with someone and have science backing you up but i'm willing to bet both are wrong in one way or another (or give enough time till new discoveries are made). We just don't know everything happening in the metal when we heat treat it. We may know 99.99% but not everything.
 
A book "Disciplined Minds" by Jeff Schmidt is very enlightening.
Any profession carefully grooms the mind of the student and when he jumps through the hoops will knows the boundaries and dare not trespass. this is the fault of science.
Science is the light that provides the creative mind a start at developing something new.
Science can describe art and attempt to communicate why, sometimes. I have never seen a successful scientific explanation of the Mona Lisa.

Great thread Tai!
 
Last edited:
Scientists get up every morning and go into work to prove their collegues wrong. (Okay... that is an over-generalized statement.) Good science never claims it has all the answers and is never absolute. Science can shed light on why we find certain attributes attractive. Form, symbolism, lighting, imagery, etc... but it boils down to how we perceive and interpret all of these variables. Science can explain the Mona Lisa from a physical and sociological sense. It can inform you to the point that perhaps you begin to better appreciate and speculate what the artist was trying to convey.

To think that science and art can ever fully explain one another is folly.
 
Ed Fowler said:
A book "Disciplined Minds" by Jeff Schmidt is very enlightening.
Any profession carefully grooms the mind of the student and when he jumps through the hoops will knows the boundaries and dare not trespass. this is the fault of science.
Science is the light that provides the creative mind a start at developing something new.
Science can describe art and attempt to communicate why, sometimes. I have never seen a successful scientific explanation of the Mona Lisa.
Great thread Tai!
Click to expand...

What type of scientific explaination are you refering to, physical, psychological, universal, chemical, etc.?

Science itself is merely a means of searching for answers and to logically define what is already known; if I drop an object, it will hit the ground, science just calls it gravity. Science itself cannot be wrong as it is not a consious being. Only humans interpretation of science can be wrong. Science is just a word. Just as art is just a word, if science can be wrong so can art.

Is putting a cross upside down, in a jar of urine art? Or smearing your nude body with dog&human waste and walking around San Francisco with 30 dogs on leashes art? What about painting a canvas with your own menstration cycle? Those are all true examples of what has been called "art" by those performing the acts. It is no different when a "scientist" deems a THEORY as fact through unobjective, incomplete, or even corrupt methods.

Both examples are humans calling something a word that it is not. Neither the subject of Science nor Art are the problem, it is the human corruption of those subjects.
 
Tai Goo said:
Anvil Jaw, Maybe, you still aren't getting the difference between science and scientism. Science mixes great with art, but scientism doesn't...
True science good/scientism not good.
Click to expand...

Sorry Tai, I just read this. I agree.... "scientism" seems to be absolute by conventional definition, where true science is not. By our conversations, you should know that science isn't the only method I use to govern my life..... I also use taste:barf:
 
Side note - for some reason I got a mental picture of Tai and Rick sitting near a backyard bonfire with a beer in their hands going back and forth on their points of view but still walking away with a good old friendly handshake.
 
I don't think overstating the importance of art or science will make a knife any better. However, I also don’t think that the importance of both, together, can be overstated.

They serve to balance each other and help give validity to a "handmade" knife.
 
Quote from Dave Behrens"Neither Science nor Art are the problem, it is the human corruption of those subjects. "

Absolutely and now the word corruption becomes prominent, who judges corruption and for what purpose? - a very precipitous situation.
 
If science is not absolute, how could it possibly fit together with an absolutist philosophy, absolutism ?

I think the answer to that question, goes far beyond any logic...
 
There are no absolutes in science, including the statement that there are no absolutes in science.
 
I think I've absolutely exhausted my contribution to this thread.

Threadism - the idea that forum threads are the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to reading a book or actually doing what it is you are talking about.
 
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. ~ Max Planck
 
Rick Marchand said:
Threadism - the idea that forum threads are the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to reading a book or actually doing what it is you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Rickism: The self defeating philosophical position that Rick is the ultimate authority on Rick.
 
Last edited:
Ed Fowler said:
Quote from Dave Behrens"Neither Science nor Art are the problem, it is the human corruption of those subjects. "

Absolutely and now the word corruption becomes prominent, who judges corruption and for what purpose? - a very precipitous situation.
Click to expand...

I happily judge corruption as I see it. If a "scientist" goal is to simply prove or disprove a theory, rather than simply observe, experiement, compile data, and let results speak for themselves, the science is corrupt in its premise.
Art becomes corrupted when the "artist's" intention is soley to gain attention, notoriety, and fame.
 
So we have concluded that science rules, and everything else can twist in the wind.

NEXT!
 
tryppyr said:
So we have concluded that science rules, and everything else can twist in the wind.

NEXT!
Click to expand...

I don't remember that happening :confused: Not that science is untrustworthy; it isnt. But that everything else can twist in the mind? And that science is exempt from that?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top