A fine choice for the House Committee for Science, Space, and Technology

[Ironside]

America isn't that great. But we are at least more skeptical of intellectuals and of technological and social progressivism. Acceptance of strong religious faith and creationism is part of that.

Fair enough. Would you say that the places of USA where this sceptitism are strongest are the better parts of USA?

Then we are all therapists

In a way. On this matter, only learned techniques fall under science (as do learning and understanding the instinctual ones).

Well, do you really like that analogy? I know very little about cars, most people don't. We do just fine. I learned to drive, not how fuel injection works.

I don't think there's a list of big questions, that's why I've used a general term. Questions of morality, of values, of conceptions of things like honesty, pride, ambition, passion, what is fulfilling, etc...the things that are most important to our lives, the things that generally fall under the category "wisdom" and not "cleverness" or "intelligence" or simply "knowledge". It's not a sociological definition, I'm not conceiving of it simply in terms of the questions that are considered to be big by large groups of people.

I do like that anology. You know why? A. I thought you'll like it. B. Passing as a driver without knowing the car is what most people do. You on the other hand wants people to be as good drivers as they can be. And that requires knowing the car. Sounds, traction, engine strength, etc. Fuel injection in this case is the biochemistry.

Wisdom driven? While I really do love the idea, good luck with that (I can suggest more science on the subject though). Also ponder on that one pillar of wisdom is knowledge. Good application of your knowledge is covering quite a bit of what you call wisdom, yes?

If you look at religions around the world you would find many questions they consider huge that you don't. The stuff about "a core, an essence (aka a soul) is one that we inherited from religion and the rejection of religion. As someone who was raised atheist it's not least bit interesting to me--I never believed in heaven, etc.

I'm finding what your conciousness is and how it works as the more important question actually. Because of its influence and its implications. To keep the car anology, this car can override its driver, force him to take something unwanted into consideration and even replace him with another one. You find this subject boring.

I don't follow you with the media bit.

Literature is often very fictional. But you understand the value of it? I agree that history should aim at the truth of what happened, but I'm saying the theoretical limitations are not that significant. People overreach in history just as they do in science but that's not relevant to our argument.

And? What you read from that historian with insight is coming from his mind. Like every fictional story. One part of good literature is that it succeeds in understanding how a human works. And yes it's very valuable. What I oppose is your claim of it being the only source of insight, so to speak.

Science improves agriculture, therefore it will improve the humanities? That's what I got out of this, is it what you mean?

Adding the scientific method on top of experience is superior to experience alone. Running without the experince is way more iffy. To backtrack to the original question: What do you consider is science? For me, it's following the scientific method.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I do like that anology. You know why? A. I thought you'll like it. B. Passing as a driver without knowing the car is what most people do. You on the other hand wants people to be as good drivers as they can be. And that requires knowing the car. Sounds, traction, engine strength, etc. Fuel injection in this case is the biochemistry.

It's all stuff you learn by driving. Maximizing driving ability is not important.

Wisdom driven? While I really do love the idea, good luck with that (I can suggest more science on the subject though). Also ponder on that one pillar of wisdom is knowledge. Good application of your knowledge is covering quite a bit of what you call wisdom, yes?

I promoted reading history books...clearly I believe knowledge is important. Most scientific knowledge is not important for "wisdom".

I'm finding what your conciousness is and how it works as the more important question actually. Because of its influence and its implications. To keep the car anology, this car can override its driver, force him to take something unwanted into consideration and even replace him with another one. You find this subject boring.

No. It's an interesting subject. I just want to learn about it by driving and watching other people drive and getting verbal advice on driving. You want to understand the fuel injection system.

And? What you read from that historian with insight is coming from his mind. Like every fictional story. One part of good literature is that it succeeds in understanding how a human works. And yes it's very valuable. What I oppose is your claim of it being the only source of insight, so to speak.

Adding the scientific method on top of experience is superior to experience alone. Running without the experince is way more iffy. To backtrack to the original question: What do you consider is science? For me, it's following the scientific method.

I would go back to the music analogy. Do you truly think those questions about the effect of base or frequency on the brain are interesting and offer important insights? Clearly they are insights that you wouldn't get without the scientific method.

[Ironside]

It's all stuff you learn by driving. Maximizing driving ability is not important.

Would we have this conversation if you considered people to be good enough drivers? No.

I promoted reading history books...clearly I believe knowledge is important. Most scientific knowledge is not important for "wisdom".

Most knowledge isn't, but the critical pieces will vary and some of them are yet to be discovered.

No. It's an interesting subject. I just want to learn about it by driving and watching other people drive and getting verbal advice on driving. You want to understand the fuel injection system.

Biochemistry is there for the engineer (intentional implication). The benefits for the driver lies in understanding how the engine as a whole works and the consequences it has for the car.

I would go back to the music analogy. Do you truly think those questions about the effect of base or frequency on the brain are interesting and offer important insights? Clearly they are insights that you wouldn't get without the scientific method.

For the average person, the question might very well be enough with is it good music or not? For a musician, the next questions become more important. What makes this music good? And why does it vary from people to people?

Sure, for most people it's sufficient with the knowledge from books and the most critical facts coming from science, or specilizing on the facts important in your own field. That's not a good reason to scrap science in humanities though.