(November 6, 2013 at 8:08 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: Right. Sorry if this has already been explained, but what the hell is intuitional science???

If it could be defined, it could be properly analyzed. I strongly suspect that this would not be in enrico's interests. Therefore, "intuitional science" can be defined as "it's exactly what it sounds like." And yes, that welcome mat does extend far enough beyond the door that someone on the other side could grasp it and tug it quite easily.

(November 6, 2013 at 5:22 am)Stimbo Wrote:

enrico Wrote:How the hell can a theory be real stuff when has not been proven yet?

Then they are not theories and might never be. Most ideas never get to that level; even rigorously scientific ones.

The problem with you guys is that you never studied Latin or Greek and then you pretend to know the meaning of these words coming from these languages.
You show the same problem when i did asked you the meaning of philosophy. You would not know but this didn't stop you from speculate and you keep on speculate non-stop all the time.

Theory for Pythagoras meant a passionate sympathetic contemplation of mathematical and scientific knowledge so contemplation means thinking and from this thinking try to get some sort of figure that make sense.
This of course does not mean that that figure that come out is back up by evidence.
In other word you can give the meaning that you like to the word theory but the original meaning contradict your believe.

---

(November 6, 2013 at 1:45 am)whateverist Wrote: Whenever I hear the oxymoronic 'intuitional science' I always wonder .. how does one guard against confirmation bias when the 'evidence' is gathered intuitionally. Pretty silly.

What is science if not the gathering of knowledge.
Where you think it is located most of the knowledge?
Within this physical arena or universe?
Are you joking?
The old saying............IF YOU WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING YOU MUST KNOW YOURSELF.
And this work is done within not outside in this physical world.
This work and this science is called INTUITIONAL SCIENCE.

Thanks for completely ignoring my post on what a theory actually is. That speaks volumes about you

(November 6, 2013 at 10:04 am)enrico Wrote:

(November 6, 2013 at 1:45 am)whateverist Wrote: Whenever I hear the oxymoronic 'intuitional science' I always wonder .. how does one guard against confirmation bias when the 'evidence' is gathered intuitionally. Pretty silly.

What is science if not the gathering of knowledge.
Where you think it is located most of the knowledge?
Within this physical arena or universe?
Are you joking?
The old saying............IF YOU WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING YOU MUST KNOW YOURSELF.
And this work is done within not outside in this physical world.
This work and this science is called INTUITIONAL SCIENCE.

Looks like we may be talking past one another as to the use of the word "science". Below is the beginning of the wiki entry.



Here it addresses the modern use of the word which we have been pointing out doesn't fit with what you've been calling Intuitional Science:

Quote:In modern usage, "science" most often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is also often restricted to those branches of study that seek to explain the phenomena of the material universe.[6] In the 17th and 18th centuries scientists increasingly sought to formulate knowledge in terms of laws of nature such as Newton's laws of motion. And over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated with the scientific method itself, as a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology.

And here is the other use of "science", still in use, which you have been claiming. Looks like I have been mistaken to insist on the other usage exclusively.

Quote:However, "science" has also continued to be used in a broad sense denoting reliable, teachable knowledge about a topic, as in modern terms like library science or computer science. This is also reflected in the names of some areas of academic study such as "social science" or "political science".

So if you don't mind placing your Intuition Science on the shelf beside Library Science, Computer Science and Political Science .. rather than on the shelf reserved for the natural sciences whose study employs the scientific method .. I think I can stop calling Intutional Science oxymoronic. Deal?

Right, I think I've got a handle - for the moment - on what this 'special' person is gibbering about. Intuitional Science is done within one's mind and not out there in the physical reality that makes our mind possible. Put more simply, for the simple among us, it's about guessing or imagining the nature of reality.

On that basis, then, and borrowing a leaf from PotHoler54, here is a sealed box:



Now Rico, using this Intuitional Science, tell me what's inside the box. Take as many guesses as you like.

(November 6, 2013 at 1:45 am)whateverist Wrote: Whenever I hear the oxymoronic 'intuitional science' I always wonder .. how does one guard against confirmation bias when the 'evidence' is gathered intuitionally. Pretty silly.

Mmhmm thats why it took so long for concepts like evolution and deep time to appear, although they seem simple to us now they are very counter intuitive. The same is true for relativity. In fact a great deal of science is counter intuitive because we live In what people call the middle world (not big or small) for a finite time. Thus the very large and very small are very foreign to us and our brains are poorly designed for such reasoning.

Enrico, I'd invite you to show us even one university that offers a degree in "intuitional science." Or just one lab or scientific organization that would accept you if you claim to be an expert in intuitional science. Or just one person, anywhere in the world, who has contributed a single thing of note to mainstream, peer reviewed science, who calls themselves an intuitional scientist. Or one scientific prize or accolade that is awarded for intuitional science. Or one single scientific advancement developed through intuitional science.

Just one.

Only you can't do that, can you? Because the actual definition of intuitional science, if you were ever to be honest, is that it's the feelings of an uneducated, unqualified, untrustworthy, unrepresented and entirely illogical person, who wants all the credibility of a scientist, without having to do an iota of the work.

(November 6, 2013 at 10:04 am)enrico Wrote: What is science if not the gathering of knowledge.
Where you think it is located most of the knowledge?
Within this physical arena or universe?
Are you joking?
The old saying............IF YOU WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING YOU MUST KNOW YOURSELF.
And this work is done within not outside in this physical world.
This work and this science is called INTUITIONAL SCIENCE.

If you chould show me a single piece of solid evidence that this spiritual reality of yours actually exists you might stand a chance of being taken seriously. Until you can do that, all you are doing is admonishing people for not believing something that they have no reason to believe.

(November 6, 2013 at 10:04 am)enrico Wrote: In other word you can give the meaning that you like to the word theory but the original meaning contradict your believe.

Yes you can, but if you have to do that to make your ideas work then the problem lies with those ideas and not the people you're trying to convince. Words evolve meanings over time, it's true; however that doesn't mean they are arbitrary things that can have any definition you feel like assigning them. That's why we have dictionaries and the ability - generally - to make ourselves understood. If you want to talk science and have your ideas taken seriously, you need to accept the language of science unless you have a bloody good reason not to. You have an issue with the modern scientific definition of the word "theory", take it up with the National Center for Science Education.

But if you want to go down the route of using only the 'original' meanings of commonly-accepted words because they're not as inconvenient for you, then you'd better leave Atheist Forums since an atheist was originally a christian, a person who denied the existence of the Roman gods. In fact, stop using your computer, given that the word originally meant a person who calculated numbers for a living, and start telling everyone you use an electric Difference Engine.

Or we could stop this silly semantic game and actually have a proper grown-up discussion.

(November 6, 2013 at 10:04 am)enrico Wrote:

(November 6, 2013 at 5:22 am)Stimbo Wrote: Then they are not theories and might never be. Most ideas never get to that level; even rigorously scientific ones.

The problem with you guys is that you never studied Latin or Greek and then you pretend to know the meaning of these words coming from these languages.

Actually, I studied Latin for several years at school, as do many kids who go to British schools.

But FWIW, I could be fluent in Latin (or indeed Greek), and your still posts would still be utter bollocks.

'Intuitional [sic] science'. Sounds like a euphemism for bullshit to me.