Biology is not a science

[gamila]

The Australian philisopher colin leslie dean points out that biology is not a science
A science needs a system of classification through which it identifies the objects of its study

Without a system of classification a science cannot come into existence
Now biology is the "science of life" but
1) biology cannot tell us what life is It can tell us what life does but it cant tell us what it is that makes an organism alive ie the life force

this is what life does ie what an organism does that has life but it does not tell us what the life force is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

quote :

# Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
# Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
# Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
# Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
# Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism’s heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
# Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
# Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two parent organisms

all this is is a list of what an organism with life does but this list does not tell us what life is
to make it clearer some religions would say what makes us alive ie have life is our soul

take this definition from wiki

quote :

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes (“alive,” “living”), from those which do not

this is a blantaly circular definition all it says is life is a characteristic of things that are alive ie have life and as such totally meaningless

now even apart from not telling us what it is that gives life to an organism scientist cant even agree on their definition of life

quote :

To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists

with out being able to agree on what life does– let alone not being able to tell us what LIFE IS – the whole foundation of biology collapses

2) biologist classify living organisms by a heirarchy of taxonomies
ie species phylum
but again biologists cant tell us what species is or phylums are

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … ection.pdf

quote :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
“However, the exact definition of the term “species” is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem.[3″
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum
“Although a phylum is often spoken of as if it were a hard and fast entity, no satisfactory definition of a phylum exists”
With out a definition of these terms then biologists are really talking nonsense for with out definitions to locate and identify the things they talk about they are really not talking about anything at all If the biologist talks about say speciation or this species proving natural selection but cant tell you what a species or phylum is then he is talking meaningless nonsense. He could as easily said certain gibbles prove natural selection but with out knowing what a gibble is the claim is meaningless

Thus it can be seen that biology is not a science as its classificatory systems cannot identify the objects of its science if it cannot identify the objects of its investigations it cannot be a science
all it is is a meaningless array of terms which dont identify anything

[Darby]

Well, if a philosopher says it, it must be true, because he defines a term his own way and it doesn’t conform.

This is all the argument of a compulsive labeler someone who says, "Your area must meet my expectations." You obviously need very black-and-white terminology to trust a discipline, but the disciplines don’t really care. Life does not conform to your wishes, and neither does the science associated with it.

And the magical thinking that goes into the idea that somehow there is a "life force" is pretty pitiful. It’s not even anti-science, it’s pure nonsense.

You really need at least some understanding of biology before you have any legitimacy to criticize it, and from the parroting of crackpot straight-from-ignorance concepts you do repeatedly, you’re not even close.

[AFJ]

Gamila,
It’s just like if you look at at a wall that has been painted. What color is it? Is it yellow or yellow-yellow green or is it a shade or a tint of yellow or yellow green. Perhaps it is a degree darker than true yellow, is it caused from black or is it in part a neutral of yellow and violet? Or is it yet another brown–another neutral from green and red?

The point is that if someone says it is yellow it is an estimation and it orients what we see with what we say–basic understanding of the world around us. I think you are splitting hairs on this issue.

[wbla3335]

Folks, it’s foolish to try to reason with someone who cannot reason. Gamila, under different names, has been repeatedly banned from other forums for doing what he/she/it does here, where moderation is lax. If you don’t feed it, it will go away.

[gamila]

quote :

You really need at least some understanding of biology

i know that biology which studies life dose not know what life is
and
it does not even know what species or phylum are
thus
it is not a science as its classifications system cant locate the objects under investigation
as such
biology ends in meaningless nonsense
ie this is nonsence meaningless babble because they dont know what species or phylum are

http://www.indianchild.com/animal_kingdom.htm

quote :

Animal Kingdom can be split up into main groups, vertebrates (with a backbone) and invertebrates (without a backbone). When you think of an animal, you usually think of something like a cat, a dog, a mouse, or a tiger.

All told, around 800,000 species have been identified in the Animal Kingdom — most of them in the Arthropod phylum.

In fact, some scientists believe that if we were to identify all species in the tropical rain forests the ranks of Arthropoda would swell to over 10 million species! Most people do not normally think of a clam, a jellyfish, or an earthworm as an animal.

Usually, a species is called by its genus name (capitalized) followed by its species name (lower case), so a human being is called Homo sapiens. In Latin that means “wise man.”

To date there are five kingdoms: Animalia, which is made up of animals; Plantae, which is made up of plants; Protista, which is made up of protists (single-celled creatures invisible to the human eye); Fungi, which is made up of mushrooms, mold, yeast, lichen, etc; and Monera, which is made up of the three types of bacteria.

The next category is the Phylum. There are several phyla within each kingdom. The phyla start to break the animals (or plants, fungi, etc) into smaller and more recognizable groups. The best known phylum is Chordata, which contains all animals with backbones (fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians). There is also Arthropoda (insects, spiders, crustaceans); Mollusca (snails, squid, clam); Annelida (segmented worms); Echinodermata (starfish, sea urchins) and many, many more.

[Darby]

Right, right, don’t feed the trolls, I should know better.

[AFJ]

Gamilia,

Take it from someone who loves science but does not agree with the evolution thing. Your not going to persuade anyone by being inflammatory. Even if you have a completely valid point, you will not be received and you will appear to be a nut.

I do agree that biology can tell us what life does and can tell us how it works but that it can not tell us what the life force is. But your topic is "Biology is not science." Science is knowledge, based on observation, experimentation, and research so in that sense you are making an inflammatory, controversial statement. And you are wasting your time typing because no one is going to take you serious.

Maybe you could have titled it "What is life force?" Let people give their point of view and chill out. We are grown and have gray matter also.

[gamila]

quote :

Science is knowledge, based on observation, experimentation,

you need a classificatory system so that you can find and locate the objects if investigation for your knowledge observation research
and biologies classificatory system of species phylum etc is meaningless nonsense as it cant even tell you what species phylum are

[mcar]

Let’s recall that we gave attributes of life (growth, reproduction, etc.) and that these characteristics are difinite to say that an organism is living. Now,

quote :

gamila:take this definition from wiki

quote :

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes (“alive,” “living”), from those which do not

It is us (humans) who also gave the definition isn’t it? We are consious in our own and that makes us capable of distinguishing the objects with self-sustaining processes; It is us who identify if a thing is indeed living and so we come up to two categories: living things and non-living things. Animals can also do the same but they can’t verbalize or make it in black and white.

In biology, it clearly defined the basis for having life: the chemical and cellular nature of all the living things. However, as what I see here is that, studying further life in micro level will still lead us to the chemical nature. That the complexity of life is explained by the properties and behavior of the different biochemicals that made us.

It seems hardly for the most of us to accept the researched facts that life was just explained by such particles. It is just a matter of where you would put yourself, you believe or not, or you accept it but you have other principles greater than it, and there would enter your philosophy and spirituality.

[gamila]

quote :

Let’s recall that we gave attributes of life

but
you dont know what life is you think you know what life does but not what life is

quote :

It is us who identify if a thing is indeed living and so we come up to two categories: living things and non-living things.

but
your categories are meaningless nonsense ie phylum species as you dont know what phylum or species are

quote :

two categories: living things and non-living things

you cant even do that
as
you dont even know what life is

[mcar]

Okay, let’s try going back to the basics and go to the old, philosophical ways.

quote :

there would enter your philosophy and spirituality.

To put it simply, everybody could give a definition for what life is. The definitions you mentioned earlier were just some of the few possibly generated by scientists or non-science people from whatever evidences they had or what made them witnesses of something.

Personally, life for me is a lot of mystery and this mystery is out of the boundary of what sicence could prove, whether it’s a fact or theory. From one of the definitions you cited earlier,

quote :

now even apart from not telling us what it is that gives life to an organism scientist cant even agree on their definition of life

quote :

To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists

There’s no doubt that they challenged mystery. Fairly enough, their perseverance is remarkable, we have lots of something to think on but would it be worthy taking the time or trouble to think and make an argument for?

[AstusAleator]

We don’t know exactly what an atom or a quark is either – does that mean physics and chemistry aren’t science?

Nobody has witnessed firsthand the subsurface forces that account for all of our rocks except extrusive volcanics and sediments. Does this mean Geology is not a science?

Finally:

Biology = study of life

If we knew the exact definition of life, would we need biology?

[gamila]

quote :

We don’t know exactly what an atom or a quark is either – does that mean physics and chemistry aren’t science?

physicts not know what
matter is
or
what charge is
etc

science as a concept itself is just an ideological notion anyway
scientists have the same problem with the term "science" as biologists have with the term of "species"
the demarcation between science and non-science does not hold up

the notion of a scientific method has been shown to be wrong by many historians of science- science what ever it is- has no method

you should read colin leslie deans books

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … _psych.pdf

The absurdities in psychoanalysis and science that make psychoanalysis a science : reasons sociology, epistemology, ontology and metaphysics why psychoanalysis is a science; meaninglessness

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … ience4.pdf

The absurdities or meaninglessness of mathematics and science: paradoxes and contradiction in mathematics and science which makes them meaningless, mathematics and science are examples of mythical thought, case study of the meaninglessness of all views

[futurezoologist]

Yep gamila i couldn’t agree with you more, since we don’t know what quarks or leptons are, since we can’t classify your photon, since we don’t understand fully the complexities of the universe we should just step back and go work at the deli – and then we can learn magic and everyone will be happy!! – I mean, whats the point of this thing people call knowledge after all? Why try to find out these little flaws that you speak of? – Yep science is just silly…

[AFJ]

quote :

classificatory system of species phylum etc is meaningless nonsense as it cant even tell you what species phylum are

Have you ever seen a raccoon gamila? You have? Well there’s no way to tell if that’s what it was. Have you ever seen a giraffe gamila? Maybe you did and maybe you didn’t because a giraffe is a species so you can’t tell what it was. I really hate to be sarcastic gamila but if I use your reasoning then I don’t know if I’m a human (homo sapien) because that’s meaninglessness. Why don’t you try something else that’s more helpful or informative.

[gamila]

quote :

. Why don’t you try something else that’s more helpful or informative.

fact is biology is not a science because its
classificatory system of species phylum etc is meaningless nonsense as it cant even tell you what species phylum are

[Gavin]

Hi Colin. Remember me? We’ve met before. I see you have found another forum to pollute. I came across this forum quite by accident but quickly recognised you. Same old stuff, I see.

A note to the members of this forum: Colin (aka gamila) has been doing this sort of thing for years. He invariably gets banned, then moves on. You’re just the latest. The guy’s not stupid, just not quite all there, if you get my meaning. You’re certainly free to continue with these "discussions" if:

1) you’re stupid
2) not quite all there
3) have nothing better to do
4) am having fun

Back to you Colin: I’ll be posting this message in all the threads you have started just to make sure that everyone knows what they are dealing with.

Till we meet again.

Gavin

[gamila]

quote :

Have you ever seen a raccoon gamila?

fact is biologist cant tell you what a species or phylum are
thus it cannot locate the objects of its own classificatory systems
thus it is not a science

[alextemplet]

And what, gamila, is a science?

[canalon]

Have you ever seen a chair gamila? What is it?
This is the problem species. Words, as well as species are a convenient way to carry an idea, but there is more to any individual chair than to the generic concept of chair. So species are a convenient concept, but not really necessary, as bacteriologists know, and getting rid of species to replace the concept with something based on more objective characters (read about OTU) is not going to rock or change anything in the basis of the theory of natural selection.

[gamila]

quote :

Words, as well as species are a convenient way to carry an idea,

with out knowing what species are
you cannot locate the objects of your investigation
thus every time you see a biologist talk about species speciation he in fact is talking meaningless nonsense as colin leslie dean has shown

[alextemplet]

quote gamila:

thus every time you see a biologist talk about species speciation he in fact is talking meaningless nonsense as colin leslie dean has shown

No, he is talking about change in a population which we choose to define as speciation. As canalon has pointed out, "species" is a term that we created and we are free to define and redefine it as we see fit.

[Jesse2504]

All those people with philosopher degrees have to make money some how…

Life is an entity which can self replicate and is generally thought to be made of organic materials.

Using this principle, life is definable.

I agree that physicists and chemists explain patterns and label them in a structured manner, but to say that something is something only means that something is defined to be understood in our minds. Another system for understanding the same patterns could be developed by a different race which would contradict some of ours but still explain the phenomena.

Biology is defining a set of rules to govern observed phenomena which we characterize as living.

[gamila]

quote :

Life is an entity which can self replicate

all you are saying is what life can do ie replicate
but
not what life is

quote :

Biology is defining a set of rules to govern observed phenomena which we characterize as living.

and it rules of classification ie species phylum
are meaningless as they cant tell you what species

[Jesse2504]

quote gamila:

quote :

Life is an entity which can self replicate

all you are saying is what life can do ie replicate
but
not what life is

quote :

Biology is defining a set of rules to govern observed phenomena which we characterize as living.

and it rules of classification ie species phylum
are meaningless as they cant tell you what species

Gamila I think you will find that there is a lot of redundancy and confusing terminology in biology but we do know what a living entity is, just like what a molecule is.

What is energy?
What is matter?
What is the universe?

They are all definitions which fit our current level of understanding of the phenomena observed by human characteristic senses in the environment at this point in time.

We can define what ANYTHING is since it is we who observe it, nothing is the same to any entity as it is to the other, only the senses which relate to that entity and the structures which can be built from the correlation of multiple similar observing entities such as a human population. eg. a dog views the universe differently to us.

You want to use the lack of ability of prehistoric understanding to properly classify their science, in terms of todays perspective. They did not know everything we know today when they classified their terminology, therefore there will be variations to the popular accepted definition which causes this ambiguity.
But to say that Biology is not a science is only an argument based on a lack of concise definition in some parts, not because it is undefinable and is not absolute.

EDIT

I think what you are trying to say is that life is based on the laws of chemistry and physics therefore it is not a real science.

[alextemplet]

quote Jesse2504:

I think what you are trying to say is that life is based on the laws of chemistry and physics therefore it is not a real science.

Well obviously, since chemistry and physics aren’t real sciences, either! 😉

Gamila, what exactly do you consider to be a real science?

[mcar]

You know we’ll be going to start at number one again here. I just read some such as "physics, chemistry, etc. –are not sciences either. He/She (gamila) always believe that they are not sciences either. Where could we go from here if for him/her all the sciences we know are not sciences for him/her.

Okay, what makes science a science? if science is a systematized body of knowledge, based on facts, observations and experimentation, what makes it to be called as *science* then? Therefore if anything is not systematized and based on different facts etc., should we still consider it as science?

Maybe gamila wanted to point out the limitations of science and its branches. That’s what I think here .:wink:

[gamila]

quote :

but we do know what a living entity is

i have shown scientists dont know what life is at the begining post

quote :

Where could we go from here if for him/her all the sciences we know are not sciences for him/her.

a rose by any other name still smells the same

the term "science" has become a lable of authority-just like "the churh" once was
to call something a science is to give it the stamp of authority
"science " has become no more that an ideological and political tool used now in a totalitarian way to define what is to be considered "TRUTH"

[AstusAleator]

quote :

“science ” has become no more that an ideological and political tool used now in a totalitarian way to define what is to be considered “TRUTH”

If I were to accept your definition, then I’d be happy to admit that Biology [b]is not[/b] science.

[alextemplet]

quote gamila:

“science ” has become no more that an ideological and political tool used now in a totalitarian way to define what is to be considered “TRUTH”

Quid est veritas?

[canalon]

quote gamila:

the term “science” has become a lable of authority-just like “the churh” once was
to call something a science is to give it the stamp of authority
“science ” has become no more that an ideological and political tool used now in a totalitarian way to define what is to be considered “TRUTH”

Yes and No… The truth as it is often the case is much more complicated than that. And as always nice catch-phrases are wrong.

so NO, because, the scientific method has been established to provide a way to evaluate the confidence, the degree of truth that a proposition carry. But it is a dynamic process that can and should be constantly evaluated in the face of the available evidence. And by that I mean reliable fact based evidence whose collection method is also available so that the degree of confidence can be evaluated. So science do not try to say what is the truth, but strive to provide the best fit of a model to the available evidence.

However, and that is the sad part of it, a general lack of understanding and of science literacy combined with generally poor science reporting has the consequence (plus the increasing complexity of the matter at hand) that many people takes bits of science without understanding them and do not or cannot evaluate the degree of certainty attached to said result. In this respect you could be right that in many cases there is a wrong use of science.

And to finish on a more personal note: But to show flaws in a scientific theory, it is required that the whistle blower understand what (s)he is talking about. We can see, particularly in this forum, a lot of people who have no clue about what they are talking about trying to destroy scientific theory that are well established and that are laying on solid foundations using hypotheses that they pulled out of their asses and fact that they do not understand. If it wasn’t so exhaustingly repetitive, it would be funny. I remind everyone that in the Kuhnian theory of the paradigm shifts, the shift are usually not caused by an outsider, but by someone who after understanding the current paradigm is able to test its limits and challenge it on those bases.

[Jesse2504]

quote gamila:

quote :

but we do know what a living entity is

i have shown scientists dont know what life is at the begining post

I’m sorry gamila, but when I see the exact phrasing of scientific definitions being picked apart, when they originated from wikipedia, I can’t help but be skeptical of your claims.

[Jesse2504]

quote gamila:

all this is is a list of what an organism with life does but this list does not tell us what life is
to make it clearer some religions would say what makes us alive ie have life is our soul

take this definition from wiki

quote :

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes (“alive,” “living”), from those which do not

this is a blantaly circular definition all it says is life is a characteristic of things that are alive ie have life and as such totally meaningless

now even apart from not telling us what it is that gives life to an organism scientist cant even agree on their definition of life

Tell me what is tennis, without describing what actions the sport entails? or any activity?
You want an answer such that describes life without verbs or actions. Life is a name given to entities which follow certain characteristic actions. You are saying because they "do" instead of "are" means that it is not defined.
If you think about it every single piece of existence that we know of is characteristic of its actions. We know that electrons like to move towards positive charges, but why they do it is unanswerable other than they just do.
Even if everything came down to energy we would still describe energy as "something which does this or that", that really is our limit of understanding with our senses.

Science is testing this understanding of our environment, "what happens when I do this?" and when we find a pattern occurring we describe the pattern in another language, mathematics or english, and use that logic to construct theories.
The science is not wrong, it may need a bit of terminology polish up soon, which is expected but it is by no means redundant.

[gamila]

quote :

the scientific method

there is no scientific method
go read
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn’
go read
Paul Feyerabend’s Against Method
n

[alextemplet]

You’re exactly right, gamila. There is no scientific method. The earth is flat.

[futurezoologist]

g stands for goat.

Has more relevance than some arguments that i have heard on this topic so-far. Shame on us all.

[canalon]

There is a scientific method, even if it is quite an idealization of the reality. And I do not see Kuhn disagreeing with the existence of the scientific method. I haven’t read Feyerabend’s though, so won’t comment on that.
But maybe you would not mind providing clear (and concise) explanation on how those 2 philosophers deny the existence of the scientific method. I would be curious. Really.

But I the mean time, maybe you could also try to respond to the main thrust of my message…

[gamila]

quote :

There is a scientific method, even if it is quite an idealization of the reality. And I do not see Kuhn disagreeing with the existence of the scientific method.

you are obviously not reading the same Kuhn as other
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Scientif … ience_Wars

quote :

Kuhn concluded that falsifiability had played almost no role in scientific revolutions

http://www.inocuo.org/pdf/kuhnwriteup.pdf

quote :

Kuhn’s model destroys that notion by saying that there is no one Scientific Method,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Struct … evolutions

quote :

SSR is viewed by postmodern and post-structuralist thinkers as having called into question the enterprise of science by demonstrating that scientific knowledge is dependent on the culture and historical circumstances of groups of scientists rather than on their adherence to a specific, definable method. In this regard, Kuhn is considered a precursor to the more radical thinking of Paul Feyerabend. Kuhn’s work has also been regarded as blurring the demarcation between scientific and non-scientific enterprises, because it describes the mechanism of scientific progress without invoking any idealized scientific method that is capable of distinguishing science from non-science. In the years following the publication of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, debate raged with adherents of Popper’s doctrine of falsificationism, such as Imre Lakatos.

[telanerv]

GAMILA just learned to type on his keyboard when he found these forums.

GAMILA: is philosophy a science? is political science a science? is science a science?

LETS EXTRAPOLATE:
if Isaac Newton and Galileo observed the same star on the same day fifty years apart, then were they really on the same earth?
How could you begin to deny that which has been brought upon us by our great savior
and this reminds me of my favorite bible verse

Ezekiel 23:19-20
Yet she increased her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth when she engaged in prostitution in the land of Egypt. She lusted after their genitals – as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions.

WHOAH! funky

[DavidDock]

Well, if a philosopher says it, it must be true, because he defines a term his own way and it doesn’t conform.

This is all the argument of a compulsive labeler someone who says, "Your area must meet my expectations." You obviously need very black-and-white terminology to trust a discipline, but the disciplines don’t really care. Life does not conform to your wishes, and neither does the science associated with it.

And the magical thinking that goes into the idea that somehow there is a "life force" is pretty pitiful. It’s not even anti-science, it’s pure nonsense.
Which is the best cabbage soup diet? They all seem a little different

[AstusAleator]

quote DavidDock:

Well, if a philosopher says it, it must be true, because he defines a term his own way and it doesn’t conform.

This is all the argument of a compulsive labeler someone who says, “Your area must meet my expectations.” You obviously need very black-and-white terminology to trust a discipline, but the disciplines don’t really care. Life does not conform to your wishes, and neither does the science associated with it.

Well said. Good to see yet another David on the forums :). What is it with biology and the name David…?

[MichaelXY]

Gamila, I must say that you have mastered the art of rhetoric, you should be a politician as you write a lot but say very little. Under the guise of fancy speak with such terms as circular(Which you over use), you try to dazzle us with with BS rather than any real content.

I am amazed at the large amounts of text that you have written and yet, you have failed to make any clear point, nor have you offered any insights worthy of thought. I suspect your post are some strange fixation that you have in creating conflict, and for what reason I do not know. Maybe you are somewhat passive aggressive and release your anger on forums as you feel safe in the comforts of internet anonymity.

For whatever the reason may be, allow me to suggest that you grow a pair and try to get along with your peers, otherwise I suggest you allow yourself to ferment in anger in that cubicle of yours as others try to make the world a better place.

It is your choice, join the team or just blow steam and eventually evaporate into your abysmal pit of nothingness.

The human race is a group effort and loners usually end up … well alone.

One more thing, Your constant overuse of the abbreviation i.e. is irritating to say the least, try not being so lazy and use real words instead, and perhaps look up e.g. as you often misuse the abbreviation i.e..

[EmmVeePee]

How wonderful.

Now, let’s get back to work people.

[MichaelXY]

quote EmmVeePee:

How wonderful.

Now, let’s get back to work people.

I like your user name. You a baseball fan? 😀

[Author]

Posts