Is science being divided?

[Averroes]

Actually, I am saying that Darwin was in fact right when he said numerous times that his speculations(i.e. theories) were not "true science" because as he clearly stated out, he could not show any one species ever becoming another.

I knew you'd see sense in the end.

That’s nice. We are finally both agreeing with Darwin that Darwinism is not true science.

I invite you to visit my philosophy forum where I have replied to this question of yours. Here is the link to the answer:http://philosophyforum.aba.ae/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=362

Good luck with your forum.

Thank you very much. This is really very nice of you. It was very interesting to have exchanged with you. I wish you a good weekend.

[Averroes]

I put him on my foe list back some time ago. My life took a turn to an immediate improvement with that.

The ostrich strategy is viewed as faint-heartedness or even cowardice in many societies. I think there might be some truth to this! The obvious remedy for this in my point of view would be to advise to man up and stop playing your drama queen for having wholeheartedly rejected Darwinism! Be proud of you for having done this instead!

[Averroes]

... However, I invite you to visit my philosophy forum where I have replied to this question of yours. Here is the link to the answer:http://philosophyforum.aba.ae/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=362

I see you're posting that hoax about giant humans. The picture you show purporting to show a 'Swiss 'museum' displaying the skeleton of a giant human is in fact a fake giant skeleton made for Erich von Däniken’s Mystery Park ancient astronaut theme park in Interlaken, Switzerland.

Thank you for sharing your point of view on this interesting subject. You will understand that I cannot reply to this comment of yours on this thread. However, I have replied to you on an appropriate thread on my forum. Please, here is the link to my response:
http://philosophyforum.aba.ae/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=364

[QuantumT]

Why should anyone believe you on anything? Are you not the one who was propagating that all that which we consider as reality to be just a simulation on a cosmic computer intended to deceive us?!! So if it is just a simulation, then why bother believe you and take you seriously? Isn’t it all fake according to you? Or may be things have changed since I started talking about Darwinism!!!

Well, I don't have a semi hidden agenda. I have a favorite model/theory to explain reality, and I love to discuss it and explore it's possibilities, but always - always - within the boundaries of science, which I am totally dedicated to! The simulation hypothesis is not my faith. It's my favorite model.

And please don't call it Darwinism. It's called Evolution. And I totally support it, along with every single scientist in the world, due to the overwhelming amount of evidence that backs it up.

Creationism can be a part of the simulation hypothesis, but that is purely speculative. Not something I'd ever insist on. But I like to explore and discuss the theoretical option of it!

[-1-]

I finally read the opening post.

It talks about physics divided, not science. Science has been already divided into a million little smithereens. Chemistry, physics, geography, geology, geomechanics, geoelectorlogy, geoclimate, geoprimate, geoplummage, geogenetics, geogeo, Geoff, g-geogeo.

[QuantumT]

I finally read the opening post.

It talks about physics divided, not science. Science has been already divided into a million little smithereens. Chemistry, physics, geography, geology, geomechanics, geoelectorlogy, geoclimate, geoprimate, geoplummage, geogenetics, geogeo, Geoff, g-geogeo.

Potatoes, potátoes, tomatoes, tomátoes.
Science means knowledge. So if matter itself changes to information, everything we know changes.

[-1-]

I finally read the opening post.

It talks about physics divided, not science. Science has been already divided into a million little smithereens. Chemistry, physics, geography, geology, geomechanics, geoelectorlogy, geoclimate, geoprimate, geoplummage, geogenetics, geogeo, Geoff, g-geogeo.

Potatoes, potátoes, tomatoes, tomátoes.
Science means knowledge. So if matter itself changes to information, everything we know changes.

Yikes.

[QuantumT]

Yikes.

Yum-yum!

[Mike Strand]

Interesting topic, Quantum T! I hadn't encountered the idea of the "information approach", as such, before.

Just an aside: We know how objects and light are affected by gravity. That is, we can perform the calculations and make the predictions according to our theory of the law of gravity. What intrigues me still, however, is the question of why the behavior is what it is observed to be. Description and information about what we observe about an activity don't seem to explain the essence or the underlying reason for the observed activity.

Here are some quotes that may be of interest, maybe relevant here:

“Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it”. Niels Bohr

“We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. The real nature of things we shall never know”. Albert Einstein

“Science is always wrong. It never solves a problem without creating ten more”. George Bernard Shaw

****************
Scientists tell us we’ve barely scratched the surface of what there is to know about nature; that is, nature is still largely a mystery. This begs the question, how do scientists know there is a lot more to know if they don’t know about it? I guess it’s because mysteries abound, and scientists assume it’ll take a lot of new knowledge to explain them. Scientists are hoping for job security, I guess.

[Eodnhoj7]

Are we currently witnessing science being divided in two directions?

In the one: Old school physicists, who insists on physicalism/materialism, and the traditional approach that derives from Newton, Darwin and Einstein.

In the other: a more modern information approach, deriving from Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrödinger.

I have noticed the first group mocking the latter alot. Especially among amateur scientists.

The real ones just say: Shut up and calculate. They seem to avoid interpreting "the wave collapse" at any cost.
If they don't avoid it, they find speculative explanations that confuse the audience so much, that they forget the essence of the issue itself.

Is the information approach a fad, a new branch or the future of science?

There have always been these divisions. Scientists are both cooperative and competitive - and in a complex way, as expected when dealing with so many extremely bright people. There is a pecking order, as in all fields, though. Still, scientists themselves tend to be far more cooperative and appreciative of each other's abilities than neophytes on the web arguing in their stead.

It's the same as with musicians - the crappy ones tend to criticise famous musicians while the pros more appreciate others' virtues; they achieve in music exactly because they were in it for the love more than the ego strokes.

All axioms (that which is observed as self-evident, whether it be a field of science, philosophy, or even a specific phenomena) are grounded in a dualism where one axiom observes "what exists" and the other "what does not exist".

In respect to the question, and maybe I am wording it poorly, the fundamental debate is one of quality vs quantity where each side claims a specific viewpoint that is a negation of the other...it is not just inevitable but goes back thousands of years to the "wholisitic" approach to the universe and the "atomistic" approach to the universe...Newton vs Leibniz, etc.