Scientific Knowledge contradicts nature.

TheSubversiveOne
Natural laws according to man, not nature.

No, natural laws according to nature, not man. Copper and gold don't have a low electrical resistance because man says so. Tides don't create wave power because man says so. The power that pushes a watermill doesn't exist because man says so, it is always there. These are things nature dictates.

Nowhere else in the universe are components precisely arranged by an engineer.

Are you aware of how complex any organisms brain is? How about just a single cell. That's a pretty precise arrangement. Far more so than electronics.

Phi isn’t placed in anything. Phi is derived from nature, not supplied to it. It is you, not nature, that is oddly placing phi into it.

5, 8 , 13 this pattern is everywhere in nature. For one reason or another nature uses it. It's not because of man that it's there, man has noticed it but that is all.

An imitation of nature isn’t nature.

Why not? Are we not natural organisms?

Exactly. There are too many variables in nature. Why remove variables if they are a fundamental part of nature? How can we seek to understand nature by throwing most of it away?

Because the way you understand a complex system is by examining each individual part in a vacuum. Once you know what everything does you can figure out how they all interact together. This is the very basis of problem solving, which I will point out is something many animals do, not just humans.

If they rely on the same laws, why aren’t they the same?

Because humans haven't figured out how to create organic substances the way nature has.

What other inorganic systems look, feel and act like technology?

All of them.

This is superstition. Math can only ever be found in discourse. I could prove my point by opening any book on the subject. You could never point to me anything called math outside of human discourse.

Failure to see something doesn't mean it's not there.

TheSubversiveOne
I agree. Nature must consume itself to survive. So then if technology is nature, why doesn’t technology consume itself? Because technology cannot replicate itself as nature does, nor does it give itself back to the nature it consumes once it dies.

Technology runs off of different energy sources than nature, but they all run off of energy. Plankton create energy from sunlight, fish eat the plankton, those fish become fuel for bigger creatures. The energy efficiency and storage capacity of organic compounds is quite impressive, far better than the 39% of our most advanced nuclear reactor.

reply to post by Aazadan

No, natural laws according to nature, not man. Copper and gold don't have a low electrical resistance because man says so. Tides don't create wave power because man says so. The power that pushes a watermill doesn't exist because man says so, it is always there. These are things nature dictates.

To be precise, Natural laws are moral and legal systems and theories. You are probably trying to say physical or scientific law, which are theories, hypotheses, and scientific conventions. These are ideas had by man. Because something is inevitable doesn't mean it follows a law.

Are you aware of how complex any organisms brain is? How about just a single cell. That's a pretty precise arrangement. Far more so than electronics.

Yes I am fully aware. Are you trying to say there is some engineering going on here?

5, 8 , 13 this pattern is everywhere in nature. For one reason or another nature uses it. It's not because of man that it's there, man has noticed it but that is all.

Nature doesn’t use math outside of man. Math is abstract and man’s creation. Let’s not anthropomorphize nature too much.

Why not? Are we not natural organisms?

Yes. But technology isn’t.

Because the way you understand a complex system is by examining each individual part in a vacuum. Once you know what everything does you can figure out how they all interact together. This is the very basis of problem solving, which I will point out is something many animals do, not just humans.

I am not doubting that. But let’s note that this is the basis of human problem solving, and not nature. I didn’t know animals ran experiments in a vacuum. I’ll take your word for it.

Because humans haven't figured out how to create organic substances the way nature has.

Therefor they haven’t figured out nature.

“What other inorganic systems look, feel and act like technology?”

All of them.

Perhaps you can name one.

This is superstition. Math can only ever be found in discourse. I could prove my point by opening any book on the subject. You could never point to me anything called math outside of human discourse.


Failure to see something doesn't mean it's not there.

Failure to show it doesn’t mean it is there either.

TheSubversiveOne
To be precise, Natural laws are moral and legal systems and theories. You are probably trying to say physical or scientific law, which are theories, hypotheses, and scientific conventions. These are ideas had by man. Because something is inevitable doesn't mean it follows a law.

I'm referring to it in the context you're using it in this thread, which is completely ridiculous. Natural systems, photons move at light speed, all objects with mass have gravity, water is heavier than air, and so on. Natural law in the context you're referring to in this paragraph is nothing more than a set of laws based on what some people think are self evident truths in life.

Yes I am fully aware. Are you trying to say there is some engineering going on here?

I'm saying that when it comes to manipulating the laws of the universe to create complex objects nature has a several hundred billion year head start on man.

Nature doesn’t use math outside of man. Math is abstract and man’s creation. Let’s not anthropomorphize nature too much.

Nature uses math all the time. The number system is mans creation but concepts like E=MC^2 (the parts of it that aren't incorrect that is) or the formula to a theory of unification (which is so far unknown to man) are rules which the universe abides by. Math is considered the universal language for a reason.

Yes. But technology isn’t.

Is the paper cup I'm drinking my coffee from not natural? Even the plastic lid was created from natural materials.

I am not doubting that. But let’s note that this is the basis of human problem solving, and not nature. I didn’t know animals ran experiments in a vacuum. I’ll take your word for it.

Have you never seen a pet cat or dog problem solve? The Kong brand of toys is all about this for dogs. How about a dolphin or a chimp figure something out? Go look at Bonobo monkeys, they taught themselves to start fires once they realized it was an advantageous possibility. All animals problem solve, it's not a human only thing. Humans simply have some advantages in that we have developed an object oriented rather than emotional oriented language (dolphins are developing this currently btw) and we have opposable thumbs both of which better allow us to use tools and pass on ideas.

Therefor they haven’t figured out nature.

Nope, and humans will likely never have a complete understanding of nature. Why does that matter?

Perhaps you can name one.

Solar panels, watermills, nuclear reactors, ceramics, pretty much everything artificial is an attempt at using natural forces for our benefit.

TheSubversiveOne
reply to post by Subnatural

 

What you call nature destroys nature too. Nature goes against itself, just like you say technology goes against nature. Volcanoes destroy forests. Species hunt other species to extinction. Microscopic parasites make ants kill themselves. Ants farm other organisms.

We use dirt too, for a multitude of purposes. We too use what is around us. We too use the processes of our own bodies. And so does technology. (For example, a programmer working with is computer is using his own body and the environment around him, is he not? Just like ants or apes).

To me the the only difference is that technology is created, consciously, by something like humans or chimps. It's one step removed from nature. But only one step. It seems very arrogant and human-centric to say that technology is fundamentally different from nature. Just like they used to say, and many still do, that humanity is apart from nature.

EDIT: Just wanted to say that your OP was very interesting and made me think even if I don't agree on this point, might comment more after I read it again.

I agree. Nature must consume itself to survive. So then if technology is nature, why doesn’t technology consume itself? Because technology cannot replicate itself as nature does, nor does it give itself back to the nature it consumes once it dies.

I agree in the grand definition of nature, that everything that exists is nature and so forth. But I find this definition meaningless, as it is a definition of nothing in particular. Instead, I would prefer to not speak about the meaningless, and would rather speak about the concrete.

To illustrate how nature is different than technology, imagine laying down in a landfill, amongst carcasses of technology. Then imagine laying in a meadow, amongst the carcasses of trees, grass, and leaves. There is a distinct difference. I am speaking of this difference and contrast, and not any grand theory of everything called “nature”.

Fair enough. Technology does not replicate itself. I can see that now. In this, it is different from nature, on an everyday scale. Still, what does it mean, that nature replicates itself? Man creates technology. Man is a creation of nature. If this is true then it follows that technology replicates itself through man (not intentionally, but it does, man creates technology every day, even at this very moment). Then technology can replicate itself too, right? At the least as much as man, or any other animal. And if man consumes itself then technology consumes itself too, right? Because technology is an extention of man, in this my thinking here.

Like my finger. What is the difference between my finger, and my iPad, and the dirt under my feet? One is man, one is technology and one is something else entirely? They are all made of the same atoms, in theory. The difference is up to man.

So, technology replicates itslef, does it not?

You can say that it replicates itself only through man, but everything we experience happens ONLY through man.

Man is the measure of everything.

Even things like eternity or God are experienced through man, and only man (or woman).

We know nothing that is outside of ourselves.

So, I kind of lost track, but my point is that the definition of nothing in particular is as meaningless as the concrete you speak of.

I like really liked your example about the carcasses of industry and nature.

Great discussion

but is no technology derived from nature?

We build buildings of steel and iron and rock and brick and yet each of these components is derived from the very nature that technology is supposedly against. Consider a piece of technology, the car

It has allowed us freedom of ease of movement. The rubber of the tires and the aluminum of the body all comes from nature. Consider animals that use rudimentary technology to solve problems. The intelligent crow and monkey using technology to take care of a concern of theirs. Or consider evolution for that matter. Though it is usually not driven by man, one could say that evolution is advancement in the same respect of technology

You say in OP that technology is synthesized. I say it is synthesized from nature

So why fight technology? Would you prefer to return to the beginning when disease could easily and swiftly carry use away at less than 30 years of age? I mean heck, you are using technology to post this OP. Perhaps it'd be best if you sold it...it is against nature

a reply to: KyoZero

Yes, I say that whether technology is hitting a rock with another rock or manipulating an electron with the penthouse-tip of an adamant rod of micro-tubes it is still the same. It's just movement and change within these boundaries we call the universe.

And this movement and change may benefit us all. Or our children. And if not, it's still movement and change.

Is a monkey using a specially shaped rock to crack open the shells of nuts or clams and mussels using technology?
Is a birds nest different to a humans house?

a reply to: woodwardjnr

Is a monkey using a specially shaped rock to crack open the shells of nuts or clams and mussels using technology?
Is a birds nest different to a humans house?

Indeed it is. We do not wander around collecting twigs to build our houses. Materials for houses must first be collected by destroying deposits of raw materials on a mass scale, where they are then refined and formed into a shape of our liking. The land must first levelled, and ordered into parcels of arbitrary boundary, trees and stumps removed, foundations, plumbing and electricity inserted. This occurs before the house has even begun to be built.

A rock is a rock, not technology.

a reply to: KyoZero

If all is from nature, why don't you throw your garbage on the grass? What's stopping you from enjoying a nice nature walk through a landfill?

a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

A rock is a rock, not technology.

But if the rock has been fashioned into a tool by the monkey? That's technology on a very primitive scale.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
a reply to: KyoZero

If all is from nature, why don't you throw your garbage on the grass? What's stopping you from enjoying a nice nature walk through a landfill?

Because it's not beautiful and aesthetically pleasing.

But everything is still from nature.


The distinction you make between what you consider as technology and the rest is not correct. You make this distinction to support your point but it's all your own definitions.

Anything "natural" modified to be used for a specific purpose is technology. But it's still intrinsically "natural" in it's constitutive form, only technology in its use.

A walking stick is a stick but also technology. It's both natural and technology.

a reply to: woodwardjnr

But if the rock has been fashioned into a tool by the monkey? That's technology on a very primitive scale.

That seems like using nature as is.

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

The distinction you make between what you consider as technology and the rest is not correct. You make this distinction to support your point but it's all your own definitions.

I think its the other way around.

nature |ˈnāCHər|
noun
1 the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations: the breathtaking beauty of nature.
• the physical force regarded as causing and regulating these phenomena: it is impossible to change the laws of nature. See also Mother Nature.
2 [ in sing. ] the basic or inherent features of something, esp. when seen as characteristic of it: helping them to realize the nature of their problems | there are a lot of other documents of that nature.
• the innate or essential qualities or character of a person or animal: it's not in her nature to listen to advice | I'm not violent by nature. See also human nature.
• inborn or hereditary characteristics as an influence on or determinant of personality. Often contrasted with nurture.
• [ with adj. ] archaic a person of a specified character: Emerson was so much more luminous a nature.

technology |tekˈnäləjē|
noun (pl. technologies)
the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, esp. in industry: advances in computer technology | recycling technologies.
• machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific knowledge.
• the branch of knowledge dealing with engineering or applied sciences.

a reply to: TheSubversiveOne


As soon as something taken as is from nature is even slightly modified to use it as a tool (sharpening a stick or a rock for example), it's technology.

A lance or a hand axe are very much human creations developed from the application of human knowledge. A genetically modified bacteria is technology. A controlled fire is technology.

I perfectly understand what you are trying to say, but as you can see the boundaries between nature and technology are not as distinct as you are trying to make them, despite the definition you quoted.

Technology doesn't contradict nature. Actually most technology is inspired by nature so how could it deny it?

contradict
Line breaks: contra|dict
Pronunciation: /kɒntrəˈdɪkt /
VERB

Deny the truth of (a statement) by asserting the opposite

Technology doesn't deny the truth of nature. Technology transforms and modify nature.
If you want to use words in a correct way according to definition, you have to correct your OP then because this hypothesis:

-Technology is in contradiction to nature.

is logically and epistemically incorrect.

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

As soon as something taken as is from nature is even slightly modified to use it as a tool (sharpening a stick or a rock for example), it's technology.

A lance or a hand axe are very much human creations developed from the application of human knowledge. A genetically modified bacteria is technology. A controlled fire is technology.

I perfectly understand what you are trying to say, but as you can see the boundaries between nature and technology are not as distinct as you are trying to make them, despite the definition you quoted.

Technology doesn't contradict nature. Actually most technology is inspired by nature so how could it deny it?



contradict
Line breaks: contra|dict
Pronunciation: /kɒntrəˈdɪkt /
VERB

Deny the truth of (a statement) by asserting the opposite


Technology doesn't deny the truth of nature. Technology transforms and modify nature.
If you want to use words in a correct way according to definition, you have to correct your OP then because this hypothesis:




-Technology is in contradiction to nature.


is logically and epistemically incorrect.

To be fair, I did say “contradiction”, which is a noun, rather than “contradict”, a verb. You might have to correct your post.

contradiction |ˌkäntrəˈdikSHən|
noun
a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another: the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal contradictions.
• a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present: the paradox of using force to overcome force is a real contradiction.
• the statement of a position opposite to one already made: the second sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the first | the experiment provides a contradiction of the hypothesis.
PHRASES
contradiction in terms a statement or group of words associating objects or ideas that are incompatible: “true fiction” is a contradiction in terms.


Technology does oppose nature. Inconsistent elements are present. And using your definition, technology does assert the opposite of nature. But this is all semantics, and I feel perhaps it is unnecessary. We can widen the goal posts to include both technology and nature under one definition—maybe we’ll call it the universe—but saying they are one and the same makes both terms meaningless. We use the term “technology” to refer to certain things, and “nature” to refer to others. When one walks through a downtown city core, he doesn’t say nor assume he’s going on a nature walk. The same goes for the opposite, a walk through the jungle doesn’t compare to a walk through a downtown city core.

Naturally, we aren’t very high up on the food chain. Technologically, we are at the very top. A pride of lions might destroy me and eat me as is natural. But a pride of lions stands little chance with me in an armoured vehicle. In fact, the tables are completely turned, and I may destroy them if I had an inclination to. Is it natural for the lions to die in this way?

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
To be fair, I did say “contradiction”, which is a noun, rather than “contradict”, a verb. You might have to correct your post.

Are you kidding me? Now you are being facetious.

Your thread is titled "Scientific Knowledge contradicts nature".

Also you pick definition when they suit you and ignore others

con·tra·dic·tion noun ˌkän-trə-ˈdik-shən
: the act of saying something that is opposite or very different in meaning to something else

: a difference or disagreement between two things which means that both cannot be true

Technology, science and nature can all be true. Just learn to express your ideas more correctly.

You try to put science/technology and nature as both extremes of a same quality when they are different and overlapping realities, like Venn diagrams.

To try to oppose them is not only useless it's reductive. One thing (science and technology) needs the other (nature) so how can they be different and opposed extremes?

Whatever, you'll never admit to be wrong on any point anyway so I'll leave you with your beliefs and opinions. Also you always conveniently ignore all the examples contradicting your model like the first human tools which are hardly modified natural objects and yet completely fits the technology definition. To simply ignore them shows you don't know how to classify them. I simply think your thread title is misleading and your logical conclusion incorrect because based on flawed premises, but eh, it's just my opinion so roll with it.

The only correct opposition would be to say some things are natural and some are artificial, but can't be both.


To use "technology" and "science" to mean artificial is incorrect because they describe different concepts.

Science describes natural process too.
Likewise, technology can be used to simply improve natural processes. For example technology can be used for growing fruits, doesn't mean growing fruits contradicts nature, it could simply help it.


I agree that tools are artificial things but you seriously need to learn to use the correct words because I'm not the only one telling you that scientific knowledge doesn't contradict nature as you say it boldly in your title.





finally, to show you once and for all why I say your logical reasoning is incorrect, here it is:

My argument is this:

-Scientific knowledge is the foundation of Technology.
-Technology is in contradiction to nature.
-Therefor, scientific knowledge is in contradiction to nature.

Scientific knowledge = A
Technology = B
Nature = C


What you say is this:
B → A (you need science for technology, so if technology is true, science is also true)
B XOR C (technology and nature are mutually exclusive)
thus
A XOR C (science and nature are mutually exclusive)



Analysis:

"B → A" has no impact on the behavior of A (whether you have technology or not, it doesn't change a damn thing about science)

In that case, you have no logical connections between B XOR C and A XOR C. Saying something about technology doesn't mean # about science.

So even in the event that technology and nature are exclusive (which I don't fully agree), it doesn't mean # about science, and thus both your reasoning and title are logical fallacies.

I'm sorry to sperg about this but I hope you can now understand why your reasoning isn't correct, because it is. Science doesn't contradict nature. Science studies nature.