Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 merelymortal
Joined: 11/24/2009
Msg: 52
Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?Page 4 of 5    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Galileo is the father of science because he developed the scientific method, this requires that a hypothesis be tested in the real world and the evidence support the hypothesis before it is accepted.


Galileo didn't develop the scientific method, at least not alone, if anyone should be credited with "inventing","developing", or popularizing the scientific method it should be Bacon and not Galileo, because after all, it is the Baconian method, he wrote the book supporting it... he got others to follow empiricism, not Galileo... but people like Galileo more because for some reason he has been taught in schools like he is more important... just for looking at the stars?

They probably knew each other and at least wrote one another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_method
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 53
view profile
History
Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?
Posted: 12/3/2009 5:04:45 PM
RE Msg: 88 by Kyle4phun:
Galileo didn't develop the scientific method, at least not alone, if anyone should be credited with "inventing","developing", or popularizing the scientific method it should be Bacon and not Galileo, because after all, it is the Baconian method, he wrote the book supporting it... he got others to follow empiricism, not Galileo... but people like Galileo more because for some reason he has been taught in schools like he is more important... just for looking at the stars?
Actually, neither developed what we usually call the "Scientific Method", of testing a hypothesis. That was developed by Al-Haytham.

Bacon developed the Baconian Method. That's not what we call the "Scientific Method". But IMHO, it ought to be, because the Baconian Method doesn't tell you how to test a hypothesis. It tells you how to determine what might be a valid hypothesis. In that way, Bacon told us how to find theories. Al-Haytham told us how to test them. But finding viable theories is the really tough bit, and that's what the method Bacon gave us, does. So IMHO, it's the Baconian Method that ought to be called the Scientific Method, as it's the mother of scientific development.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 54
view profile
History
Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?
Posted: 12/4/2009 8:09:25 AM
RE Msg: 91 by Chiny®™©:
Yes and Al-Haytham's name has been put forward by others in answer to this threads question as it was Al-Haythem's original formulation of a modern quantitative and empirical approach's to physics and science that earned him the title. However, the Father of Science also happens to be an Arab, an Iraqi Arab and a Muslim so for North Americans that fact is an aberration to the natural order of all things.
What's that got to do with it? America was founded by British people. You revolted against the British people. I don't notice anyone claiming that America was founded by the Chinese, and that Thomas Payne was really from Shanghai.

It's an "aberration", because we've all been told to look out for "terrorists", and to be totally afraid of them. Did you know that you have far, far more chance of dying from being hit by a car, than you have from a terrorist? Yes, there are lots more drivers who are out to kill you, than there are terrorists who are out to blow you up. But because the media is screaming about terrorism every 5 minutes, and so are our governments, and they really don't seem to care nearly as much about deaths due to driving, then we focus on what others are screaming about, and we fear what they are screaming about, even if it's totally irrational to do so.

Terrorists want attention. That's why they do terrorist acts, to make sit up and take notice, so that everyone gets so scared, that everyone will give in to their demands. But even they know that they are not a serious threat to life, and that if people were being rational, they would take driving deaths seriously, and terrorism not so. They thus know that if people were rational, they would class the damage due to terrorism to be so minimal, that it just isn't worth responding to. But if that happened, then no-one would give in to terrorists' demands, as they just aren't important enough to even think about.

But fortunately for terrorists, by governments and the media making a huge song-and-dance about it, they get far more coverage than they deserve, and they get such coverage, that the people in our countries think it's so serious, that it's a huge threat, and must be dealt with. The media love that, because "there is no news like bad news", and there is no bad news that sells like unbridled terror. Our governments love that, because people become so obsessed with terrorism, that they stop thinking about all the corruption and incompetence in our governments, and will make us agree to whatever our politicians suggest to be done, as long as they tell us it might lessen terrorism a little bit. It gives our governments a carte blanche, and with no-one holding them accountable for their actions. The terrorists love it, because the more they are in the media, the more their plight gets highlighted, the more people side with them, and support them, the more people against them will be inclined to give them what they want just to get rid of them, and the more people will be inclined to question if what is being done to them is illegal or not. Everyone wins. Well, everyone but the ordinary people. We lose on all counts.

So if people don't like admitting that we got science from Al-Haytham, or that Copernicus got his theory of heliocentrism from Muslim scholars, or that we even got our ability to count in digits from Muslims, or that nearly all the science and mathematics we know about the Greeks comes from Muslim traders who kept the Greek manuscripts for centuries, well, that's their choice, or, should I say, their problem. If they wish to be treated like dirt by being scared witless, well, whose problem is it? It's not Bush's. He's done incredibly well out of it.
 van0750
Joined: 3/21/2009
Msg: 55
Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?
Posted: 12/4/2009 9:24:21 AM
God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost. THEY MADE EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE AND KNOW. Without Him you couldn't even breath, think, flex your puny minds.
 merelymortal
Joined: 11/24/2009
Msg: 56
Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?
Posted: 12/4/2009 2:37:22 PM
scorpiomover:

So if people don't like admitting that we got science from Al-Haytham, or that Copernicus got his theory of heliocentrism from Muslim scholars, or that we even got our ability to count in digits from Muslims, or that nearly all the science and mathematics we know about the Greeks comes from Muslim traders who kept the Greek manuscripts for centuries, well, that's their choice, or, should I say, their problem. If they wish to be treated like dirt by being scared witless, well, whose problem is it? It's not Bush's. He's done incredibly well out of it.


I agree, just because we are having current political issues with some modern day nation states/failed states doesn't justify discrediting great civilizations and great individual thinkers in the past.

I also agree that Bacon can't really be credited with being the father of all sciences, but I gave him credit because he popularized the concept of empiricism in the west, which led to the Renaissance.

Mind you, I also don't credit Bacon for the renaissance, but I want to recognize him as an important (probably the most important when discussing the history of science, and he's a great place to start a modern science course) figure in history for science, he really did make a big difference.

John Locke sort of took Bacon's world view and applied it to politics, I'm a big fan of Locke's impact on world history, so as a result, Bacon is on my list of cool people that lived too... not to mention that I love having a plasma screen TV, laptop, microwave, car, heating/AC, all of which may not have been invented were it not for those guys.

Paine and Jefferson sort of put their own personal spin on Locke's work, Locke is who I credit for those other 2 cool dudes in history (i don't care much for paine, moreso for jefferson)
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 57
Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?
Posted: 12/4/2009 7:06:52 PM

The "true" father of science would undoubtedly go back much further than any written records could indicate


Probably a proto-flint-knapper named Ooont.

I think the process is innate to some degree, ...as are other aspects of "problem solving". We are by degree, leaning towards either faith or doubt in how we grok it. While there are many innate frames of reference to intellectually consider the big "WHY?" questions, ...I think that the scientific one has proved its value in progress and progressive knowledge more than ANY other mindset.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 58
view profile
History
Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?
Posted: 12/5/2009 5:08:54 PM
RE Msg: 94 by Kyle4phun:
I agree, just because we are having current political issues with some modern day nation states/failed states doesn't justify discrediting great civilizations and great individual thinkers in the past.
I am glad that we can agree on that. Fermat wrote his famous Last Theorem in the margins of his copy of Diophantus' Arithmetica. It's my belief that it was his studies of the Arithmetica that led him to this conclusion.

I also agree that Bacon can't really be credited with being the father of all sciences, but I gave him credit because he popularized the concept of empiricism in the west, which led to the Renaissance.
Empiricism is something that a lot of North Americans seem to mention. But it's not mentioned in the same way in the UK at all. In the UK, there is "empirical evidence", which means any data that comes to you via the experiences of the senses, which includes experiments, but also includes observations, and personal experiences. It is distinct from "rational evidence", which is that which you have figured out by logic and reason.

From what I have read of the history of it, "empiricism" means the movement of the last few hundred years, that investigated into empirical data. Some, like Locke, suggested that all our concepts are derived on some level from empirical data, even the most basic concepts, like counting, hunger, desire, freedom, equality, and the things we believe, are rational data derived from empirical data. Some, like Hume, suggested that nothing can be proved from empiricism at all, because all you can do is say that there is a blinding yellow light on your retina, and that is not the same as saying there is a Sun at all. Some, like Bacon, argued that Aristotelian syllogism is not the only way to investigate science, that one can use both empirical data AND syllogism, and both help each other. These works led on to the works of the Logical Positivists like Ayer and Wittgenstein, who said that empirical data often give the wrong impression, like optical illusions, and so can never be taken to be a solid proof of anything, but only a single perspective of a much larger reality.

Mind you, I also don't credit Bacon for the renaissance, but I want to recognize him as an important (probably the most important when discussing the history of science, and he's a great place to start a modern science course) figure in history for science, he really did make a big difference.
Bacon contributed to science, by popularising the idea that empirical evidence, that was rigorously obtained, and kept from of any potential syllogisms, what we might call "simple facts", like that "there is a yellow ball of light in the sky", would be useful to determine facts, in addition to rational thought. Of course, this was obvious. But the prior view was to just look at the world, and then figure everything out in your own head. Bacon proposed that sometimes, it might be wiser to test your hypotheses, rather than to pontificate endlessly.

However, he definitely wasn't against reasoning at all. Far from it. He described how one might use empirical data to determine possible inferences, and listed 4 different possible ways that one might come to non-viable hypotheses, simply from personal bias. He called these latter 4, the Idols of the Mind. Bacon took empirical evidence, and then applied reasoning to it, so that reason could be used to draw useful conclusions from it, in a safe manner.

John Locke sort of took Bacon's world view and applied it to politics, I'm a big fan of Locke's impact on world history, so as a result,
Locke is a difficult problem in the development of empirical investigation. He proposed the idea that all humans are a "tabula rasa", a blank slate, upon which all ideas are developed from each person's experiences. However, different people have different ideas. So Locke had to believe that each person's personal opinions are formed from their own personal experiences, and are therefore not valid for anyone but that person. So even Locke must have agreed that according to him, his views were only formed from his personal experiences, and are not valid for anyone other than Locke.

What is difficult with Locke, however, is that Locke was adamant about certain ideas, based on certain assumptions, that Locke assumed. His clear strength in his own views cannot be down to logic, by his own reasoning. He believed they were merely due to his own personal experiences, due to an accident of birth. Yet he is adamant that they are right.

Much of what he wrote was in support of the Glorious Revolution of 1689, and a rejection of the unpopular views of James II. Mostly it was because Parliament ruled England, not the king, and James thought that the king ruled England, not Parliament. Locke sought to write a rebuttal to James' supporters. James' view was extreme. So were the views of his supporters, and totally anti-English. Locke was writing against a very unpopular undemocratic and almost dictatorial ruler. His polemics were therefore equally as extreme in response.

However, most of James' changes were to bring religious tolerance of all to Britain, Catholics and Puritans, as well as Anglicans. Locke wrote about this himself. Thus, Locke probably agreed with nearly all that James' said. Locke was only against the way that James wanted to bring religious tolerance to England, as a dictatorial King, and not through Parliament.

Bacon is on my list of cool people that lived too... not to mention that I love having a plasma screen TV, laptop, microwave, car, heating/AC, all of which may not have been invented were it not for those guys.
Bacon is an interesting figure. But he's not the only figure in British scientific history, not by a long chalk. Newton used to be credited with 80% of physics. But he was a professor of Mathematics, which is full of rigour, and which encourages one to think in very exact and rigorous ways. So he was speaking and writing on physics from a mathematician's POV, full of exactness, and with as few assumptions as possible. So a lot of what Bacon wrote, was a given in Newton's approach.

Bacon is most useful, in that he gave us ways to make our hypotheses credible and reliable, without having to force them to be mathematical, and to tell us what biases we are most likely to use to draw incorrect conclusions.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 59
view profile
History
Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?
Posted: 12/5/2009 8:49:42 PM
Ooont has my vote.
 Super_Eve
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 60
Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?
Posted: 12/5/2009 8:58:52 PM


Necessity is the mother of invention


Because necessity breeds ingenuity...

"I can't reach that banana, so let me use a stick..."

Wasn't that a science?
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 61
Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?
Posted: 12/5/2009 9:00:33 PM
Ooont has my vote.


Me too, science means many things to many people, but if you boil it down to its basics, it's really just discovery via trial and error.

We humans owe a lot to the early tool makers/users like Ooont, the flint-knappers, fire-starters and all those who realized that it's easier sometimes to use a stick to poke things, instead of a finger. Ahhh... fingers, where would we be without them?

In the modern scope of things, I'd pick Karl Popper as being one of the most important science daddy-o's who very ably carried the torch passed to him from the likes of Locke, Bacon, Descartes, Al-Haythem, and even in the very distant past, Ooont.
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 62
Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?
Posted: 12/5/2009 11:20:08 PM

The thing that beats me is why there always seems to be the need to pick out just one when so many have contributed so much.


Yeah, probably human nature, people like to see credit/blame placed on someone. You see this in many fields; there is a thread on the music forum that's about trying to find the "whos" responsible for rock n' roll, which any decent musicology buff will focus on the '20s, ...but most folks keep posting Elvis. The truth is, there is probably no "who" for science, but this, like the thread in the music forum, at least has the wonderful side benefit of exposing some of the more obscure names that my not be known by most folks. But, I do really admire Karl Popper, I do think he had a lot of influence on how ...science sees science anywho.
 Super_Eve
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 63
Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?
Posted: 12/6/2009 1:29:05 AM
Oh, my goodness. I took that the answer that the Op was looking for, was in the singular, within the context of the test question in itself. One of the rare times I actually stayed focused, and didn't try to put everything into one all-encompassing broad-based existential, idea.

Of course, you gentlemen are right.

It's about time ya'll came around...

 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 64
Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?
Posted: 12/6/2009 1:48:45 AM

Oh, come on now QuietJohn, and, ah, Late. We all know that "uncle Jesse" from "Dukes of Hazzard" is the answer to it all


Actually, Uncle Jesse stole all his distilling secrets from Muhammad ibn Zakarīya Rāzi.
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 65
Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?
Posted: 12/6/2009 10:09:15 PM
There are occasions to take the credit and others to share the blame


It's not often possible to do without, as many have done in this thread, share credit/blame in a divergent regression/progression as well as a convergent progression/regression.


Oooont is over-rated, for it was Mrs. Oooont who kept harpin' on em


Point taken.
(Edit, but it's spelled "Ooont", the middle "o" is silent)

For some reason I'm reminded of an old Gary Larson cartoon depicting two cave-men, outside their respective cave entrances sitting in front of rocks, one is hitting the rock with another rock, "Bonk bonk bonk bonk...", the other is wearing tiny round sunglasses and hitting his rock, "Be bonk be bonk be bonk..."

The caption reads, "The Birth of Jazz"
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 66
Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?
Posted: 12/7/2009 9:05:20 AM

There may be great debate on who the father of science was.


Maybe, maybe not, ...but this IS a thread with that as a topic.


“The Thunderbolts Team” They will change everything we think about how the universe really functions


This is about as on-topic as Wilhelm Reich's orgone generators.

Agenda peddling at its finest, we can add this one to the ever-growing list of billboarding topics on this forum.
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 67
Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?
Posted: 12/7/2009 2:42:30 PM
Dude, if you're so dying to talk about it, ...post a thread, no need to hijack other topics.
 endlesslift
Joined: 12/31/2009
Msg: 68
Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?
Posted: 1/3/2010 10:29:24 PM
Is the father of science the one who invented it?

Bill Lishman has become known as Father Goose. But I don't believe he invented geese.

Also, to know the first true scientist, we need whatever definition of science we are talking about to be brought forward.

We would unlikely know who the "first true scientist" is anymore that we could know the first person to make a fire.

Also, the word "considered" is pretty important here. Considered by who?

Pythagoras is considered to have invented Pythagoras's Theorem. But others were using it before him. He more explained or formalized it.

Not to reduce any of the great thinkers (Aristotle, Jesus Christ, Galileo, Newton, Einstein etc...)

They all contribute. And everybody else does too.

But I invented hiccups.
 freeborders
Joined: 7/22/2009
Msg: 69
Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?
Posted: 1/4/2010 7:23:23 PM
Aristotle, no question about it in my mind.

While Galileo made great contributions to astronomy, his greatest contribution to scientific methodology wasn't a theory or a discovery, it was about his attitude towards things. Galileo was an advocate for human reason and "free inquiry" over dogma and tradition at the start of the enlightenment period. What must be noted is that without Aristotle (and of course credit must be given to Aquinas for resurrecting Aristotle), this entire paradigm shift from biblical dogma to scientific methodology during the enlightenment would not have occurred. It was only because of Aristotle that Galileo's position was even given a voice, albeit a censored one.

Furthermore, Aristotle achieved something in antiquity that is not feasible any longer in our era: he had mastered every scientific discipline out there, and contributed greatly to them all. Granted that mastering all scientific knowledge in antiquity might be compared to mastering the alphabet by age 6, he devoted his entire life to advancing every scientific discipline he learned: Biology, taxonomy, perception, geometry, metaphysics, ethics, the list goes on. He was the first to produce a complete analysis of rhetoric which is essential when trying to distinguish true scientific analysis and hypotheses from sophistry, something that is often taken for granted. He also advocated the use of systematic/universal terminology for all persons of science to use. If you went to a physics or zoology conference and everyone had a different word for photon, or a different term for "canine", not much would get communicated.

Let's also not forget the importance of Logic in science, and Aristotelian logic was unchecked and unmodified for a very long time. It's simplicity and validity is another one of his contributions that get taken for granted.

While there's so many that are responsible for building our current scientific system, Bacon, Newton, and galileo as mentioned, they all made their strides in the shadow that Aristotle cast for them. It's really difficult to name just one person, but I don't know that anyone is more worthy of such a title.
 freeborders
Joined: 7/22/2009
Msg: 70
Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?
Posted: 1/4/2010 7:32:19 PM
oh and as someone already mentioned on page 2, I'm entirely biased by my knowledge of only scientific advancement in the West and I speak from this context alone. I have no idea who the father of science would be in China or the Middle East. But interestingly enough, science in the Middle East also has Aristotelian influences.
 acuddler
Joined: 10/30/2009
Msg: 71
Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?
Posted: 1/4/2010 7:39:02 PM
God created the laws upon which science is based, and knew them, and so did NOT have to create science by deducing the laws through theory, observation, and experimentation...which is what science is; the deduction of natural law from evidence. The first to do that was an early human...Cain. All who followed, merely repeat Cain's work, rediscover his discoveries, and re-invent his inventioons.
 endlesslift
Joined: 12/31/2009
Msg: 72
Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?
Posted: 1/10/2010 10:37:37 PM
bozo the clown




.......................................................................
 jaroka
Joined: 9/21/2009
Msg: 73
Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?
Posted: 1/10/2010 11:32:37 PM
There was an old Greek Geek who had these scientific theories back 600 or 800 b.c., like the trees cause wind and sand turns to water or the other way around, (because he observed dew on the sands around Alexandria in the mornings.) and everything was made of water. His every theory based on observation was ridiculously wrong, when viewed with our knowledge, but the guy was a pioneer because he was the first one to explain natural phenomena by physical explanations, and not using any religious thoughts, mythology or superstition at the same time. He was hailed as the first philosopher and scientist. I don't know his name. Forgot. Any book on the history of western philosophy would name him.
 ea®ly
Joined: 11/7/2006
Msg: 74
Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?
Posted: 1/11/2010 1:09:05 PM
Eureka!

I'm surprised there was no mention of Archimedes too, good call.
 George0000
Joined: 9/29/2009
Msg: 75
Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?
Posted: 1/11/2010 7:58:46 PM
I wouldent say god for there is not only one there is a lot of them, I would have to answer the creator.
 voshie
Joined: 9/22/2009
Msg: 76
Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?
Posted: 1/13/2010 8:21:17 AM
this is my take on who would be the father of all sciences..

after reading my western civs book for my college classes..referencing that the first sciences were of early greek scocieties..where math was first used as record keeping for early merchants and political parties needing to maintain control over early populated areas where ecoonomy was derived from trading with foreign city-states..math was a collaborative effort between several city-states and their perspective written languages...

early science was based on observations made of local greek environmental patterns...
early greek philosophers were the fathers of phsyiological science.....intro to psychology class books tell us that..

so i say that the true fathers..note the plural use of father here for collaborations..lived in early civilizations long before most of the europeans who are given credit for such things...
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Who Is the Father of All Sciences ?