Talk about overly broad definitions of science. Systematized knowledge in general? Come on....

You know as well as I do that things such the wheel, written language, agriculture, etc are pre-scientific. You are being disingenuous if you claim otherwise.

You cannot possibly be serious with this. There is no such thing as "Pre-scientific". You were just given the definition of science for crying out loud...

Roswell

Indeed.

Where else could fiberoptics and the LASER have come from!

Using your definitions the Heliopolitan religion of the Nile is "scientific."

:D

I don't think you understand what it means at all.

Science is not an era. It's not a frame of time. It's not a theory to be applied. There is no point in time where a switch flipped and shit got scientific. Nobody invented science.

It's simply the application of observation and experimentation to better understand the world. A caveman finding a round rock, and noticing that the round rock rolls down the hill better than a square pointy rock, would be considered science. So yes, I'm certain we could find some aspect of Heliopolitan religion that would be considered "Scientific".

Dude science is trial and error, experimentation and observation. It doesn't require lab coats and beakers. We are all scientists on one level or another. Who ever was doing the trial and error (spelled experimentation) on the first wheel was a scientist like it or not.

They weren't professional scientists and didn't have a degree, or lab coat. There were "scientists" at Stonehenge and building pyramids. Written language probably was less "scientific" but all advances were basically by "scientists", in whatever low tech existed at that time.

I completely understand what it means, and I believe I understand what you think it means. I don't think you understand my criticism of what you purport it means. You've turned "science" into something so overly broad to the point to where it has seemingly lost all substantive meaning.

I'm not "anti-science."

We're just going to have to disagree on this.

But science is overly broad by its very nature. That's not a negative at all.

You started this by saying the wheel and written language weren't science, and they were before the time of science. Like "Science" was late to the game. But that's completely false. If you understood, you would realize that both of those things were created according to the very definition of science. Just because science covers an insanely wide range of different uses, that doesn't mean it has lost any substantive meaning at all. Why on Earth would you think that? Science has branched out and diversified and evolved in countless ways. But at its roots, it's still just observation, documentation, and explanation of the world around us.

I don't see any other less broad ways to define it in which it would still retain its root meaning.

Why is it that you would think the invention of the wheel is not something scientific? How would you explain it?

I get the big news, but I've never understood why it is so important to find "organic compounds". Haven't we already found vast lakes of methane liquids on some moons and other planets? Methane is organic, ethane is organic, etc. Doesn't mean life.

ROFL

Methane and ethane are not "compounds" in the classic sense. They are things that exist in all nature, much like oxygen. We know they exist everywhere. The "organic compounds" that matter are ones not normally observed in nature off planet Earth. Compounds that could be interpreted as life that may have decomposed or would be essential elements that could contribute to the formation of life.

so then, what are "compounds"? Methane, ethane, butane, etc., are all molecules that contain carbon and are hydrocarbons, thus "carbon compounds". I wouldn't be too excited until they said what the compounds were chemically.

and Israel...latitude...:hmmm:

Cydonia is more than people think it is...