Difference between revisions of "User talk:SilverTheTerribleMathematician"
(→Welcome: New section. Decided to remove long-unused 'Welcome' section from an alleged long-gone user (not that people aren't welcome, just serves little purpose, even historical, and it was a distraction).) |
(→Water and life: new section) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Admitedly, the early days of sky-watching probably had a lot of overlap/indistinguishability between the two practices (like practical chemistry when it had not yet emerged from the more fanciful concepts of alchemy), and the scientific use of "-logy" (of words; explanation or narrative) survives in sciences such as biology/ecology in some cases, rather than as "-nomy" (being about rules and laws) as with taxonomy – or such things as an autonomy. But if anyone currently thinks that astronomy and astrology are the same thing, by different names, then they don't know enough about at least one of them. Perhaps both. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.57|172.70.85.57]] 21:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | Admitedly, the early days of sky-watching probably had a lot of overlap/indistinguishability between the two practices (like practical chemistry when it had not yet emerged from the more fanciful concepts of alchemy), and the scientific use of "-logy" (of words; explanation or narrative) survives in sciences such as biology/ecology in some cases, rather than as "-nomy" (being about rules and laws) as with taxonomy – or such things as an autonomy. But if anyone currently thinks that astronomy and astrology are the same thing, by different names, then they don't know enough about at least one of them. Perhaps both. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.57|172.70.85.57]] 21:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Water and life == | ||
| + | |||
| + | "... but arguably they are not alive in any sense (other than containing a large amount of water)". Skewed logic. You're saying that merely by containing water gives it some sort of status of being alive. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Things that are alive may contain water (probably do, as in that we don't know of many things that are, but don't; but then we might be biased by being a carbon+water biosystem and not seeing the possible alternatives put into practice) and bodies of water may contain life (including clouds, at least transiently) but refuting the livingness of clouds, ''except'' that they contain water, suggests that the water is the life, not merely an aid to life. Ponds, rivers, lakes, seas and oceans also have a lot of water in them{{Citation needed}} and even contain living things (usually) so may be refered to as 'alive [with life]' but aren't alive any individualistic sense. Even to the extent that the creatures, protozoa or even viruses within it might simultaneously be considered to be. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.86|172.71.242.86]] 15:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:50, 5 April 2023
Astronomy/Astrology
Regarding the recent edit of yours to Category:Astronomy, 'even' in Britain (well, amongst anybody not otherwise confused) Astrology isn't the same as Astronomy. The latter is the term for the whole subject of scientific knowledge in the realm of the stars, the former is that of making narrative stories from how the stars and planets might appear to us.
Admitedly, the early days of sky-watching probably had a lot of overlap/indistinguishability between the two practices (like practical chemistry when it had not yet emerged from the more fanciful concepts of alchemy), and the scientific use of "-logy" (of words; explanation or narrative) survives in sciences such as biology/ecology in some cases, rather than as "-nomy" (being about rules and laws) as with taxonomy – or such things as an autonomy. But if anyone currently thinks that astronomy and astrology are the same thing, by different names, then they don't know enough about at least one of them. Perhaps both. ;) 172.70.85.57 21:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Water and life
"... but arguably they are not alive in any sense (other than containing a large amount of water)". Skewed logic. You're saying that merely by containing water gives it some sort of status of being alive.
Things that are alive may contain water (probably do, as in that we don't know of many things that are, but don't; but then we might be biased by being a carbon+water biosystem and not seeing the possible alternatives put into practice) and bodies of water may contain life (including clouds, at least transiently) but refuting the livingness of clouds, except that they contain water, suggests that the water is the life, not merely an aid to life. Ponds, rivers, lakes, seas and oceans also have a lot of water in them[citation needed] and even contain living things (usually) so may be refered to as 'alive [with life]' but aren't alive any individualistic sense. Even to the extent that the creatures, protozoa or even viruses within it might simultaneously be considered to be. 172.71.242.86 15:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
