Sounds about right. Suicide ganking is a subset of ganking.
So you continue to try to do the argument that ‘words mean things,’ but you fail in this respect:
Suicide ganking is a form of ganking, is it not? Else the word would not be used in that context. Suicide ganking IS ganking. So is hot dropping, so is stupid nullsec blobs, so are massive gate camps, so is smartbombing pods in lowsec (which you also failed to acknowledge as a criminal act because it is detrimental to your argument).
If Physical Science is Science, and Social Science is Science, then Suicide Ganking is Ganking nonetheless. All specific terms are rooted in a common denominator.
You had me convinced until you grouped social science under science. Although it nicely illustrates how the meaning of words can drift over time.
Ayy I already explained that on post 42
But here we are again because the truth doesn’t fit his agenda 
1 Like
Should I have used Natural Science instead? Natural Science and Physical Science mix, so I felt that was inadequate. There are subcategories of Social Science that aren’t considered Science, but don’t tell me Anthropology or Economics is not a science.
I suppose the ultimate question to be posed at this time is this: how are any of these things a bad thing? They are all acceptable forms of game play, both by the administration and a significant population of the playerbase.
Why is this a debate?
If it’s being brought into question at all it’s due to some weird notion that it’s in fact ‘grief play’ which it is not.
1 Like
Anthropology and economics are sciences, of course, but they are not social sciences. Anthropology is a natural science and is more related to biology and archaeology, while economics is more related to mathematics than science.
If you want an example of a social science that even comes remotely close to actual science, you want to look into psychology, and even then, there’s a biology angle at play.
I’m majoring in Psychology, actually.
And math isn’t a science? 
Nope. Science is a method. Mathematics is a tool. The biggest difference is science never actually proves anything, but maths does. It’s not science that proves gravity or that the earth is round or even relativity, it’s always maths.
1 Like
One person saying maths is a science does not make it a science, no matter who that person is. Science explains things, maths proves them, and yes, maths is used in science, but it is not science. Science is a method, maths is a tool.
Do you know what STEM stands for? Why bother distinguishing mathematics from science if it’s the same thing?
In many ways, math is closely related to science, so I can understand the confusion. Mathematics is a scholarly domain, and so the mathematical community works as the scientific community does — mathematicians build on each other’s work and behave in ways that push the discipline forward. This progress contributes to scientific breakthroughs. Mathematics is such a useful tool that science could make few advances without it. However, math and standard sciences, like biology, physics, and chemistry, are distinct in at least one way: how ideas are tested and accepted based on evidence. Math doesn’t rely on testing ideas against evidence from the natural world in the same way that other sciences do. Mathematical ideas are often accepted based on deductive proofs, while ideas in other sciences are generally accepted based on the accumulation of many different observations supporting the idea.
Whether or not other features of math align with those of science depends on one’s philosophical commitments. Does math deal with or aim to explain the natural world? Math certainly seems abstract and removed from the physical world in many ways — yet math does a remarkably good job of describing what happens in the physical world (e.g., the orbits of planets or the path of a bouncing ball). Is math an inherent part of how the universe works, or is it a language we’ve constructed to help us describe that universe? The answers to these questions are a matter of debate. There is, however, a general consensus amongst most modern scholars and academics that maths and science are two different and even distinct things but with parallels.
Mathematics is a technical discipline along with science, absolutely, and it’s used in science. In fact, science would be impossible without it. But math itself is not a science. It’s a tool. Science is methodology and explanation. In fact, I think the best way I’ve heard it described is, math is the language of science.
1 Like
Mathematics originates from Philosophy, and it is the philosophers who wish to deny Mathematics it’s status as a science ever since.
Mathematics has always been a science. And yes, it is the Queen of Sciences, and doesn’t need a confirmation of it when every other science relies on it.
But it’s not just science that relies on it. Engineering, accounting, military strategy, hell, baking and hairdressing too… I could go on. If we’re going to categorise math on what relies on it, then we’re going to have problems.
Everything originates in philosophy, by the way, so that’s a non-point. Philosophy asks the questions, the scientific method answers them, and maths proves the answer. No one is ‘denying’ mathematics any status, either, but to shove it arbitrarily into the category of ‘science’ is to deny it its uniqueness as a scholarly discipline, and that, in my humble opinion, is an intellectual crime.
Exactly, but it’s because philosophers keep denying that Mathematics is a science are they also denying themselves the title of being the Master of all Sciences. Instead, do they believe to co-exist along other sciences, when we all know they’re more than that and that they are the root of it all.
Which ‘philosophers’ are denying maths as a science? And why should that have any bearing on what maths actually is? Also, don’t capitalise common nouns, it’s really dumb. It’s not Mathematics, it’s mathematics.
If your argument is ‘maths is a science’ using the broadest dictionary definition of ‘science’ as “any body of knowledge organised in a systematic way” then yes, maths is a science. So is baking, and hairdressing, and accounting though. But if you’re stating maths is a science the same way cosmology, physics, or chemistry are, then you’re just wrong.
That’s a silly question, isn’t it? What it actually is… Things are, because of us. Only because we see meaning in it do things become meaningful. To ask what Mathematics actually is, is dependent on us and what meaning we choose to give to it. It is then not a science to some philosophers, who base their decision on their own definition, and so to deny Mathematics it’s status of a science. Mathematics is as real as a science as the dispute created by Philosophers.
It’s a bit like the discussion on Pluto and if it is or isn’t a planet. Most people never had nor ever will have a problem with it being a planet and so for many it still is a planet. It’s only because a few people had a grievance with it and couldn’t come up with a definition, which included Pluto, was it later decided to change it’s status. For most people is Pluto still a planet, and when people talk about our planets do they still talk about Pluto. Pluto then hasn’t changed. And those who have a grievance with it got their new definition now.
No, things are what they are because that’s what they are, regardless of us. We interpret them using mathematics and science. But what you just said amounts to “how we categorise mathematics is subjective”, and if we’re going to go there, then it’s all arbitrary and irrelevant anyway. Which we know it’s not, because some fields of study are more valuable than others, and some are so useless that they shouldn’t be given the time of day. But if it’s all subjective and arbitrary, then anything goes, and we won’t be having that if we want to make technological and scientific progress.
So no, Pluto isn’t a planet, it’s a dwarf planet, because we have a strict definition for the label of planet now, especially after discovering Kuiper Belt objects much larger than Pluto, like Eris for example. It doesn’t matter what a few scientifically illiterate people want to believe, Pluto isn’t a planet, the Earth isn’t flat nor the centre of the solar system, and water doesn’t have memory. Your line of argument would have us giving as much merit to pseudoscience as real science, and that’s not happening amongst anyone with a grain of intellectual honesty or credibility.
Pluto hasn’t changed. We were just wrong about it before, and adjusted our definitions to be more accurate about how we talk about it. Because that’s how learning works.
Fun fact: Charon technically isn’t even a moon of Pluto, since it shares a barycentre with Pluto and they technically orbit each other as a binary pair.
Another fun fact: ‘mathematics’ isn’t a name, it’s a common noun, so please stop capitalising it in the middle of a sentence, it’s dumb.
Seriously, Whitehound, stop being contrarian for its own sake. I’m done here. I’ve provided you with explanations and what you do with them is your problem now. I just spent almost a decade of my life writing articles for Australasian Science and frankly, I’m tired of arguing with scientific illiterates with post-modernism on their tiny brains so my patience on these topics is very thin, and I’ll not be doing the rounds with you any further on this.
No. They are what we say they are and it’s because of us. Your definition of what Mathematics is also not your own. It was given to you by Philosophers and now you only repeat it.
You also misunderstand my point with Pluto being a planet. Well, in a sense have you made a compromise when you call it a “dwarf planet”. Or rather have you accepted a compromise made by others who decided to call it a dwarf planet. It wasn’t your idea to call it that.
My point is that one could have created a definition for what a planet is, to be wide enough to include Pluto, as well as open up room for more planets. Instead, was it decided to close that chapter and to create new naming conventions.
And yes, the world is for many people still flat and no matter how many times you tell people that the Earth is round will they continue going on with their business as if the world was flat. The Earth not being flat has an astonishing little effect on people actually. It doesn’t make them dumb. It makes those people dumb who think everyone needs to know about it and that those who don’t care for it must be dumb.