|
|
Post by Philip II of Macedon on Jul 14, 2016 1:55:43 GMT
Science is more important... but history is more interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Jul 14, 2016 2:34:11 GMT
Science is more important... but history is more interesting. But without a record of scientific research and mistakes, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have science. So I say that in a roundabout way, history is the essential foundation of which science builds upon. Ironically, I'm the opposite of you. I enjoyed science more than history, but I vote for history being more important. |
|
|
|
Post by Singlemalt on Jul 14, 2016 14:00:19 GMT
I dont agree science cant be done without history. Balancing on the frontiers of science the history is handy but you can discover things without knowing the past... Some discoveries were made by people not even knowing they discover something...
Stay in the past without making progress is the worst and you will easily be destroyed by changes in environment or by other populations who do evolve...
The balance between past and science is ofc the best..
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2016 14:14:47 GMT
I dont agree science cant be done without history. Balancing on the frontiers of science the history is handy but you can discover things without knowing the past... Some discoveries were made by people not even knowing they discover something... Stay in the past without making progress is the worst and you will easily be destroyed by changes in environment or by other populations who do evolve... The balance between past and science is ofc the best.. That is why there is balance |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Jul 14, 2016 18:56:06 GMT
I dont agree science cant be done without history. Balancing on the frontiers of science the history is handy but you can discover things without knowing the past... Some discoveries were made by people not even knowing they discover something... Stay in the past without making progress is the worst and you will easily be destroyed by changes in environment or by other populations who do evolve... The balance between past and science is ofc the best.. Okay then without a recording of the discovery, you cannot pass on the discovery to future generations. This benefit is the essential function of history, to help teaching the future about what happened in the past. That's why I would say it's not possible to have scientific progress without history (I meant that as a broad concept, a very broad one, sorry). And what you said, I agree with the optimum being a balanced approach to both the future and the past. |
|
|
|
Post by Von Bismarck jr on Jul 14, 2016 21:37:01 GMT
True, they want to make mammoths again i think. Edit: Somehow be able to have a mammoth be alive again. Indeed they are resurrecting extinct animals Extinct animals, eh? What about DEAD HUMANS?!?! THE RETURN OF BISMARCK!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Philip II of Macedon on Jul 14, 2016 22:30:32 GMT
Indeed they are resurrecting extinct animals Extinct animals, eh? What about DEAD HUMANS?!?! THE RETURN OF BISMARCK!!! Resurrect Monty :D |
|
