|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Sai:
The goal of philosophy isn't to arrive at truth.
Experimentation relies upon sense organs, which
are faulty. Hence, science comes no closer to
knowing the truth. There isn't a 'hierarchy
of truth.' There is true, and not true. The
only thing that can be close to the truth is
THE TRUTH which is so obviously right, doubting
it only proves how right the truth is. Because
of this, science is just as flawed as philosophy
for finding truth..
Jim:
Re the goal of philosophy: Ayer, I believe,
said something along that lines that the enterprise
of philosophy should be restricted to classifying
things that can be verified. That sounds reasonable
to me, but on the other hand I find discussing
metaphysics can be enlightening, or at least
more lighthearted.
Re experimentation: experiments help to refine
our models of how the Universe ticks, and inspire
new models of nature and disprove existing models.
The accuracy of experimental apparatus, rather
than our own imperfect senses, limits what experiments
can tell us. But, like our senses, experimental
apparatus are never perfect. All experiments
have their limits. Worse, quantum mechanics
and Chaos Theory place fundamental theoretical
limits on what can be known from conducting
experiments.
I think that we can zoom in on the truth. For
example, what is the truth about the nature
of gravity? Newton's theory of gravity is correct
for bodies of smallish mass travelling at low
speeds which are separated by large distances.
Einstein's general relativity agrees with Newton
in the above scenario and yet is even closer
to physical reality when dealing with bodies
that are either moving very fast or are very
heavy, or both. Relativity describes black holes
more accurately than Newton, for example.
But even relativity cannot describe black holes
perfectly, and it cannot describe microscopic
black holes very well at all. So even Einstein's
General Relativity is probably an approximation
of a hypothesised deeper theory that agrees
yet more accurately with experiment. Maybe this
theory will be absolute, or perhaps there is
an endless hierarchy of theories, like layers
of an infinite onion. This theory hierarchy
of theories might not be a hierarchy of truth,
but it is a hierarchy of increasingly accurate
approximations to the truth.
Because experiments assist in weeding out bad
theories, science has the advantage to pure
philosophy in some areas. For example philosophers
have been much less successful than scientists
at providing profound insights into nature of
physical entities like time, space and the Universe.
Science has usurped these subjects from the
philosophers.
Sai:
I propose the point of philosophy as 'A tool
that a person is capable of using to awaken
themselves so that they can realize that they
are incapable of being awaken.'
Russell pointed out very well that any time
philosophy starts to get answers on things,
it becomes defined a science. Generally, putting
things into categories is a bad thing.
For me, the ability to fool our senses bothers
me greatly. Any study of an atom presupposes
the existence of the atom, the existence of
the equipment, the existence of the scientists
studying it, blah blah blah.
There is a name of the error that occurs whenever
something is measured. I can't remember what
it is now....
I am bothered by the way science makes 'laws'
and then disproves other experiments by 'It
would violate the law of...'
One of the nice little problems I have with
science is the way it is taught AS TRUTH. The
only thing that wasn't taught as truth in my
life has been the origins of the universe and
the human species (two different professors)
I consider it bad when I am sitting in science
class discussing something and I realize that
everything we have 'learned' the past hour has
been complete speculation.
Also, there is that nice thing with Occkam's
Razor. When turned back on science and religion,
there is a too much room to say 'religion answers
this problem most accurately.' The entire thing
is too vague.
Please, don't start me on that 'time is a dimension'
bullshit.
Science to me is very much like organized religion.
You have the person that has this 'incredible
insight' into a problem, they preach their word,
are accepted or rejected, and then down the
line people look back on the person saying 'they
were RIGHT'
Science is in need of a paradigm shift. Badly.
Jim:
I agree that in science there is often over-resistance
to radical new ideas and change, but the ultimate
test of an enterprise is this: has it been successful?
I would say that science, whist not perfect
(what is?) is incredibly successful (It is giving
us an increasingly good understanding of the
Earth, planets, sun, stars, galaxies and the
Universe its self; it has given us technology;
it is giving us novel ideas about the ultimate
nature of reality; it is providing us with new
materials, transport and increasingly effective
medical treatments.
The benefits of science is taken for granted
by the very people who attack it. A world without
science would be akin to The Dark Ages, where
life expectancy and standards of living are
incredibly low by our standards. People who
attack science attack it whist benefiting from
the advances science has brought. There are
few Westerners who don't use computers and cars,
let alone electricity!
Scientists do not claim truth. They claim to
be trying to approach it. If we can model nature
with mathematics that matches experiment, then
we are on to something. Even if that mathematics
might not be the truth it provides insight into
how nature works. For example Einstein showed
that the maximum speed limit of anything travelling
through space, the speed of light, is deeply
connected to the geometry of space and time.
This, when Einstein proposed it, was utterly
radical. Yet his ideas were accepted quite quickly
once experiment backed him up. I hate to say
this, I studied the mathematics of relativity
and it does seem to imply that time is dimension-like.
If you accept ideas without experiment, then,
as you said, you have phlogiston. Which leads
me to your description of string theory. I understand
string theory is producing predictions that
can be tested within the next five to ten years.
Then we will have a better idea of whether strings
are phlogiston or not :)
[Update - it has since transpired that string theory has failed spectacularly. For a start it is not meaningfully testable. Also the theory of strings has since been thrashed out intensely and has turned out to be a dead end. These days it is peddled by charlatan profs and naive journalists.]
As for science vs. religion there is no contest.
Science wins hands down. Religion offers nothing
except silly myths that, as time goes on, get
destroyed one by one by the mighty axe of science,
for example religion myths proven wrong: the
sun orbits the earth, creationism etc. etc.
ad nauseam.
Sai:
You gave one of the best defenses of science
I have ever heard. I still have a lot of problems
with it, so I will attack it using my 'attack
religion' mode. I will try to be gentle on you
so you don't kill yourself :)
1st, I am really bothered by the number of presuppositions
and vague terms you use in this defense. You
say 'Has it been successful?' and you would
conclude 'yes'. Success is rather vague. If
you ask a Christian, you stand a good chance
of getting 'no, science has condemned the souls
of millions of people' You and this type of
person have different visions of the meaning
of truth, and blah blah.
I don't like the word 'perfect' (bad story)
so lets say 'science is flawed'
You are correct- very few scientists claim to
have truth. Yet, it is presupposed in almost
every aspect of research today, basic claims
of 'scientific knowledge' and all sorts of other
crap they feed us. If scientists would just
be honest and say 'I believe I am right, that
is why I am not going to screw with this further'
then you would have a more accurate representation
of the truth.
You say that science has given us 'an incredibly
good understanding' of the workings of the universe.
How can you know how good it is? You can only
say if it is 'good' or 'bad' if you compare
it to what actually is true. We assume we are
right, so it is well understood because we have
few disagreements within our belief structure
about it. Does that sound really bad to you?
'Good' or 'bad' are actually measurements of
accuracy.
Lets say that what is really happening is some
cosmic beings are pushing the planets around
using gigantic hands of energy which we will
day be able to detect. Our understanding of
what is happening then becomes very inaccurate,
or 'bad' You cannot know accuracy unless you
know truth, hence, success isn't a good measure
of science.
By saying that science has given us technology,
medicines, materials, transport, computers,
ect, ect. You have placed a value on these things
being 'good' which I am unwilling to accept
because I think that good or bad can only be
used to describe the experiences you are in
which allows growth.
I had a friend of mine die in a car accident.
Although very painful and well, he was dead,
it was a tremendously 'good' experience because
it allowed tremendous growth for me. Tech, medicine,
computers- whatever- are merely sedatives to
prevent people from growing. I think we would
be 'better' without them.
I believe it was Rosseau that believed that
mankind's golden age was when we were the most
primative and it has been downhill ever since.
Different values allow you to view things completely
differently.
Mathematics is a language. It has been so strictly
defined that almost everyone agrees upon it.
If you think about it, how do you KNOW that
negative numbers would behave the same way as
a positive number? When you plot something on
a chart, how do you KNOW that it can have two
characteristics that can coexist on the same
chart and still have a meaningful pattern? The
presuppositions on our most strictly defined
language are staggering. People believe it because
they are told to... does that sound like anything
else to you? cough*religion*cough
Einstein showed what? The maximum speed of light?
Wouldn't that be a truth? Has someone travelled
fast enough to show that is the number light
approaches and not something else? Presuppositions.
(actually, there was research done that suggests
that Einstein was wrong about the maximum speed
of light, so it isn't just complete questioning)
Also, your description of how it was accepted
to be a good idea is a description of pack mentality,
something I would not have in the ideal state.
The fact that relativity suggests that time
is a dimension shows just how wrong it is.
My understanding of string theory- scientists
found that using current information, the numbers
did not work out. Hence, WE MUST BE RIGHT, so
something else must be there. The very process
of it is so unscientific, it makes me angry [Sai was correct about String theory being nonsense - Jim. This note added 2009]
when I think about it. It is like saying the
entire universe works on the basis of cream
cheese because you really like cream cheese,
and you can make lots of interesting shit up
about cream cheese but if you stepped back from
it you would realize that you are a babbling
idiot (not 'you' you, just some other you guy
:)
If string theory is ever 'proven' to be correct,
I swear, I am going on a bombing spree.
No, science does not win hands down against
religion. How many souls has science saved in
the past week??????? :)
Personally, science doesn't speak in allegories...
I love allegories... so there is another victory
for religion :)
Also, science doesn't claim to be right, but
religion does. And you said that science ALWAYS
WINS lol
Everything depends on what you value. For me,
the 'wrongness' of religion is just the same
as the 'wrongness' of science, except scientists
tend to have a superiority complex to the blind
sheep.
No, science hasn't proven anything wrong. It
was a view held by intellectuals at the time
that the earth was the center of the universe,
and the intellectuals happened to be mostly
in the church. Actually, with limited knowledge,
earth being the center of the universe seems
to be a VERY GOOD theory, easily observed by
watching the sun move while we are stationary...
Creationism hasn't been disproven. The proof
against creationism is pretty weak actually
and can have several holes blown it in. Evolution
is BAD BAD.
Evolution is unscientific. I don't like it.
(I don't actually like creationism as it stands
either, but I feel some secular version of creationism
stands up better with Occkam's Razor). I will
expand on the dismissal of religion sometime.
Jim
adds
As any genuine scientist will tell you, creationism
is a fairytale. Thanks go to Sai for the debate!
Links:
Back to philosophy
on philosophy page
Add your comment to this page
 | | | | | | From: |
Matt Geuther | Subject: | 2001-05-04 17:38:00 |
| | | | | | From: |
Jessie | Subject: | 2001-09-18 21:10:41 |
| | | | | | From: |
Wu Li | Subject: | 2003-02-22 12:21:47 |
| | | | | | From: |
Brian Teter | Subject: | 2004-07-19 22:14:28 |
| | | | | | From: |
Brian Teter | Subject: | 2004-07-19 22:15:45 |
| | | | |
help: how to add your comment Page hits: 3819
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
