|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 06/14/2005 : 16:46:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
If we say that science rightly grasps at the truth from the material-fact side of things, then we might say that philosophy and (personal) religion grasps at the truth from the mind-meaning and spirit-value side of things.
What is unacceptable to me, personally, is the proposition that reality is nothing more than material-fact. Of course, ideal science doesn't claim that, so I don't have a problem with ideal science.
All science, not just "ideal" science, deals stictly with what you term material fact since all we can know of reality is material fact. Reality actually may very well be entirely limited to the material. We really have no reason to believe otherwise.
Some may needlessly speculate that there exists a meta-reality of a spiritual nature, but that is classified as faith, and not at all related to logic, reason, burdens of proof or the scientific method. Without such restrictions, faith derived from philosophy and personal religion grasps at things beyond anyone's reach. I wouldn't label whatever they claim to get a hold of as "truth" of any kind.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 06/14/2005 17:42:57 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 19:15:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Actually, it is just fine with me. I don't expect science to have answers to questions like that. If we say that science rightly grasps at the truth from the material-fact side of things, then we might say that philosophy and (personal) religion grasps at the truth from the mind-meaning and spirit-value side of things.
Well, when you assert things like that life can only be created by supermaterial beings which science can't detect, there's obviously some sort of cross-over taking place. If the "mind-meaning" and "spirit-value" questions only get answered where science admits it cannot go, then their realms get smaller and smaller as time goes by and scientists find more and more answers to ever more-complex problems. Right now we know of no way to look at anything "before" the Big Bang, but as you well know, science has done some outstanding things in the last century which were previously thought impossible. I suppose the "mind-meaning" and "spirit-value" epistemologies are subordinate to science, in that regard, in that where science treads, they back off.quote:
What is unacceptable to me, personally, is the proposition that reality is nothing more than material-fact. Of course, ideal science doesn't claim that, so I don't have a problem with ideal science.
Along with H., I don't know of any sort of science which claims otherwise, "ideal" or not. Perhaps you're thinking of individual people who might make such claims? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 19:28:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What is unacceptable to me, personally, is the proposition that reality is nothing more than material-fact. Of course, ideal science doesn't claim that, so I don't have a problem with ideal science.
No science claims that, ideal or otherwise (as a few others have already pointed out). In fact, the ONLY people I have ever heard make that claim about science of any kind, are those who are deliberately slandering science and its methods.
There is also the matter of evidence. Philosophy and religion are severely lacking in the material evidence department. And, I suspect, they will always remain so. Why bother to seek answers when you can just claim you already have them?
quote:
Posted by H.H. All science, not just "ideal" science, deals stictly with what you term material fact since all we can know of reality is material fact. Reality actually may very well be entirely limited to the material. We really have no reason to believe otherwise.
Some may needlessly speculate that there exists a meta-reality of a spiritual nature, but that is classified as faith, and not at all related to logic, reason, burdens of proof or the scientific method. Without such restrictions, faith derived from philosophy and personal religion grasps at things beyond anyone's reach. I wouldn't label whatever they claim to get a hold of as "truth" of any kind.
Well said.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 02:30:35 [Permalink]
|
Am I missing something here? What exactly, is 'ideal' science?
Science is a method(s) of seeking information and ultimatly achieving answers, neither more nor less. It is either proper procedure or improper; Albert Einstein or Fleishman & Pons.
I do not think that we get to choose an 'ideal' science. We may not like the results of some study or other, but if those results were arrived at and verified in good order, then we're stuck with it and we'll just have to muddle through somehow.
To me, ideal science is correct science, whatever the research.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 05:37:22 [Permalink]
|
Sounds to me to be another case of the god-of-the-gaps...
Can you imagine what science will have found in
10 years?
100 years?
1000 years?
...
No? Neither can I...but I put good money down it will be very interesting  |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 06/15/2005 05:40:41 |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 18:36:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
All science, not just "ideal" science, deals stictly with what you term material fact since all we can know of reality is material fact.
Yes all science can deal with is material fact, which makes it that much more tempting to declare that all that exists is explanable via material means. Ideal science wouldn't yield to that temptation.
quote:
Reality actually may very well be entirely limited to the material. We really have no reason to believe otherwise.
As long as phenomena exist which are not currently explainable by strictly material means, there is at least some reason to believe otherwise I think.
quote:
Some may needlessly speculate that there exists a meta-reality of a spiritual nature, but that is classified as faith, and not at all related to logic, reason, burdens of proof or the scientific method.
I would put speculation as such in the realm of theology or philosophy. Personal faith, to me anyways, is much more. It is a purposeful driving force towards increasing perfection - godlikeness. And I regard my faith as reasonable, even though I don't expect science to verify it or disprove it.
quote:
Without such restrictions, faith derived from philosophy and personal religion grasps at things beyond anyone's reach. I wouldn't label whatever they claim to get a hold of as "truth" of any kind.
Yet something like 'self consciousness' is a "truth" which most human beings experience, yet science has very little in terms of material explanation for it. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 18:59:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What is unacceptable to me, personally, is the proposition that reality is nothing more than material-fact. Of course, ideal science doesn't claim that, so I don't have a problem with ideal science.quote:
Along with H., I don't know of any sort of science which claims otherwise, "ideal" or not. Perhaps you're thinking of individual people who might make such claims?
Yes some more outspoken scientists may outright make such claims. But it seems to me that there are more which seem itching to do so yet are restrained by a certain etiquette. :)
The actual practise of science by people is a merger of science and the scientist, and that may yield less than ideal science. For instance as humans we have a tendency to both look for and see what we are conditioned to see, so objectivity can suffer even doing science.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 19:08:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
What about the "mind-meaning" and "spirit-values" of the gaps, markie?
Science in an enlightening civilization is thankfully proving lethal to age old superstitions, but I hardly think it is diminishing anything in the mind-meaning and spirit-value department, if that's what you're thinking of?
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2005 : 19:49:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yes all science can deal with is material fact, which makes it that much more tempting to declare that all that exists is explanable via material means. Ideal science wouldn't yield to that temptation.
Yet "ideal" science wouldn't give any consideration to unevidenced claims. It would toss such things into the compost heap where they belong.
Again again,... The word "supernatural" (and by extension your "supermaterial") are meaning-free terms. If something can interact with the universe around us, then it is (by definition) a part of that universe.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2005 : 09:46:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
The actual practise of science by people is a merger of science and the scientist, and that may yield less than ideal science. For instance as humans we have a tendency to both look for and see what we are conditioned to see, so objectivity can suffer even doing science.
Which is precisely why we never base conclusions on a single experiment, or even a set of experiments by the same person. Instead, we rely on repetition of results from multiple, independent sources and upon peer review, especially from critics within the right field.
It's a good thing that scientists compete against one another for both prestige and grant money. Finding problems with other people's work is what drives scientific progress, and fighting over limited resources drives the discovery of those problems. After all, if every scientist were fully funded at all times, there'd be no reason to even try to tear down one's neighbors.
And yet, even given the competition inherent in the system, we find millions of scientists agreeing that some things are as close to factual as we'll probably ever be able to know. There exists no serious competitive theory to the Big Bang, not because scientists are all in cahoots about it, or in denial of some "supermaterial influences," but because they cannot honestly punch holes in the theory. Same with evolution, gravity, electron theory, quantum mechanics, and any other long-standing theory there is. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2005 : 10:32:23 [Permalink]
|
| [to add]...until such time as repeatable evidence comes along which will change our understanding of those things while incorporating all other known evidence on the subject. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2005 : 06:11:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mark
Yes all science can deal with is material fact, which makes it that much more tempting to declare that all that exists is explanable via material means. Ideal science wouldn't yield to that temptation.
quote:
replies Dude:
Yet "ideal" science wouldn't give any consideration to unevidenced claims. It would toss such things into the compost heap where they belong.
And here we are surrounded by things like life and consciousness, truly bizarre features in a universe, still unexplained by any known laws of physics, which don't comprise evidence of something more?
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Again again,... The word "supernatural" (and by extension your "supermaterial") are meaning-free terms. If something can interact with the universe around us, then it is (by definition) a part of that universe.
Yes,yes, of course it is part of the universe. The idea is the real objective universe is much more than which intersects with the tiny little probe of current scientific enquiry.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2005 : 06:52:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
writes Dave
And yet, even given the competition inherent in the system, we find millions of scientists agreeing that some things are as close to factual as we'll probably ever be able to know. There exists no serious competitive theory to the Big Bang, not because scientists are all in cahoots about it, or in denial of some "supermaterial influences," but because they cannot honestly punch holes in the theory. Same with evolution, gravity, electron theory, quantum mechanics, and any other long-standing theory there is.
I certainly agree that such a 'survival of the fittest' way of 'theory selection' is a great thing in the evolution of science. And it may be true (I'm not sure actually) that there is currently no promising alternative theory to the Big Bang theory. But there are major problems with the theory, holes if you will. Heck there are problems with Quantum Theory which otherwise has been incredibly succcessful.
One of the reasons of our incessant probing in science is because we are not satified with what we know, currently. And rightly so.
I seriously question the predominant mindset that what we currently understand is fundamentally correct, that it just needs some fine tuning. The problems in current even mainstream theory are too profound for that. Newtonian physics does a very fine job in successfully describing much of what we observe. But no scientist today would state that it is not lacking in profound ways, something which relativity theory and quantum theory rescue it from at least to some degree.
Similarly, it is not hard to extrapolate that there are profound shortcomings in quantum theory and relativity. What is lacking of course are robust alternatives, although string theory is a nice try. Anyways, for this and other reasons, I stake little confidence in a big bang theory, personally.
I think I'll draw my contributions to this thread and Occam's razor to a close but hope to continue on other threads as time permits.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2005 : 09:10:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I certainly agree that such a 'survival of the fittest' way of 'theory selection' is a great thing in the evolution of science. And it may be true (I'm not sure actually) that there is currently no promising alternative theory to the Big Bang theory. But there are major problems with the theory, holes if you will. Heck there are problems with Quantum Theory which otherwise has been incredibly succcessful.
What exactly do you think we pay scientists for? To sit around and do nothing? We have scientists because we want to find out more about the world we know, to find out more evidence, for or against, these theories.
Quantum theory is relatively new to the science field and a very fuzzy one at that. Many things it in are theoretical just because it is so damn hard to find ways to test them. These aren't holes so much as they are unknowns. Do you expect Quantum theory to be introduced and proven, all in a few years? Science takes time, you must be patient.
As for the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang, what do you mean by holes? Sure, there is plenty that we don't know about them. But that doesn't mean they are wrong, just unknown. That is again, why we still pay scientists to do their job, to find out more. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 06/18/2005 09:11:06 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
