NationStates Jolt Archive

5000 years ago, everyone believed in magic and the supernatural. While such beliefs sound stupid to us today, at that time, they made perfect sense. Somehow, magic appeared to work and people believed in it. It answered their questions and gave them a sense of control over the universe.

Now we believe in logic and science and scoff at the idea that the immaterial exists (unless you are Christian). We have a new worldview with its own rules and reasoning that everyone believes. It also answers our questions and gives us a sense of control over the universe.

I think that in another 5000 years (assuming something bad doesn't happen), science will be replaced by some new world view and we will look back on it as nonsense. What do you think?

Science isn't an absolutist method, and no scientist will say it is. It is dynamic, questionable, theoretical, and constantly challenged. There is no faith in science, unless you're talking about the kind of "science" that non-scientists seem to think is in place.

well, we look at the ancient science as being rediculous... i mean, who thinks that everything being made of earth, fire, water and air is a good idea? who thinks there's an ether?

however, the science of today is based on experiment and observation, while the science of the ancients was mostly based on thought esperiments that went untested. while it's quite possible that our science may be looked upon as primitive, i think it will at least be a foundation upon which future science is built.

TBH, its all about the scientific method ftw.

Science isn't an absolutist method, and no scientist will say it is. It is dynamic, questionable, theoretical, and constantly challenged. There is no faith in science, unless you're talking about the kind of "science" that non-scientists seem to think is in place.

It requires faith in determinist and materialist assumptions. The possibility immaterial or uncaused forces being involved would make the scientific method useless.

well, we look at the ancient science as being rediculous... i mean, who thinks that everything being made of earth, fire, water and air is a good idea? who thinks there's an ether?

How do you know that we won't find something that overturns everything we thought?

well, there's a reason we call everything a theory nowadays. scientific laws aren't really made anymore. every new theory is tested and tested until beyond the point where a reasonable person would think it's a universal constant, and if there's one observation that contradicts the curent theory, it must be abaondoned or modified. that is how science works. one is hopeful that one has a theory that is true, but must be willing to abaondon it at any moment.

and yes, science does depend on empirical evidence, but what reason do we have to think that empirical evidence is misleading? there is no reason to assume there are immaterial forces working on everyday objects, so why add them in for the hell of it? that simply doesn't make sense.

well, there's a reason we call everything a theory nowadays. scientific laws aren't really made anymore. every new theory is tested and tested until beyond the point where a reasonable person would think it's a universal constant, and if there's one observation that contradicts the curent theory, it must be abaondoned or modified. that is how science works. one is hopeful that one has a theory that is true, but must be willing to abaondon it at any moment.

It is based on the assumptions of materialism and determinism, though, and those require faith.

and yes, science does depend on empirical evidence, but what reason do we have to think that empirical evidence is misleading? there is no reason to assume there are immaterial forces working on everyday objects, so why add them in for the hell of it? that simply doesn't make sense.

I say there's no reason to believe that there are material objects. What do you see? A computer? No, what you really see is the image of a computer in your mind.

I agree that science has become a new magic or perhaps even dogma for the current era.

The trouble with this is that science can only really serve in a descriptive capacity. It can say nothing about the purpose, meaning, or value of the processes it describes. I have seen it used by some as an excuse for amorality, subjectivism, and/or nihilism but we have to remember that empirical science by its very nature precludes the opportunity to quantify those things that supersede nature. We forget, too, that science is the finite product of finite minds. It is useful and to be admired, no doubt, but we can never forget that it is inherently flawed. Being inherently flawed, it is dangerous to put all of one's faith upon it and close one's mind to all else when in fact it should be treated only as a single facet of the human experience.

A pair of questions.

Why should faith preclude science?

Why should science preclude faith?

It requires faith in determinist and materialist assumptions. The possibility immaterial or uncaused forces being involved would make the scientific method useless... I say there's no reason to believe that there are material objects. What do you see? A computer? No, what you really see is the image of a computer in your mind.

That's why religion is not related to science, nor can it be. Duh. There is no determinism in science, unlike you think. Science is only a way of making generalizations based on observations. Nothing more, period. As for materialism, there IS a computer. It doesn't matter if it is an "actual" manifestation of reality, or a mere mental construct -either way, it is as real as anything will ever be. Its potentially metaphysical nature is absolutely irrelevant to science, because science only attempts to answer those questions it CAN answer.


How do you know that we won't find something that overturns everything we thought?

Science accounts for it, nay, expects it. Stop imagining that science is something it's not. Newtonian gravity is considered, even today, to have been 100% correct when it was formulated, because science is about figuring out as much as we can with our limited abilities. Everybody knows that nothing is objective. You're way off.

It is based on the assumptions of materialism and determinism, though, and those require faith.

how does it require faith? because i believe that this table is not just a figment of my imagination?
please, i had enough of descartes and the other rationalists last year in my philosophy class. there is no reason to doubt that there are material substances. as for determinism, i have no clue where you're going with that one...

I say there's no reason to believe that there are material objects. What do you see? A computer? No, what you really see is the image of a computer in your mind.

i see, you're playing the matrix game. well done, how very original.

why is there any reason to doubt that the computer exists? if i bring in my friends, they will all agree that there is a computer there, so unless you're going to say that everything is a figment of my imagination and i'm arguing with another aspect of myself, then no dice.

That's why religion is not related to science, nor can it be. Duh. There is no determinism in science, unlike you think. Science is only a way of making generalizations based on observations. Nothing more, period. As for materialism, there IS a computer. It doesn't matter if it is an "actual" manifestation of reality, or a mere mental construct -either way, it is as real as anything will ever be. It's potentially metaphysical nature is absolutely irrelevant to science, because science only attempts to answer those questions it CAN answer.

If determinism isn't true, then experiments are useless because there isn't any way to be sure that the effect really is the result of a cause. Experiments require one cause to have one corresponding effect after it. It requires materialism, as well, because it has proposed a model of the universe based on material objects like atoms and assumes they exist objectively.

Science accounts for it, nay, expects it. Stop imagining that science is something it's not. Newtonian gravity is considered, even today, to have been 100% correct when it was formulated, because science is about figuring out as much as we can with our limited abilities. Everybody knows that nothing is objective. You're way off.

Even logic, the sacred cow of scientists, is subjective?

how does it require faith? because i believe that this table is not just a figment of my imagination?
please, i had enough of descartes and the other rationalists last year in my philosophy class. there is no reason to doubt that there are material substances. as for determinism, i have no clue where you're going with that one...

There are plenty of reasons to doubt the existance of material objects. Have you ever seen one? No, and you can't. You can only see the image in your mind.

i see, you're playing the matrix game. well done, how very original.

why is there any reason to doubt that the computer exists? if i bring in my friends, they will all agree that there is a computer there, so unless you're going to say that everything is a figment of my imagination and i'm arguing with another aspect of myself, then no dice.

I'm not saying a collection of properties and perceptions you call a computer doesn't exist. I'm saying that it isn't a material object.

Of course logic is subjective. We are subjective creatures. We can only approach objectivity, never truly embrace it.


If determinism isn't true, then experiments are useless because there isn't any way to be sure that the effect really is the result of a cause... it has proposed a model of the universe based on material objects like atoms and assumes they exist objectively.

The assumption of the existence of atoms, or anything else, is well-known to be simply an assumption. It's called pragmatism. We can sit around and theorize for our entire lives about what might or might not be the true nature of the universe, picking and choosing from an infinite number of unrelated and unsubstantiated theories(as there is no limiting constraint), and never coming any closer to the truth as a result. Or, alternatively, we can sit down and record those things which *SEEM* to have certain specific results, and accept the fact that even if these assumptions are later proven untrue to some capacity, they have helped us to live our lives on a daily basis, and have brought us closer to OUR "truth" -in the sense that we will never be able to find out whether or not this apparent universe is the "real" truth or not, and we can only live within the universe we are able to perceive.

It requires faith in determinist and materialist assumptions. The possibility immaterial or uncaused forces being involved would make the scientific method useless.



How do you know that we won't find something that overturns everything we thought?

1) there is no such thing as "The scientific method". try reading up on it.
2) There have been no observations of immaterial or uncaused forces that influence the world, so it is reasonable to assume they don't exist.
3) One has to assume the world to be deterministic in some way in order to try to use what he has observed for his own good.
example: If a caveman sees a wooden house that does not collaps and after studying it he builds an (exact) copy of it, he assumes that it will not collaps. This is only a correct assumption when you assume the world to be deterministic.

If determinism isn't true, then experiments are useless because there isn't any way to be sure that the effect really is the result of a cause. Experiments require one cause to have one corresponding effect after it. It requires materialism, as well, because it has proposed a model of the universe based on material objects like atoms and assumes they exist objectively.

why the hell do i have to go through this shit with every non-scientist.

ok, look, is there any reason to doubt that you said ow because i smacked you upside the head? me hitting you caused the nerves in the bacl of your head to fire, sending a signal to the part of your brain receptive to pain which causes you to realise that you're hurt and as a result, you say "ow" cause and effect. you act like no one has ever observed one thing happening that in turn causes another thing to happen. if i release my hairbrush, it will be gravitationally attracted to the centre of the earth resulting in it falling to the floor. we can measure the effect of gravity on my hairbrush if you'd like, let's get a scale and weigh it.

anyways, we can observe cause and effect, we can make computer simulations demonstrating the cause and effect. we've got models of how solar systems are created programmed into computers using the current theories and the forces we think are in use and they match the observations of the birth of stars perfectly. while it is possible that some unseen hand is there making it all appear to be this or that, it is unlikely and requires more faith to believe in than it does to consider those things to be the result of natural forces.

as for everything existing, well, again, we can see atoms, using electron microscopes, we can see atoms. we can detect them in other ways as well, similarly for subatomic particles. we can run experiments to observe the particle and wave aspects of an electron. there is no reason to doubt what our senses and instruments are telling us.

Even logic, the sacred cow of scientists, is subjective?

again, if you knew anything about science, you would know that it's not just abotu logical, linear thinking. there is a lot of abstract, intuitive, spatial thinking going on as well. if logic is anyone's sacred cow, it's the so called objetivists.

again, before you go about making these idiotic rationalist claims about science, i suggest you take a course in it somewhere beyond the scope of highschool, which in reality teaches you nothing.

There are plenty of reasons to doubt the existance of material objects. Have you ever seen one? No, and you can't. You can only see the image in your mind.

and what reason do i have to doubt my mind? even descartes came up with some for this, you should be able to think of something.

I'm not saying a collection of properties and perceptions you call a computer doesn't exist. I'm saying that it isn't a material object.

what evidence do you have to prove that it isn't a material object?

i have a couple to prove that it is. if i put something on my computer, it doesn't fall right through, i can touch it, see it, hold it, press buttons on it causing different things to happen on the monitor if i put it on a scale i could determine its mass, i can measure it with a ruler. i know vaguely how it works... and since you've yet to give me a reason to doubt my senses.

man, i like you much better when your'e an anarchist than when you're trying to be a rationalist.

why the hell do i have to go through this shit with every non-scientist.

Because I know how to question sacred cows, too.

ok, look, is there any reason to doubt that you said ow because i smacked you upside the head? me hitting you caused the nerves in the bacl of your head to fire, sending a signal to the part of your brain receptive to pain which causes you to realise that you're hurt and as a result, you say "ow" cause and effect. you act like no one has ever observed one thing happening that in turn causes another thing to happen. if i release my hairbrush, it will be gravitationally attracted to the centre of the earth resulting in it falling to the floor. we can measure the effect of gravity on my hairbrush if you'd like, let's get a scale and weigh it.

That's your deterministic, materialistic interpretation of it. My interpretation is of one person acting out of hate and another person perceiving pain.

again, if you knew anything about science, you would know that it's not just abotu logical, linear thinking. there is a lot of abstract, intuitive, spatial thinking going on as well. if logic is anyone's sacred cow, it's the so called objetivists.

again, before you go about making these idiotic rationalist claims about science, i suggest you take a course in it somewhere beyond the scope of highschool, which in reality teaches you nothing.

It is scientists, not me, that hold logic in such high regard. I really don't see it as anything more than a social construct.

1) there is no such thing as "The scientific method". try reading up on it.
2) There have been no observations of immaterial or uncaused forces that influence the world, so it is reasonable to assume they don't exist.
3) One has to assume the world to be deterministic in some way in order to try to use what he has observed for his own good.
example: If a caveman sees a wooden house that does not collaps and after studying it he builds an (exact) copy of it, he assumes that it will not collaps. This is only a correct assumption when you assume the world to be deterministic.

Uncaused forces include choice, unless you don't believe we have free will. One has to assume that the world isn't deterministic for freedom and morality to exist.

To correct on a couple points, Christians aren't the only ones who believe there are things 'immaterial,' and, actually, the concept of an 'aether' has returned in a new way, if you look into brane theory and quantum physics.

Not quite the same as the old 'luminiferous aether' theory, but pretty close. :)

Science is a method and a body of observation, not a belief system.

When it *becomes* a belief, say, that the observable universe is all that really exists, as many people get the impression, then it ceases to be science in its truest form: really, science can only *deal* with what can be observed, directly or indirectly.

This view of 'science' can be where we get pseudosciences like 'Creation science' ...the belief that science is based on picking a belief system by authority and setting out to prove it is kind of a perversion of the function of hypothesis and theory: if people, for instance had decided that Newtonian physics was a sacred cow, we wouldn't have televisions, for instance.

and what reason do i have to doubt my mind? even descartes came up with some for this, you should be able to think of something.

You're the one who prides themselves on being a skeptic. It is odd that you don't take it all the way and question whether material objects themselves exist.

what evidence do you have to prove that it isn't a material object?

None. What evidence do you have to prove that it is a material object?

i have a couple to prove that it is. if i put something on my computer, it doesn't fall right through, i can touch it, see it, hold it, press buttons on it causing different things to happen on the monitor if i put it on a scale i could determine its mass, i can measure it with a ruler. i know vaguely how it works... and since you've yet to give me a reason to doubt my senses.

It's not your senses that are at fault, it's your interpretation of them that is.

man, i like you much better when your'e an anarchist than when you're trying to be a rationalist.

I don't believe in reason as anything other than a social construct that will one day be abandoned as magic has been.

Uncaused forces include choice, unless you don't believe we have free will. One has to assume that the world isn't deterministic for freedom and morality to exist.

Aha, you fell into the trap. (not a trap i set out, but a trap indeed)
choice is not a force. Neurobiology is the way to explain how people think.

Free will in a deterministic world:
the thoughts of a person are caused by the deterministic process in the brain and are therefore set out in advance. If the future is set out to be, that does not make our will 'unfree'. (i don't feel like typing from my philosophy course at the moment, but i will do when required; for now i'll just satisfy myself with free will in an indeterministic world)

Free will in an indeterministic world:

How can you be free in an indeterministic world? In such a world, one can think A one moment, don't exist on another moment, think B a second later and turn into a purple whale an hour later. One can not reason as there is no certainty that the next moment you will still know what you said a milisecond ago or that you will even exist. So i ask you: how can you assume indeterminisme to be required for us to have a free will?

Because I know how to question sacred cows, too.

no, possibly because you don't demonstrate a knowledge of the basics of modern science, like many non-scientists. seriously, what is your scientific background? i ask not to put you down, but because how can you honestly think that you can question something you have no knowledge of? it's like saying that the bible is a stupid book without ever having read it.

That's your deterministic, materialistic interpretation of it. My interpretation is of one person acting out of hate and another person perceiving pain.

oh please, i don't hate you, dont' give yourself that much credit.
but the point is that you perceive pain because the nerve cells transmitted the information to your brain. and your cells transmitted the pain signal because i hit you. had i not hit you, you wouldn't have felt pain from that.

It is scientists, not me, that hold logic in such high regard. I really don't see it as anything more than a social construct.

and again, i say that science is not built entirely on logic, that there is more abstract, intuitive, theoretical guesswork that goes into it, especially once you start to get into complex sciences, take quantum mechanics, it is a very illogical and counterintuitive theory and yet it corroborates the observations, thus is a vaild theory.

Uncaused forces include choice, unless you don't believe we have free will. One has to assume that the world isn't deterministic for freedom and morality to exist.

ok, i make a choice, you make a choice, an electron doesn't make a choice. nor does a dust cloud being compressed and spun up into a star. inanimate objects make choices. also, choice is not a force. there are four principle forces, gravitation, electromagnetic, strong and weak. then there are applied forces, frictional forces, buoynat forces et c. choice is not a force.

although one could say that it was my life experiences that caused me to make such a choice, but then my life experiences are a combination of my previous choices and the choices others have made for me, or the choices that they have made that i can use as an example.

again, you must learn to separate the physical sciences from the life sciences... psychology isn't the same as physics, though they're both sciences.

Because I know how to question sacred cows, too.



....


It is scientists, not me, that hold logic in such high regard. I really don't see it as anything more than a social construct.


The problem is that you're tilting at windmills. You're attacking your perception of science, which is practically Victorian, not science as it is practised.

About a hundred years ago, Goedel (sp?) proved that logical systems must rest on assumptions, so are themselves inherently unprovable using logic alone. His proof stands up in scientific language. But does that mean that logic is useless? No. It's a tool. A very successful one, and one that is rarely used in isolation.

Incidentally, your point about the computer echoes the Idealism of Bishop Berkely about three hundred years ago. A tremendous success socially, but notably unsuccessful in his main aim of disproving Newton and Liebnitz. His Idealism was targetted at Descartes Locke et al, but only stands up through his invokation of God as a universal observer.

Damn, Letila got served.

You're the one who prides themselves on being a skeptic. It is odd that you don't take it all the way and question whether material objects themselves exist.

because i have no reason to belive that tehy do not exist. you haven't even tried to give me any.

None. What evidence do you have to prove that it is a material object?

sensory experience, instrumental measure, et c.
but then you're assuming that there aren't material objects for no reason.

It's not your senses that are at fault, it's your interpretation of them that is.

says you and berkely. what makes you think you know any better than me? there is no reason to doubt my senses and you still haven't provided me with any. so unless your'e about to claim that either other people don't exist and i'm unknowlingly arguing with myself or that i live in the matrix, then you don't have a leg to stand on. oh, and of course, even if i did exist in the matrix, there are still rules that everything follows, allowing for a consistancy, thus allowing for science to proceed unabated. afterall, if this is all collective imagination at work, then what's the real harm of analysing a dream world that most people think is real?

I don't believe in reason as anything other than a social construct that will one day be abandoned as magic has been.

if that's your prerogative to belive so, then fine, but it's highly unlikely that there is no material world. and if there isn't, then what does it matter so long as it's consistent.

Incidentally, your point about the computer echoes the Idealism of Bishop Berkely about three hundred years ago. A tremendous success socially, but notably unsuccessful in his main aim of disproving Newton and Liebnitz. His Idealism was targetted at Descartes Locke et al, but only stands up through his invokation of God as a universal observer.

hey, i mentioned berkely too... good, that means that i got the right philosopher... i covered six last year in one class and wasn't 100% certain that he was the idealist.

no, possibly because you don't demonstrate a knowledge of the basics of modern science, like many non-scientists. seriously, what is your scientific background? i ask not to put you down, but because how can you honestly think that you can question something you have no knowledge of? it's like saying that the bible is a stupid book without ever having read it.

I do know the basics of modern science. It is a social construct.

oh please, i don't hate you, dont' give yourself that much credit.
but the point is that you perceive pain because the nerve cells transmitted the information to your brain. and your cells transmitted the pain signal because i hit you. had i not hit you, you wouldn't have felt pain from that.

If you believe in determinism and materialism, that is true, but you are assuming they are true.

and again, i say that science is not built entirely on logic, that there is more abstract, intuitive, theoretical guesswork that goes into it, especially once you start to get into complex sciences, take quantum mechanics, it is a very illogical and counterintuitive theory and yet it corroborates the observations, thus is a vaild theory.

A lot of things scientists say are counterintuitive and illogical to Christian fundamentalists, though. What you call illogical is not the same for everyone.

ok, i make a choice, you make a choice, an electron doesn't make a choice. nor does a dust cloud being compressed and spun up into a star. inanimate objects make choices. also, choice is not a force. there are four principle forces, gravitation, electromagnetic, strong and weak. then there are applied forces, frictional forces, buoynat forces et c. choice is not a force.

If you are a collection of atoms that follow the laws of physics and determinism, how can you make a choice?

again, you must learn to separate the physical sciences from the life sciences... psychology isn't the same as physics, though they're both sciences.

Why? They both follow the same assumptions and methods.

Aha, you fell into the trap. (not a trap i set out, but a trap indeed)
choice is not a force. Neurobiology is the way to explain how people think.

And it claims thoughts are based on cause and effect and thus determinism and materialism.

Free will in a deterministic world:
the thoughts of a person are caused by the deterministic process in the brain and are therefore set out in advance. If the future is set out to be, that does not make our will 'unfree'. (i don't feel like typing from my philosophy course at the moment, but i will do when required; for now i'll just satisfy myself with free will in an indeterministic world)

Yes it does. We don't have options according to determinism. We just do what the laws of physics require.

Free will in an indeterministic world:

How can you be free in an indeterministic world? In such a world, one can think A one moment, don't exist on another moment, think B a second later and turn into a purple whale an hour later. One can not reason as there is no certainty that the next moment you will still know what you said a milisecond ago or that you will even exist. So i ask you: how can you assume indeterminism to be required for us to have a free will?

Because your choices aren't set in stone.

Can't remember who said it now, but any science which is sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic. Also a lot of science today is still based on philosophy too, I doubt we will ever work out the secret of the universe as there is always a new deeper level of 'stuff' that we can discover.

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html

About a hundred years ago, Goedel (sp?) proved that logical systems must rest on assumptions, so are themselves inherently unprovable using logic alone. His proof stands up in scientific language. But does that mean that logic is useless? No. It's a tool. A very successful one, and one that is rarely used in isolation.

And doesn't it mean that you need fath to believe science?

Incidentally, your point about the computer echoes the Idealism of Bishop Berkely about three hundred years ago. A tremendous success socially, but notably unsuccessful in his main aim of disproving Newton and Liebnitz. His Idealism was targetted at Descartes Locke et al, but only stands up through his invokation of God as a universal observer.

I know. I hold similar views.

Can't remember who said it now, but any science which is sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic. Also a lot of science today is still based on philosophy too, I doubt we will ever work out the secret of the universe as there is always a new deeper level of 'stuff' that we can discover.

Arthur C. Clark, I think.

A lot of things scientists say are counterintuitive and illogical to Christian fundamentalists, though. What you call illogical is not the same for everyone.


You missed Dakini's point. Quantum physics is pretty damn counter-intuitive and illogical to pretty much everyone who understands it, including scientists. Doesn't stop the theory explaining a lot of stuff. Nor does it stop woking lasers being designed using the theory. So scientists use the model until a better one comes along.

And doesn't it mean that you need fath to believe science?

This I really don't understand. It tries to explain material things on their own terms, and leaves itself open to later questions. That's all it tries to do. Good enough for me on a pragmatic level. Belief only comes in at a metaphysical level.

HERECY burn the thread creator :gundge:

hey, i mentioned berkely too... good, that means that i got the right philosopher... i covered six last year in one class and wasn't 100% certain that he was the idealist.

It's a name to remember. He was a very cool philosopher. Asked some very good questions, but was a couple of hundred years too early to avoid making a hash of the answers. An interesting character, too.

You missed Dakini's point. Quantum physics is pretty damn counter-intuitive and illogical to pretty much everyone who understands it, including scientists. Doesn't stop the theory explaining a lot of stuff. Nor does it stop woking lasers being designed using the theory. So scientists use the model until a better one comes along.

i agree that it is counter-intuitive. Just as theories about relativity.
the counter-intuitivity of non-classical theories is caused by the fact that we live in a world of medium-sized objects with medium masses and at low speeds. In those conditions we developed a sense of intuitivity. And in other conditions, objects behave in other ways than in our conditions.

illogical: I don't really find it illogical yet.

i agree that it is counter-intuitive. Just as theories about relativity.
the counter-intuitivity of non-classical theories is caused by the fact that we live in a world of medium-sized objects with medium masses and at low speeds. In those conditions we developed a sense of intuitivity. And in other conditions, objects behave in other ways than in our conditions.

illogical: I don't really find it illogical yet.
Agreed - the "illogical" was a (really) small rhetorical flourish. My apologies.

I do know the basics of modern science. It is a social construct.

what? and if you know the basics of modern science, then explain the theory of special relativity to me. it's not too difficult or new of a theory to know the basics of.
and if you're unwilling to do that, then enlighten me as to the level of education you've acheived in science.

If you believe in determinism and materialism, that is true, but you are assuming they are true.

i would only have to believe in materialism to know that's how things work. they've done experiments with nerve cells and are quite aware of how they transmit information. if you have some basic biology education, you would be able to tell me the mechanism and i encourage you to do so, as it would demonstrate that you have actually learned something science related and aren't just talking out your ass.
oh, and please refrain from using google, it's all too easy to cheat when no one's watching.

A lot of things scientists say are counterintuitive and illogical to Christian fundamentalists, though. What you call illogical is not the same for everyone.

do you know what quantum mechanics is? do you know what the rules of logic are? logic isn't really subjective, it's like math but with words, well basic math at least. there are set logical rules that one follows and science doesn't adhere to them. quantum mechanics is quite illogical... one electron passing through two silits at the same time, for instance.

If you are a collection of atoms that follow the laws of physics and determinism, how can you make a choice?

well, for one thing, as i said earlier, they don't make laws of physics anymore. they make theories, which are tested ad nauseum and still not declared to be universal.

furthermore, i'm not a psychology major, so i don't sit there and analyse why people make the choices they do. however, i am aware that the future hasn't happened yet and is not written, the choices i make now will affect everything in my life that is to come. for instance, shortly, i will choose to get off my ass and end this pointless debate as i would prefer to get some shopping done. i choose to do this because i want to get the hell out of the house. i don't just arbitrarily make choices for no reason, i have reasons for my choices and i deceide accordingly.

Why? They both follow the same assumptions and methods.[/quiote]

they deal with completely different aspects of the universe. one focuses on non-living matter and the other focuses on the inner consciousness of a person or animals...

[quote]And it claims thoughts are based on cause and effect and thus determinism and materialism.

no, you're getting your sciences mixed up here and personally, i'm gettign very tired of teaching non-scientists about science.

Yes it does. We don't have options according to determinism. We just do what the laws of physics require.

look, for the unteenth time, they don't make laws of physics anymore. they're theories! and also, the only time that theories in physics apply to me are really when i'm moving. as i walk, friction from my feet against the ground allows me to propel myself forward, when i jump, gravity causes me to come back down. physics does not determine how the ions in my brain travel.

what? and if you know the basics of modern science, then explain the theory of special relativity to me. it's not too difficult or new of a theory to know the basics of.
and if you're unwilling to do that, then enlighten me as to the level of education you've acheived in science.

High school, but I don't need to be an expert at science to hold valid philosophical views.

i would only have to believe in materialism to know that's how things work. they've done experiments with nerve cells and are quite aware of how they transmit information. if you have some basic biology education, you would be able to tell me the mechanism and i encourage you to do so, as it would demonstrate that you have actually learned something science related and aren't just talking out your ass.
oh, and please refrain from using google, it's all too easy to cheat when no one's watching.

I know it involves potassium and sodium ions switching places, but I don't know the exact mechanism.

do you know what quantum mechanics is? do you know what the rules of logic are? logic isn't really subjective, it's like math but with words, well basic math at least. there are set logical rules that one follows and science doesn't adhere to them. quantum mechanics is quite illogical... one electron passing through two silits at the same time, for instance.

In other words, it's a social construct.

furthermore, i'm not a psychology major, so i don't sit there and analyse why people make the choices they do. however, i am aware that the future hasn't happened yet and is not written, the choices i make now will affect everything in my life that is to come. for instance, shortly, i will choose to get off my ass and end this pointless debate as i would prefer to get some shopping done. i choose to do this because i want to get the hell out of the house. i don't just arbitrarily make choices for no reason, i have reasons for my choices and i deceide accordingly.

But if all that exists is matter and determinism is true, then there can be no alternative possibilities to what happens. Choice, to you, at least, is the result of chemical reactions in the brain and those reactions must follow certain rules.

High school, but I don't need to be an expert at science to hold valid philosophical views.

oh, i see, so basically you don't know anything at all about modern science. because they don't teach modern science in highschool, especially when it comes to physics where all you get is dynamocs and kinematics.
have you taken anything beyond highschool philosophy? even if you have, you still have to have some basis in order to criticise science in the manner that you have. it's like me saying that ayn rand is a complete idiot though i've never read any of her work.

In other words, it's a social construct.

how the hell do you get that?

But if all that exists is matter and determinism is true, then there can be no alternative possibilities to what happens. Choice, to you, at least, is the result of chemical reactions in the brain and those reactions must follow certain rules.

but the chemical reactions aren't entirely beyond my control, yes they do happen during thought, but i can also sit here and weigh the possibilities by thinking it through, it's not as though there's some invisible force dictating my thoughts becasue there isn't. and again, i'm not a psychology major, i'm not entirely certain on how the electrical signals translate into thought, the only thing i've had is when i read that first year uni text book when i was 12. that and the occasional readings of freud and jung.

:headbang:

ok, whatever, i'm out of here. leita, you really don't know anything. try learning about the world before you sit there and just make an ass of yourself. you can't debunk something you know nothing about, and you clearly know nothing about science.

oh, i see, so basically you don't know anything at all about modern science. because they don't teach modern science in highschool, especially when it comes to physics where all you get is dynamocs and kinematics.
have you taken anything beyond highschool philosophy? even if you have, you still have to have some basis in order to criticise science in the manner that you have. it's like me saying that ayn rand is a complete idiot though i've never read any of her work.

I know what the scientific method is and I understand the mindset of materialism. I don't have to be a scientist to criticize it.

how the hell do you get that?

"there are set logical rules"

Someone has to set them. Also, note how logic doesn't seem to exist in other cultures.

but the chemical reactions aren't entirely beyond my control, yes they do happen during thought, but i can also sit here and weigh the possibilities by thinking it through, it's not as though there's some invisible force dictating my thoughts becasue there isn't. and again, i'm not a psychology major, i'm not entirely certain on how the electrical signals translate into thought, the only thing i've had is when i read that first year uni text book when i was 12. that and the occasional readings of freud and jung.

According to determinism, your actions are determined by causes, though. If there are no uncaused events and all causes have specific effects, how can there be room for choices not predetermined?

physics does not determine how the ions in my brain travel.

Actually phsyics does determine that. We just don't have a very good idea about how it does it yet :p

Actually phsyics does determine that. We just don't have a very good idea about how it does it yet :p
that's more chemistry... though that means it's indirectly physics, what with physics being the basis for everything else...

but yeah, leita, you're hopeless. science does not rely entirely on logic, in fact it does so very little the more and more you get into it, the more theoretical is, the less logic goes in and the more intuiton and observations play a part.

also, i don't think you understand what amount of materialism and determinism are required for science... hell, with quantum mechanics, there's little or no determinism... not that you would know that, as you know nothing about scientific theory.

but yeah, leita, you're hopeless. science does not rely entirely on logic, in fact it does so very little the more and more you get into it, the more theoretical is, the less logic goes in and the more intuiton and observations play a part.

also, i don't think you understand what amount of materialism and determinism are required for science... hell, with quantum mechanics, there's little or no determinism... not that you would know that, as you know nothing about scientific theory.

Yet another parallel. There was a time when people who dared to question religion were dismissed as lunatics. I am not scientist, but I do know that mathematics plays a large part in science and I do know that it is supremely logical, not to mention a cultural construct, as well.

Yet another parallel. There was a time when people who dared to question religion were dismissed as lunatics. I am not scientist, but I do know that mathematics plays a large part in science and I do know that it is supremely logical, not to mention a cultural construct, as well.

*sigh*

there's a difference. if someone reads the bible and questions christianity, then that's fine. they have researched the subject and they know enough to question it.
you, however don't know anything about modern science and therefore are not in a fit position to dismiss it as such.

as to how mathematics is a cultural construct... what? there is math in the natural world, everywhere you look... it is rather built into the world.

and also, i'm not calling you a lunatic, just ignorant.

5000 years ago, everyone believed in magic and the supernatural. While such beliefs sound stupid to us today, at that time, they made perfect sense. Somehow, magic appeared to work and people believed in it. It answered their questions and gave them a sense of control over the universe.

Now we believe in logic and science and scoff at the idea that the immaterial exists (unless you are Christian). We have a new worldview with its own rules and reasoning that everyone believes. It also answers our questions and gives us a sense of control over the universe.

I think that in another 5000 years (assuming something bad doesn't happen), science will be replaced by some new world view and we will look back on it as nonsense. What do you think?

No. Science has existed for as long as human intelligence. It is not a belief or a faith, but the knowledge gained for carefully controlled, thorough experimentation.

Religion, if anything, is the new magic.

as to how mathematics is a cultural construct... what? there is math in the natural world, everywhere you look... it is rather built into the world.

Yes, if you divide things into discrete units. However, it isn't truly possible to count rocks because they are also a subjective concept. What one person calls a rock, another calls a boulder and yet another might call a pebble. However, since they all have a common language and world view, they agree it is a rock. No two rocks are the same, though, and to try to count them is to impose your reason-based worldview on them.

Yes, if you divide things into discrete units. However, it isn't truly possible to count rocks because they are also a subjective concept. What one person calls a rock, another calls a boulder and yet another might call a pebble. However, since they all have a common language and world view, they agree it is a rock. No two rocks are the same, though, and to try to count them is to impose your reason-based worldview on them.

wtf?

1. don't get started on rocks, one of my roommates is in earth science and that's all she goes on about.
2. there are many rocks that are quite similar in chemical composition, hardness (i forget the technial term for that) colour, cleavage lines et c. those rocks can be grouped together quite easily.
3. i wasn't referring to something as mundane as counting rocks for my point about math existing in nature. you don't even need to divide things into specific groups in order to see how math applies to it.

and yeah, stop getting so pissy, when you get pissy you get incoherent.

Instead of calling each other stupid, I'll try and take this a different way.

There's been a little anti-religous slant in a few posts here, as it's not as cool as science at explaining natural phenomena. But I'd like to add that the main purpose of religion is not to explain natural phenomena- it's to explain supernatural phenomena.

So why not keep science in its place of observing natural phenomena and keep religion looking over supernatural phenomena? It'll work.

wtf?

1. don't get started on rocks, one of my roommates is in earth science and that's all she goes on about.
2. there are many rocks that are quite similar in chemical composition, hardness (i forget the technial term for that) colour, cleavage lines et c. those rocks can be grouped together quite easily.
3. i wasn't referring to something as mundane as counting rocks for my point about math existing in nature. you don't even need to divide things into specific groups in order to see how math applies to it.

and yeah, stop getting so pissy, when you get pissy you get incoherent.

Show me an example of math in nature, then?

Instead of calling each other stupid, I'll try and take this a different way.

There's been a little anti-religous slant in a few posts here, as it's not as cool as science at explaining natural phenomena. But I'd like to add that the main purpose of religion is not to explain natural phenomena- it's to explain supernatural phenomena.

So why not keep science in its place of observing natural phenomena and keep religion looking over supernatural phenomena? It'll work.

Logically that is fine. Science has no place in supernatural phenomena, since they are, by science, non-existent. Therefore, anything that does concern itself with supernatural phenomena has no chance of interfering with scientific matters, with the negligible exception of the verity of the existence of supernatural phenomena.

Show me an example of math in nature, then?

Here's a good one. Get an orange (1 orange) get another (+ 1 orange). You will now have two oranges (1+1=2).

Mathematics governs life, the universe and everything, and this can be easily shown, by predicting the outcome of a given event using mathematics, and then observing the outcome.

E.g. mathematics suggests that if you drop a ball from your roof, it will fall to the ground, accelerating at 9.8 m/s². Try it out, and this will happen (ignoring air resistance, which would complicate the equation).

Mathematics can also predict its behaviour on reaching the ground - whether it will bounce, how high, whether it will leave a crater, etc.

Now we believe in logic and science and scoff at the idea that the immaterial exists (unless you are Christian).

Anyone with any kind of religion believes in the immaterial, you dolt.

Instead of calling each other stupid, I'll try and take this a different way.

There's been a little anti-religous slant in a few posts here, as it's not as cool as science at explaining natural phenomena. But I'd like to add that the main purpose of religion is not to explain natural phenomena- it's to explain supernatural phenomena.

So why not keep science in its place of observing natural phenomena and keep religion looking over supernatural phenomena? It'll work.

i didn't mean to come accross as insulting religion, i'm just saying that if you're going to try to discredit something, you have to know about it first...

and i agree that religion and science deal with completley independant things and should stay the hell out of each other's business... though keep that in mind when people are on about creationism being taught in science class.

My theory on the matter of science:
So long as a possibility is not disproven, it will function as anticipated.
Should a possibility become disproven, it becomes impossible so long as the knowledge of it's impossibility remains, and no longer.

Therefore, by my theory:
Once science is gone, we can do anything we believe we can. Literally.

Personally, I like it.

Show me an example of math in nature, then?
a circle or a sphere... let's say an orange. you cut the orange in half and wrap a string around the circumference, then you take the same string and find that it goes from one side of the orange to the other through the centre (i.e. the diameter) 3.141592654 et c times.

now say you want to find the surface area of the circle you made when you cut the orange. simply integrate 2(pi)r (the circumference) and you end you get the surface area of the circle equal to (pi)r^2 where r is the radius (i.e. half the diameter)

say you want to find the volume, you just need to integrate 4(pi)r^2 to obtain 4/3(pi)r^3.

what do you know, it's calculus in nature.

My theory on the matter of science:
So long as a possibility is not disproven, it will function as anticipated.
Should a possibility become disproven, it becomes impossible so long as the knowledge of it's impossibility remains, and no longer.

Therefore, by my theory:
Once science is gone, we can do anything we believe we can. Literally.

Personally, I like it.

Unfortunately, your theory lacks the support of scientific evidence.

Show me an example of math in nature, then?

Look at a pinecone if you want an example of math in nature. Maybe a nautilus shell. Science can explain some parts of the "supernatural." I have no clue how to search for this because I don't have names but here's an example of the "supernatural" being explained by science. Some boy in China/Japan(forgot which) could do something really odd. He could project pictures onto a roll of film with his mind. To test this theory, he was taken to the Chinese/Japanese equivalent of the Eiffel tower and given a camera with a blank roll of film in it. He looked at the tower, yelled "BAM!" at the camera while putting his head pretty close, and gave the camera back to scientists. They looked at the roll of film and every frame had the same, exact picture of the tower on it. Impossible, you say. Not really. The movie, The Matrix, has a valid point in saying that a human is a giant battery. Your brain functions due to small electric currents and there's some sort of odd field around everyone. To explain the picture thing, you have to remember that we have the technology to send images through wireless transmitters. Who's to say that someone can't train themself to transmit images from their mind onto something that can recieve those images. The only problem with that theory is that he ad to project onto a spiral roll and through the material of the camera. It does, however, reenforce the idea that science can help explain the "supernatural."

My theory on the matter of science:
So long as a possibility is not disproven, it will function as anticipated.
Should a possibility become disproven, it becomes impossible so long as the knowledge of it's impossibility remains, and no longer.

Therefore, by my theory:
Once science is gone, we can do anything we believe we can. Literally.

Personally, I like it.


umm... ok... so before people knew about gravity, it was possible to fly simply by jumping into the air and not coming back down?
before people knew about inertia, the natural state of things was really rest?

no, what goes on will go on whether we know about it or not.

oh, a correction, since it is half an orange, it's volume is only 2/3(pi)r^3... not 4/3...

Here's a good one. Get an orange (1 orange) get another (+ 1 orange). You will now have two oranges (1+1=2).

But the oranges, like everything else, are unique. I could argue that since on orange is bigger than the other, they should be counted as one big orange and one small orange.

a circle or a sphere... let's say an orange. you cut the orange in half and wrap a string around the circumference, then you take the same string and find that it goes from one side of the orange to the other through the centre (i.e. the diameter) 3.141592654 et c times.

now say you want to find the surface area of the circle you made when you cut the orange. simply integrate 2(pi)r (the circumference) and you end you get the surface area of the circle equal to (pi)r^2 where r is the radius (i.e. half the diameter)

say you want to find the volume, you just need to integrate 4(pi)r^2 to obtain 4/3(pi)r^3.

what do you know, it's calculus in nature.

You seem to have assumed that the orange is perfectly round, something that to my knowledge, though limited as you have pointed out, simply doesn't occur in nature.

But the oranges, like everything else, are unique. I could argue that since on orange is bigger than the other, they should be counted as one big orange and one small orange.

they're from the same species of tree though.

You seem to have assumed that the orange is perfectly round, something that to my knowledge, though limited as you have pointed out, simply doesn't occur in nature.

oranges are pretty damn close to spherical though. i could go through it with ellipses if you'd like?

they're from the same species of tree though.

All a species is is a biological group where the members can have fertile offspring. That isn't the point here, though. The real point is that no two oranges are really alike. We just define orange as a fruit with the certain characteristics.

oranges are pretty damn close to spherical though. i could go through it with ellipses if you'd like?

But they aren't. They're rough and imperfect, the products of nature rather than "pure", logical mathematics.

All a species is is a biological group where the members can have fertile offspring. That isn't the point here, though. The real point is that no two oranges are really alike. We just define orange as a fruit with the certain characteristics.

well, they all come from the same damn tree. and i don't know about you, but i've had oranges that are the same size and shape before. hell, i've had a number of oranges that are a close approximation to spherical.

But they aren't. They're rough and imperfect, the products of nature rather than "pure", logical mathematics.

which is why i asked if you wanted me to calculate it as an elliptical circle... if it's not a perfect sphere, then it's some kind of ellipse. and i don't know where you get your oranges, 'cause all mine have been approximately spherical.

And the reason oranges tend to the spherical (note they don't actually have to be perfect spheres) is because that's the most efficient way to enclose their mass, retain mosisture &c, assuming all else to be equal.

Or a more obvious example. What shape do stars tend to be?

Jeez, I can't believe someone's trying to argue maths isn't in nature.

Look at a pinecone if you want an example of math in nature. Maybe a nautilus shell. Science can explain some parts of the "supernatural." I have no clue how to search for this because I don't have names but here's an example of the "supernatural" being explained by science. Some boy in China/Japan(forgot which) could do something really odd. He could project pictures onto a roll of film with his mind. To test this theory, he was taken to the Chinese/Japanese equivalent of the Eiffel tower and given a camera with a blank roll of film in it. He looked at the tower, yelled "BAM!" at the camera while putting his head pretty close, and gave the camera back to scientists. They looked at the roll of film and every frame had the same, exact picture of the tower on it. Impossible, you say. Not really. The movie, The Matrix, has a valid point in saying that a human is a giant battery. Your brain functions due to small electric currents and there's some sort of odd field around everyone. To explain the picture thing, you have to remember that we have the technology to send images through wireless transmitters. Who's to say that someone can't train themself to transmit images from their mind onto something that can recieve those images. The only problem with that theory is that he ad to project onto a spiral roll and through the material of the camera. It does, however, reenforce the idea that science can help explain the "supernatural."

It would reinforce the idea that science can help explain the "supernatural" if you didn't totally just make this up.

well, they all come from the same damn tree. and i don't know about you, but i've had oranges that are the same size and shape before. hell, i've had a number of oranges that are a close approximation to spherical.

So? That doesn't make them the same thing. You just call them all oranges. The word "orange" itself seems to reinforce your worldview, though. Interesting how that works, it's called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

which is why i asked if you wanted me to calculate it as an elliptical circle... if it's not a perfect sphere, then it's some kind of ellipse. and i don't know where you get your oranges, 'cause all mine have been approximately spherical.

Approximately spherical? You're measuring them according to an abstract concept. Look beyond the obvious and note that oranges have bumps. No equation can calculate all those bumps, can it?

So? That doesn't make them the same thing. You just call them all oranges. The word "orange" itself seems to reinforce your worldview, though. Interesting how that works, it's called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

so what woudl you do? call each and every individual orange by a different name?

how about this, you do that, and i'll just have some nice orange juice. funny how they're all teh same when they're mashed into a pulp, huh?

Approximately spherical? You're measuring them according to an abstract concept. Look beyond the obvious and note that oranges have bumps. No equation can calculate all those bumps, can it?

if someone took enough time to do so it could be done you woudl be surprised what you can get calculations for, especially once you start to get into fourier transforms and the like. at any rate, the dimples are of negligible effect. but if you really wanted, you could subtract the volume missing due to the dimples by measuring the depth of the dimples their width et c and subtracting.

and a sphere isn't an abstract concept...

also, if you want more science and math in nature, look how our planet moves...

If determinism isn't true, then experiments are useless because there isn't any way to be sure that the effect really is the result of a cause. Experiments require one cause to have one corresponding effect after it. It requires materialism, as well, because it has proposed a model of the universe based on material objects like atoms and assumes they exist objectively.



Even logic, the sacred cow of scientists, is subjective?

All things are subjective. The is nothing objective. Even science has its uncertainty principle, where the act of making an observation, change that which is observed.

so what woudl you do? call each and every individual orange by a different name?

No, but my point is that you can't just put things into abstract categories and claim it's based on nature.

how about this, you do that, and i'll just have some nice orange juice. funny how they're all teh same when they're mashed into a pulp, huh?

Then again, every glass of orange juice is unique, too.

if someone took enough time to do so it could be done you woudl be surprised what you can get calculations for, especially once you start to get into fourier transforms and the like. at any rate, the dimples are of negligible effect. but if you really wanted, you could subtract the volume missing due to the dimples by measuring the depth of the dimples their width et c and subtracting.

and a sphere isn't an abstract concept...

also, if you want more science and math in nature, look how our planet moves...

Do you think there will ever be a time when we can predict the distant (5000 years perhaps) future with almost perfect accuracy?

All things are subjective. The is nothing objective. Even science has its uncertainty principle, where the act of making an observation, change that which is observed.

Finally something we can agree on.

No, but my point is that you can't just put things into abstract categories and claim it's based on nature.

how is it not based on nature? they come from the same tree, if they fall to the ground, they produce the same kind of tree that produces the same kind of fruit all over again. if you cross an orange with an apple, it will not produce another tree with similar fruit. it's not an abstract concept, it's how nature works.

Then again, every glass of orange juice is unique, too.

yes, you can fill it to different levels, it can have a different amount of pulp, but don't you realise that these differences don't matter, it still tastes the same unless you let it sit out on a counter for a while.

Do you think there will ever be a time when we can predict the distant (5000 years perhaps) future with almost perfect accuracy?

they don't do that in science, i don't know what the hell you're smoking or what kind of things you've been reading, but that's not how it works. the only way we could predict the future like that is to build a time machine and go visit and come back... but then who's to say that the act of going into the future and coming back wouldn't screw the timeline up royally?

you have to get off this "science depends on strict determinism" because it doesn't. if you knew anything about quantum mechanics, you would know that it is possible, though not probable for most anything to happen... and that is what we go on, probability. have you ever read the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy? at any rate, you seem to think that in science, determinism is what you think philosophically determinism is... which is not the case.

No, but my point is that you can't just put things into abstract categories and claim it's based on nature.



Then again, every glass of orange juice is unique, too.



Do you think there will ever be a time when we can predict the distant (5000 years perhaps) future with almost perfect accuracy?



Finally something we can agree on.


You could show the courtisy of crediting yyour quotes.

Jim

ATTN: Letita

"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove the incredible
by an appeal to the unintelligible."

"Metaphysics is the child of theology, and shows all the family
stigmata. Both are based upon the theory that there is some mysterious
magic in the unintelligible."

"Metaphysics is a refuge for men who have a strong desire to
appear learned and profound but have nothing worth hearing to say.
Their speculations have helped mankind hardly more than those of the
astrologers."

H.L. Mencken

Everything you've said so far has been trivial.
Which is to say, devoid of practical relevance.
You're on all fours with the astrologers, get up!

5000 years ago, everyone believed in magic and the supernatural. While such beliefs sound stupid to us today, at that time, they made perfect sense. Somehow, magic appeared to work and people believed in it. It answered their questions and gave them a sense of control over the universe.

Now we believe in logic and science and scoff at the idea that the immaterial exists (unless you are Christian). We have a new worldview with its own rules and reasoning that everyone believes. It also answers our questions and gives us a sense of control over the universe.

I think that in another 5000 years (assuming something bad doesn't happen), science will be replaced by some new world view and we will look back on it as nonsense. What do you think?
I agree, I believe that it is entirely likly that an age of New Enlightenment will demostrate a fundamental flaw in our entire concept of logic as it applies to the universe and will totoal reshape our perceptions.
I believe this mainly because to believe otherwise would be to believe we have our intellectual apex, which given the current state of humanity would be a sad testimonial of us.

how is it not based on nature? they come from the same tree, if they fall to the ground, they produce the same kind of tree that produces the same kind of fruit all over again. if you cross an orange with an apple, it will not produce another tree with similar fruit. it's not an abstract concept, it's how nature works.

yes, you can fill it to different levels, it can have a different amount of pulp, but don't you realise that these differences don't matter, it still tastes the same unless you let it sit out on a counter for a while.

I think you missed my point.

they don't do that in science, i don't know what the hell you're smoking or what kind of things you've been reading, but that's not how it works. the only way we could predict the future like that is to build a time machine and go visit and come back... but then who's to say that the act of going into the future and coming back wouldn't screw the timeline up royally?

you have to get off this "science depends on strict determinism" because it doesn't. if you knew anything about quantum mechanics, you would know that it is possible, though not probable for most anything to happen... and that is what we go on, probability. have you ever read the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy? at any rate, you seem to think that in science, determinism is what you think philosophically determinism is... which is not the case.

In that case, what philosophical views do you hold?

I agree, I believe that it is entirely likly that an age of New Enlightenment will demostrate a fundamental flaw in our entire concept of logic as it applies to the universe and will totoal reshape our perceptions.
I believe this mainly because to believe otherwise would be to believe we have our intellectual apex, which given the current state of humanity would be a sad testimonial of us.

good. if all the current theories are found to be flawed, then there's still work to do. i'm not complaining because it means plenty of jobs in physics in the future... and guess what my field of spcialization is?

I think you missed my point.

your point was that each orange is not exactly identical. i'm saying that they have enough similarities that it's not just arbitrary groups that we're assigning them to.

In that case, what philosophical views do you hold?

i don't really adhere to any strict philosophy, right now i'm more or less exploring everything, as i think i shall do for some time... i find it better to constantly explore unknowns than to attach oneself to something one already knows.

i don't think that everything is predetermined, if that's what you mean and that's not even an issue that science is set up to deal with, that's a philosophic argument that you're pushing over to science.

actually come to think of it, maybe everything is predetermined, how the hell would we know it? perhaps all our decisions are leading us to something we're going to do no matter what, even if we try to avoid it, we'll somehow make the choices that result in us ending up in the same place.

oh, and by the way, berkely held his world together using god, do you have some better solution? or is that all you've got?

oh, and by the way, berkely held his world together using god, do you have some better solution? or is that all you've got?

I actually don't know if I really believe subjective idealism. That's the main problem I encountered and I haven't really figured out a solution without bringing in decidedly dubious ideas like the collective unconscious, borrowed from Carl Jung.

Undoubtly. Why? I think of it like Euclidean Geomatry, works for everything here but its not everything. was around for 2000 years before finding an alternate Geomatry. What happens if we find out something that conflicts with a basic principle of science. Such as, science is the same everywhere. Parellel Universes, it might not be so. Then, science may be a small catagory of a bigger order.

5000 years ago, everyone believed in magic and the supernatural. While such beliefs sound stupid to us today, at that time, they made perfect sense. Somehow, magic appeared to work and people believed in it. It answered their questions and gave them a sense of control over the universe.

Now we believe in logic and science and scoff at the idea that the immaterial exists (unless you are Christian). We have a new worldview with its own rules and reasoning that everyone believes. It also answers our questions and gives us a sense of control over the universe.

I think that in another 5000 years (assuming something bad doesn't happen), science will be replaced by some new world view and we will look back on it as nonsense. What do you think?
Science is always there, just under a different name. 5000 years ago they called science magic. 1000 years they called science witchcraft and heresy. Perhaps we will call it something different, but it will still be the ever evolving, changing science that we have always done.

Undoubtly. Why? I think of it like Euclidean Geomatry, works for everything here but its not everything. was around for 2000 years before finding an alternate Geomatry. What happens if we find out something that conflicts with a basic principle of science. Such as, science is the same everywhere. Parellel Universes, it might not be so. Then, science may be a small catagory of a bigger order.

actually euclidian geometry only works on flat surfaces. if you have a triangle on a globe, its angles will be greater than 180, if you have a triangle on a convex surface, its angles will be less than 180.

it's not so much that it's a alternative system, it's just that both kinds of geometries are perfetly applicable in their own areas, flat vs. curved space.

5000 years ago, everyone believed in magic and the supernatural. While such beliefs sound stupid to us today, at that time, they made perfect sense. Somehow, magic appeared to work and people believed in it. It answered their questions and gave them a sense of control over the universe.

Now we believe in logic and science and scoff at the idea that the immaterial exists (unless you are Christian). We have a new worldview with its own rules and reasoning that everyone believes. It also answers our questions and gives us a sense of control over the universe.

I think that in another 5000 years (assuming something bad doesn't happen), science will be replaced by some new world view and we will look back on it as nonsense. What do you think?
About 2,500 years ago, give or take, the world changed. Man changed. The way we think and look at the world changed, along with the formalization of logic and science. A gap was created in our collective mind, where before there had been a (relatively) seemless slice.

5,000 years ago people experienced the world differently. Magic experiences the world; Science observes it. That says a lot: Magic knows itself as a part of the world, as a part of the whole, and so the world is defined by the participant, and by his participation; but to Science the world is "it", something held apart, daintily, with two fingers, to be examined and defined in such a way that all can "know" it in the same way. It's the subject-object divide.

Magic is Man the Experiencer patricipating in the whole that is the world as it goes on around him in every moment of existence, every moment that he is. He finds magic all around him: in the music that reaches his ears, in the feel of the wind on his face, in holding a baby in his arms. He makes magic, too: making medicine from the herbs in his garden, making love with his wife, making communion with his God. Science is Man the Observer, trying to understand himself through others, breaking down his world into managable pieces that can be analysed, defined and then fit back into the whole; the big picture. He is analysing the rhythm of the music and how it makes him feel, he is wondering if the wind means an approaching storm, or if it will mess his hair, and he is holding that same baby and understanding what a special thing it is, and thinking about its future.

We, all of us, are Man the Experiencer and Man the Observer at the same time. Magic is not dead and gone; it is still here, and it is not in conflict with Science. We do both, everyday.

There are plenty of reasons to doubt the existance of material objects. Have you ever seen one? No, and you can't. You can only see the image in your mind.
It doesn't matter if it's really there or not; if it's only an assumption or if it's material. The assumption works as well as if it was. I guess you could say that its reality is immaterial. ;-)

According to determinism, your actions are determined by causes, though. If there are no uncaused events and all causes have specific effects, how can there be room for choices not predetermined?
What causes a thought? Was it caused by electro-chemical impulses in the brain, or are they a result of a thought? Can thought properly be described as an "action" in the physical world? Man the Observer will always deny your subjective uncausal thoughts because all he ever sees is the electro-chemical impulses in your brain. It's all he can see. He cannot see your thoughts.

If we can't know the answer, then it doesn't matter; not yet, anyway. Our working theory need only encompass our existing knowledge. If we accept that cause and effect is good and right, and predetermination, by definition, is not because choice exists, then that leaves us with one conclusion: that determinism takes things to an unnecessary extreme. Cause and effect is true, yet determinism is not. Go figure.

Here's a good one. Get an orange (1 orange) get another (+ 1 orange). You will now have two oranges (1+1=2).
Congragulations. But does the math exist in the oranges, or does it exist in you? (Here's a hint: you just added those in your head before annotating it.)

a circle or a sphere... let's say an orange. you cut the orange in half and wrap a string around the circumference, then you take the same string and find that it goes from one side of the orange to the other through the centre (i.e. the diameter) 3.141592654 et c times.

now say you want to find the surface area of the circle you made when you cut the orange. simply integrate 2(pi)r (the circumference) and you end you get the surface area of the circle equal to (pi)r^2 where r is the radius (i.e. half the diameter)

say you want to find the volume, you just need to integrate 4(pi)r^2 to obtain 4/3(pi)r^3.

what do you know, it's calculus in nature.
Well done! You did a marvelous job of taking those ideas out of your head and putting them up on our monitors for us to see.

The sphere exists in nature. The maths exist in you. Your intelligence is what perceives them, understands them and communicates them to us.

Look at a pinecone if you want an example of math in nature.
Pretty pictures that we perceive, but without an intelligence to perceive and label it a "mathematical" shape, it's just a cone or a shell.

All things are subjective. The is nothing objective. Even science has its uncertainty principle, where the act of making an observation, change that which is observed.
That's a very lonely universe you live in (says the figment of his imagination).

Pretty pictures that we perceive, but without an intelligence to perceive and label it a "mathematical" shape, it's just a cone or a shell.

But that cone and shell would still be defined by mathematics even if humans weren't around to do it. Oranges were still approximate spheres with their volume equaling (4*pi*r^3)/3 before humans ever existed. The planets still followed their orbits as defined by Newtonian gravity and Keplers's laws before life ever existed on Earth. Stars still fused hydrogen into helium according the equations of nuclear physics before our solar system even formed.

Humans didn't invent math and assign it to nature. Humans looked at nature and found math.

But that cone and shell would still be defined by mathematics even if humans weren't around to do it. Oranges were still approximate spheres with their volume equaling (4*pi*r^3)/3 before humans ever existed. The planets still followed their orbits as defined by Newtonian gravity and Keplers's laws before life ever existed on Earth. Stars still fused hydrogen into helium according the equations of nuclear physics before our solar system even formed.
Look what you have done. These equations that things participate in apart from man who perceives them --you've created Math-Gods! Cool. But seriously, if these equations exist apart from man, then ...who calculates them?

Humans didn't invent math and assign it to nature. Humans looked at nature and found math.
Yes, humans looked at... humans defined. You cannot remove humans from the equation and still have math. Maths only exists because humans find (recognize) it.

5000 years ago, everyone believed in magic and the supernatural. While such beliefs sound stupid to us today, at that time, they made perfect sense. Somehow, magic appeared to work and people believed in it. It answered their questions and gave them a sense of control over the universe.

Now we believe in logic and science and scoff at the idea that the immaterial exists (unless you are Christian). We have a new worldview with its own rules and reasoning that everyone believes. It also answers our questions and gives us a sense of control over the universe.

I think that in another 5000 years (assuming something bad doesn't happen), science will be replaced by some new world view and we will look back on it as nonsense. What do you think?

First off, you're leaving out quite a few people when you say that Christians are the only people who believe in a non-material existence; you're significantly mistaken if you believe that modern science leads us inexorably to the conclussion that the universe is limitted to what can be observed redily; and the idea "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" comes to mind. Science and superstition and religion all have the same basic goal, understanding of the universe. The search for meaning is an important driving force for human beings and without a reason to live many people simply cannot function. All humans seek answers to the big questions, "where do we come from?" "why are we here?" "what comes after death?" and science, superstition, and religion all seek to answer these questions in a definite way. In general humans are animals afraid of uncertainty. Uncertainty is very difficult for many people and they are willing to disregard their better judgment for the sake of finding a definite answer to these pressing questions. In essense science is no more or less successful at answering such questions that religion or superstition, but it gives some people greater comfort while religion or superstition give others that comfort, so there is really no reason for the conflict that often arises between believers in one or another cosmogony.

Yes, humans looked at... humans defined. You cannot remove humans from the equation and still have math. Maths only exists because humans find (recognize) it.

Written math... spoken math... sure, but the abstract idea of a 1 added to itself is still equal to the abstract idea of 2 no matter what names are put on them. Math is entirely universal, the only thing that we do is fiddle with the operators.

ATTN: Letita

"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove the incredible
by an appeal to the unintelligible."

"Metaphysics is the child of theology, and shows all the family
stigmata. Both are based upon the theory that there is some mysterious
magic in the unintelligible."

"Metaphysics is a refuge for men who have a strong desire to
appear learned and profound but have nothing worth hearing to say.
Their speculations have helped mankind hardly more than those of the
astrologers."

H.L. Mencken

Everything you've said so far has been trivial.
Which is to say, devoid of practical relevance.
You're on all fours with the astrologers, get up!

Arrogance and ignorance, what a lovely combination. Saying that metaphysics and philosophy is worthless is like saying that the Wright brother's were bums until after they had invented the plane. All the work leading up to a discovery is important, not just the discovery itself and to say that a person has provided nothing in the time before they can speak with certainty (as only the self-appointed keepers of truth [arrogant scientists and theologists] can do) is as stupid as it is silly.

Arrogance and ignorance, what a lovely combination. Saying that metaphysics and philosophy is worthless is like saying that the Wright brother's were bums until after they had invented the plane. All the work leading up to a discovery is important, not just the discovery itself and to say that a person has provided nothing in the time before they can speak with certainty (as only the self-appointed keepers of truth [arrogant scientists and theologists] can do) is as stupid as it is silly.

I don't recall him saying anything about philosophy. Real philosophy (not 'pseudophilosophy - the one people speak about and that we use in discussions) is a science.

I don't recall him saying anything about philosophy. Real philosophy (not 'pseudophilosophy - the one people speak about and that we use in discussions) is a science.

The greatest failing of our language seems to be the use of one word for two different meanings. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy and can be a scientific pursuit. Often metaphysics is indistinguishable from normal physics and is sometimes called "theoretical phyics," though that is not a perfect convertable silergism. Again, metaphysics is a branch of theoretical physics, but not the whole thing.

The point is, I changed the word because it fit the aesthetics of my sentences with no intent of changing the meaning.

The greatest failing of our language seems to be the use of one word for two different meanings. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy and can be a scientific pursuit. Often metaphysics is indistinguishable from normal physics and is sometimes called "theoretical phyics," though that is not a perfect convertable silergism. Again, metaphysics is a branch of theoretical physics, but not the whole thing.

The point is, I changed the word because it fit the aesthetics of my sentences with no intent of changing the meaning.

There is a difference in meaning. metaphysics in philosophy is much stricter than metaphysics used by religious/spiritual people.

There is a difference in meaning. metaphysics in philosophy is much stricter than metaphysics used by religious/spiritual people.

I disagree with that. I don't think that metaphysics in terms of philosohpy has any stricter a definition than in terms of religion and spirituality. There is actually no subtantive difference between the methods of a philosohpic and religion metaphysicist, the difference is invented by one side or the other because they feel that they get the better end of the dichotomy. Whether it be through application of the scientific method in terms of personal experience, experiment, and observation, or through trust in the experience, experiement and observation of others metaphysics has the same meaning to everyone.

I disagree with that. I don't think that metaphysics in terms of philosohpy has any stricter a definition than in terms of religion and spirituality. There is actually no subtantive difference between the methods of a philosohpic and religion metaphysicist, the difference is invented by one side or the other because they feel that they get the better end of the dichotomy. Whether it be through application of the scientific method in terms of personal experience, experiment, and observation, or through trust in the experience, experiement and observation of others metaphysics has the same meaning to everyone.

what i tried to say was that metaphysics is an area in which religious and spiritual people can say almost anything they like, where in philosophy a lot of those things would fall in a debate.

what i tried to say was that metaphysics is an area in which religious and spiritual people can say almost anything they like, where in philosophy a lot of those things would fall in a debate.

All that means is that the conclusions of the religious metaphysicists would not hold up to the scrutiny of the philosophic metaphysicists, that's not a big deal because the ideas of the philosophers wouldn't hold up to the scrutiny of the theologists.

Debate, as wonderful, enlightening, and entertaining as it is, has no place in the scientific method. For that matter, much of metaphysics is outside the realm of true science because there is no possible experiment to test the validity of a given idea. With that in mind there is no reason to distinguish between the metaphysical musings of a religious person and a "scientific" philosohper. When discussing matters beyond our ability to understand or know everyone is on the same playing field, and to say that the ideas of any given person or group are inferior to those of another person or group is entirely meaningless.

All that means is that the conclusions of the religious metaphysicists would not hold up to the scrutiny of the philosophic metaphysicists, that's not a big deal because the ideas of the philosophers wouldn't hold up to the scrutiny of the theologists.

Debate, as wonderful, enlightening, and entertaining as it is, has no place in the scientific method. For that matter, much of metaphysics is outside the realm of true science because there is no possible experiment to test the validity of a given idea. With that in mind there is no reason to distinguish between the metaphysical musings of a religious person and a "scientific" philosohper. When discussing matters beyond our ability to understand or know everyone is on the same playing field, and to say that the ideas of any given person or group are inferior to those of another person or group is entirely meaningless.

1) there is no such thing as "The scientific method"
2) Philosophy is a 'remainder science'. every science has once been part of philosophy until it got too specialised. Philosophers are still active in every part of the scientific field as they try to unify theories, see where certain scientific methods are applicable and where the same methods are not applicable, etc.
3) When you are discussing matters beyond our known world, you can still make philosophical errors that we know of, still contradict yourself, still make theories that are useless and only raise more questions ... philosophers have their ideas examined by companions in a debate and those (sometimes small) errors will cause some ideas to be rejected.

Debate, as wonderful, enlightening, and entertaining as it is, has no place in the scientific method.

There is much debate in science over experiment results, observations, theories and so on. The only difference is that in scientific debates people have empirical evidence to show. That rarely happens in the realm of metaphysics.

1) there is no such thing as "The scientific method"
2) Philosophy is a 'remainder science'. every science has once been part of philosophy until it got too specialised. Philosophers are still active in every part of the scientific field as they try to unify theories, see where certain scientific methods are applicable and where the same methods are not applicable, etc.
3) When you are discussing matters beyond our known world, you can still make philosophical errors that we know of, still contradict yourself, still make theories that are useless and only raise more questions ... philosophers have their ideas examined by companions in a debate and those (sometimes small) errors will cause some ideas to be rejected.

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

You might argue that this method isn't universal, but with minor modifications it can be applied to all knowable phenomena.

I don't think that philosohpy is simply an amalgam of that which does not fit into any other science. It certainly has an aspect of combination through which other sciences may be taken together to form a more meaningful whole, but philosohpy also has specific areas of thought devoted to it not because they fit nowhere else, but because they truly fit in philosophy (wow that was a bad sentence, but I'm too lazy to fix it).

You can apply formal logic to any verbalized argument or idea, but that is universally true, not only in "scientific" philosohpy, but in religious and spiritual philosohpy as well. That many religious philosohpers choose not to apply formal logic to their ideas is sad, and their efficacy is lesser for it, but if formal logic is applied there is no reason to distinguish between philosohpy based on religious principles or others.

hehehe, it won't let me post this with only quotes in it, I have to write something even though my message is in the quotes.

There is much debate in science over experiment results, observations, theories and so on. The only difference is that in scientific debates people have empirical evidence to show. That rarely happens in the realm of metaphysics.

For an experiment to be widely accepted it has to be repeatable. Without the ability to repeat an experiment no one can know if the conclussions drawn were correct, or even if the observation was not skewed in one way or another. The debate in scientific theories takes place entirely before the finalization of a repeatable experiment and relates only to the hypothesis a scientist takes with him into the experiment.

.... In general humans are animals afraid of uncertainty. Uncertainty is very difficult for many people and they are willing to disregard their better judgment for the sake of finding a definite answer to these pressing questions. .....

Appropos of nothing in particular, I like uncertainty. I think it gets a bad name. Certainty is too crunchy to be taken alone; like tacos without a drink, it leaves you very dry. Uncertainty is the glass of cool beer to wash down the tacos of certainty. They complement each other.

Appropos of nothing in particular, I like uncertainty. I think it gets a bad name. Certainty is too crunchy to be taken alone; like tacos without a drink, it leaves you very dry. Uncertainty is the glass of cool beer to wash down the tacos of certainty. They complement each other.

Read Albert Camus, in his stories and essays certainty, and particularly the certainty of death are the source of immense pain and suffering. Only the thought that we might somehow escape death is soothing. Mersault, from Camus' L'tranger, or The Stranger concocts improbable serieses of events to escape his impending death and is afflicted by intense pressure and heat when the certainty of death makes itself known. Camus fought his whole life to overcome the anguish of his Existential certainty. So yeah, uncertainty can be nice, but not always.

Read Albert Camus, in his stories and essays certainty, and particularly the certainty of death are the source of immense pain and suffering. Only the thought that we might somehow escape death is soothing. Mersault, from Camus' L'tranger, or The Stranger concocts improbable serieses of events to escape his impending death and is afflicted by intense pressure and heat when the certainty of death makes itself known. Camus fought his whole life to overcome the anguish of his Existential certainty. So yeah, uncertainty can be nice, but not always.
Been there, done that. Good author. Not a bad goalkeeper, either, by all accounts.

Written math... spoken math... sure, but the abstract idea of a 1 added to itself is still equal to the abstract idea of 2 no matter what names are put on them. Math is entirely universal, the only thing that we do is fiddle with the operators.
Not if there's not a mind to abstract it.

5000 years ago, everyone believed in magic and the supernatural. While such beliefs sound stupid to us today, at that time, they made perfect sense. Somehow, magic appeared to work and people believed in it. It answered their questions and gave them a sense of control over the universe.

Now we believe in logic and science and scoff at the idea that the immaterial exists (unless you are Christian). We have a new worldview with its own rules and reasoning that everyone believes. It also answers our questions and gives us a sense of control over the universe.

I think that in another 5000 years (assuming something bad doesn't happen), science will be replaced by some new world view and we will look back on it as nonsense. What do you think?
Typical Letila BS.

Science is about basing beliefs on evidence and proof, as opposed to superstition and metaphysics. Why would our progeny scorn evidence and proof, and how could anything else be more rational?

Been there, done that. Good author. Not a bad goalkeeper, either, by all accounts.

Good goalkeeper? Now that I did not know.

Goalkeeper for Algeria, Camus found the missing link between football and existentialism ("All I know most surely about morality and obligations, I owe to football").

(Courtesy of the Guardian online)