View Full Version : The progress of science: How far have we really come?
I am posing this question to find out what others think in our "progress of science". I see science as a journey of discovery of the reality of how our universe functions, to better understand physical truth. Is there a scale of the perspective of reality that science is slowly moving forward and expanding on? If so, how far to the end of this scale are we? More importantly, does my question make sense? :confused:
I am posing this question to find out what others think in our "progress of science". I see science as a journey of discovery of the reality of how our universe functions, to better understand physical truth. Is there a scale of the perspective of reality that science is slowly moving forward and expanding on? If so, how far to the end of this scale are we? More importantly, does my question make sense? :confused:
I thought some more about it and decided I wasnt clear enough on the issues of what is science and what constitutes progress. so I erased my initial answer. I still think it is a constructive question and hope other people will take a shot at it.
Accumulation of knowledge could be a scale to gauge our progress in understanding the universe.
If by how far to the end of this scale we are, you are referring to something like the theory of everything, then perhaps we still have some significant challenges ahead of us.
I am posing this question to find out what others think in our "progress of science". I see science as a journey of discovery of the reality of how our universe functions, to better understand physical truth. Is there a scale of the perspective of reality that science is slowly moving forward and expanding on? If so, how far to the end of this scale are we? More importantly, does my question make sense? :confused:
I feel the question is too narrow. Clearly science has made enormous progress over the last couple of centuries at explaining the world scientifically. The bigger question - which I suspect is what you meant to ask - is whether scientific progress constitutes 'progress' and if so progress towards what.
A few comments - questions really - about 'progress':
As Canute has said, in terms of explaining the world scientifically, great progress. How to measure this kind of progress?
Progress may also be made in terms of efficiency - for each unit of input, how much output do we get today vs 100/1000 years ago?
Then there's the internal measure; if science is essentially a series of programs, how many new programs are started every decade? how many are essentially completed? how long does it take to complete one? This is related to, but not quite the same as, efficiency.
Many people judge scientific progress by its utility, for example the extent to which applications of science have alleviated suffering, enriched wellbeing, etc. Scientists may not like this measure, but in a very real sense it's this 'return on investment' by which the 'shareholders' judge progress (and continue to provide further capital to keep the limited liability company afloat).
One last one for now: how well has science been applied to science? How well do we understand the theory and practice of doing science, its strengths and weaknesses, its limits? How extensively have hypotheses about the nature of science been rigourously subject to testing?
selfAdjoint
Apr1-04, 09:01 PM
You can also measure progress by the things everybody used to believe that have been shown to be false. The earth isn't flat, the sky isn't solid, the sun doesn't go across the sky. the solar system isn't the center of the universe, and so on.
Currently the public is slowly learning:
There isn't s definite state of rest and another definite state of motion.
The world isn't classical.
The world wasn't created a few thousand years ago.
Living creatures weren't explicitly designed to be the way they are.
You can also measure progress by the things everybody used to believe that have been shown to be false. The earth isn't flat, the sky isn't solid, the sun doesn't go across the sky. the solar system isn't the center of the universe, and so on.
Currently the public is slowly learning:
There isn't s definite state of rest and another definite state of motion.
The world isn't classical.
The world wasn't created a few thousand years ago.
Living creatures weren't explicitly designed to be the way they are.
Are you sure that what 'the public' (non-scientists I presume) are 'slowly learning' constitutes progress? Or are we just constructing another false paradigm? Not being argumentative but I don't see it as being quite so simple.
selfAdjoint
Apr2-04, 10:52 AM
Are you sure that what 'the public' (non-scientists I presume) are 'slowly learning' constitutes progress? Or are we just constructing another false paradigm? Not being argumentative but I don't see it as being quite so simple.
In spite of the popularity of the paradigm, uh, paradigm, I don't think it really describes what goes on in science. And the experimental evidence for the points I was making is enormous. If you wnat to deny them, it's not just a matter of bull session; you have to confront the evidence and say why your alternative theory either accounts for it or differs from it. Note that the incompleteness of, say, the standard model (~ 19 undetermined numbers) is not an excuse for rejecting the uncertainty principle.
The public is slowly learning these things. Stories appear in newspapers and online. Basic quantum mechanics is taught in High School. The very existence of PF and its success show that outreach is possible and desired.
You can also measure progress by the things everybody used to believe that have been shown to be false. The earth isn't flat, the sky isn't solid, the sun doesn't go across the sky. the solar system isn't the center of the universe, and so on.
Currently the public is slowly learning:
There isn't s definite state of rest and another definite state of motion.
The world isn't classical.
The world wasn't created a few thousand years ago.
Living creatures weren't explicitly designed to be the way they are.
SA, this is sort of where I am getting at, although we are pretty educated about the world around us, how much do we yet to learn about things unseen/unknown because our technology isn't advanced enough yet? Yes, we are much more advanced comparitively speaking then from 150 years ago, but how much more is there to discover? Are we just beginning?
I go through phases of listening to Christian radio and television. One of the most fascinating preachers to listen to is John Hagee. I wonder if anybody here has heard of him? He can really work up his audience, get them to "Amen!"-ing and even clapping their hands in enthusiastic applause.
I would bet that Rev. Hagee and most of his congregation disavow at least the last two items on SelfAdjoint's list of things the public as a whole is slowly learning! I wouldn't be surprised if their attitude toward the first two items on his list is, "I don't know about that, and I don't care."
In spite of the popularity of the paradigm, uh, paradigm, I don't think it really describes what goes on in science. And the experimental evidence for the points I was making is enormous. If you wnat to deny them, it's not just a matter of bull session; you have to confront the evidence and say why your alternative theory either accounts for it or differs from it. Note that the incompleteness of, say, the standard model (~ 19 undetermined numbers) is not an excuse for rejecting the uncertainty principle.
The public is slowly learning these things. Stories appear in newspapers and online. Basic quantum mechanics is taught in High School. The very existence of PF and its success show that outreach is possible and desired.
I'm not questioning the experimental evidence. I'm just wondering if scientific progress constitutes 'Progress' in any wider sense. It isn't obvious that it does so you'd have to make the case.
Also there is no reason that 'the public' should learn all these things. They are mostly too esoteric to have any bearing on anything much unless you're a scientist or particularly interested in new technology. I don't mean to sound anti-science, we couldn't get out of bed in the morning without the scientififc method, but it seems undeniable that all the important questions that human beings ask lie well outside science.
Does anybody know if the former Taliban government of Afghanistan freely allowed the teaching of modern science in the schools of that nation? It seems to me that unrestricted scientific inquiry would be very threatening to a fundamentalist theocracy.
It is said that folk singer Woody Guthrie painted "This machine kills fascists" on his guitar. Maybe a good motto for science would be "This methodology kills religious fanaticism."
Does anybody know if the former Taliban government of Afghanistan freely allowed the teaching of modern science in the schools of that nation? It seems to me that unrestricted scientific inquiry would be very threatening to a fundamentalist theocracy.
It is said that folk singer Woody Guthrie painted "This machine kills facists" on his guitar. Maybe a good motto for science would be "This methodology kills religious fanaticism."
Yes I think that's the problem. But thinking rationally does not entail accepting science's metaphysics, and the fact that there are violent religious fanatics does not make believing in God wrong. It all depends on the circumstances. The scientific view brings with it, (for no good reason but it does), materialism, relative morality, and the breakdown of socal order and traditional lifestyles in favour of homogenous markets, global economies of scale, mass market consumerism, and all the other disbenefits of believing in nothing. There are two points of view.
BTW I don't Woodie Guthrie was praising the scientific method. For him the bankers and industrialists of unregulated capitalism were the fascists, not over-enthusiastic believers in God.
Off topic but I suspect it is a serious mistake to associate anti-American terrorism with irrational religious beliefs. The issues are about nationalism, cultural domination, oil, the right to self-determination, and in particular the right to control one's own economy, resources and trading arrangements. It just so happens that lots of the oil is in Muslim countries, and having natural reserves of oil is becoming a real liability these days for almost any nation.
the bankers and industrialists of unregulated capitalism... - Canute
There was a great deal of anger toward banks by farmers in states such as Oklahoma in the Dust Bowl days. The bankers, naturally, wanted to go strictly by the book in foreclosing on farmland after enough payments were missed. The farmers, having weather-related problems, expected compassion and some flexibility.
Incidentally, folk singer Pete Seeger practically made a career out of writing and performing pro-union songs in the middle part of the 20th century.
selfAdjoint
Apr3-04, 01:29 PM
I'm not questioning the experimental evidence. I'm just wondering if scientific progress constitutes 'Progress' in any wider sense. It isn't obvious that it does so you'd have to make the case.
Also there is no reason that 'the public' should learn all these things. They are mostly too esoteric to have any bearing on anything much unless you're a scientist or particularly interested in new technology. I don't mean to sound anti-science, we couldn't get out of bed in the morning without the scientififc method, but it seems undeniable that all the important questions that human beings ask lie well outside science.
That's changing the subject. I don't believe in "progress". Did when I was a kid, but not for decades; the human species is what it is and the only mode of change offered (singularity and gene manipulation) don't look attractive.
But science really does find more and more about how the real universe really works. And the public understanding lags a century or so behind.
But science really does find more and more about how the real universe really works. And the public understanding lags a century or so behind.
It's true that public understanding of science lags behind that of professional scientists, (if it didn't there's be no point in employing scientists) but I'm not sure that's relevant to question here.
selfAdjoint
Apr4-04, 10:04 AM
It's true that public understanding of science lags behind that of professional scientists, (if it didn't there's be no point in employing scientists) but I'm not sure that's relevant to question here.
Kerries original question was
I am posing this question to find out what others think in our "progress of science". I see science as a journey of discovery of the reality of how our universe functions, to better understand physical truth. Is there a scale of the perspective of reality that science is slowly moving forward and expanding on? If so, how far to the end of this scale are we? More importantly, does my question make sense?
I did expand a bit in order to avoid having science just an elitist arcanum. Scientists are trying to educate the public as best they know how, and they do think their growth in understanding is the property of humanity rather than just some enlightened few.
I did expand a bit in order to avoid having science just an elitist arcanum. Scientists are trying to educate the public as best they know how, and they do think their growth in understanding is the property of humanity rather than just some enlightened few.
The question is whether the progress in explaining the universe scientifically represents progress in some absolute sense. It would only do so if it is true, or more nearly true that other explanations. Unfortunately for all science's progress, as measured in its own terms, we don't know this.
Also I don't see how the fact that scientists think the public need educating in science implies anything about whether scientific progress is progress in any absolute sense. It just means that scientists think it is, and they'd hardly be likely to think otherwise.
selfAdjoint
Apr5-04, 02:53 PM
Science has going for it that it produces ideas that, when converted to technology, work. I have lived through a lot of history and sociology and politics and commerce in my time, and science is the ONLY human endeavor that can make that statement. Mysticism and philosophy just keep chewing the same old fat and going nowhere. ESP periodically comes up with a new champion, who pretty soon goes away again without accomplishing anything. Meanwhile new avenues of science open up, like molecular biology, and start making predictions that work and pretty soon they generate new technology that relieves another set of human problems. And the mystics and philosophers shift the gob of old fat into their other cheek and keep on chewing.
lol SA, you bring a good point up...my question was in reference to the progress of our science to the absolute reality of our physical world. are we 80% there? 25% there? this question constantly nags me...it's not like a child who is 10 and knows that when they are 18 they are adults, we don't know how far we have to go, but we can say we have progressed extensively within the last the 200 years scientifically...are we still progressing at this rate, or have we "slowed" down?
i also wonder what would happen to science if we someday had all the answers...
selfAdjoint
Apr5-04, 08:00 PM
We can't say what the percentage is. We're climbing Mount Understanding and the top is obscured in the mists of the future. But we can see where we are, and we can look back and see how far we've come, and we believe (this is a religious belief if you like) that the mountain is only finitely high, and that there is a top, and that eventually our descendents will reach it.
Science has going for it that it produces ideas that, when converted to technology, work. I have lived through a lot of history and sociology and politics and commerce in my time, and science is the ONLY human endeavor that can make that statement. Mysticism and philosophy just keep chewing the same old fat and going nowhere. ESP periodically comes up with a new champion, who pretty soon goes away again without accomplishing anything. Meanwhile new avenues of science open up, like molecular biology, and start making predictions that work and pretty soon they generate new technology that relieves another set of human problems. And the mystics and philosophers shift the gob of old fat into their other cheek and keep on chewing.
How do you know what mystics know or don't know? When was the last time you thought it was worth seriously checking out what they say about the nature of reality? I doubt you ever have, since it is not science.
Science is great for producing technology, can't disagree with that. If that's the end of your curiosity about yourself and the universe then fine. But don't expect to taken seriously if 'gobs of old fat' is as much as you understand about metaphysics and mysticism. Would you take me seriously if I said QM was gobs of old fat? You'd laugh, and rightly so.
lol SA, you bring a good point up...my question was in reference to the progress of our science to the absolute reality of our physical world. are we 80% there? 25% there? this question constantly nags me...it's not like a child who is 10 and knows that when they are 18 they are adults, we don't know how far we have to go, but we can say we have progressed extensively within the last the 200 years scientifically...are we still progressing at this rate, or have we "slowed" down?
i also wonder what would happen to science if we someday had all the answers...
Science cannot explain the existence of physical reality by its own definition, and we are not one percent closer to explaining it than was Plato. So although science tells us a great deal about the relationship between physical objects and forces etc. it is kind of meaningless to wonder how 'progress' towards an 'explanation of everything' is to be measured. Our existence cannot be explained scientifically so it is unfair on science to mark it down for not explaining it yet.
The problem is that according to the scientific view metaphysical questions are unanswerable. This means that if we want to make progress toward understanding the 'absolute reality of our physical world' we have to use meta-scientific methods.
In case you're interested it's worth reading Stephen Hawkings 'The End of Physics' and Heideggers 'What is Metaphysics', findable online. Both seem relevant here.
thanks canute for your input, i have this vision that someday science will progress into explaining the currently unexplainable, and this is why i proposed this thread.
the complexity of the tools we use is slowly increasing...thus progress,in my view, exists.
thanks canute for your input, i have this vision that someday science will progress into explaining the currently unexplainable, and this is why i proposed this thread.
It's an interesting question. It seems to be assumed quite often that science can answer all our questions about ourselves and the universe if we just wait for it to make more progress.
However we've always known that the scientific method has its limits and that it must leave all the big questions unanswered. This will be true a thousand years in the future just as it was for Plato and Aristotle. (I wish it was mentioned in the education system from time to time so that people didn't spend their lives confusing the extremely dull and mundane scientific conception of the world, based on a load of arbitrary metaphysical assumptions, with the awesome real thing).
Science has a very specialist theoretical way of looking at the world and it cannot ever explain anything properly. Ex hypothesis it cannot even explain matter, the thing it is best at studying. Science has its place but is not a good way of understanding the world. We make every possible use of its findings so it is useful to do it, but the limits of science are n not the limits of existence, and they do not define the limits of what we can understand, explain, reason about or know.
Because of all this I would say that your original question is unanswerable. Science isn't making progress towards a definable goal, it's an ongoing process of commercial and military innovation, so there is no yardstick against which to measure where we've got to in terms of progress.
selfAdjoint
Apr6-04, 01:13 PM
How do you know what mystics know or don't know? When was the last time you thought it was worth seriously checking out what they say about the nature of reality? I doubt you ever have, since it is not science.
Science is great for producing technology, can't disagree with that. If that's the end of your curiosity about yourself and the universe then fine. But don't expect to taken seriously if 'gobs of old fat' is as much as you understand about metaphysics and mysticism. Would you take me seriously if I said QM was gobs of old fat? You'd laugh, and rightly so.
How do YOU know what I know or don't? How do you know I never studied mysticism or experienced an unexplainable happening? This is just cheap ad hominem slurs. Stick to asnwering my points rather than fantasizing about my background.
TENYEARS
Apr6-04, 07:15 PM
We have gone no where. We have used the knowlege of the few to make money for the pigs by milking the cows of many. The understanding of the universe is an act upon the individual. Science is being used to destroy the planet for an easy life, which for the most part becomes an unbalanced life because of the detachment from nature. WAKE UP. The world as you know it is being destroyed, and the unconcious behavior of humanity perpetuated by the actions of pigishness, will destroy the world as we know it.
Had we lived as Indians, we may not have lived as long, but we would have lived as human beings. With dignity and purpose. Experiencing life as it is in a balance with nature. The mysteries of the universe would have been solvable and understandable. Only in this case, belief would be less and experience would be more.
I have seen the future in the past, I see it now and I will continue to see it. Your beliefs are irrelevant, unless they guide towards reality. Reality will not come out of belief, it will be born of pain and a price. Without the price, there will be no reality. You use your joy on other things so that will not take you there, you will have to pay the price in pain or you will not be willing to pay a price to find the reality. In that case, spend your credit cards kids because, you will be chased down, and there will be pain. The faster you run the quicker it will catch you.
Turn from your ways, cleanse yourselfs and find your truth, your real science, your real relgion, your destiny.
TENYEARS
Apr6-04, 07:27 PM
Kerrie, I could tell you now. I could prove the unexplainable, explain it. Gravity, matter, god, meaning of life, how a human being may fly, what your dreams are, what thought is, what it is not, how big infinity is, and one very simple thought that would really blow you away. Yep. You would believe me, hell, you would have proof, like the pen of course. You would say cool, unbelievable and yet what? What would it change? I will somehow be involved in what you speak, how I do not know only that I will.
How do YOU know what I know or don't? How do you know I never studied mysticism or experienced an unexplainable happening? This is just cheap ad hominem slurs. Stick to asnwering my points rather than fantasizing about my background.
You've made your position clear. You said, for instance "Mysticism and philosophy just keep chewing the same old fat and going nowhere". I naturally assumed that you don't know anything about these things.
I am posing this question to find out what others think in our "progress of science". I see science as a journey of discovery of the reality of how our universe functions, to better understand physical truth. Is there a scale of the perspective of reality that science is slowly moving forward and expanding on? If so, how far to the end of this scale are we? More importantly, does my question make sense? :confused:
Well looking back, since we discovered fire, till when we discovered what fire is, much has changed in science and tecknology. If the human race is still here, when our sun turns into a red giant in 5 billion years, we probably will have harnessed the energy of this galaxy. So looking at it that way we have not done very much yet, but will someday. Your question makes sence, if you put it into the right perspective. Yes science and tecknology is progressing, but for whom? There is only a handfull of specilized scientists who can understand this knowledge. From this knowlege comes the tecknology that only 25% of the human race makes use of. It seems to me that a better measuring stick for progress in science, would be the good use we make of it, for all, not just a few. A simple well, that gives water to an entire town, is "good scientific progress"
selfAdjoint
Apr7-04, 12:36 PM
You've made your position clear. You said, for instance "Mysticism and philosophy just keep chewing the same old fat and going nowhere". I naturally assumed that you don't know anything about these things.
It is precisely because I do know about these things, both from study and from personal experience, that I say these things. People occasionally have mystical experiences. Not all of these experiences come from pursuing some particular path, such as yoga or zen; some of them just come out of the blue. They can be splendid and convincing. I now believe they are brain states and nothing more; see zoobyshoe's testimony on neuronal events. As for philosophy I've mad a real effort to "do" Hegel, Marx, Heidegger and the phenomonologists, and they don't go anywhere that I can see. This is over and above my undergraduate philosophy courses, which ended at Kant.
It is precisely because I do know about these things, both from study and from personal experience, that I say these things. People occasionally have mystical experiences. Not all of these experiences come from pursuing some particular path, such as yoga or zen; some of them just come out of the blue. They can be splendid and convincing. I now believe they are brain states and nothing more; see zoobyshoe's testimony on neuronal events. As for philosophy I've mad a real effort to "do" Hegel, Marx, Heidegger and the phenomonologists, and they don't go anywhere that I can see. This is over and above my undergraduate philosophy courses, which ended at Kant.
Ok perhaps I was unfair. However if you post stuff about gobs of whatever it was then expect the worst.
One problem may be that you equate inner experiences with mysticism. There is nothing mystical about Buddhism or Taoism etc. Neither is there anything spiritual about them. In fact Buddhist practice involves far more rigour than scienctific practice, since NO assumptions are allowed. Also if idealism is true, as it may be, then by deduction (and mathematics) we can predict that we have to learn this from experience, not from systems of proof or third-person observations. This doesn't mean that idealism is true, but it does mean that personal experience cannot be dismissed as telling us nothing about reality. Whoever does this will never know anything except theories and hypotheses.
selfAdjoint
Apr7-04, 04:05 PM
My use of the term mysticism was not intended to convey vagueness or sloppiness. The mystical tradition I come out of is Catholic, which is very rigorous. Read St. John of the Cross. Nevertheless, Zen and Yoga, and western traditions, do not progress. Rather they hold up examples from the distant past and tell stories about the great enlightenments of those times. In contrast the content of scientific papers this year is different from last year's, and real progress is possible and does occur.
TENYEARS
Apr7-04, 08:56 PM
I disagree about tao, zen, buddism, and all the ism's. I find great truth in meaning in all of them. I was born catholic and still am, but I know they are also true. There were people who understood, but the religions were formed not from them, but from the people who did not understand them. If you understand what is there to build? Sould like a contradiction, no it is the truth. These words are out of what I know and not what I belive. There is a difference. Science is the same way. Because I read a book, or know a formula and know how to apply it does not mean I understand. Religious and scientific experiece are born of the same seed. It is just a matter of time.
I am very honoured to be amongst some of my best respected and certainly most learned and experienced posters here.
I would like to share with you the following poem, my favourite actually, taken out from The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying by Sogyal Rinpoche at p. 31.
1) I walk down the street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk
I fall in.
I am lost...I am hopeless.
It isn't my fault.
It takes forever to find a way out.
2) I walk down the same street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk.
I pretend I don't see it.
I fall in again.
I can't believe I'm in the same place.
But it isn't my fault.
It still takes a long time to get out.
3) I walk down the same street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk
I see it is there
I still fall in...it's a habit
My eyes are open
I know where I am
It is my fault.
I get out immediately.
4) I walk down the same street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk
I walk around it.
5) I walk down another street.
My use of the term mysticism was not intended to convey vagueness or sloppiness. The mystical tradition I come out of is Catholic, which is very rigorous. Read St. John of the Cross. Nevertheless, Zen and Yoga, and western traditions, do not progress. Rather they hold up examples from the distant past and tell stories about the great enlightenments of those times. In contrast the content of scientific papers this year is different from last year's, and real progress is possible and does occur.
How can Buddhism progress? It seems a weird idea. It isn't some doctrine that changes over time. According to Buddhists it's the truth, it would be a bit ridiculous if it kept changing.
I just can't imagine what you mean by 'progress' here. Buddhism isn't some half finished theory of everything slowly getting better over time. The content of this years teachings isn't ever going to be different to last years. It's not some provisional scientific conjecture. What was true two thousand years ago isn't any less true now, how could it be?
I'm amazed that you see the continuous changeability of science's theories as a sign of their truth. It doesn't seem logical somehow.
I disagree about tao, zen, buddism, and all the ism's. I find great truth in meaning in all of them. I was born catholic and still am, but I know they are also true. There were people who understood, but the religions were formed not from them, but from the people who did not understand them. If you understand what is there to build?
Quite agree. Christianity is a classic example. (But NB Zen is not a religion).
Sould like a contradiction, no it is the truth. These words are out of what I know and not what I belive. There is a difference. Science is the same way. Because I read a book, or know a formula and know how to apply it does not mean I understand. Religious and scientific experiece are born of the same seed. It is just a matter of time.
Very true, but not sure about the last sentence. I don't see signs of increasing understanding. I rather think that the opposite is the case.
TENYEARS
Apr8-04, 01:39 PM
The last sentence will be of a vision I had which will come to pass in your life time.
Fliption
Apr8-04, 02:50 PM
Science has going for it that it produces ideas that, when converted to technology, work. I have lived through a lot of history and sociology and politics and commerce in my time, and science is the ONLY human endeavor that can make that statement. Mysticism and philosophy just keep chewing the same old fat and going nowhere. ESP periodically comes up with a new champion, who pretty soon goes away again without accomplishing anything. Meanwhile new avenues of science open up, like molecular biology, and start making predictions that work and pretty soon they generate new technology that relieves another set of human problems. And the mystics and philosophers shift the gob of old fat into their other cheek and keep on chewing.
I don't view it this way at all. This seems to be a very negative way to see things. I don't believe that philosophy and science are competing methodologies to get at the same thing. Science is just a tool of philosophy. It's a lot like a master and his dog. The master will never go fetch the stick. So if this is the way you measure progress than the master is doomed from the start. The master's job is to throw the stick in a certain direction. I believe that philosophy creates the scientific method and has some infuence over the actions of science. The conference going on in Arizona this week is an example of this type of influence, no?
If it's influence is not felt then perhaps that is lack of progress on the part of scientists and not the other way around?
TENYEARS
Apr8-04, 04:49 PM
The great embarasment will be when the truth is known- ah reword, "recognized as truth kind of like the icream of the week". Like I have said 10000 times before belief is meaning less. If the world does not change, it's future will be all of my visions and that will be all of them. That sucks. Wake the ???? up please. The world has a chance to lessen it's future pain by accepting some of it's responsibility now. I hate to say this but it is true. I am almost never wrong, and when I speak out of my knowing which is usually what I address I am never wrong, because it is not my opinion which I am speaking, but the truth. Dam. The truth is like having a hot iron in your stomach that you cannot digest and in times of visions of horror it is like a fish which gets hooked in it's gullet and the hook gets ripped out. Magnify it 100 fold and repeat continually for a while and you will know the feeling of the word horror. It comes from the pit of your soul. Imagine the fish for those of you who do not understand quite yet what a soul is.
Meaningless words of mine arn't they. A pageless book, doesn't seem like the right time yet, but we are getting closer.
@tenyears
you said you understand what thoughts and dreams are.are there some form of hardware that we could use to store our thoughts and dreams outside our brains,thats the question ive come to think of because nowadays my dreams are becoming more vivid and clearer (meaning i can easily remember them)than before.is that possible?
TENYEARS
Apr9-04, 07:26 PM
You are already part of the only computer there is. It is connected to all things. Do not believe me, ask a question. If the answer does not come, why do you think it did not? Is it because you are not hooked in? Is it your inability? Is there such thing as inability? Hmm.. If the answer does come back to you, how is this possible? Ask that next.
russ_watters
Apr13-04, 07:50 PM
How can Buddhism progress? It seems a weird idea. It isn't some doctrine that changes over time. According to Buddhists it's the truth, it would be a bit ridiculous if it kept changing.
I just can't imagine what you mean by 'progress' here. Buddhism isn't some half finished theory of everything slowly getting better over time. The content of this years teachings isn't ever going to be different to last years. It's not some provisional scientific conjecture. What was true two thousand years ago isn't any less true now, how could it be?
I'm amazed that you see the continuous changeability of science's theories as a sign of their truth. It doesn't seem logical somehow. Yes, it would be ridiculous if the Truth kept changing. That (if I may, SA) is the point: most religions are built on fundamental Truths and the pursuit of knowledge undermines them.
Using Catholicism as SA's example, one fundamental Truth was that the Earth is at the center of the universe. The Catholic church persecuted Galileo who had the audacity to say the earth wasn't even the center of the solar system!
See the problem? Those fundamental Truths upon which religions are built aren't necessarily all that truthful.
Science does not imply that the Truth is constantly changing, nor does it claim to even have the truth: you are applying the philosophical thought process where it doesn't belong. Science is merely the pursuit of the fundamental physical Truths of the universe.
Science acknowleges through the scientific method that even if we find the fundamental Truth (theory of everything), we can never be 100% sure that we have it. This, I think, is why many people reject science in favor of mysticism: its easier because it removes uncertainty (until logic and reason cause uncertainty to raise its ugly head again). I don't view it this way at all. This seems to be a very negative way to see things. I don't believe that philosophy and science are competing methodologies to get at the same thing. Science is just a tool of philosophy. It's a lot like a master and his dog. The master will never go fetch the stick. So if this is the way you measure progress than the master is doomed from the start. The master's job is to throw the stick in a certain direction. I believe that philosophy creates the scientific method and has some infuence over the actions of science. The conference going on in Arizona this week is an example of this type of influence, no?
If it's influence is not felt then perhaps that is lack of progress on the part of scientists and not the other way around? Big problem with your reasoning there: science and religion often come into conflict due to new advances in science. Religion is forced to adjust - though it often takes centuries, such as in the case of the pardoning of Galileo. That gives Darwin about 300 years to go before the Catholic church considers accepting his theory.
Hugo Holbling
Apr14-04, 02:56 AM
The Catholic church persecuted Galileo who had the audacity to say the earth wasn't even the center of the solar system!
The Galileo affair is actually quite complex, so what do you mean by "persecution" here?
Big problem with your reasoning there: science and religion often come into conflict due to new advances in science.
Historians of science now agree that "conflicts and discordances between science and religion have arisen from historical contingencies and not from any epistemological or cultural necessity" (cf. the latest edition of Isis (94:4)). I hope you can clarify; if your comment is intended to remark on the latter, you perhaps have more work to do.
Religion is forced to adjust - though it often takes centuries, such as in the case of the pardoning of Galileo.
As i said, Galileo's case involved many factors and it would be better not to simplify it in this fashion, i suggest. Attributing an alteration to being "forced" is less than obvious, too.
That gives Darwin about 300 years to go before the Catholic church considers accepting his theory.
The Catholic position on evolution is rather more subtle, as you could learn by reading both Pius XII's and John Paul II's statements on it. They appear to be bothered not by evolution but the attendent questions of monist theories of mind, among other issues.
Yes, it would be ridiculous if the Truth kept changing. That (if I may, SA) is the point: most religions are built on fundamental Truths and the pursuit of knowledge undermines them.
Using Catholicism as SA's example, one fundamental Truth was that the Earth is at the center of the universe. The Catholic church persecuted Galileo who had the audacity to say the earth wasn't even the center of the solar system!
See the problem? Those fundamental Truths upon which religions are built aren't necessarily all that truthful.
True. But fortunately Buddhism is not a religion, it claims to be simply the truth about existence. As yet, despite its ancient origins, there is no scientific evidence that suggests it is not, and much that suggests that it is.
Science does not imply that the Truth is constantly changing, nor does it claim to even have the truth: you are applying the philosophical thought process where it doesn't belong. Science is merely the pursuit of the fundamental physical Truths of the universe.
What is true is not the concern of science. Even scientists say that.
Science acknowleges through the scientific method that even if we find the fundamental Truth (theory of everything), we can never be 100% sure that we have it.
Good point. According to science there is no such thing as truth.
This, I think, is why many people reject science in favor of mysticism: its easier because it removes uncertainty (until logic and reason cause uncertainty to raise its ugly head again).
This is true, however it is not Buddhist who appeal to mysticism but scientists and western philosophers. They claim that there are 'ignoramibuses' that prevent us knowing anything for certain. In this religion and science are alike.
Big problem with your reasoning there: science and religion often come into conflict due to new advances in science. Religion is forced to adjust - though it often takes centuries, such as in the case of the pardoning of Galileo. That gives Darwin about 300 years to go before the Catholic church considers accepting his theory.
Yep. But don't lump all doctrines that aren't scientific under 'religion' or 'mysticism'. They are not all the same, and few are as naive as institutional Catholicism.
Hugo Holbling
Apr14-04, 06:44 AM
What is true is not the concern of science. Even scientists say that.
According to science there is no such thing as truth.
Could you expand on both the above, please?
Could you expand on both the above, please?
Yes, sounded a bit glib. What I meant was that science is concerned with what is provable, what is true within some system of proof or other. All provable truths are relative (can be disproved starting from different assumptions), and can't be known to be true with certainty.
Science has theories which are more or less successful. But it does not assert that these theories are 'true' in any absolute sense. As I understand it science does not even accept the possibility of certain knowledge or 'Truth'.
Organic
Apr14-04, 08:37 AM
Hi Canute,
What is your opinion abuot Mathematical Logic?
Hugo Holbling
Apr14-04, 08:39 AM
Thanks for the additional comments. Do you not think truth has a role to play in science, particularly as an aim of inquiry (i.e. trying to find true or truthlike theories), even if truth is hard to come by?
Hi Canute,
What is your opinion abuot Mathematical Logic?
In what sense?
Thanks for the additional comments. Do you not think truth has a role to play in science, particularly as an aim of inquiry (i.e. trying to find true or truthlike theories), even if truth is hard to come by?
To be honest I'm not sure. I suppose the general idea is to seek the truth, but what is a 'true' theory? Scientific truths are relative, reached by studying things in relation to one another. If they work well they are deemed true, but this is not truth in any absolute sense. (Do you know the 'Quine-Duhem thesis?). In the end I'd agree with Aristotle and Popper (true knowledge is achievable only by the knower becoming one with the known).
Hugo Holbling
Apr15-04, 06:38 AM
I do know the Duhem-Quine thesis. What do you make of the idea that science aims at theories that are true (or truthlike) in the correspondence (semantic) or deflationary sense? How do you find the more recent formulations of verisimilitude?
If science is not aiming at true (or truthlike) theories, what is it trying for? Can any other notion account for the motivations of scientists? It seems, superficially at least, that instrumentalism is axiologically insufficient. (I have in mind Feyerabend's methodological argument for realism.)
The science has gone prety far.
Far enough to begin from the very start.
I do know the Duhem-Quine thesis. What do you make of the idea that science aims at theories that are true (or truthlike) in the correspondence (semantic) or deflationary sense? How do you find the more recent formulations of verisimilitude?
Sorry but you'll have to explain the terms a bit. I've never got into the technicalities of the different approaches to defining truth. My approach is more naive.
If science is not aiming at true (or truthlike) theories, what is it trying for? Can any other notion account for the motivations of scientists? It seems, superficially at least, that instrumentalism is axiologically insufficient. (I have in mind Feyerabend's methodological argument for realism.)
I know very little about this. However as I understand him Feyerabend was an 'epistemilogical anarchist', a pragmatist about truth. He seems to argue that all truths are relative so we must use whatever system of discovery and proof that seems appropriate to the task. From what little I know he seems to suggest that all truths are contingent. If so I don't agree with him.
I don't know about the motivations of scientists. It is now a wholly professionalised career activity so I suppose earning a living and gaining some degree of status accounts for a lot of what goes on. I'd say that the motivation comes from industry, government and grant-givers rather than scientists themselves.
I'm not sure whether instrumentalism being 'axiologically insufficient' is of any interest to (most) scientists, whether or not they agree. For most science is a good thing to do ex hypothesis, by any method available, whatever philosophers might argue, so these problems can all be ignored. My impression is that most scientists are natural instrumentalists who give little thought to axiology.
Do you have a position on these questions?
Kerrie's original question was:
I am posing this question to find out what others think in our "progress of science". I see science as a journey of discovery of the reality of how our universe functions, to better understand physical truth. Is there a scale of the perspective of reality that science is slowly moving forward and expanding on? If so, how far to the end of this scale are we? More importantly, does my question make sense?
Kerrie later added:
my question was in reference to the progress of our science to the absolute reality of our physical world. are we 80% there? 25% there? this question constantly nags me...it's not like a child who is 10 and knows that when they are 18 they are adults, we don't know how far we have to go, but we can say we have progressed extensively within the last the 200 years scientifically...are we still progressing at this rate, or have we "slowed" down?
i also wonder what would happen to science if we someday had all the answers...
and:
i have this vision that someday science will progress into explaining the currently unexplainable, and this is why i proposed this thread.
Several excellent posts discussed the limits (or otherwise) of science (including what it IS), the unknowability (?) of the future, the meaning of 'unexplainable', etc.
However, there are other aspects which I feel are relevant ...
1) "Science" itself progresses. What we, today, consider to be science (crudely, the application of the scientific method) is relatively new, so in one narrow sense, 'the progress of science' is only meaningful over the period of time in which 'science' has the meaning it has today. I submit that we cannot even guess what (say) the 10th generation decendant of today's 'science' will look like, in ~3,000 to 5,000 years' time.
2) "Progress" has a significant 'perception' or 'expectation' aspect. Several have discussed how 'progress' may be measured. However, the buyers/stockholders/consumers/players' own expectations re 'progress' really do matter. For example, several times in the past few centuries christianity (broadly) and science (broadly) have butted heads, and there was (at least once) little warning that sparks would fly. This historical tension - which continues to this day - sets many players' expectations of what 'progress' is, or should be. Look at the debates on 'consciousness', 'evolution' (actually mostly on abiogenesis), and so on. Nothing comparable about high temperature superconductivity, or neutrino oscillation!
Hugo Holbling
Apr15-04, 10:14 AM
Sorry but you'll have to explain the terms a bit. I've never got into the technicalities of the different approaches to defining truth. My approach is more naive.
I'm reluctant to say so, but if you look at my homepage you can find an introduction to the different theories of truth. Let me know if you have any feedback or find it isn't enough.
From what little I know he seems to suggest that all truths are contingent. If so I don't agree with him.
*shrug* Maybe we can come back to him if and when you read him?
I'd say that the motivation comes from industry, government and grant-givers rather than scientists themselves.
Perhaps partly, but not entirely. I doubt you meant to imply that, though.
My impression is that most scientists are natural instrumentalists who give little thought to axiology.
How did you come by that impression?
Do you have a position on these questions?
Sure: i'm skeptical of this instrumentalism default.
1) "Science" itself progresses.
But that's the question. Does it, and if so in what sense?
several times in the past few centuries christianity (broadly) and science (broadly) have butted heads, and there was (at least once) little warning that sparks would fly. This historical tension - which continues to this day - sets many players' expectations of what 'progress' is, or should be. Look at the debates on 'consciousness', 'evolution' (actually mostly on abiogenesis), and so on. Nothing comparable about high temperature superconductivity, or neutrino oscillation!
The religion/science argument has certainly been a distraction. However I'd argue that debates on superconductivity and neutrinos are insignificant, of interest only to specialists, put alongside those on consciousness and abiogenesis.
How far have we really come?
I've seem to have read an anecdote about Ernest Rutherford (http://library.thinkquest.org/19662/low/eng/biog-rutherford.html) to have been discouraged from studying physics by his teachers. Why? because everything was already discovered. Perhaps a few left over refinements but nothing substantial was to be discovered anymore. Luckily, Ernest did not listen and then he opened a totally new dimension in Physics.
Today there are few scholars that would discourage students studying physics I guess, indicating that we are nowhere near the end.
Moreover, there is also the trend about knowing more about less and less, until we know everything about nothing. I think that's wrong, especially in my field of interest (Earth sciences). There is only one way to make progress, attempting to know everything about everything and keep looking at the big picture, the total system.
1) "Science" itself progresses.But that's the question. Does it, and if so in what sense?If we take 'science' to be the formal application of the scientific method (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html), itself well described and understood, to the nature and origin of the universe, then I think a good case can be made that science has, indeed, progressed. While it's surely much exaggerated, the story of the Greek philosophers and the horse's teeth is a simple example of how far science has progressed - there wasn't much science done in those days, and it wasn't done very effectively (by today's standards).
(I've started a new thread here on how much 'science' there was, historically, in non-Western societies).
several times in the past few centuries christianity (broadly) and science (broadly) have butted heads, and there was (at least once) little warning that sparks would fly. This historical tension - which continues to this day - sets many players' expectations of what 'progress' is, or should be. Look at the debates on 'consciousness', 'evolution' (actually mostly on abiogenesis), and so on. Nothing comparable about high temperature superconductivity, or neutrino oscillation!The religion/science argument has certainly been a distraction. However I'd argue that debates on superconductivity and neutrinos are insignificant, of interest only to specialists, put alongside those on consciousness and abiogenesis.Just my point.
For example, I wonder how much heat there is in debates about abiogenesis in societies avowedly atheistic, or with a religious heritage quite different from christianity.
hitssquad
Apr17-04, 11:05 PM
While it's surely much exaggerated, the story of the Greek philosophers and the horse's teeth is a simple example of how far science has progressed"Males have more teeth than females (http://www.google.com/search?q=aristotle+teeth+women+wrong) in the case of men, sheep, goats, and swine; in the case of other animals observations have not yet been made: but the more teeth they have the more long-lived are they, as a rule, while those are short-lived in proportion that have teeth fewer in number and thinly set."
laserblue
May6-04, 10:16 PM
How far have we really come?
What is the destination? How accurate are our predictions?
The original question regarding the progress of science is interesting but I wonder if that progress can truly be measured. The destination appears to be omniscience but how does one determine when such a destination has been reached? What is 70% of infinity? Some of the posters mention the problem of choosing the scale on which to measure progress such as quality of life or control of the physical environment.
Certainly, people have a greater understanding of the physical universe and that understanding is reflected in working technology and fairly accurate predictions of phenomena in several different disciplines. Still, I would like more than just a few hours advance warning of a tornado and how to prevent maize from Mexico growing 20 ft. tall with a cob 8ft. off the ground under long day conditions north of the 49th parallel.
At the beginning of the 20th century, there were physicists who were pretty confident they knew it all and just had to add a few decimal points. That view unraveled pretty quickly in physics and yet as Asimov pointed out, while the Earth isn't strictly a perfect sphere, it certainly won't ever be a cube.
If one's goal was to take a shape given to one and create a rectangle by adding it to a preexisting shape, there may come a time when one can't just add the new shape onto the preexisting shape but has to rethink the positioning of all the shapes available. How would a person measure the progress of a researcher working on this puzzle? For the first few moves one seems to be making great progress towards the known goal and then one gets stuck spending a lot of time trying to figure out how the new piece of the puzzle is to be fit in. Let's see, Newton gets it let's say 80% right and GTR and the Standard Model are both maybe 90% right in their respective little corners of the world (wait a second, spheres have no corners) but it's been almost 100 years and fitting GTR and the Standard Model together just hasn't happenned yet. Phillippe LeCorbeiller wrote a little piece for Sci. Am. (The Future of Physics) back in the 50's predicting that physicists would have it all worked out by 2000. Brian Greene seems to think he's got the answer in his Branes. Maybe so.
Good point about having 80% of the wrong answer. Time for paradigm shift IMHO.
quddusaliquddus
May7-04, 06:03 AM
One problem may be that you equate inner experiences with mysticism. There is nothing mystical about Buddhism or Taoism etc. Neither is there anything spiritual about them. In fact Buddhist practice involves far more rigour than scienctific practice, since NO assumptions are allowed.
That maybe the problem. The fact that no assumptions are allowed means the narrower field of science can't accomodate it into its perspective. It's science's problem though. It is also more rigorous since somone convinced of Buddhism's truth may well find it hard to progress - he must stop running around in circles of assumptions and break through. Jus a thought occured to me - this pretty much explains why missionary work isn't top proirity in Buddhism - or is it? I could be wrong on this so I'll leave it up to Canute
(and everyone else) to judge the truth of my statements.
That maybe the problem. The fact that no assumptions are allowed means the narrower field of science can't accomodate it into its perspective. It's science's problem though. It is also more rigorous since somone convinced of Buddhism's truth may well find it hard to progress - he must stop running around in circles of assumptions and break through. Jus a thought occured to me - this pretty much explains why missionary work isn't top proirity in Buddhism - or is it? I could be wrong on this so I'll leave it up to Canute
(and everyone else) to judge the truth of my statements.
I can only give an opinion, but I think what you say is sort of true, but sort of false also. I agree about 'breaking through' ones assumptions, and it seems like a good way of putting it. But the issue of 'missionary work' is a lot more complicated, tied up with the nature of what it is that Buddhists know (or purport to know), which does not lend itself to evangelising. I think it depends what you call missionary work.
The Dalai Lama has expressed some gratitude to the Chinese for destroying his country, on the basis that it scattered skilled teachers across the western world. This is looking on bright side of things big time, given what the Chinese have done in Tibet. But it does show that propagating and sustaining the teachings is an important aim within Buddhism, which I think would be regarded as missionary work (esp. to the developed West ). However beyond just making the teachings available and helping people to grasp them I think Buddhists don't like to interfere too much.
Also there is a slight element of selfishness in Buddhist practice, just as there is in serious instrumental practice for a musician. The idea is to rescue oneself, cast the mote out of ones own eye, before deluding oneself that one can help other people very much. Also if this practice is done conscientiously it takes a lot of time and effort.
But maybe this one is better left for a different thread.
notal33t
Jun24-04, 07:32 PM
Does anybody know if the former Taliban government of Afghanistan freely allowed the teaching of modern science in the schools of that nation? It seems to me that unrestricted scientific inquiry would be very threatening to a fundamentalist theocracy.
It is said that folk singer Woody Guthrie painted "This machine kills facists" on his guitar. Maybe a good motto for science would be "This methodology kills religious fanaticism."
:yuck:
'UNRESTRICTED' scientific inquiry?
Unrestricted scientific inquiry (herafter known as) "USI"
To paraphrase Robert Heinlein! BOG help us!
USI, runs into what I call Restrictive scientific inquiry which is in its own way a fundamentalist theocracy with priesthood, saints, martrys, and theology!
Care to debate the premise?
1. Try debating creationism vs evolution, see what THAT gets you, and I mean in our ivy covered halls!
2. Expound on a USI such as cold fusion, and see where THAT gets you!
3. Be a home "tinkerer", and discover something science thinks is irrational such as "continental drift" and see where THAT gets you!
4. Even ATTEMPT to investigate such things as UFO's and see where THAT gets you!
Maybe a good motto for science would be "Scientific methodology kills science"
Rant over!
selfAdjoint
Jun24-04, 08:09 PM
:yuck:
'UNRESTRICTED' scientific inquiry?
Unrestricted scientific inquiry (herafter known as) "USI"
To paraphrase Robert Heinlein! BOG help us!
USI, runs into what I call Restrictive scientific inquiry which is in its own way a fundamentalist theocracy with priesthood, saints, martrys, and theology!
Care to debate the premise?
1. Try debating creationism vs evolution, see what THAT gets you, and I mean in our ivy covered halls!
2. Expound on a USI such as cold fusion, and see where THAT gets you!
3. Be a home "tinkerer", and discover something science thinks is irrational such as "continental drift" and see where THAT gets you!
4. Even ATTEMPT to investigate such things as UFO's and see where THAT gets you!
Maybe a good motto for science would be "Scientific methodology kills science"
Rant over!
Try to rant about unfair science on PF and see what THAT gets you! It gets you this:
1. Creationists pretend to be science but they have yet to come up with evidence that isn't hokum, and their discussion techniques are despicable.
2. Cold fusion got a lot of play in scientific labs around the world until it gradually came out that it didn't do what they said it did. All the work since has been to show that it does something else, something not very interesting.
3. For example?
4. Over on Skepticism & Debunking, in spite of the title, UFOlogy gets a fair hearing.
:yuck:
'UNRESTRICTED' scientific inquiry?
Unrestricted scientific inquiry (herafter known as) "USI"
To paraphrase Robert Heinlein! BOG help us!
USI, runs into what I call Restrictive scientific inquiry which is in its own way a fundamentalist theocracy with priesthood, saints, martrys, and theology!
Care to debate the premise?
1. Try debating creationism vs evolution, see what THAT gets you, and I mean in our ivy covered halls!
2. Expound on a USI such as cold fusion, and see where THAT gets you!
3. Be a home "tinkerer", and discover something science thinks is irrational such as "continental drift" and see where THAT gets you!
4. Even ATTEMPT to investigate such things as UFO's and see where THAT gets you!
Maybe a good motto for science would be "Scientific methodology kills science"
Rant over!Perhaps you could clarify please?
"Unrestricted" means you, as an individual, are free to pursue scientific enquiries without hindrance from the state. Of course there are limitations to your pursuit! For example, it is very likely that you will need to build or buy equipment; however I doubt that even you would feel that 'unrestricted' means every citizen and resident can ask the state to provide her with an SSC, LIGO, Keck, etc ... for free!
Too, states have laws regarding health and safety, and there are pesky things like zoning and local government planning regulations to deal with. But in what way do these restrict your freedom to conduct scientific enquiries?
Specifically, on your list, I don't understand:
1) how are you prevented from publishing your scientific inquiries into creationism and evolution? For a small fee, and a home computer with an internet connection, you can set up a website and publish your inquiries - does the state restrict you from doing that?
2) ditto.
3) the restrictions that you may face with getting a book out on your discovery are the same as those of any author ... convincing a publisher that the book will sell enough copies to be a viable commercial proposition. If you're wealthy enough, you can pay to have your book published ... does the state prevent you from doing that?
4) AFAIK, there are hundreds of folk who investigate UFOs, and publish their findings in a wide variety of ways. How does the state restrict these folk (other than refusing demands for access to military bases or classified documents)?
There is more to that. I guess. Creative people who invent all kind of gadgets and ideas, may also dream about recognition. It's no use if you have concluding proof that the world is flat and 2004 years old if nobody is listening.
Of course the number of highly hilareous hypotheses has increased dramatically with the sheers numbers of intelligentia. This is preventing finding the odd gem somewhere in there.
Now, So many ideas, if I only could figure out how the coronaes and domes on Venus were really formed.
There is more to that. I guess. Creative people who invent all kind of gadgets and ideas, may also dream about recognition. It's no use if you have concluding proof that the world is flat and 2004 years old if nobody is listening.
Of course the number of highly hilareous hypotheses has increased dramatically with the sheers numbers of intelligentia. This is preventing finding the odd gem somewhere in there.
Now, So many ideas, if I only could figure out how the coronaes and domes on Venus were really formed.This looks more at one's ability to present one's ideas and findings cogently, in a manner which invites attention; one's ability as a salesman ('salesperson', for US audiences :wink: ).
As I understood notal33t's post, she was stating that the state is restricting her freedom to conduct scientific inquiries, not complaining about her inability to market her ideas well!
selfAdjoint
Jun25-04, 08:45 AM
Nereid, I don't think it was the state, but the community of academic scientists in "ivy covered halls", that was inhibiting the free spirits of unrestricted inquiry.
SelfAdjoint, you may very well be right (let's see how/if notal33t responds).
If so, however, then her post has me even more confused; this community in their "ivy covered halls" surely has no power to stop notal33t from doing whatever she wants - scientific enquiry or anything else! - except maybe within those halls. And that includes calling herself a 'scientist, engaged in scientific enquiry'.
Perhaps though she wants creationism, UFOlogy, etc to be included as worthy objects of 'scientific inquiry' within the ivy covered halls (if so, why didn't she say so)? Then her question would have been better phrased as something like 'why is creationism not regarded as a valid area of study by those within ivy covered halls?', or perhaps 'how should science change - as an area of research - in order to incorporate creationism within its scope?'
Or maybe, just maybe, she simply doesn't understand what 'scientific inquiry' is?
notal33t
Jun29-04, 06:47 PM
This looks more at one's ability to present one's ideas and findings cogently, in a manner which invites attention; one's ability as a salesman ('salesperson', for US audiences :wink: ).
As I understood notal33t's post, she was stating that the state is restricting her freedom to conduct scientific inquiries, not complaining about her inability to market her ideas well!
=======
After having examined my "nether" region I would hope you were refering to the commenter on my previous post as I've come to the firm conclusion that my gender is of the masculine variety! :surprise:
russ_watters
Jun30-04, 12:15 PM
After having examined my "nether" region I would hope you were refering to the commenter on my previous post as I've come to the firm conclusion that my gender is of the masculine variety! :surprise: Touche', Nereid! :wink: [/inside joke]
=======
After having examined my "nether" region I would hope you were refering to the commenter on my previous post as I've come to the firm conclusion that my gender is of the masculine variety! :surprise:Isn't English a wonderful language?! :tongue2: 'he' carries 'male' meanings, but is also 'neutral'. Then along came PC, in the US at least, and many people started using 'they' as the 'neutral' word, but causing confusion as the word also, in its 'normal' meaning, carries 'more than one person/thing' meanings.
And the internet just makes it worse; all we've got is vanilla words on a computer monitor (or similar); as the saying goes "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog (http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html)"
What did it feel like, to be 'mistaken for a she'? :smile:
notal33t
Jul8-04, 02:51 PM
Isn't English a wonderful language?! :tongue2: 'he' carries 'male' meanings, but is also 'neutral'. Then along came PC, in the US at least, and many people started using 'they' as the 'neutral' word, but causing confusion as the word also, in its 'normal' meaning, carries 'more than one person/thing' meanings.
And the internet just makes it worse; all we've got is vanilla words on a computer monitor (or similar); as the saying goes "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog (http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html)"
What did it feel like, to be 'mistaken for a she'? :smile:
:devil:
After many many years in irc chat rooms with a plethora of pseudonyms not all of the easily identifiable masculine variety aka 'Duquesne' I've become inured to gender bending and treat it in a light hearted manner. As to 'On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog' ARF ARF
:tongue2: Even old dogs can bite!
As to the serious questions over my first rant I intend to post a "hopefully" lucid reply in the near future!
:wink:
As to the serious questions over my first rant I intend to post a "hopefully" lucid reply in the near future!
:wink:Good, I'm looking forward to it :approve: :smile:
notal33t
Jul29-04, 08:38 PM
Nereid, I don't think it was the state, but the community of academic scientists in "ivy covered halls", that was inhibiting the free spirits of unrestricted inquiry.
========
The concept that unrestricted scientific investigation is accessible to all is IMHO fallacious, be it from inability to obtain a sufficiently recognized level of education to lack of funding, or peer disapproval, or even outright hostility to a hypothesis not generally accepted as main stream, in other words. ECONOMIC PRESSURE, STATE PRESSURE, PEER PRESSURE and, ad hominem RIDICULE!
Now to the the "final pressure"!
As a recipient of sticks and stones at the school fence in my early childhood for being "different", I can attest to that particular method of dissuasion personally, it's a most effective method of inhibiting "weird people", from attending school. I might add, that the trauma surrounding such events tends to dissuade a person from acquiring a unbiased view of "normal" folks. Follow that up with the not so obvious censure that occurs when a professor takes a dislike (for whatever reason) to a student, and the rather low level of marks that accompanies that, and the possibility for stellar achievement grows rather dim.
I guess the point of what I'm trying to get across is that no true unrestricted inquiry exists, we are all the product of a society that regards the "gifted" (and what they offer) as strange and threatening.
If what came across from me previously is a true rant then blame it on the large defensive shield forced on me by past circumstances.
Intolerance, impatience, arrogance, mind-games ... it's sad but these negative human attitudes and qualities are to be found among scientists and educators, just as they among other folk. Too, the 'tall poppy syndrome' is unfortunately far from rare; yes, the actual day-to-day 'doing' of science is, in many ways, not so different from the life of 'corporation man', or 'salaryman', and so on.
When $$ becomes involved - as it must, few individuals are wealthy enough in their own right to fund the own scientific projects (there are, of course, notable exceptions, both individuals and good science projects that are very cheap) - especially taxpayer $$, then all the ugliness of politics and greed can enter too.
However, are these problems uniquely limitations of institutional science?
yesicanread
Aug1-04, 10:38 PM
Is there a scale of the perspective of reality
that science is slowly moving forward and expanding on?
If so, how far to the end of this scale are we? More importantly, does my question make sense? :confused:
On my thread in theory development. I show how the perspective mankind has of asking ?'s, and not knowing the answers to every ?
Here's the theory.
1.) I began looking at the plane as if two opposite vertex's had two equal joining points on a plane axis. I considered that if I converted the two points used on the plane I could make a simplex, the axis/plane has three planar points right, and since the plane has three points I could make three sides to the simplex.
Reason: Which is possible since three points define a plane and the scenario would allow be use of geometry or conversion.
If the simplex vertex's are joined on the plane and by a perpendicular altitude between them. It may in fact resemble a sphere. Also If I convert back to using just two points on the axis plane and the vertex's. The degrees used in both triangles equal 360 degree. A circular type shape, a circumference. This 360 degrees may use different points from the plane, and still equal 360 degrees. So all sides of the simplex may be seen as circular. And thus the entire simplex has circular sides that meet equal points on the plane, and are equal. A sphere.
So the simplex or two point vertex has a circular/spherical equivilenence, and may be call AB.
2.) What if when two points on the plane are used I made point symmetry, and the one vertex starts the perpendicular action to the opposite equal vertex. Newton's equal and opposite reaction says this action has a equal and opposite reaction, the plane, as well as the reaction caused by reaching the opposite vertex.
If altitude is action from the vertex, it can't be infinite hight.
But the variation on the plane is inmeasureable one would suppose.(This is disorder I think.)
3.) Because action reconverts to action. The reaction is equal and opposite the action. And so when we create a circular/spherical/planar/geometric movement. That action has been converted back to action/reaction. and passed through reaction to convert to reaction.
4.) And so my description is complete intersection/geometry.Points, Planes, and lines.
and a description of Newton, however general, Which guided Einstein, and guides today's physicists.
Here is Quantum mechanics in a few simple lines. Uncertainty principle intact.
I will explain QM Uncertainty.
1.) Three planar(on a plane), non-colinear(on a line) points, form a "Plane".
2.) The triangle has the triangle inequality theorem.
3.) This theorem is
Action < Reaction + Reaction
4.) My previous theory explained the use of two reactions to one action.
So for your first question. Is there a scale of the perspective of reality. There has to be. The triangle inequality theorem.
For your second question. how far to the end of this scale are we?
We are at the part of asking questions, and realizing that all the questions we ask ever will not ever be fully answered.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.