The progress of science: How far have we really come?

[Kerrie]

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?

 

[marcus]

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 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.

 

[Vast]

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.

 

[Canute]

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 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.

 

[Nereid]

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]

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.

 

[Canute]

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]

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.

 

[Kerrie]

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?

 

[Janitor]

Pardon my tangential comment-

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."

 

[Canute]

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.

 

[Janitor]

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."

 

[Canute]

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.

 

[Janitor]

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]

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.

 

[Canute]

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]

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.

 

[Canute]

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]

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.

 

[Kerrie]

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]

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.

 

[Canute]

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.

 

[Canute]

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 Hawking 'The End of Physics' and Heideggers 'What is Metaphysics', findable online. Both seem relevant here.

 

[Kerrie]

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.

 

[tabloid]

the complexity of the tools we use is slowly increasing...thus progress,in my view, exists.

 

[Canute]

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]

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]

We have gone no where. We have used the knowledge 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 unconscious 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]

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.

 

[Canute]

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.

 

[Rader]

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?

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 knowledge 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]

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.

 

[Canute]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Polly]

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.

 

[Canute]

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.

 

[Canute]

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]

The last sentence will be of a vision I had which will come to pass in your life time.

 

[Fliption]

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]

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.

 

[tabloid]

@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 I've 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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Canute]

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]

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?

 

[Canute]

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]

Hi Canute,

What is your opinion abuot Mathematical Logic?

 

[Hugo Holbling]

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?