9
   

An Attack on Science

 
 
attano
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 03:40 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

Certainty in the enemy of knowledge because with certainty the quest for truth ends... If what you know works, it works; and that is the best situation imaginable...


It seems that you agree with me to a certain extent and I agree with you as well, but partially: I am not in the quest for truth. I am interested to it, notably to those engaged into this quest, but I am not racing, I want no truth.

Yes, I guess that if it works it may be considered the best that we can get. The interesting question - to me - is why this is generally deemed not enough, why we need the "truth"...
(And this would be another debate and I prefer not to go any further).
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 04:23 pm
@attano,
attano wrote:

Fido wrote:

Certainty in the enemy of knowledge because with certainty the quest for truth ends... If what you know works, it works; and that is the best situation imaginable...


It seems that you agree with me to a certain extent and I agree with you as well, but partially: I am not in the quest for truth. I am interested to it, notably to those engaged into this quest, but I am not racing, I want no truth.

Yes, I guess that if it works it may be considered the best that we can get. The interesting question - to me - is why this is generally deemed not enough, why we need the "truth"...
(And this would be another debate and I prefer not to go any further).
Truth like Good is an infinite, but Truth is a direction and Good is a destination...We lump all the virtues together and fail to see their common element in benefit for human kind... As long as the good is personal good, individual good, we do not care what vice is carried along for the ride...Truth is knowledge, and Sorcates said knowledge was virtue while a later philosopher said Knowledge is power... Which is it??? Where lies truth, because science does lead to power, but seldom to the general good....If people will see science result in good, they must first learn it, learn to fear it, and learn to hate the power it puts into the hands of individuals barely worthy of the breath they take let alone the lives the extinguish...Knowledge is wonderful... The power my knowledge gives me is self control... For another without morals the object may be my control so he can live freely, without control, without the consequences he forces others to endure... The danger of knowledge for good is slight...The danger of knowledge for knowledge is considerable, and the danger of knowledge for power is unacceptable... A democracy, and a true democracy at that should get a handle on science and technology... If we do not govern science and make it produce good, it will certainly produce misery, as it has...
ikurwa89
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 04:56 pm
@parados,
Yes, I didn't use neither but what I did was reflect on both, me using inductive reasoning does nothing more than say if it happend in the past, then it's going to happen in the future, and for deductive resoning( double maths major) i wonder if these axioms are really true even tho they are that obvious!

So, obviously both of these reasoning methods that we use are not fully reliable.

Well for me to quesiton things like this is a paradox in it self.
0 Replies
 
ikurwa89
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 04:58 pm
@High Seas,
Lol, I know what science is and because you take things like induction for granted which science heavily rests upon.

I'm trying to nail down the nature of knowledge and how we know things, but because you don't seem care, you see this question as "science is stupid".

Ask your self this, what does science require out of the universe before you applies the scientific method.

ikurwa89
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 04:59 pm
@kennethamy,
How do you know what you precived is a correction upon the pervious?

The fact we have this discrepency, tells us something is not right.
ikurwa89
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 05:03 pm
@attano,
See I'm aware that we can only achieve a degree of knowledge but looking at it from a philosophical point of you, what if this degree is in fact wrong.

I'm trying to nail down all knowledge we have, but it seems like we can't know anything for certain. Why say to a certain degree when you might aswell say we can't know anything?

If we can know, we know 100% but if 100% is a myth, then nothing can be known and hence we are all skeptics.. but this raises another problem tho Sad

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 05:14 pm
@ikurwa89,
ikurwa89 wrote:
How do you know what you precived is a correction upon the pervious?

The fact we have this discrepency, tells us something is not right.


Is English not your native language?
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 05:17 pm
@ikurwa89,
Seems you confuse uself with pretty rethoics, which is a common thing in philosophy, in science you have to make something that least have a plausible conclusion, where philosphy are a consisten rethorical dream world.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 08:31 pm
@HexHammer,
I suppose you are the solely judge of what "plausible" is all about...speaking in rethoric and dreams...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 11:21 pm
@ikurwa89,
ikurwa89 wrote:

Lol, I know what science is and because you take things like induction for granted which science heavily rests upon.

I'm trying to nail down the nature of knowledge and how we know things, but because you don't seem care, you see this question as "science is stupid".

Ask your self this, what does science require out of the universe before you applies the scientific method.



Let me explain what knowledge is... Knowledge is judgement, specifically when we can form a concept of a thing, meaning a physical object, it is with knowledge that we judge, and the concept contains the knowledge we have about the object, and this is true whether the object is a square or a cat... Of infinites we cannot say we have knowledge for knowledge is limited to finite objects and so knowledge is finite as well... In any event, all we can know of the finite objects of which we may judge only constitutes a fraction inestimable of what we might might possibly know...

The difference between our concept and the reality it represents is called heterogeny, and the points of concurance are called homogeneity; and the bridge betwen these two is analogy... This is how we know, by analogy... If we say a plane is like an automobile that flies we have made a judgement upon knowledge expressed as analogy... If we say a joint in a body is like a hinge on a door, it represents a bit of knowledge expressed as analogy, but it is not the sum of our knowledge, nor the extent of our ignorance, and for that reason all concepts are open ended, supported by all examples, and likely disproved by a single example... See there; I didn't know I could express all I know about knowledge in two paragraphs until I tried... Thank Duns Scotus for the knowledge as Analogy thing... Does that seem right??? That you only know what a thing is when you know what it is like???
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2010 11:25 pm
@ikurwa89,
ikurwa89 wrote:

See I'm aware that we can only achieve a degree of knowledge but looking at it from a philosophical point of you, what if this degree is in fact wrong.

I'm trying to nail down all knowledge we have, but it seems like we can't know anything for certain. Why say to a certain degree when you might aswell say we can't know anything?

If we can know, we know 100% but if 100% is a myth, then nothing can be known and hence we are all skeptics.. but this raises another problem tho Sad



Knowledge does not have to be certain or complete... It only has to work when they flip the switch....
0 Replies
 
attano
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2010 01:02 am
@ikurwa89,
ikurwa89 wrote:

See I'm aware that we can only achieve a degree of knowledge but looking at it from a philosophical point of you, what if this degree is in fact wrong.


Yes, what if...?
How would we know if that degree is wrong?
Generally there is some guy who comes with a better explanation - because it predicts more, because his theory is more exposed to falsifiability - and that replaces the other one, who still managed to be successful, somehow, but not as much as its competitor.
Outside this, which is ultimately a sort of consumer approach to "truth", chosing the one which looks as the safer bet and the more convenient, I believe that I see no other way to determine if the "degree of certainty" of some scientific theory is "wrong". (Unless there are huge structural problems, so that the theory is inconsistent and it would be possible to deduct contraddictions - which still would be tolerated if that can be delimited to "small", well defined areas).


ikurwa89 wrote:

I'm trying to nail down all knowledge we have, but it seems like we can't know anything for certain.


Yes, it seems so.
Itchy?
Please note that there are people that think that this is a bliss - hard believers in free will, for instance.

ikurwa89 wrote:

Why say to a certain degree when you might aswell say we can't know anything?

If we can know, we know 100% but if 100% is a myth, then nothing can be known and hence we are all skeptics.. but this raises another problem tho Sad


There is something between 100% and 0%.
Mankind has survived quite well so far; if it was paralysed by skepticism it would have gone extinct a long time ago.
We do "know" things, even if they are not certain... and actually that's why it is interesting.

0 Replies
 
attano
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2010 01:54 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

Truth like Good is an infinite, but Truth is a direction and Good is a destination...We lump all the virtues together and fail to see their common element in benefit for human kind... As long as the good is personal good, individual good, we do not care what vice is carried along for the ride...Truth is knowledge, and Sorcates said knowledge was virtue while a later philosopher said Knowledge is power... Which is it??? Where lies truth, because science does lead to power, but seldom to the general good....If people will see science result in good, they must first learn it, learn to fear it, and learn to hate the power it puts into the hands of individuals barely worthy of the breath they take let alone the lives the extinguish...Knowledge is wonderful... The power my knowledge gives me is self control... For another without morals the object may be my control so he can live freely, without control, without the consequences he forces others to endure... The danger of knowledge for good is slight...The danger of knowledge for knowledge is considerable, and the danger of knowledge for power is unacceptable... A democracy, and a true democracy at that should get a handle on science and technology... If we do not govern science and make it produce good, it will certainly produce misery, as it has...


Fido, with the due respect, I find this a bit off-topic.
Let's say that you probably tend to side with Socrates and Plato, while I side with the "later philosopher".
There will be opportunities to discuss all this, but let's try to have this debate on something not as broad as infinites (?) life-knowledge-truth.
I just wanted to suggest a different angle about the attack on science.

Anyway, I don't know if you are interested, but actually there is at least one governement that does want to have a handle on science and technology - although it is not exactly a democracy. It is the Roman Catholic Church...
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2010 02:54 am
@ikurwa89,
ikurwa89 wrote:

Science relies heavily on induction reasoning, but induction reasoning is seen as problematic because it can't justify it self. Obviously even deductive reasoning is flawed due to the assumptions used i.e the set of axioms.

So does this mean skepticism is ultimately right even tho it's a self paradoxical concept.

Think about it!

Just thought I'd get the chance before people start going like.. do you even know what the word induction/deductive reasoning or axioms means. Yes I do know what they mean, and it's obvious because you don't!


I keep hearing this argument, I guess it is the newer attempt to try and toss out logic and reasoning. There is something incredibly simple that everyone who makes this argument fails to notice. I can use a metaphor to show just how sill asking this question is.

Logic and reasoning are basically tools. Now if you have a tool, that tool can not create itself nor can it be used to fix or repair itself. The tool is suppose to be used on other things, and that is it's design. The same is true for logic and reasoning. It does not need to be used on itself nor can it be. Those who try to use reason and logic to prove them will fail because it is like trying to use a tool on itself.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2010 05:49 am
@attano,
attano wrote:

Fido wrote:

Truth like Good is an infinite, but Truth is a direction and Good is a destination...We lump all the virtues together and fail to see their common element in benefit for human kind... As long as the good is personal good, individual good, we do not care what vice is carried along for the ride...Truth is knowledge, and Sorcates said knowledge was virtue while a later philosopher said Knowledge is power... Which is it??? Where lies truth, because science does lead to power, but seldom to the general good....If people will see science result in good, they must first learn it, learn to fear it, and learn to hate the power it puts into the hands of individuals barely worthy of the breath they take let alone the lives the extinguish...Knowledge is wonderful... The power my knowledge gives me is self control... For another without morals the object may be my control so he can live freely, without control, without the consequences he forces others to endure... The danger of knowledge for good is slight...The danger of knowledge for knowledge is considerable, and the danger of knowledge for power is unacceptable... A democracy, and a true democracy at that should get a handle on science and technology... If we do not govern science and make it produce good, it will certainly produce misery, as it has...


Fido, with the due respect, I find this a bit off-topic.
Let's say that you probably tend to side with Socrates and Plato, while I side with the "later philosopher".
There will be opportunities to discuss all this, but let's try to have this debate on something not as broad as infinites (?) life-knowledge-truth.
I just wanted to suggest a different angle about the attack on science.

Anyway, I don't know if you are interested, but actually there is at least one governement that does want to have a handle on science and technology - although it is not exactly a democracy. It is the Roman Catholic Church...

I doubt what you say about the church.. They still teach philosophy in their universities and if they do not teach physics their philosophy can only be passe...
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2010 07:01 am
Scientists do not talk about 100% truth, only progress towards truth. Evidence is observed. Inferences are made. A hypothesis is proposed. Tests are designed. If the hypothesis fails any tests, it is either discarded or modified. If the hypothesis survives the tests, it is tentatively accepted.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2010 07:31 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

north wrote:

ikurwa89 wrote:

Science relies heavily on induction reasoning, but induction reasoning is seen as problematic because it can't justify it self. Obviously even deductive reasoning is flawed due to the assumptions used i.e the set of axioms.

So does this mean skepticism is ultimately right even tho it's a self paradoxical concept.

Think about it!

Just thought I'd get the chance before people start going like.. do you even know what the word induction/deductive reasoning or axioms means. Yes I do know what they mean, and it's obvious because you don't!


science relies on the behaviour of the object first , which leads to " deductive " reasoning

not inductive reasoning at all
I thought inductive reasoning involved observation, which you just suggested with the word behavior...


Inductive reasoning, as contrasted with deductive reasoning, is reasoning whose conclusion even if justified by the premises, does not follow necessarily from the premises. While deductive reasoning is reasoning which, if the conclusion is justified by the premises, then the conclusion does follow necessarily from the premises. The distinction has nothing whatever to do with observation or behavior, or anything else of the sort.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2010 07:34 am
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

Scientists do not talk about 100% truth, only progress towards truth. Evidence is observed. Inferences are made. A hypothesis is proposed. Tests are designed. If the hypothesis fails any tests, it is either discarded or modified. If the hypothesis survives the tests, it is tentatively accepted.


You think that astronomers do not think it is true that Mars is the fourth planet, or that chemists do not think that water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen? What astronomers and chemists have you been talking to?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2010 08:15 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

north wrote:

ikurwa89 wrote:

Science relies heavily on induction reasoning, but induction reasoning is seen as problematic because it can't justify it self. Obviously even deductive reasoning is flawed due to the assumptions used i.e the set of axioms.

So does this mean skepticism is ultimately right even tho it's a self paradoxical concept.

Think about it!

Just thought I'd get the chance before people start going like.. do you even know what the word induction/deductive reasoning or axioms means. Yes I do know what they mean, and it's obvious because you don't!


science relies on the behaviour of the object first , which leads to " deductive " reasoning

not inductive reasoning at all
I thought inductive reasoning involved observation, which you just suggested with the word behavior...


Inductive reasoning, as contrasted with deductive reasoning, is reasoning whose conclusion even if justified by the premises, does not follow necessarily from the premises. While deductive reasoning is reasoning which, if the conclusion is justified by the premises, then the conclusion does follow necessarily from the premises. The distinction has nothing whatever to do with observation or behavior, or anything else of the sort.


Reason without insight is dead... RIP, and thanks...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Sep, 2010 08:28 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

Scientists do not talk about 100% truth, only progress towards truth. Evidence is observed. Inferences are made. A hypothesis is proposed. Tests are designed. If the hypothesis fails any tests, it is either discarded or modified. If the hypothesis survives the tests, it is tentatively accepted.


You think that astronomers do not think it is true that Mars is the fourth planet, or that chemists do not think that water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen? What astronomers and chemists have you been talking to?

Kenn... Truth is a moral form that we apply to social forms and physical forms... Do I think it true that Mars is the fourth planet??? I think it is true that Mars is the name we give to the Fourth nearest planet to the Sun... Is that what you mean; because there are not enough words in the dictionary to qualify every statement so it is true for all time as infinite truth would be... I am not trying to relativize anything... There are truths and there are lies, but a particular feature of all lies is that they contain some truth, and invariably the truth is not all true... Our world has a continuum of truth, and truth as a moral form is one of the virtues, so whether you say knowledge is virtue, or one of the virtues it is correct, relatively, true...

I know we have left tracks in this mud before; but no matter how many examples of truth you produce you do not define truth as an ideal, and a form... And that is what truth is, the best possible definition, is a moral form... It is an abstraction of our reality, the sort of spiritual milieu of consciousness we give meaning to because it has no specific being...
 

Related Topics

Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
Saturn as seen by Cassini - Discussion by littlek
What is a Light Year? - Question by Dorothy Parker
 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/20/2014 at 10:03:35