Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
Is science good for anything other than technological advance?
Can science be a way of understanding our universe?
Print Is science good for anything other than technological advance? | |
|
mark73
Graduate Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 22, 2009 Total Topics: 23 Total Posts: 184 |
 #51
exel+two wrote: Ah, but language is private: we are told what certain words mean but those words; when applied to our personal subject reality, mean something different then when they are applied to a different subject reality. Not everyone in the world would agree that the grass is green; some people are blind; they wouldn't agree that the grass is green; they have only our word to go on. Reality is a subjective phenomena. Just because one scientist draws a certain conclusion from observation of a given phenomenon; does not mean that every human being in existence will agree with his conclusion. No, language is public. Everyone with eyesight that can distiguish the various wavelengths do agree that grass is green. "The cat is on the mat". Every sufficiently intelligent human being with the required sensory abilities (e.g eye sight) can understand these words and verify the statement. Of course a person with an IQ of 30 or who has no senses can not verify this. He does not have the equipment to function. If one culture says the sun is a fire lighted in a chariot driven by flying horses and our society through empirical investigation (science) shows that it is a gaseous ball of huge preportions, then im sorry, empirical investigation puts the case to rest. The sun is a huge gaseous sphere. Do you believe every idea has equal right to the truth. Your truth, my truth, their truth? That its all hocus pocus? I can see why people with an arts background (not saying you do) might feel empowered to believe this. |
|
Cadrache
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 09, 2006 Location: AB, Canada Total Topics: 107 Total Posts: 3080 |
#52
I disagree. Claiming that one utterance is of greater truth then another is somehwat nonsensical is it not? I can make a ball of flame shoot out of anything - be it the back of an jet engine to an apple. Appearance alone of a chariot is not a disproof of the existence of a chariot that could shoot fire. At least in some biblical tenses. The next fault with your argument is the assumption that any and all physical concepts available to the English language is obviously available to any other. Yet you claim that the usage of 'chariot' - to move is a disproof of the actual movement of the sun? Gods - they even have the concept that an additional force is needed to create movement itself! And we come to the conclusion that they are wrong on the mere account that our language insists on informing us what type of relationship we use to talk about a subject. "Hey dude! This is a metaphor!" Like, Really? Uh-huh! Then the counter-argument generally goes "But no more do we attempt to sit upon the sun emporer's chair." We now know that the sun would kill us and therefore the sun emporer cannot exist. Yet the fundamental aspect still exists. We still attempt to find the way in which The Sun Emporer dictates our lives. Not only that be we still insist on duplicating the Sun Emporer's role. The guide of Science: Ignorance of metaphor. By couching wording such that you no longer acknowledge the private experience to discovery allows one to claim objectivity of whatever hypothesis you wish to announce. Edited by Cadrache on Nov 10, 2009 - 11:32 AM Words the wiser become the name you do not know. - Some guy with a surname Blanchard. _____________________________________________ For Wit to happen; one must first play in shadows. |
|
mark73
Graduate Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 22, 2009 Total Topics: 23 Total Posts: 184 |
#53
Cadrache wrote: I disagree. Claiming that one utterance is of greater truth then another is somehwat nonsensical is it not? I can make a ball of flame shoot out of anything - be it the back of an jet engine to an apple. Appearance alone of a chariot is not a disproof of the existence of a chariot that could shoot fire. At least in some biblical tenses. The next fault with your argument is the assumption that any and all physical concepts available to the English language is obviously available to any other. Yet you claim that the usage of 'chariot' - to move is a disproof of the actual movement of the sun? Gods - they even have the concept that an additional force is needed to create movement itself! And we come to the conclusion that they are wrong on the mere account that our language insists on informing us what type of relationship we use to talk about a subject. "Hey dude! This is a metaphor!" Like, Really? Uh-huh! Then the counter-argument generally goes "But no more do we attempt to sit upon the sun emporer's chair." We now know that the sun would kill us and therefore the sun emporer cannot exist. Yet the fundamental aspect still exists. We still attempt to find the way in which The Sun Emporer dictates our lives. Not only that be we still insist on duplicating the Sun Emporer's role. The guide of Science: Ignorance of metaphor. By couching wording such that you no longer acknowledge the private experience to discovery allows one to claim objectivity of whatever hypothesis you wish to announce. Your puting words in my mouth that I never said. Some of the things your claiming I said is just insane. What I am saying is that communication is possible between all cultures, and with the right equipment every human (with exceptions already mentioned) can come to realize that the sun is a large sphere of gas (an example of a statement that is either true or false and can be verified). And of course some utterances are of greater truth than others. I am a human is true. I am a piece of cat poo is false. You seem to support a radical form of postmodernism (am i right?). This may be a compliment for you. |
|
Cadrache
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 09, 2006 Location: AB, Canada Total Topics: 107 Total Posts: 3080 |
#54
Why would I be willing to allow you intellectual property rights to my own thoughts? I am not putting words in your mouth. I never have and never will. (except maybe literally... stuffing paper into somebody's mouth can come in handy.) The first two words should indicate that I am not building upon what you stated. Insane? It doesn't really matter. And I still disagree. At best we come to an agreement on account of similarity. The creation of a new word for the concept in one language into another actually creates a new language. New interpretations to a pre-existing understanding of the concepts behind words as well as new relationships as a pre-existing word evolves. Like "Space." In my opinion, the evolution of language itself and it's relationships play a key role in what science discovers. Have you ever taken note to the advancement of Science and the actual change of language to mechanistic form? The other aspect with language and Science is this: When we have two objects in which one affects the other - the one we think we know the least about is the one that will have the oddest mechanisms. Because we know more about movement - space alters. I have never truly seen in existence "Concepts existing within Reality." I have however noted that assertions follow similar systems to that of reality. Edited by Cadrache on Nov 12, 2009 - 3:26 PM Words the wiser become the name you do not know. - Some guy with a surname Blanchard. _____________________________________________ For Wit to happen; one must first play in shadows. |
|
mark73
Graduate Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 22, 2009 Total Topics: 23 Total Posts: 184 |
#55
"Claiming that one utterrance is of greater truth then another is somewhat nonsensical is it not?". Well I guess in my example that I'm a piece of cat poo is just as sensical as I'm a human. I'm prety sure we can verify I'm a human. This is your claim, but do you REALLY believe this? Are you saying something else?? Such as how we see the world depends partially on our concepts. If this is the case I agree, but that in no way makes truth nothing but a subjective opinion. Something remains true or false within a coneptaul scheme. And this scheme can be communicated to others. Also if you are claiming what I quoted you saying (the very first sentence of my post) than your belief applies to that very statement. Theres no point in arguing because all our utterances have no truth to them (or what amounts to the same thing)or the same amount of truth. |
|
Cadrache
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 09, 2006 Location: AB, Canada Total Topics: 107 Total Posts: 3080 |
#56
Reference Searles definition of utterance. It'll run better. Unfortunately concepts could to a certain extent be vitalistic more then mechanistic. Othewise I would have jumped straight to thoughts - instead of application of words. I don't really know (since I haven't read any of Searles work in its' entirety.) but I would claim that no truth or falsehood exists within any utterance. All functions that exist for claiming one or othe other is dependent from reality itself- and not the mere illusion that words are. (nodes as well.) But then again, I also dislike claiming that for any answer that is either a yes/no - it is not equivilant to an accurate true/false paradigm. Edited by Cadrache on Nov 12, 2009 - 3:24 PM Words the wiser become the name you do not know. - Some guy with a surname Blanchard. _____________________________________________ For Wit to happen; one must first play in shadows. |
|
jorndoe
Investigator  Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 06, 2008 Location: Canada,Denmark Total Topics: 29 Total Posts: 1018 |
#57
exel+two (#24) wrote: All I'm trying to say is that science is not the answer to our questions about the nature of the universe. Perhaps not the answer, however, science appears to provide the best descriptions of reality. Do you have some more specific examples of the questions you have in mind? Not all questions are intelligible, for example "what is the cause of causation?" is syntactically correct, but does not carry much meaning. exel+two (#24) wrote: The thing that pisses me off are people who are convinced that science is a way to know things for certain. No, science does not make omniscient, nor provide absolute assurance. Scientific hypotheses are demonstrated by evidence and observations and such; I doubt anyone with an interest in philosophy call those hypotheses absolute knowledge. But, for all intents and purposes, such hypotheses might as well be called facts. People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1 |
|
Cadrache
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 09, 2006 Location: AB, Canada Total Topics: 107 Total Posts: 3080 |
#58
Merely providing the best description or mechanical description would not be the reason why we develop technology. While we use one for developing the other (and vice versa) the reasons why we develop either is not science, or technological advancement. Words the wiser become the name you do not know. - Some guy with a surname Blanchard. _____________________________________________ For Wit to happen; one must first play in shadows. |
|
jorndoe
Investigator Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 06, 2008 Location: Canada,Denmark Total Topics: 29 Total Posts: 1018 |
#59
Cadrache (#58) wrote: Merely providing the best description or mechanical description would not be the reason why we develop technology. While we use one for developing the other (and vice versa) the reasons why we develop either is not science, or technological advancement. In general, I would tend to agree. Motivations are somewhat a different debate though. Curiosity? Laziness? Plain physical and emotional comfort? Information sharing? Unknown interest? Self improval drive? Making money? Gaining power over others? Indifference or boredom? Survival instinct? Why do astronomers map the skies and develop mathematical models of the cosmos? What was the motivation of making radios and TVs, and subsequently why did TV stations come about? Why do PhDs research esoteric corners of academia? Howcome (some) Imams read (parts of) the Qur'an every day? What would be your motivation for participating in these forums?  People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1 |
|
thewatcher
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Members Joined: Mar 19, 2009 Total Topics: 44 Total Posts: 1176
|
#60
jorndoe wrote: Perhaps not the answer, however, science appears to provide the best descriptions of reality. In what sense is does science offer the best description of reality? |
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.