Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 
Send Topic Print
Science and Philosophy (Read 13886 times)
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #60 - Dec 10th, 2010 at 9:38pm
 
You are as confident in the scientific consensus of today as were scientists a hundred years ago. Yet much of those certainties are now laughable. Your current certainties will be laughable in a hundred years. SCientific certainties date faster than fashion.

Wisdom, on the other hand, is not like the latest hat of scienctific certainty.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #61 - Dec 10th, 2010 at 10:15pm
 
Soren wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 9:38pm:
You are as confident in the scientific consensus of today as were scientists a hundred years ago. Yet much of those certainties are now laughable. Your current certainties will be laughable in a hundred years. SCientific certainties date faster than fashion.

Wisdom, on the other hand, is not like the latest hat of scienctific certainty.


In some areas, science will advance. It's just another branch of wisdom as you call it, but a natural philosophy with both feet firmly on the ground. 

The hat of philosophy is changing so much that it's like a chameleon. The problem is that nobody can decide whether or not it even exists. On the one hand we have Sigmund Freud waxing lyrically about its elaborate lace filigree while the next philosopher reckons that it's actually a gaudy tartan bonnet.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #62 - Dec 10th, 2010 at 10:56pm
 
Ah, there you have it - wisdom is not a matter of conensus in the way science is. 'Nobody can decide' once and for all indeed - except each must decide for himself. A burden, a task that has to be faced by each in a way tenets of science don't. I can lead a blameless life even if I am ignorant of basic laws of physics and chemistry. Not so if I live entirely unwisely.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #63 - Dec 11th, 2010 at 7:47am
 
Soren wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 10:56pm:
Ah, there you have it - wisdom is not a matter of conensus in the way science is. 'Nobody can decide' once and for all indeed - except each must decide for himself.



A bit like the emperor's new clothes.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #64 - Dec 11th, 2010 at 8:32am
 
muso wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 7:47am:
Soren wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 10:56pm:
Ah, there you have it - wisdom is not a matter of conensus in the way science is. 'Nobody can decide' once and for all indeed - except each must decide for himself.



A bit like the emperor's new clothes.



Yes, that' right. there is a touch of that in science. It always produces the little boy in the end, but it can go for a long time between such paradigm shifts. And scientists learn from philosophers and artists to have a fresh look.

Philosophy is not enough, to be sure. But it is the corrective science needs.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #65 - Dec 11th, 2010 at 9:22am
 
Soren wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 8:32am:
Yes, that' right. there is a touch of that in science. It always produces the little boy in the end, but it can go for a long time between such paradigm shifts. And scientists learn from philosophers and artists to have a fresh look.

Philosophy is not enough, to be sure. But it is the corrective science needs.


So what you're saying is that science is like the little boy who cried out "The emperor has no clothes"

To some extent I agree. It certainly enables us to cut through all the hypocrisy and self gratification once you subject the grand emperor (or empress) Philosophia to an analytical assessment based on reality.

Broken down to its etymology, what we are arguing about here is knowledge versus (a love of) wisdom.

It's analogous to ascending some stairs. There are two components.  1. You need to know where you're going. 2. You need to actually have stairs and understand how to walk up them.

You can't have one without the other.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 96308
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #66 - Dec 11th, 2010 at 4:53pm
 
muso wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 8:49pm:
Karnal wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 3:21pm:
Well, sure, but the jury is still out and the findings aren't in.

A dualist sees the observer and observed as different phenomena - well, in Kantian terms, neumena and phenomena.

A monist, however, sees everything arising from mind - or spirit (for Hegel).

So it's the empiricists that are the dualists here, as they believe that the brain is an objective phenomenon that, by observervation through the senses, can be understood by the mind.

I don't think there's anything that can be understood outside the context in which you view, interpret or read, so in this sense I'm a monist.

I also believe in a universal form of consciousness from which all matter descends, but I wouldn't dream of trying to prove it or quanify it in terms of truth. I think you need to experience it, and I think this experience is what consciousness is.

This doesn't mean that all science is wrong because it's based on a system of dualism. I think empiricism has a lot going for it - as long as it maintains a form of humility and stays away from questions of epistemology, or what we can know as truth.

I agree with your position that philosophy needs to be based on facts. But I wouldn't call it "reality", because again, this implies an objective form of truth that we all have access to.

Brain defects can certainly cause mind defects, but alas, it's the mental defects that are much more common.


Hmmm, sometimes I'm not sure if you're just playing with me the way you play with some others.

Science takes a dualist approach? Well that's a new way of looking at things. I understand dualism to mean dualism of mind and brain, but I understand your argument too. I think it's daft, but that's ok. At least it's not daft in an arrogant way.


Of course science is dualistic - it divides itself into subject and object, and it labels and categorises ideas, as you say, as truths.

Sure there are natural laws, but can't there be other laws too? Laws of the mind? Laws of justice and ethics?

To be honest, I'm not sure. Sounds a bit dangerous to me.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #67 - Dec 11th, 2010 at 5:43pm
 
muso wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 9:22am:
Soren wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 8:32am:
Yes, that' right. there is a touch of that in science. It always produces the little boy in the end, but it can go for a long time between such paradigm shifts. And scientists learn from philosophers and artists to have a fresh look.

Philosophy is not enough, to be sure. But it is the corrective science needs.


So what you're saying is that science is like the little boy who cried out "The emperor has no clothes"



Yes but remember - that emperor can be someone crowned by science itself. Scientists can be as ideological or dogmatic as any theologian or philosopher.

The saving grace for philosophy is that there is no money in it - unlike in what some are pleased to call 'scientific consensus'.



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #68 - Dec 11th, 2010 at 6:45pm
 
Soren wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 5:43pm:
Yes but remember - that emperor can be someone crowned by science itself. Scientists can be as ideological or dogmatic as any theologian or philosopher.

The saving grace for philosophy is that there is no money in it - unlike in what some are pleased to call 'scientific consensus'.



Scientists are human like everybody else. The strength of science lies in the scientific method.  The scientific method doesn't work on social order or reputation. It works on the strengths of ideas alone.  Of course there is rivalry in Science just as there is in any human activity. 

Peer review of scholars' work has existed at least since it was known as "The Inquisition of the Holy Roman and Catholic Church". It hasn't become any friendlier as a result of modern times. 

If you can demonstrate that your idea is sound and it can survive the barrage of inquisition that is peer review, then you can go from being regarded with suspicion to being recognised as an authority on any given topic in the blink of an eye. It's a friendless cold process.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #69 - Dec 11th, 2010 at 11:33pm
 
muso wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 6:45pm:
Soren wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 5:43pm:
Yes but remember - that emperor can be someone crowned by science itself. Scientists can be as ideological or dogmatic as any theologian or philosopher.

The saving grace for philosophy is that there is no money in it - unlike in what some are pleased to call 'scientific consensus'.



Scientists are human like everybody else.
No, they are not. They belive this:
Quote:
The strength of science lies in the scientific method.  The scientific method doesn't work on social order or reputation. It works on the strengths of ideas alone.  

The scientific method is not science itself. It's not 'natural law' like gravity.


Quote:
If you can demonstrate that your idea is sound and it can survive the barrage of inquisition that is peer review, then you can go from being regarded with suspicion to being recognised as an authority on any given topic in the blink of an eye. It's a friendless cold process.


It's a bitchy group-think haven.
Didn't work with global cooling/warming/overpopulation/underpopulation/immigration/desalination plants/urban design/architecture/eradication of rabbits/toads/whatever.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #70 - Dec 12th, 2010 at 11:47am
 
Soren wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 11:33pm:
60
The scientific method is not science itself. It's not 'natural law' like gravity.



What do you understand about gravity? Can you prove your assertion that gravity is a natural law? - and what do you mean by natural in this context?   Tongue
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #71 - Feb 11th, 2011 at 8:40am
 
muso wrote on Dec 12th, 2010 at 11:47am:
Soren wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 11:33pm:
60
The scientific method is not science itself. It's not 'natural law' like gravity.



What do you understand about gravity? Can you prove your assertion that gravity is a natural law? - and what do you mean by natural in this context?   Tongue



This: on a lovely day, when the the hill-side's dew-pearled,  the lark's on the wing, the snail's on the thorn, God's in his Heaven and all's right with the world, you and I are walking arm in arm, discussing the great and the small things in life when, without warning, I push you off a cliff.

WHat happens when you are pushed off that cliff is gravity in facta non verba.

WHat I mean by natural in this context is that everyone who has ever lived will know and understand, without any further explanation, what happens to you when you are pushed off that cliff.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #72 - Mar 1st, 2011 at 12:39pm
 


Quote:
Disclaimer: The factual information contained herein may be detrimental to your erroneous preconceptions.



Chapter I — The One Thing Needful
“NOW, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir!”

The scene was a plain, bare, monotonous vault of a schoolroom, and the speaker’s square forefinger emphasized his observations by underscoring every sentence with a line on the schoolmaster’s sleeve. The emphasis was helped by the speaker’s square wall of a forehead, which had his eyebrows for its base, while his eyes found commodious cellarage in two dark caves, overshadowed by the wall. The emphasis was helped by the speaker’s mouth, which was wide, thin, and hard set. The emphasis was helped by the speaker’s voice, which was inflexible, dry, and dictatorial. The emphasis was helped by the speaker’s hair, which bristled on the skirts of his bald head, a plantation of firs to keep the wind from its shining surface, all covered with knobs, like the crust of a plum pie, as if the head had scarcely warehouse-room for the hard facts stored inside. The speaker’s obstinate carriage, square coat, square legs, square shoulders, — nay, his very neckcloth, trained to take him by the throat with an unaccommodating grasp, like a stubborn fact, as it was, — all helped the emphasis.

“In this life, we want nothing but Facts, sir; nothing but Facts!”

The speaker, and the schoolmaster, and the third grown person present, all backed a little, and swept with their eyes the inclined plane of little vessels then and there arranged in order, ready to have imperial gallons of facts poured into them until they were full to the brim.



Grin Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #73 - Mar 1st, 2011 at 4:00pm
 
That signature line is tounge in cheek -  A kind of mock arrogance. I thought you of all people would have appreciated that.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #74 - Mar 1st, 2011 at 4:10pm
 
muso wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 4:00pm:
That signature line is tounge in cheek -  A kind of mock arrogance. I thought you of all people would have appreciated that.



And ain't I laughing? I ai.


Tongue

Now give me your definition of a horse.



Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 
Send Topic Print