[wonderboy416]

So if the thread got "hijacked", you are at least partly responsible. For the record, I think that the deviation of this thread was both useful and interesting.

Fair enough, I'll agree to that.

This search for an objective truth cannot be fulfilled by science. That's the critical thing you have to understand: that we know something works doesn't mean we understand why it works, and to say that science provides "the answer" is false.

It is not a silly exercise. If you are engaged in the act of discovery, you should be as inquisitive as possible and keep on asking "why?" and "how?" as far as you possibly can. I have done this; gristle has done this. Like you, I once thought that science was an objective search for the universe's truth, but the nagging question of "how do we know for sure?" kept prodding me to dig a little deeper. When I thought about how every human endeavour is naturally a human construct subject to the filter of cognition, it became pretty apparent to me that scientific answers could not possibly be a terminal endpoint.

I fail to see how philosophy has provides much insight into the true nature of our environment. Merely thinking about something, anything, leads to a an idea that is just speculation. While I would agree that no scientist can ever explain the world by judging things based on direct sensory experiences, nor can they truly escape themselves from their own philosophies, they certainly can, and do function in an objective and transparent manner. We know that the science practiced during the war you mentioned today would be classified as pseudo-science and nothing more, there for I think it's not applicable.

Perhaps what I have learned from this discussion is that while science produces facts, whether or not humans can correctly interpret that can never be truly known.

I feel our track record in this brief period of scientific enlightenment speaks for itself and will continue to unlock mysteries in a manner that is meaningful to all known living and non-living objects.

I also feel that we certainly can and do grasp how life has evolved from simple to complex structures on this planet in a manner that is most certainly reproducible in other environments. However we may never know that one event or process that triggered life itself. The only thing I can be certain of is that no matter how wild our imaginations run, god in the Judeo-Christain (or any other modern or now defunct religion) most certainly cannot be the in light of everything we know.

If you have reached a point where you don't want to go any further; if you don't have the stomach to open that next Russian doll; if you'd rather just stand on the sidelines and cheer for science regardless of its flaws like it was some kind of sports team, then you, my friend, are an intellectual coward.

There is perhaps more to it, but I highly doubt that anyone sitting high and mighty in their ivory chairs, speculating about why things are the way they are will help us any...

 

[Hipster Duck]

Perhaps what I have learned from this discussion

You have learned nothing from this discussion. You are being stubborn and falsely interpreting what gristle and I have been telling you to fit into your false, entrenched paradigm.

Science is not performed in an objective, transparent manner; science is not unlocking mysteries except within its own constructed universe; you have no idea that the evolution of life on earth (as interpreted) can be replicated on other planets; and there is no certainty that the Judeo-Christian God doesn't exist (just as there is no certainty that it does).

There is perhaps more to it, but I highly doubt that anyone sitting high and mighty in their ivory chairs, speculating about why things are the way they are will help us any...

You are also being closed-minded and willfully ignorant. Regardless of how much you believe you are an advocate for science, any respectable scientific organization would distance themselves from your arguments like a bad fart.

 

[wonderboy416]

You have learned nothing from this discussion. You are being stubborn and falsely interpreting what gristle and I have been telling you to fit into your false, entrenched paradigm.

I'm sorry I didn't know this was a lesson and that I'm supposed to just believe whatever rubbish you throw my way...
Referencing people who did little more than think (and in actuality, were the real ones with their fingers stuck in their ears stubbornly sticking by their own conclusions... despite any real supporting evidence) and speculate is not going to get me to buy into your argument that humans are incapable of discovering the truth, however you may define that to be.

I'm being just as stubborn as you are my friend.

Science is not performed in an objective, transparent manner; science is not unlocking mysteries except within its own constructed universe

What about the scientific method isn't objective and transparent?
There is no other "human construct" that has been to the benefit of man-kind more so than the method which you state is the product of irrational beings and only true when judged by its own measures. We must live in very different worlds...

you have no idea that the evolution of life on earth (as interpreted) can be replicated on other planets; and there is no certainty that the Judeo-Christian God doesn't exist (just as there is no certainty that it does).

Sure I do, maybe I am puting too much blind faith into people much more accomplished than either of us when I believe their words... however they've been able to demonstrate with empiracle evidence the likelihood of such statements. As for the existance of a judeo-christain god, ok I will allow a slight possibility that the god described by the bible may be real, however one wouldn't have enough time to type in the amount of zeros to represent the percentage of what possibility that would represent. Takes me back to intro to probability.

You are also being closed-minded and willfully ignorant. Regardless of how much you believe you are an advocate for science, any respectable scientific organization would distance themselves from your arguments like a bad fart.

I'm not advocating science as much as I'm expressing my opinion. I realize that this subject is a very hot topic amongst many scientists and philosophy majors. The only difference is that those scientists can create working models based on observable evidence. I've read the works of many scientists who have been quite scathing towards many of "the great" philosophers and I've been refraining from merely adopting their arguments and instead supplying my own, since I am capable of my own thoughts.

If you feel you've been educating me, or anyone else reading this thread I am afraid you're sorely mistaken.

 

[gristle]

I fail to see how philosophy has provides much insight into the true nature of our environment. Merely thinking about something, anything, leads to a an idea that is just speculation. While I would agree that no scientist can ever explain the world by judging things based on direct sensory experiences, nor can they truly escape themselves from their own philosophies, they certainly can, and do function in an objective and transparent manner.

First of all, philosophy is concerned with the fundamental nature of knowledge, so philosophy does have a direct relationship with all scientific activity as it is concerned with knowing something. The practice of science is a specific approach to apprehending the world; it is a philosophy of knowledge of sorts, and not some sort of casting-off of all other possible approaches to understanding the world. Your portrayal of scientists makes them come off as something like robots.

I'm sorry I didn't know this was a lesson and that I'm supposed to just believe whatever rubbish you throw my way...

The point is that your adherence to science is so without any qualifiers whatsoever that you come off sounding like a true believer. Your faith in science appears to be amplified largely by your repudiation of religions. One can only think that as you come to know more about science and the history of science, your faith might be shaken by what you learn.

What about the scientific method isn't objective and transparent?

Just curious, but can you explain the so-called scientific method? If this is the surest route to objective knowledge, then why is that body of knowledge constantly changing? Why is it considered good practice for scientists to be skeptical and doubtful? Surely there would be no need to be so if everyone adopted your slavish belief in pure constancy of objectivity and transparency? Also, why has this assumed route to knowledge often resulted in errors and even fabrications in some instances?

Science isn't about nature wonderboy, it's about what we (people) can say about nature. Your portrayal of objectivity comes off like a replacement for religion, but in the end it sounds just like a religion nevertheless.

 

[wonderboy416]

Your portrayal of scientists makes them come off as something like robots.

I've never claimed to speak on behalf of scientists... I have read the works of many of the more accomplished scientists in their fields though - to my admission I have only recently read the works of Daniel Dennett as far as reading accomplished philosophers is concerned. He comes off as a strong advocate of scientific inquiry as a reasoned measure for pursuing life's big questions and is very critical of religion, so perhaps his views don't exactly line up with yours. Things aren't as black and white as you are trying to cut them. I don't put all of my faith into the scientific process, I merely question the idea that it is incapable of revealing any true nature do to the fact that it's a "human construct". Dennett's interview for the BBC's atheism tapes is particularly insightful, more so than the interview with Richard Dawkins. I think that series is offers wonderful insight into the minds of many of todays greatest thinkers on the topic of religion and philosophy, it is clear that no one is in clear agreement with anyone else.

The point is that your adherence to science is so without any qualifiers whatsoever that you come off sounding like a true believer. Your faith in science appears to be amplified largely by your repudiation of religio

ns. One can only think that as you come to know more about science and the history of science, your faith might be shaken by what you learn.

The countless successes and triumphs of the scientific method speak for themselves. There is no blind faith on my part... I'm not buying into something for the sake that it fundamentally finds itself opposite to religion in so many ways. I buy into it because it's demonstrated its usefulness... I've been making this point over and over again. As I pointed out, 93% of all scientists who ever lived are alive RIGHT NOW. Science as we know it is still very young and has made many mistakes in the past and it would be irrational to assume it won't make mistakes in the future, that said it's triumphs speak volumes for how effective and wonderful the process of scientific discovery truly is. It's the only tool we have to effectively investigate the natural world that surrounds us and it's proven remarkably effective and non-linear in that it recognizes that the big picture is ever-expanding and thus in constant need of updating. No scientist would be foolish enough to proclaim that we can ever know the answers to life's biggest questions in our lifetime... and you seem to imply that I think that.

Just curious, but can you explain the so-called scientific method?

Perhaps you should re-visit your OAC bio, physics or chemistry texts... it's clearly been outlined there and was probably taught to you in grade 9 science as well... or you could just google it.

Why is it considered good practice for scientists to be skeptical and doubtful? Surely there would be no need to be so if everyone adopted your slavish belief in pure constancy of objectivity and transparency? Also, why has this assumed route to knowledge often resulted in errors and even fabrications in some instances?

Unlike other disciplines, scienctists constantly question their discoveries as that's the only way to reinforce established theories. If evolution wasn't constantly challenged with new discoveries the big picture would never be expanded. As it is, the more we learn about the fossil record, the major catastrophes that have struck our planet, carbon dating etc etc the more the pieces fit and come together, every once in a while new evidence comes along to challenge the existing model and it must be re-worked... this is a clear acknowledgment that science cannot possibly have all of the questions answered and a sign of its willingness to continue learning. It's a beautiful, open-minded process. A scientist welcomes other scientists challenging their work as it only stands to benefit everyone's understanding. I thought this was all obvious. These are all qualities that help separate a belief in evolution from the belief that we were created.

 

[gristle]

I've never claimed to speak on behalf of scientists...

But you have been proclaiming to defend some form of exacting certitude that you assume. Your entire argument for that belief lies largely in your opposition to all religions. That's hardly reasonable grounds for defending a position - particularly when acknowledge that you don't have a firm understanding of what goes on within scientific disciplines, or refuse recognize the limitations of human perception in affecting what human beings can know.

He comes off as a strong advocate of scientific inquiry as a reasoned measure for pursuing life's big questions and is very critical of religion, so perhaps his views don't exactly line up with yours.

Again wonderboy, go through my posts here and find one instance where I advocate on behalf of any religion. Needless to say, you will not find one such instance. Your own diatribes continue to get in the way of accuracy. If you have such a strong allegiance to accuracy, try to practice the position rather than to merely pay lip-service to it.

I am quite familiar with Dennett's work. You might want to familiarize yourself with the long debate that he had with the evolutionary biologist Stephen J. Gould regarding aspects of evolution. Both Dennett and Gould accept evolution, but you will find more nuanced arguments that still go on within that field of inquiry.

I don't put all of my faith into the scientific process, I merely question the idea that it is incapable of revealing any true nature do to the fact that it's a "human construct".

You do come off like you put all your faith into the scientific process. And again, there is nothing inherently wrong with the scientific process or scientific inquiry (reread this so you know my position). However, you still fail to recognize that human beings are only capable of experience by way of our senses and perceptions. Those senses and perceptions are actually quite limited. Even with the aid of instruments, our experience of the universe is at best partial. And unless you believe in the idea that human language, symbolic communication systems, imagination and ideas somehow exists free of the human mind, then you have no choice but to accept that our knowledge of the universe is constructed. Unless you are exclusively having some kind of "as is" experience, the way you are experiencing the world is through perceptions and constructs.

Perhaps you should re-visit your OAC bio, physics or chemistry texts... it's clearly been outlined there and was probably taught to you in grade 9 science as well... or you could just google it.

No. I want to know your definition because I don't think you can answer the question. Your attempt to wiggle out of answering is noted. Are you just a polemicist or can you actually say something substantive about scientific inquiry? And when answering, try differentiating between different disciplines as well. How about comparing the methodologies found within paleontology those employed in particle physics (and please differentiate between theoretical and experimental work).

I buy into it because it's demonstrated its usefulness...

No one doubts that, but how many times have confused science for technology? They are quite different.

Unlike other disciplines, scienctists constantly question their discoveries as that's the only way to reinforce established theories.

I have been pointing this out to you in a number of posts. Nice to see you've caught on. This means that knowledge is tentative, that there is no absolute objective view, and that if you ever want to proclaim something as being true you will have to accept that its veracity is at best temporary.

 

[wonderboy416]

Gristle,

You're trying to belittle my opinions based on the fact that I haven't devoted as much time to the topic as you. I'm sorry I spent 4 years of my life pursuing a degree in business and only read up on these issues in my own free-time out of curiosity... I just as easily could have been reading John Grisham books... That doesn't make my point any more or less valid. I don't even think my point is that extreme.

you do come off like you put all your faith into the scientific process.

And you come off like a pompous, arrogant a-hole...
I don't put "all of my faith" into, I simply asserted that it's the best process we have for discovering our natural world and has done remarkably well. Is it wrong to think that science can correctly explain concepts such as gravity, sound waves etc etc... I understand your argument, but my point is that science can and does understand these concepts as they relate to this world, and all living and non-living things known to man. The body of knowledge is always growing, but to discount it as being limited to "the human experience" is a bit silly when we know it applies to every other object on this planet. You can call gravity a human construct all you want, but I'm sure it would function in exactly the same manner with or without any humans to interpret it.

No. I want to know your definition because I don't think you can answer the question. Your attempt to wiggle out of answering is noted.

No, I stated that because that's the source of my knowledge.

No one doubts that, but how many times have confused science for technology? They are quite different.

Scientific study and research is the driving force behind most of the significant technological and medical advances we have made. I'm not sure what planet you live on...

I have been pointing this out to you in a number of posts. Nice to see you've caught on.

I never stated otherwise, I have always asserted that the scientific body of knowledge is always growing.
That doesn't mean the current body of knowledge is incorrect, it just means its vastly incomplete... and each day goes by the picture gets clearer and more complete. Look at what we knew 100 years ago and compare it to today.



I've grown tired of the arrogant tone used by you and Hipster. I've been merely defending my opinion.
It's not baseless, I just believe that humans are able to accurately understand the world in a way that doesn't solely apply to us. I never stated we'd have a total mastery of it, just an accurate and truthful understanding. It's not such a crazy idea, nor is it one that can be proven wrong (or right.. it's an opinion after all). Speculate all you want... I'll spend my time thinking about things that are actually useful.

 

[Hipster Duck]

That doesn't mean the current body of knowledge is incorrect, it just means its vastly incomplete... and each day goes by the picture gets clearer and more complete.

Ok, let's suspend disbelief for a second and say we have a full understanding of some things in the universe but not of everything. This is your position, right?

However, phenomena interact in countless ways across time and space. To know if we have the correct answer to even one phenomenon, we would have to understand how that phenomenon would interact with everything it could possibly interact with both now and into the indefinite future. This is impossible given the constraints of the human mind; it's not just our values and our interpretation and cognition that get in the way - our computing power to make these kinds of purely rational choices just does not suffice.

Hence, we cannot have a correct understanding of anything without having a complete understanding of everything. Therefore, the picture is not getting more complete and, even if we live outside of our constructed worlds, humans are incapable of coming up with an objective understanding of any part of the universe.

 

[gristle]

You're trying to belittle my opinions based on the fact that I haven't devoted as much time to the topic as you.

And you come off like a pompous, arrogant a-hole...

No wonderboy, I'm debating your opinions because you have made them into something that they are not. As someone who tosses around words like objectivity with the greatest of ease, in many instances you have neglected to accurately examine what was previously posted in this thread. Your deffense is more akin to a political debate than a discussion about the limits of scientific inquiry. Additionally, your views that people have some sort of absolute insight into the state of nature only when cleared of religious beliefs is terribly one-dimensional. I don't say that to insult you, but to suggest that you pursue an understanding of the role (and limitations) of perception in any kind of research activity. There is a significant body of research regarding this very topic.

No, I stated that because that's the source of my knowledge.

So what you are saying is that grade 13 is your knowledge base for understanding the "scientific process?" There is much more to it than that.

The body of knowledge is always growing, but to discount it as being limited to "the human experience" is a bit silly when we know it applies to every other object on this planet.

If the body of knowledge applies to anything other than human beings, what could that possibly be?

Like all other knowledge and all experiences that human beings are capable of, scientific knowledge is ultimately limited by the range of human experience (perception, capacity to comprehend, etc). I don't think you are understanding this point.

Scientific study and research is the driving force behind most of the significant technological and medical advances we have made. I'm not sure what planet you live on...

On my planet, the history of technological development is far older than any formalized practice of science. In fact, you have it backwards in many instances. Technology often drove the urge for further inquiry - which in turn eventually pushed more pure research efforts.

I've grown tired of the arrogant tone used by you and Hipster. I've been merely defending my opinion.

And we've been debating your opinion because we disagree with numerous elements of that opinion. You've cast yourself into a role of defender of science. In turn, we have pointed that there are limitations to this kind of inquiry, and that the position you have taken either glosses these limitations over, or neglects them all together. Neither Hipster nor I have repudiated science or the knowledge derived from this activity. What we have done is to take exception to your incorrect position that some form of absolute knowledge, free of the limitations of the human mind, can be achieved by that mind.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

However, phenomena interact in countless ways across time and space. To know if we have the correct answer to even one phenomenon, we would have to understand how that phenomenon would interact with everything it could possibly interact with both now and into the indefinite future. This is impossible given the constraints of the human mind; it's not just our values and our interpretation and cognition that get in the way - our computing power to make these kinds of purely rational choices just does not suffice.

Hence, we cannot have a correct understanding of anything without having a complete understanding of everything. Therefore, the picture is not getting more complete and, even if we live outside of our constructed worlds, humans are incapable of coming up with an objective understanding of any part of the universe.

this conversation is interesting.

hipster, what is it that we know? if i were to say that the earth orbits the sun, what would that be considered? true? fact? knowledge? correct?

keeping in mind that all can be a false reality, is it possible to understand anything within such a false reality? could things be true for such a reality?

even though human constructs like time and measurments may be inaccurate, is it possible to be almost accurate? to be almost accurate would mean knowledge of what is accurate so wouldn't that mean knowing something that is true? a target? if i had 1000 hydrogen atoms lined up and 10 hydrogen atoms lined up, would it be truth to say that the 1000 hydrogen atom line is longer than the 10 hydrogen atom line?

is it wise to live like that all of perceived reality could very well just be a manifestation of one's mind?

 

[gristle]

even though human constructs like time and measurments may be inaccurate, is it possible to be almost accurate?

Accurate as compared to what?

f i had 1000 hydrogen atoms lined up and 10 hydrogen atoms lined up, would it be truth to say that the 1000 hydrogen atom line is longer than the 10 hydrogen atom line?

It depends on how long the line is. Also, you neglected to mention the spacing between the atoms.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

It depends on how long the line is. Also, you neglected to mention the spacing between the atoms.

both lines have equal spacing between atoms and all atoms are the same size.

 

[gristle]

If I could get 1,000 hydrogen atoms to sit still and was able to line them up with equal spacing and compare them to a line of ten hydrogen atoms with equal spacing, then the larger number of atoms would result in a longer line (of course I'm skipping all the fun stuff - like what is the atom made of, what are the finest components, how would you know this, etc).

Really, you didn't have to use atoms. You should have stuck with balls or cubes (no fuzzy edges like atoms to mess up measurements). Regardless of that, I still would have to engage the task with my perceptions; it's only through my senses that I can do these things. I can't step outside of my human experience to verify such a measurement from another extra-corporeal perspective. Of course, by sticking with simple examples such as this, I'm sure you'll continue to get the answers you want - the ones that somehow satisfy your moderate definition of what you want to call truth. But outside of human experience, there is no sure way to know anything. If you want to believe in objectivity, you'll have to settle for the limits defined by your own perceptions, and any information that you can share with others.

And now your turn Prometheus. Take any of the spaces between any of those atoms and divide the measurement down to its most reduced numerical component (the smallest divisible number). Please provide an accurate and tangible description of that number.

Also, can you provide greater detail as to what you mean by "almost accurate"?

Is that like "nearly true," or "sort of factual"?

Finally, let's skip numbers for a moment and talk about the commonality of perceptions between people.

If you could, please provide an accurate and objective description for the taste of garlic - one that can be measured.

Also, describe in full (accurate) detail the sensation of tactile pleasure.

Describe why pleasure is pleasurable, and offer a standardized form of pleasure-measurement that can be applied to all human beings.

Accurately describe the colour red in terms of how it is experienced among human beings.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

we can't disprove the existence of god, and like that, we can't disprove that "reality" isn't real or true or accurate. i think the point you are making is that because of this, we can't say that faith or scientific knowledge or pretty much anything is better or worse than the other or that one is a fact or one isn't.

am i correct?

**EDIT**

after i made this post, i turned on the TV and the first thing i heard was stephen colbert yelling "we exist! we exist! please let this mean something!" with the word "knowy" (iirc) in the background.


LOL! perfect timing!

 

[gristle]

What is your consciousness?