Scientific / mathematical knowledge [Archive]

BuyOurEverything

2nd November 2003, 20:20

1) No scientist worth his salt has ever claimed to know how things work.

Would you care to be more specific? Plenty of scientists have figured out how 'things' work.

Scientists don't claim to know the truth.

What are you talking about? Most scientists do claim to know the truth about whatever their area of study is.

Science is based on hypothesising from observed facts and proposing theories.

And then testing those hypothesis and forming theories based on observations.

Scientific 'truth' does not apply to most areas of human experience. Scientific or mathematical reasoning is a million times less useful to any of us that instinct, poetic or aesthetic reaoning, whatever you want to call it.

Is that so? It seems to me that because of instinct, we burned witches, enslaved other races, killed entire tribes of people and gave all our money to "preists." Poetic reasoning? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? Aesthetic reasoning: basing reason on how visually appealing things are? Uh... please explain.

Mathematics may be able to tell you that x2 + px = q, but knowing that is not going to help anyone in their life.

Actually that has the potential to help us tremendously in our life. Science and technology are (and could be even more so in a socialist society) extremely beneficial in improving the quality of people's lives.

Scientific reaoning is not applicable to many circumstances - art, emotion, beauty, humanity.

Emotion is based on brain chemistry, to which scientific reasoning is very applicable. The same goes for beauty: what we find beautiful is important and can and is being studied scientifically. I don't really know what you mean by 'humanity,' could you be more specific?

But because it is so fashionable to trust science, it is applied to many situations where it isn't appropriate (psychology being the best example)

Why isn't it appropriate?

Dr. Rosenpenis

2nd November 2003, 20:23

Would you like to back yourself up with some evidence of what has been said in Che-lives that led you to say this? I don't recall many debates on phsycology.

Soviet power supreme

2nd November 2003, 21:26

How anybody can solve ethical or aesthetical problems with science?

honest intellectual

2nd November 2003, 21:32

What are you talking about? Most scientists do claim to know the truth about whatever their area of study is.
Nonono, science is nothing but a compendium of theories. Nothing is ever proved in science. Scientists will have their own theories about what they're studying, but that's all they are - theories. When a scientist formulates a theory, they don't say "This is the way it it."; they simply propose a model of how it might be. Even after their model has been supported by experiments, that merely makes the theory more likely; nothinng is ever proven by science. Nothing.

And then testing those hypothesis and forming theories based on observations.
True. I was just too lazy to go through that.

Is that so? It seems to me that because of instinct, we burned witches, enslaved other races, killed entire tribes of people and gave all our money to "preists." Poetic reasoning? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? Aesthetic reasoning: basing reason on how visually appealing things are? Uh... please explain.
Certain things cannot be rationalised and should not be rationalised. Sometimes you just know something is right with a greater certainty than would be possible if you had reached it by logical reasoning. Par exemple, could you give me a scientific reason for ethics? As for poetic reasoning, perhaps that was a poor choice of words, but you know what I mean, there is sometimes a 'poetic rightness' that enables us to judge things. As for the aesthetic, drop the word 'visually' and you've got my meaning.
I don't see how instinct can be held responsible for the things you mention, could you explain?

Emotion is based on brain chemistry, to which scientific reasoning is very applicable. The same goes for beauty: what we find beautiful is important and can and is being studied scientifically.
I'm glad you brought up brain chemistry; it illustrates my point perfectly. The scientists have the feeblest understanding of how the brain works; but the poets understand it in detail, and have for centuries.
Perhaps you came across too strongly on this point: I'm not dismissing science (you are, of course, right in saying that science is useful to people), but I am saying that there are situations where it should not be used and the other, the poetic, reasoning is more direct and more useful. Perhaps science could understand why people fall in love or why a rose is beautiful - perhaps poetry could explain how galaxies form and how an internal combustion engine works, but that would be using the inappropriate form of reasoning.

Read The Purloined Letter by Poe (http://www.literatureclassics.com/etexts/104/139/), particularly the bit starting "You surprise me"

Victorcommie, I've been away from Che-lives for a while, so I can't give you any recent examples. I wasn't prompted to write this by anything I read here. A while ago someone said here "Algebra makes everything possible", something like that. I'll look it up.

Dr. Rosenpenis

2nd November 2003, 21:50

It's okay, I was just wondering why you would say:

A lot of people (including certain Che-lives members...

Wouldn't all forms of reasoning constitute as science?

BuyOurEverything

2nd November 2003, 22:54

Nonono, science is nothing but a compendium of theories. Nothing is ever proved in science. Scientists will have their own theories about what they're studying, but that's all they are - theories. When a scientist formulates a theory, they don't say "This is the way it it."; they simply propose a model of how it might be. Even after their model has been supported by experiments, that merely makes the theory more likely; nothinng is ever proven by science. Nothing.

Fine but by that logic we can never know anything for sure ever. Maybe this is true but we can still find out that there is a damn good chance that this is the way something works. Example: Maybe it's just a coincidence that water has always turned solid at 0C and one day it will stop but from our observations we can conclude that that is extremely unlikely and design technology and devise other theories based on the fact that water will always freeze at 0c.

Par exemple, could you give me a scientific reason for ethics?

Yes I can. If people didn't have ethics, nobody would have any regard for the rules of a society and it would be immpossible for a civilization to form, making it pretty hard for a species to evolve or survive. If nobody in our society had an compunction about going out and shooting someone and taking their money, we wouldn't even have close to enough money to pay for the police force that would be required. Not to mention the police would just rob people too.

As for the aesthetic, drop the word 'visually' and you've got my meaning.

So truth is beauty? Please explain how that would explain anything. It's much more appealing for me to hear that everybody has enough to eat and nobody in the world is suffering or being tortured or oppressed but that doesn't mean it's true. Is the hot news anchor more right than the ugly one?

I'm glad you brought up brain chemistry; it illustrates my point perfectly. The scientists have the feeblest understanding of how the brain works; but the poets understand it in detail, and have for centuries.

Three hundred years ago, we had the feeblest understanding of how our solar system worked. Now we have a pretty good understanding (somewhat lacking, sure but do you really believe that the Earth is flat and the centre of the universe?) We've only known about brain chemicals for a relatively short period of time. Give us three hundred years and I'd imagine we'd have a pretty good understanding. And poets know fuck all about brain chemistry. I know you meant emotion but really, just because they can express their emotions well that doesn't mean they understand them or why they have them.

Perhaps science could understand why people fall in love or why a rose is beautiful

People fall in love so they can reproduce and there will be someone to care for the child and someone to provide for them. If nobody loved anyone, people would just fuck and then never talk to each other again and there would be an abundance of babies with no homes. Roses are beautiful so that people will pick them and take them and their seeds will be spread. They will also cultivate them which will allow their species to continue. If roses were ugly, people would have called them weeds and destroyed them a long time ago. It's called survival of the fittest. Poetry doesn't explain why a Rose is beautiful it just says that they ARE and comes up with good ways of saying it.

redstar2000

3rd November 2003, 02:01

No scientist worth his salt has ever claimed to know how things work.

Nonsense. We know how many things work and we learn more about that with every passing year.

How do we "know"? Because when we interact with the real material world, it "responds" "as if" what we think about it is actually "true".

Scientific 'truth' does not apply to most areas of human experience.

Actually it does...though many people, being ignorant of science, are unaware of what is really happening in their experience.

Scientific reasoning is not applicable to many circumstances - art, emotion, beauty, humanity.

Sure it is...although our science in these areas is still very primitive.

The implication of this whole train of "argument" is that because science cannot explain everything with perfect accuracy, it "follows" that we are "obligated" to disregard science in favor of poetry, metaphysics, etc.

This overlooks (deliberately?) the fact that science does really explain things...while non-scientific "explanations" are purely subjective and inherently unverifiable.

Certain things cannot be rationalised and should not be rationalised. Sometimes you just know something is right with a greater certainty than would be possible if you had reached it by logical reasoning.

Yes, the Nazis called it "blood truth" if I'm not mistaken. Not every romanticist or irrationalist is a fascist...but it's hard for me to see why they wouldn't be. It's the (pardon the expression) logical culmination of 19th century anti-science dogmatists.

It's a bit disappointing to find this sort of view expressed at Che-Lives...but, I remind myself, we do live in a period of reaction.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Soviet power supreme

5th November 2003, 16:14

Yes I can. If people didn't have ethics, nobody would have any regard for the rules of a society and it would be immpossible for a civilization to form, making it pretty hard for a species to evolve or survive. If nobody in our society had an compunction about going out and shooting someone and taking their money, we wouldn't even have close to enough money to pay for the police force that would be required. Not to mention the police would just rob people too.

Science tells how things are , not how they should be.

Roses are beautiful so that people will pick them and take them and their seeds will be spread.

Science tells us it is rose but it don't tell why it is beautiful according to some people.

BuyOurEverything

5th November 2003, 18:57

Science tells how things are , not how they should be.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Science tells us it is rose but it don't tell why it is beautiful according to some people.

I thought I just explained why we found roses beautiful. If we didn't, they probably wouldn't exist, at least not like they do now.

honest intellectual

5th November 2003, 20:11

BuyOurEverything

So truth is beauty? Please explain how that would explain anything. It's much more appealing for me to hear that everybody has enough to eat and nobody in the world is suffering or being tortured or oppressed but that doesn't mean it's true. Is the hot news anchor more right than the ugly one?
The existence of suffering is an observed fact. It is not reached by reasoning, scientific or otherwise, it is simply observed. I think you'll agree with me on that?
Again, we must be careful which form of 'reasoning' we apply to which situation. But yeah, beauty is truth. Sherlock Holmes used to say that "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." This, of course, is nonsense; the impossible often has a charm (and that's what it all comes down to - charm - which is a form of beauty) forbidden to the merely improbable. Take Bruce Lee (who I'm also posting about in another thread :P ) - either he died from taking two prescibed pills for something like back pain (which is improbable) or else he was taken by vengeful obi spirits (which is impossible). Obviously the latter is the truth - because beauty is truth and poetic 'rightness' is truth. (Now, that should really get you two going...)

just because they can express their emotions well that doesn't mean they understand them or why they have them.Poetry is about understanding emotions as well as expressing them. (By the way, I'm using 'poetry' in the loosest sense throughout.)

redstar

Actually it does...though many people, being ignorant of science, are unaware of what is really happening in their experience.
Everybody is ignorant of science in most areas - especially the areas mentioned above: emotion, beauty and what have ya

Sure it is...although our science in these areas is still very primitive.
And our romantic, poetic knowledge in these areas is very sophisticated. How can you then say that we should apply our scientific knowledge, which is primitive, and not our poetic knowledge, which is sophisticated?

The implication of this whole train of "argument" is that because science cannot explain everything with perfect accuracy, it "follows" that we are "obligated" to disregard science in favor of poetry, metaphysics, etc.

This overlooks (deliberately?) the fact that science does really explain things...while non-scientific "explanations" are purely subjective and inherently unverifiable.
You have overlooked the part of my argument where I said that science does explain certain things. We are indeed obliged to ditch science when we try to understand certain things - just as we are obliged to ditch poetry when we try to understand certain other things. I've been through all this above. I'm not disregarding science - BUT I AM SAYING THAT IT IS NOT THE BE-ALL AND END-ALL OF TRUTH

Yes, the Nazis called it "blood truth" if I'm not mistaken. Not every romanticist or irrationalist is a fascist...but it's hard for me to see why they wouldn't be. It's the (pardon the expression) logical culmination of 19th century anti-science dogmatists.

It's a bit disappointing to find this sort of view expressed at Che-Lives...but, I remind myself, we do live in a period of reaction.Just because someone disagrees with you on something, it doesn't mean they're 'anti-socialist', 'reactionary' or a 'class ememy', y'know ;) . The socialist movement owes as much to romance as it does to logic. Do people look at Korda's picture of El Che and say "Wow, I really dig the way the left half of the face is 13% darker than the right. And the look in his eyes - it's so... diffracted."? No, they don't, not even subconciously. Did Che go into Bolivia because he thought he had a 67% chance of triggering a Latin American revolution? He went in for romantic reasons. Socialism appeals to people's sense of romance. (Now redstar is thinking "Socialism appeals to people because of its logic." And I'm not denying that that is also true, comrade.) Che wrote poetry (now I'm using the narrow sense of the word ;) ) and didn't Lenin or someone as well? Revolution is inseperable from romance.

Soviet power supreme

5th November 2003, 20:45

Yes i think i got it wrong.

But how does science solves our ethical problems?

How does science solve this problem?

Is it right to kill a man?

Palmares

5th November 2003, 21:34

I view scientific and mathematical knowledge as important, but I think it is far overrated. The best example is the very reputation of maths and science, and the people who do them. The common conception is that they are 'smart' subjects, and hence the people who practice them are 'smart'. Why do people think Albert Einstein is smart? Sir Isaac Newton? Even many philosophers believed maths (and/or science) was neccessary (not the right word) for intelligence. Didn't Aristotle have inscripted on the front of his school 'only he who has studied maths may enter', or along those lines.

This leaves implications with the more 'abstract' subjects, such as humanities. If I did maths and science subjects, straight away people would presume me to be smart (or stupid to be doing such hard subjects). However, if I did subjects such as English and Sociology, I would probably be assumed as not 'smart', or even a girl (girls stereotypically do abstract subjects much more than guys - but I don't want to get into this sociological debate too much).

My sociology teacher asked people in my class, "Why do you do maths subjects?"
Their answer, "Because we need to."
"Why?" my teacher asked.
"We were told we need to."
My teacher laughed.

It would appear this conception of maths (and science) being a subject of intelligence reaches farther then just from grass roots, it also applies to the older generations, including some teachers (such as the ones who told these students to do maths).

In my own opinion, I dislike maths and sicence because they are 'logic' based subjects, and hence they have 'right' and 'wrong' answers. From that, little expression or opinion is possible. Some of you may disagree, but it is obvious that 'abstract' based subjects do give much more expression and opinion, and as a result are much more difficult to measure (whether it be in marks, or in 'intelligence').

It took alot of 'intelligent' arguing on my school forums for people to percieve me as intelligent. Otherwise my lack of any maths and science subjects would have forsaken me.

Sorry if this is a bit of the topic at all.

BuyOurEverything

5th November 2003, 22:41

The existence of suffering is an observed fact. It is not reached by reasoning, scientific or otherwise, it is simply observed. I think you'll agree with me on that?

I don't really understand your point. According to you're logic, if you don't see a group of people that may or may not be suffering and two people tell you that they are suffering and that they're not suffering, the one who say's they're not suffering has to be right because it's more apealing. Therefor, as long as you don't see anyone suffering, nobody is. Problem? I think so.

Again, we must be careful which form of 'reasoning' we apply to which situation.

Illogical 'reasoning' is not reasoning of any form.

Sherlock Holmes used to say that "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." This, of course, is nonsense; the impossible often has a charm (and that's what it all comes down to - charm - which is a form of beauty) forbidden to the merely improbable.

No, immpossible means just that: immpossible (consult a dictionary if you have trouble with this concept.)

Take Bruce Lee (who I'm also posting about in another thread ) - either he died from taking two prescibed pills for something like back pain (which is improbable) or else he was taken by vengeful obi spirits (which is impossible). Obviously the latter is the truth - because beauty is truth and poetic 'rightness' is truth. (Now, that should really get you two going...)

Well I don't claim to be a medical expert, nor have any knowledge of Bruce Lee's autopsy so I can't say that the drugs killed him for sure however I can say with 100% certainty that he was not killed by some vegnful gods because, as you have admitted yourself, it is immpossible. First of all, the drugs killing him was merely improbably and therefore could have happened (and if no other cause of death was found than in all likelyhood did happen.) If there is a one in a million chance of something happening, one time in a million it WILL happen. There is also the obvious third possibility in that case, which is that he was killed by neither the drugs nor the gods but something else that wasn't detected.

Poetry is about understanding emotions as well as expressing them. (By the way, I'm using 'poetry' in the loosest sense throughout.)

I think you need to define understanding.

Everybody is ignorant of science in most areas - especially the areas mentioned above: emotion, beauty and what have ya

Even if that is true, which it isn't, it proves nothing. The fact that we don't know for sure the truth doesn't mean something that we know for sure is not the truth is, in fact, the truth.

And our romantic, poetic knowledge in these areas is very sophisticated. How can you then say that we should apply our scientific knowledge, which is primitive, and not our poetic knowledge, which is sophisticated?

Give me an example of a situation where that would be appropriate.

We are indeed obliged to ditch science when we try to understand certain things

Such as...

The socialist movement owes as much to romance as it does to logic. Do people look at Korda's picture of El Che and say "Wow, I really dig the way the left half of the face is 13% darker than the right. And the look in his eyes - it's so... diffracted."? No, they don't, not even subconciously. Did Che go into Bolivia because he thought he had a 67% chance of triggering a Latin American revolution? He went in for romantic reasons. Socialism appeals to people's sense of romance.

Yes, romance inspires people. What's your point?

Is it right to kill a man?

Right and wrong are concepts that don't really exist and are invented by humans and applied to their cultural values. That's like asking (to borrow an analogy from Umoja) is it right or wrong for an atom to spit?

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

6th November 2003, 00:09

Science can explain everything and solve all of our problems, the only problem is explaining/solving science.

redstar2000

6th November 2003, 00:22

Everybody is ignorant of science in most areas - especially the areas mentioned above: emotion, beauty and what have ya

Yes, but that does not have to be the case, does it? Especially if we clear away all the anti-science rubbish that clutters our mental landscapes.

I've known people (in California, naturally) whose minds were a toxic-waste dump of ancient and contemporary nonsense. They were, quite literally, impossible to talk to.

And our romantic, poetic knowledge in these areas is very sophisticated.

Sez who? And what evidence can they provide to demonstrate that they know what they're talking about and not just blowing smoke out of their ass?

BUT I AM SAYING THAT IT IS NOT THE BE-ALL AND END-ALL OF TRUTH

No it isn't...but it's the only thing we've got that works. And works better as time passes.

All of the "non-scientific" roads to "truth"--after many thousands of years trying--end up in blind alleys...that is, ends up with someone saying "it's true because I said so".

That's no good. Completely useless. And at least slightly insulting, to boot.

Just because someone disagrees with you on something, it doesn't mean they're 'anti-socialist', 'reactionary' or a 'class Emmey', y'know.

What I know is that no matter how carefully I word a statement, it can still be completely misunderstood. Look at it again: NOT every romanticist or irrationalist is a fascist...

I was actually trying to word it in such a way that it clearly didn't apply to you.

The socialist movement owes as much to romance as it does to logic.

That's one of those statements that we really have no way of knowing whether they are true or not.

We're pretty sure about the region of the brain where emotions originate and some of the electro-chemical actions that are taking place...but the details are very subtle and elusive, and it may take a century or more of research to pin them down.

But if you are talking about the "here and now", I would agree that participants and supporters of revolutionary movements operate from mixtures of rational thought and irrational emotions in various proportions.

But I would also caution you that emotion is a dangerous foundation to build on. I have infinitely more confidence in people who have actually made the effort to really think rationally about this stuff...than I have in people who think it's "really cool".

To put it crudely, the more clearly we think, the better our chances.

Did Che go into Bolivia because he thought he had a 67% chance of triggering a Latin American revolution? He went in for romantic reasons.

What you suggest is almost certainly true...and it was a mistake, wasn't it?

He was nearly 40 years old and suffered from asthma...does it make rational sense for a guy like this to go adventuring in the highlands of Bolivia?

How much more could he have accomplished by becoming, for example, the permanent head of Cuba's delegation to the UN...and traveling the world speaking on behalf of revolution everywhere? How many people now would know him as more than just a picture on a t-shirt?

His death in Bolivia is regarded by some people as "inspirational", as a kind of "martyrdom"...but I think it was a tragedy and a waste.

Che wrote poetry (now I'm using the narrow sense of the word) and didn't Lenin or someone as well? Revolution is inseparable from romance.

Mao is probably the guy you're thinking of (not Lenin). Ho Chi-Minh also wrote poetry.

Of course, none of these guys are remembered as poets...if all they had ever done was write poetry, they'd be forgotten now.

I don't dispute your contention that revolution has a romantic appeal "above and beyond" the objective reasons that support it.

But "romance" is promiscuous...the Nazis had an enormous "romantic appeal" to German youth in the 1930s. Muslim fundamentalism has an enormous "romantic appeal" to young males (and, incredibly, even some young females) in the Middle East and even in Europe.

Anyone can (at least in principle) tug on our emotional responses...only rational thought can step in and say "Wait a minute! What's really going on here?"

The best example is the very reputation of maths and science, and the people who do them. The common conception is that they are 'smart' subjects, and hence the people who practice them are 'smart'.

I agree this is the common (mis)conception. There are obviously many people in such fields who are, shall we say, not the brightest bulbs in the marquee.

But I think the reason for this "elevated reputation" is that what people in maths and science "know" turns out to have a fairly high probability of actually being true...in other fields, truth is much more elusive or even nonexistent.

If you look at a field like psychology, for example, you'll find a large number of contending paradigms, none of which can demonstrate a clear superiority over any of the others.

A field like literature or music is even more subjective. I used to be a little reluctant to confess that, to my ears, Mozart sounded like elevator music. Then, to my gratification, I read that one of the world-class performers of classical keyboard works agreed with me.

Ah ha! Vindication at last!

But consider all those endless controversies. How could they ever be decided, one way or another? A highly intelligent person--a genius even--could spend a lifetime developing "rational" arguments why Mozart is "superior" to Handel--but no such arguments would make Mozart sound better or Handel sound worse to my ears.

Such things really are "a matter of taste"...and whatever you want to call that, you can't call it knowledge.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

monkeydust

6th November 2003, 10:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 01:22 AM

BUT I AM SAYING THAT IT IS NOT THE BE-ALL AND END-ALL OF TRUTH

No it isn't...but it's the only thing we've got that works. And works better as time passes.

All of the "non-scientific" roads to "truth"--after many thousands of years trying--end up in blind alleys...that is, ends up with someone saying "it's true because I said so".

That's no good. Completely useless. And at least slightly insulting, to boot.

But I think the reason for this "elevated reputation" is that what people in maths and science "know" turns out to have a fairly high probability of actually being true...in other fields, truth is much more elusive or even nonexistent.

A field like literature or music is even more subjective. I used to be a little reluctant to confess that, to my ears, Mozart sounded like elevator music. Then, to my gratification, I read that one of the world-class performers of classical keyboard works agreed with me.

Ah ha! Vindication at last!

But consider all those endless controversies. How could they ever be decided, one way or another? A highly intelligent person--a genius even--could spend a lifetime developing "rational" arguments why Mozart is "superior" to Handel--but no such arguments would make Mozart sound better or Handel sound worse to my ears.

Such things really are "a matter of taste"...and whatever you want to call that, you can't call it knowledge.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
I agree, sort of..... We can't know if science if correct for sure, atomas might not exist in the way that we think, the brain may not function exactly as we believe it to but as long as the theories remain applicaple to practicle solutions in our environment they may as well be regearded as such. I believe that maths at least basic maths is near undisputable in being true.

A field like literature or music is even more subjective. I used to be a little reluctant to confess that, to my ears, Mozart sounded like elevator music. Then, to my gratification, I read that one of the world-class performers of classical keyboard works agreed with me.

But consider all those endless controversies. How could they ever be decided, one way or another? A highly intelligent person--a genius even--could spend a lifetime developing "rational" arguments why Mozart is "superior" to Handel--but no such arguments would make Mozart sound better or Handel sound worse to my ears.

Such things really are "a matter of taste"...and whatever you want to call that, you can't call it knowledge.

True, Music is probably the most mathematical of the arts, a long time can be spent learning why somethings sound good and why others don't but by the early 20th century many composers just threw this out the window and composed in their own manner rather than by the traditional tonal system. Different people like different music theres no universally good piece of music whereas science can applied to anyone and be considered 'true' to an extent.

Dhul Fiqar

6th November 2003, 10:44

Science is anywhere and everywhere you look for it.

--- G.

honest intellectual

7th November 2003, 22:29

Beauty is everywhere you look for it.
Poetry is everywhere you look for it.
Music is everywhere you look for it.

Everybody is ignorant of science in most areas - especially the areas mentioned above: emotion, beauty and what have ya

Yes, but that does not have to be the case, does it?

So you admit that we don't know enough about science to use it to understand these things? (And I'm talking about the situation as is, not what might be or 'has to be'.) And would you not also accept that we do understand them through the other, the non-scientific, methods?

And our romantic, poetic knowledge in these areas is very sophisticated.
Sez who? And what evidence can they provide to demonstrate that they know what they're talking about and not just blowing smoke out of their ass?

You science dogmatists and your 'evidence'! There is no evidence, but you're can't seriously claim that it's all hot air. You will be very hard pressed to convince me that any brain chemist has a better understanding of the workings of human emotion than Lord Byron did, nor do I see how you could think that yourself.

honest intellectual

7th November 2003, 23:45

redstar2000

7th November 2003, 23:52

So you admit that we don't know enough about science to use it to understand these things? (And I'm talking about the situation as is, not what might be or 'has to be'.)

Sure. Our real knowledge of these things is very far from complete at this time.

And would you not also accept that we do understand them through the other, the non-scientific, methods?

Absolutely not! Somebody's, anybody's unsupported assertion about anything is totally unreliable.

You science dogmatists and your 'evidence'! There is no evidence, but you're can't seriously claim that it's all hot air.

That is exactly what "it" is...until evidence is forthcoming.

You will be very hard pressed to convince me that any brain chemist has a better understanding of the workings of human emotion than Lord Byron did, nor do I see how you could think that yourself.

The understanding of a "brain chemist" is, at this time, admittedly quite weak.

But I wouldn't take the word of a "lord" about the weather outside without checking for myself!

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

honest intellectual

8th November 2003, 17:56

That is exactly what "it" is...until evidence is forthcoming.

5000 years of art, metaphysics, philosophy, psychology - Sophocles, Plato, Ovid, Shakespeare, Shelley, Donne, More, Freud, Kerouac, Dickinson, Kavanagh, Wilde - You're claiming all this comes to nowt because of a lack of evidence? You're claiming that all this tells us nothing about the human condition? About life? That none of this is useful to people? I'm speechless. The only way I see for you to dismiss all this is a deep and decided ignorance of everything.

But I wouldn't take the word of a "lord" about the weather outside without checking for myself!

Only a fool looks at a finger that points to the moon.

redstar2000

9th November 2003, 14:32

5000 years of art, metaphysics, philosophy, psychology - Sophocles, Plato, Ovid, Shakespeare, Shelley, Donne, More, Freud, Kerouac, Dickinson, Kavanagh, Wilde - You're claiming all this comes to nowt because of a lack of evidence? You're claiming that all this tells us nothing about the human condition? About life? That none of this is useful to people? I'm speechless. The only way I see for you to dismiss all this is a deep and decided ignorance of everything.

Actually, I have a nodding acquaintance with many of your "all-stars"...but there was a reason I didn't pursue the relationship. None of them could actually demonstrate that what they had to say was anything more than "hot air".

To be sure, some of it was witty (Wilde), some of it was interesting from a historical aspect--as an insight into the way people once thought of things, much of it was boring (Freud's middle-class fantasies) or disgusting (Plato's fascism).

I think you give yourself away with that phrase "the human condition". From a Marxist standpoint, there's no such thing. There are particular humans situated in particular moments of history under particular circumstances.

With considerable study, they can be understood. But there's no understanding of humans "in the abstract"...because they do not exist.

Of course, many people do (or claim to) find one or more of your "all-stars" "useful" or "instructive"...but I'm afraid that has no bearing on their genuine utility. Some people have always had a certain fondness for "mind candy"...and I don't see anything wrong with that until they attempt to use it as a "guide to action" in the real world.

That's when you get into trouble with the unproven hypothesis...you act as if what one of those guys said was actually true, and the real world knocks you on your ass and stomps on your face!

The more we really know, the better our chances for avoiding that unhappy fate.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Nic8

12th November 2003, 11:54

Ok, here is my problems with science.

Science can not prove anything. Science is nothing more then a belief. Science has no more credebility then religion.

Through experimentation, science attempts to prove cause and effect. By trying one thing, scientests try and see what happens to another thing. Then the same experiament is done a bunch of times. After a while, with the same results everytime, it is said that the first thing causes the second thing. This can not be proven. All that can be said is that up untill now, this has always happened. There is no proof that this will always happen. Can you know for sure that if I jump off a bridge I will fall to the water below? No, you can not, despite what your science sais. All that can be said is that up untill now everyone who has jumped off a bridge has fallen to the water below. You have to take the scientific law that people always fall when they jump off bridges on faith.

I find it hard to believe that anything actually exists on a physical level. How can there be a science on something that can not be proved to exist? There is absolutly no proof that anything, exept my mind, exists. The emperisists will tell you that things exists because you sense it. But there is no proof that senses exist. It is very probable that our senses are wrong for the folowing reasons:

1) If I were to walk to school, I would have to get halfway to school. And to get halfway to school, I would have to get halfway to halfway. This goes on and on. There is an infinite number of halfway points. So, to get to school, I have to pass an infinite number of points. The same can be said with mesurements. A meter and a kilometer can both be devided into an infinite number of points. How does science explain this?

2) I was riding my bike yesterday when I saw my friend riding his bike in the same direction a few hundred metres ahead of me. In order to catch up to him, I ride faster. Is it possible that I catch up to him? We will call the point that he is at when I first see him point A. By the time I get to point A, he will be at point B. By the time I'm at point B, he will be at point C. This also goes on and on. How, then, does science explain that I catched up to him?

If science is to explain any of the above examples, it would be irrational. I can come up with more exmaples not to trust our senses and science.

One last thing, if math is so perfect, how do you expres one third plus two thirds as a decimal? If you keep them as fractions, this equalls one. But, if you convert them to decimals, this equals 0.99999999999etc, which is not one. If you eventually say it's close enough and round it to one, then math is imperfect and can thus not be the basis of true knowledge. This equals a different thing depending on how it is expressed. How can we reach knowledge and truth throught that?

This leads me to know that truth can only be known through logic, not math or science.

honest intellectual

12th November 2003, 16:57

0.9999999999 is equal to one.

x = 0.999999999
10x = 9.999999999
10x - x = 9x = 9
x = 1

I agree entirely with your first points. I'm not sure I understand your two examples.

Nic8

12th November 2003, 20:31

You made a mistake in your math. I think you counted your decimal places wrong. When you mulitply something by ten, it looses a decimal place. If x equals ten nines after the decimal place, then 10x will have one 9 in front of the decimal and only 9 decimal places after the decimal. Here is a simplified example: 0.1 times 10 equals 1.

You define as X as 0.9999999999 (10 decimal places). 10x equals 9.9999999 (9 decimal places), not 9.99999999 (10 decimal places). 10x minus 1x equals 9x. 9x equals 8.9999991. 9x (8.99999991) devided by 9 equals 0.9999999999.

x=0.9999999999
10x=9.999999999
10x-x=9x=8.99999991.
x=0.999999999

Therefor, 0.99999999999etc. does not equal 1, but a number that is very close to one. It eventually gets so close to one that we say the difference is insignifigant and round it up to one. But this meens that we have an imperfect system and an imperfect system can not be used to find abolute truths, only "near truths".

The point of my two examples was that any distance can be divided into an infinite number of points. Since you have to move over a distance to get anywhere, you have to move over an infinite number of points to get anywhere. Since it is impossible to travel an inititely long distance, motion is impossible. Just because we can sense it doesn't meen it can happen.

Iepilei

12th November 2003, 22:27

Science is used to explain and help gain grasps on the furthering of human life, through the manipulation of empiricle information. Where would we be without the ever-present advances in technology?

We certainly wouldn't be enjoying the pleasure of communication via sitting on our asses, as we do now.

However, I believe using science without the backing of philosophy is a VAST mistake. People tend to lock the two in seperate catergories, yet we fail to realise the importance one holds to the other. Rene Decartes is the "father of modern philosophy." He's also the bastard you can curse for his conception of calculus.

Granted, there are "philosophies" which have dated themselves... such as Xianity and the sort. You can only believe in old data and false premices for so long. And with that, I tend to object... as "modern" religion is in serious need of an overhaul as far as empiracle analysis goes.

Regardless of all that, I've found many people use the "old" religions as a base for the "anti" side of the scientific argument... sayiing science is either correct or a complete farce. I say we develop philosophically as we develop scientifically.

We don't hold credibility to old scientific discoveries we render obsolete... why do the same for philosophical ones?

honest intellectual

12th November 2003, 23:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 09:31 PM
You made a mistake in your math. I think you counted your decimal places wrong. When you mulitply something by ten, it looses a decimal place. If x equals ten nines after the decimal place, then 10x will have one 9 in front of the decimal and only 9 decimal places after the decimal. Here is a simplified example: 0.1 times 10 equals 1.

You define as X as 0.9999999999 (10 decimal places). 10x equals 9.9999999 (9 decimal places), not 9.99999999 (10 decimal places). 10x minus 1x equals 9x. 9x equals 8.9999991. 9x (8.99999991) devided by 9 equals 0.9999999999.

x=0.9999999999
10x=9.999999999
10x-x=9x=8.99999991.
x=0.999999999

Therefor, 0.99999999999etc. does not equal 1, but a number that is very close to one. It eventually gets so close to one that we say the difference is insignifigant and round it up to one. But this meens that we have an imperfect system and an imperfect system can not be used to find abolute truths, only "near truths".

Man, that's nitpicking! :P There are an infinite number of nines; anything after the decimal in my post was just representative of that, coz I can't type the 'recurring' notation. It really is a recognised thing that the two are the same, ask your friendly neighbourhood mathematician.

x = 0.9999999999...
10x = 9.999999999... (Moving the decimal one place to the right to multiply by ten)

9.999999999... (both these numbers have the same thing after the decimal point i.e. 9 recurring.
- 0.9999999999... so what's after the decimal point cancels with subtraction, leaving.....)
---------------------
9

which is the same as

10x - x = 9x

Therefore
9x = 9
x = 1

redstar2000

13th November 2003, 12:20

Science can not prove anything. Science is nothing more then a belief. Science has no more credibility then religion.

This is what's known as a purely metaphysical challenge, because I know you wouldn't go with it in real life.

If you were sick, would you pick a witch doctor to treat you or a real doctor? Or would you have a cardinal or arch-bishop pray for your recovery?

In fact, the actual mechanisms of cause and effect can often, though not always, be demonstrated both mathematically and experimentally.

The reason that people always fall when they jump off bridges is because space-time is curved in the proximity of mass...and the curve is quite steep near the surface of the earth.

I find it hard to believe that anything actually exists on a physical level.

I find it quite hard to believe that you are not just blowing smoke out of your ass.

In your daily life, you act "as if" the physical world is real and the physical world responds "as if" it were real.

What would you like, a "Certificate of Authenticity"?

Signed by "God"?

Your restatement of Zeno's Paradox is resolved by Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, by the way.

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-07/3-07.htm

This leads me to know that truth can only be known through logic, not math or science.

Afraid not...because logic depends upon its premises. In fact, it's rather easy to construct verbal paradoxes that are entirely "logical" and make no sense at all. The Cretan Paradox, for example...

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?CretanParadox

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

honest intellectual

19th November 2003, 22:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 03:32 PM
Of course, many people do (or claim to) find one or more of your "all-stars" "useful" or "instructive"...but I'm afraid that has no bearing on their genuine utility. Some people have always had a certain fondness for "mind candy"...and I don't see anything wrong with that until they attempt to use it as a "guide to action" in the real world.
Science ain't no kind of guide to action. As I touched upon above, science is useless when it comes to making life decisions. You can't expect someone to choose who to marry on the grounds that xx + px = q. I doubt anyone, ever has used science as a guide to life. The 'humanities' are needed, not the 'sciences'. Philosophia biao kubernetes - philosophy is the guide to life. And art is the vessel of philosophy.

Absolutely not! Somebody's, anybody's unsupported assertion about anything is totally unreliable. Your position is absurd. Observe:

Patrick Kavanagh: This soul needs to be hounoured with a new dress woven from green and blue things...
Redstar: Oh yeah? Prove it!
---------
William Shakespeare: Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time; And all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death...
Redstar: Oh yeah? Prove it!
---------

Art demonstrates the truth of its point by setting the point in the context of the ouevre. It deconstructs each point into a series of self evident truths. That's its purpose; an artist can't just state whatever point they're making and expect people to believe it, but by demonstrating whatever truth it is they're showing through whatever artistic medium they're using, they elucidate the truth of it. In that sense beauty is truth and truth is beauty.
Like I did just above - to merely have said "Your position is absurd" wouldn't have convinced anyone; but when set in a broader context, the truth shines true.

I recently heard that criminal psychologists study the relationship between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth as a model for what happens psychologically to couples who commit a crime together. I thought that might interest you.

redstar2000

20th November 2003, 02:41

Science ain't no kind of guide to action. As I touched upon above, science is useless when it comes to making life decisions. You can't expect someone to choose who to marry on the grounds that xx + px = q. I doubt anyone, ever, has used science as a guide to life.

Well, you probably shouldn't...as that formula should be x squared + px = q. Or perhaps, like me, you don't know how to make your computer display superscripts and subscripts. You could write it: x(x+p)=q .

I agree that we rarely see "life decisions" as suitable for resolution by a mathematical formula; though, if you ever decide to gamble in a casino, a grounding in probability theory will help you a lot! You will win more and/or lose less than 99% of the people there and you will do that consistently. I speak from personal experience.

There is clearly a complex relationship between our "emotions" and our "rational best interests" that is, as yet, poorly understood by science.

That could be a reason why we make so many bad decisions. You mention the example of marriage: in the U.S., something over half of all marriages end in divorce.

How will the "humanities" be of use here? They may be "comforting"...but what use will they be in making that "life decision"? There's nothing there to tell you if you made "the right choice"...only accounts (usually fictionalized) of people who made good choices or bad choices.

I suppose you might argue that some of those works offer "clues" to whether a choice is good or bad...but do people pay any more attention to those "clues" than to science?

If he's "hot" or she's "hot", if there is a lot of "sexual chemistry" (and science does understand some of this), then there is an encounter and a relationship in the making.

...philosophy is the guide to life. And art is the vessel of philosophy.

I would think that philosophy would be "its own vessel". One is free to see what philosophers have to say for themselves...it's not a secret.

The "pretty words" of Messrs. Kavanagh and Shakespeare don't actually say anything. You may "like the sound" but the semantic content is zero.

It deconstructs each point into a series of self evident truths.

This sounds like a line from some pamphlet by the Modern Language Association...you're not fooling around with those people, are you?

In any event, these "truths" are not "self-evident" and probably not true at all.

There's no such thing as a soul and consequently no need for garments of any color to clothe it.

I recently heard that criminal psychologists study the relationship between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth as a model for what happens psychologically to couples who commit a crime together. I thought that might interest you.

They might do a good deal better by studying real couples who commit crimes together. But then psychology is, at best, a "fringe science". There's data there and some interesting ideas but...it's pretty thin soup.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

honest intellectual

21st November 2003, 17:41

What's the Modern Language Association? I don't think this board can display superscript.

honest intellectual

21st November 2003, 22:00

I suppose you might argue that some of those works offer "clues" to whether a choice is good or bad...but do people pay any more attention to those "clues" than to science?
You know they do. Art inspires people, there's no doubt about it. Have you never looked at the world in an entirely new way because of a book or a poem or a film? I think most people have, at some stage, been profoundly inspired by a book or other piece of art. 'On The Road' by Jack Kerouac, 'Canal Bank Walk' by Patrick Kavanagh (which I quoted above), 'The Choric Song Of The Lotos-Eaters' by Lord Byron, 'The Picture Of Dorian Gray' by Oscar Wilde - these have really, really changed my outlook, altered my personality and affected my decisions. Of course people pay more attention to art than to science.

The "pretty words" of Messrs. Kavanagh and Shakespeare don't actually say anything. You may "like the sound" but the semantic content is zero.
It is true that a lot of art contains no meaning and is simply an exercise in beauty. You shouldn't try to belittle that - beauty is more important than meaning.
But a lot of art does have some message in it as well. You know that. Everybody knows that. You can't be seriously claiming that every work of art is entirely aesthetic in intent and does not seek to portray some point or other. (Usually it is a moral message, because, as BuyOurEverything pointed out, science has no way of understanding the concepts of right and wrong and never will.)
It depends largely on the medium of the art - music is more often that not purely aesthetic, poetry can be either purely aesthetic or mostly idea-based, novels nearly always have a message.
Take for example 'To Kill A Mockingbird' by Harper Lee. It's an awful, boring, ugly, drab book, but it is full of (tedious) moralising. My point is that it is all about the message and very little about beauty. (This is all also tru of the film.)

BuyOurEverything

21st November 2003, 22:10

Man, that's nitpicking! There are an infinite number of nines; anything after the decimal in my post was just representative of that, coz I can't type the 'recurring' notation. It really is a recognised thing that the two are the same, ask your friendly neighbourhood mathematician.

x = 0.9999999999...
10x = 9.999999999... (Moving the decimal one place to the right to multiply by ten)

9.999999999... (both these numbers have the same thing after the decimal point i.e. 9 recurring.
- 0.9999999999... so what's after the decimal point cancels with subtraction, leaving.....)

Yes, it is reccognized that .999 (repeated) is equal to one. It comes from the fact that our base ten number system can't express some numbers, not from some flaw in logic.

redstar2000

22nd November 2003, 02:28

The Modern Language Association (MLA) in the U.S. is a professional group of academics...and deconstructionism is their "flavor of the decade".

Art inspires people, there's no doubt about it.

Well, it "inspires" some people. If we could settle on what is actually meant by "inspiration".

I can't say that my life has been "changed" by a single book...I've probably read somewhere between 10 and 20 thousand.

There have been some that I found to be emotionally moving (not the classics, by the way)...but emotions, like hangovers, are usually gone in a few hours.

But what's really going on when you read an "inspiring" book? Someone is saying something that you agree with and is saying it particularly well.

That has no bearing on its validity.

Of course people pay more attention to art than to science.

I'm not sure how true this is, but even if it is true, how helpful is that, really?

What do writers do, after all? They make up stories. The stories don't have to be true.

They may be "inspirational" or "emotionally moving" or whatever...but accuracy is not a requirement.

If you proceed to make "life decisions" on the basis of fiction, can you really be "shocked" when things turn out disastrously?

But a lot of art does have some message in it as well. You know that. Everybody knows that. You can't be seriously claiming that every work of art is entirely aesthetic in intent and does not seek to portray some point or other. (Usually it is a moral message, because, as BuyOurEverything pointed out, science has no way of understanding the concepts of right and wrong and never will.)

No, I quite agree with you that much of art does contain implied or explicit messages. The question we are discussing here is: are the messages worth anything?

Your point about morality is also pertinent...is the "morality" advocated in a particular work of art helpful or harmful?

And science can say some useful things in this regard...by telling us with considerable accuracy what the effects will be of a particular "moral" decision.

Not fiction. Not something made up. Real truth about the real world consequences.

Science can't tell you that it's "wrong" to burn "witches"...but it can tell you that there's no such thing as a "witch" and describe in great detail what it probably feels like to be burned alive.

...beauty is more important than meaning.

I guess "importance" is a matter of subjective preference; I think real knowledge about the real world is far more "important"...and useful.

But that's just me.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

honest intellectual

22nd November 2003, 20:03

That has no bearing on its validity.
Perhaps not, but there is more to ideas than whether or not they are true. Like Kierkegaard said, "Life is a contradiction, the truth cannot explain it." We all have some personal philosophy, or "guide to action" as you called it, which can be evolved through art. It is not a matter of it being 'true', rather, it is a matter of whether something can help us. And science cannot tell us whether it will help us; even if it could tell us how a course of action would affect the world (which it can't), it sould still not take into consideration the question of how we view the world, which is a matter for non-scientific reasoning.

No, I quite agree with you that much of art does contain implied or explicit messages. The question we are discussing here is: are the messages worth anything?

Your point about morality is also pertinent...is the "morality" advocated in a particular work of art helpful or harmful?
I don't think that actually is the point we are discussing. The worth of the messages obviously depends on the individual work.

Svartvit

23rd November 2003, 00:02

There is a way to 'test' the reliability of the mathematic science. The whole science is based on the eternity (There is an eternal number of different combinations, you can divide a number into an infinite nubmer of parts).
However, no-one knows about the eternity and whether it exists or not. Ultimatly, no science can prove that 2 + 2 isn't 5.

redstar2000

23rd November 2003, 02:27

...but there is more to ideas than whether or not they are true.

See, this is where discussion becomes well nigh impossible with irrationalists...they say things like this and what are you supposed to respond with?

Like Kierkegaard said, "Life is a contradiction, the truth cannot explain it." We all have some personal philosophy, or "guide to action" as you called it, which can be evolved through art. It is not a matter of it being 'true', rather, it is a matter of whether something can help us. And science cannot tell us whether it will help us; even if it could tell us how a course of action would affect the world (which it can't), it would still not take into consideration the question of how we view the world, which is a matter for non-scientific reasoning.

How is something that is not true "helpful"?

This is not a matter of "non-scientific reasoning", it is not reasoning of any kind.

I offered an example of how science can accurately describe the effects of a given course of action. Many others could be given. If, "inspired" by some work of art, you decide to leap from a position elevated above the earth's surface in the belief that you will fly, science will tell you what will really happen...you will plummet to the lower elevation at a speed of 32 feet per second per second...that is, your speed of descent will increase by 32 feet per second for each second that you fall (minus air resistance).

How's that for a "life decision"?

I suppose the Danish Christian philosopher Kierkegaard is no worse an anti-rationalist than any other figure you might have chosen...but why would any sensible person choose him at all? What are his "ideas" good for?

Ultimately, no science can prove that 2 + 2 isn't 5.

"Ultimately", no science can "prove" that some people are not hopelessly ignorant. But evidence for that thesis is not exactly unavailable.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

honest intellectual

27th November 2003, 19:17

redstar-
I agree with you that we are arguing on different planes. You expect experimental proof of every idea I mention and I expect you to understand ideas not based in logic or utilitarianism.

As for your example, I find it a little bit weird. I'm not sure I understand it. Falling is obviously not a life decision. Did you expect me to argue that it was? I have frequently repeated in this thread that science is indeed the appropriate way to assess certain things. Either you misunderstood me on that point, or I am misunderstanding the point you are trying to make with that last example.

Mymymy, this argument is getting very tangled and ugly. Ok, kids, let's get lucid. Breathe.

My point was that the values of ideas from art are often not a matter of whether they are true or false. I didn't say they were 'not true'; they are not a matter of truth or falsehood. For example, I learned from 'The Picture Of Dorian Gray' that "a man who is a master of himself can end a sorrow as quickly as he can invent a pleasure". It is not appropriate to question whether the precept is true; the important thing is one's belief in it. Science will neverever be able to supply such ideas. Beauty is truth.

Furthermore, getting back to my original point in this thread, science has grave limitations in assessing 'the truth'.
Firstly, certain spheres are, by their nature, inaccesible to scientific reasoning - like morality or anything that is subjective. That does not mean that these areas don't exist, as BuyOurEverything tried to claim.
Secondly, there are certain areas that could possibly be understood by science but can be understood more completely and more quickly (often thousands of years more quickly) by non-scientific reasoning - like beauty, psychology or design.
Third, science is not as reliable as people like to think. Redstar, you claim that we can know the truth of a hypothesis through science because the world responds 'as if' the hypothesis were true. But there are any number of hypotheses which are supported by the observed facts. The idea that the earth is stationary and the sun revolves around it is supported by everything I see. Newton believed light was composed of corpuscles, a hypothesis which was supported by his experiments. Aristotle's theories of the four elements and of gravity and levity were all supported by observed facts. Just because the facts support a hypothesis, that doesn't mean the hypothesis is true.
Science is really the exact same subject as philosophy. They are both proposing models of what is happening in the universe on the basis of observed facts. Newton hated to be called a 'scientist', he called himself a philosopher. Aristotle, Democritus etc. were all philosophers, but they studied what the 21st century would call scientific problems (the composition of matter, the force acting on objects as they fall etc.). The word 'physics' in its modern sense wasn't used until the 1910s or 20s; it is more properly called 'natural philosophy'.
I wouldn't go so far as Nic8 and say that science is no more reliable than religion, but its conjectures are not absolute truth, as is the popular error.

redstar2000

28th November 2003, 01:29

My point was that the values of ideas from art are often not a matter of whether they are true or false. I didn't say they were 'not true'; they are not a matter of truth or falsehood. For example, I learned from 'The Picture Of Dorian Gray' that "a man who is a master of himself can end a sorrow as quickly as he can invent a pleasure". It is not appropriate to question whether the precept is true; the important thing is one's belief in it. Science will never ever be able to supply such ideas. Beauty is truth.

Yes, but what exactly is the point of "beliefs" which can "never ever" be verified?

Does it "feel good" to "believe" in things which by their very nature (according to you) can never be said to be true in any meaningful sense of the word?

If so, I'd say that's a very odd form of "feeling good".

It seems to me that it is in our rational self-interest to build up the most accurate "picture of the world" in our minds that we possibly can. We know that it's not "perfectly accurate" and will never be so...but the better it is, the better decisions we can make...the life decisions that we make will have an improved chance of turning out the way we want them to.

Firstly, certain spheres are, by their nature, inaccessible to scientific reasoning - like morality or anything that is subjective.

True, science cannot tell you how you "ought" to behave properly...yet. But it can tell you, as I said before, what the consequences will be if you make certain kinds of "ought" decisions.

If, for example, you say that teenagers "ought not" to have sex because it's "immoral", science will tell you that your prohibitions will not be effective without draconian measures...amounting to virtual imprisonment of all adolescents.

Why? Because the hormones are pumping at the highest rate they ever will. Their bodies are delivering the message in an extremely forceful way: mate now!

Another example: if you decide that homosexuality is "immoral" and must be suppressed, science will tell you that your goal is impossible...it's currently thought that around 2% of the population is born gay and there's no way to stop the exercise of their sexuality short of murdering them at puberty.

Science can't tell you whether it's "right" or "wrong" to drop nuclear bombs on people...but it can tell you in vivid detail what will happen if you decide to do it.

To a rational person, those consequences weigh heavily in ethical or moral choices.

...there are certain areas that could possibly be understood by science but can be understood more completely and more quickly (often thousands of years more quickly) by non-scientific reasoning - like beauty, psychology or design.

But, as you admit, we don't really know if we "understand" anything real from those sources.

Someone goes on a Crusade (one of the early ones) to the "Holy Land" and returns with a pile of loot...which he piously uses to "beautify" a cathedral. In the following generation, someone worships at this "beautiful" cathedral and is "inspired" to also go on a Crusade...but this time the "heathens" are ready for him and he dies in the bloody muck when the Muslims recapture Jerusalem.

Bad "life decision" there.

There was no science then to remind him that there are no gods worth fighting for, much less dying for.

...science is not as reliable as people like to think. Redstar, you claim that we can know the truth of a hypothesis through science because the world responds 'as if' the hypothesis were true. But there are any number of hypotheses which are supported by the observed facts. The idea that the earth is stationary and the sun revolves around it is supported by everything I see.

Yes, so it would seem...but you have not looked carefully enough.

Ancient astronomers quickly discovered the odd motions of the planets in the night sky...they wandered about instead of remaining fixed. A Greek astronomer constructed a theory to account for these motions based on the "common sense" assumption that the earth was at rest and all the objects in the sky revolved around it.

But the centuries passed and observations accumulated. The old Greek theory had to be modified and made more and more complicated to explain the observations.

The more carefully people looked, the less the real world acted "as if" the Greek theory was true.

With Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo, a new theory was advanced, much simpler, and "suddenly" the real world acted once more as if "the new theory was true".

It was.

It's quite likely that the science of 2200 or 2500 or 3000 will regard the science of our era as quite primitive in many respects...though keep in mind that we still use 17th century Newtonian physics to send small spacecraft throughout the solar system and do that with incredible accuracy.

Science progresses...a good "truth" is replaced with a better "truth".

In the realm of the irrational, there is no real progress...just the replacement of one fashionable (and unprovable) "revelation" with another.

The styles change...but nothing else does.

"Evolutionary psychology" is just social Darwinism with a fresh coat of paint; and the turgid Germanic revelations of Adolph Hitler can be found in the impeccable Greek of Plato.

I wouldn't go so far as Nic8 and say that science is no more reliable than religion, but its conjectures are not absolute truth, as is the popular error.

Here, at least, we quite agree. The image of scientist as "high priest" of "a new revelation" is utterly false to the idea of science...regardless of the fact that some scientists like to adopt that pose and many ignorant people accept such absurd pretensions.

What I try to do is encourage people to pay very serious attention to science...but to also remember that "science" has been gravely wrong in the past and might be wrong about something right now.

Skepticism is always in order.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

honest intellectual

28th November 2003, 19:56

True, science cannot tell you how you "ought" to behave properly...yet.
It never will. The concept of morality is simply outside the realm of science. Surely you don't think that in a few hundred years science will have advanced to be able to answer moral questions?

There was no science then to remind him that there are no gods worth fighting for, much less dying for.Science cannot tell us that God or gods don't exist. Nor can it tell us that the soul doesn't exist or even that witches don't exist. In fact, I don't think science can ascertain the non-existence of anything.

With Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo, a new theory was advanced, much simpler, and "suddenly" the real world acted once more as if "the new theory was true".

It was.Well, you don't know that it is true with any greater certainty than the Greeks knew that their pre-Copernican model was. I agree with you that scientific models are replaced with more up to date ones as new facts are observed.

Here, at least, we quite agree. The image of scientist as "high priest" of "a new revelation" is utterly false to the idea of science...regardless of the fact that some scientists like to adopt that pose and many ignorant people accept such absurd pretensions.Yeah... like people who think science can disprove that 'theory of God' thing...

Yes, but what exactly is the point of "beliefs" which can "never ever" be verified?

Does it "feel good" to "believe" in things which by their very nature (according to you) can never be said to be true in any meaningful sense of the word?

If so, I'd say that's a very odd form of "feeling good".
I think this is off the point and we're getting into a different debate. However, I will explain. We each need a philosophy, a set of thoughts and ideas about the universe. It is not a matter of whether the ideas are 'true' or 'false'; they are beneath such definitions. Let me put it this way: If we knew all the 'truth' of the universe, if you like, the position and motion of every particle (take that, Heisenburg!), we still wouldn't understand everything. Enlightenment cannot be reached through the accumulation of knowledge. It's not something I expect you to understand.

redstar2000

28th November 2003, 23:02

Surely you don't think that in a few hundred years science will have advanced to be able to answer moral questions?

I have no idea, of course. What I know with absolute certainty is that the whole complex of irrational philosophies and religions won't ever have answers that are worth a shit.

Anything that they might ever get "right" will turn out to be a lucky guess. Because that's all they ever do...guess.

Science cannot tell us that God or gods don't exist. Nor can it tell us that the soul doesn't exist or even that witches don't exist. In fact, I don't think science can ascertain the non-existence of anything.

It can provided that you are willing to accept a fundamental principle of rational thought: absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

If, on the other hand, lack of evidence is "irrelevant" to your "thinking", then you can assert any nonsense that you wish and proceed to act "as if" it was "true".

History has demonstrated rather clearly where that path leads.

Well, you don't know that it is true with any greater certainty than the Greeks knew that their pre-Copernican model was.

Of course I know it with "greater certainty"...because I have much more and much better evidence than they did.

Enlightenment cannot be reached through the accumulation of knowledge.

Then what good is it? And, for that matter, what is it?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

New Tolerance

29th November 2003, 18:35

Then what good is it? And, for that matter, what is it?

Are you asking what good is knowledge or are you asking what good is enlightenment??

(Please clear this up, because I think I might have something to say.)

redstar2000

30th November 2003, 00:43

Sorry for my lack of clarity--I'm saying what good is "enlightenment"? What does the word even mean without knowledge?

I think the accumulation of real knowledge (that can be supported by real evidence) is an excellent thing and should always be encouraged.

But the idea that there is "something else" that is "better" makes no sense to me at all.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

New Tolerance

30th November 2003, 03:05

Well, that would depend on your defination of "enlightenment".

(Has this been discussed earlier? Did I miss anything?)

honest intellectual

14th December 2003, 22:38

Don't keep us in suspense, man! Fire away.

What does the word even mean without knowledge?I might have left myself open to a subtle misinterpretation there. What I should have said is that enlightenment is not reached solely through accumulation of knowledge.

Anyway, this is a futile tangent. Could we please discuss the value of science?

Anything that they might ever get "right" will turn out to be a lucky guess. Because that's all they ever do...guess.Guess based on observed facts - which is no different from what science does. Science is nothing special, it's just particularly formalised philosophy.

It can provided that you are willing to accept a fundamental principle of rational thought: absence of evidence is evidence of absence.That's not proof - it might be 'evidence', but there will always be a large uncertainty if that's the only 'evidence' you have. You would be quick to tell me that something outside of one's ken can still exist. I imagine that you, as a man of science, believe in unobserved galaxies, or extraterrestrial life? (Correct me if I'm wrong here.) What evidence is there of these? You believe in these things because they fit in with your model of the universe.

The notion of science disproving the existence of God is absurd; you've gone far beyond the popular overreliance on science into strange Bertrand Russell-esque dogmatism.

redstar2000

15th December 2003, 01:00

Science is nothing special, it's just particularly formalised philosophy.

That, um, happens to work.

And works better with each passing year.

You would be quick to tell me that something outside of one's ken can still exist. I imagine that you, as a man of science, believe in unobserved galaxies, or extraterrestrial life? (Correct me if I'm wrong here.) What evidence is there of these? You believe in these things because they fit in with your model of the universe.

Yes, a reasonable extrapolation of what is already known is not uncommon in scientific thought. Even entirely new speculations are welcome...provided at least some initial rationale can be offered based on what is already known.

But I certainly don't "believe" in them...I think they are interesting speculations that await supporting evidence.

The notion of science disproving the existence of God is absurd; you've gone far beyond the popular overreliance on science into strange Bertrand Russell-esque dogmatism.

That mis-states the priority. "God" is a hypothesis for which no reliable evidence has ever been provided by its proponents.

In addition, of course, it could hardly be asserted that the "God hypothesis" is a "reasonable extrapolation" of what is already known--in fact, if true, the "God hypothesis" throws out all of science or any systematic form of knowledge. A universe "ruled" by a "supernatural entity" would be completely unknowable and unpredictable in any meaningful sense.

Since the universe does seem to be knowable, the only logical conclusion is that supernatural entities don't exist.

That's not "dogmatism", it's logic...and plain common sense.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

honest intellectual

19th December 2003, 23:11

'Science works.'
That's what you'll always reason back to. It's seems to me that you don't base that view on your experience of the human condition, rather that you try and squeeze your experience into that oversimplified framework. The fact which you refuse to admit is that science does not explain most things - the things that are most relevant to us.
Science shows no signs of being able to explain morality, science can't tell us how to live, science can't explain the one and only truly obvious fact of the human condition, the existence of conciousness.
In short, science does not work, not universally. Science is not "the only thing we have that works". Science is limited to certain spheres of truth.

"The mathematics are the science for form and quantity; mathematical reasoning is merely logic applied to observation upon form and quantity. The great error lies in supposing that even the truths of what is called pure algebra, are abstract and genral truth. And this error is so egregious that i am confounded at the universality with which it has been received. Mathematical axioms are not axioms of general truth. What is true of relation - of form and quantity - is often grossly false in regard to morals, for example. In this latter science it is very usually untrue that the aggregated parts are equal to the whole."
- Edgar Allen Poe, The Purloined Letter, c. 1840

redstar2000

20th December 2003, 22:54

It seems to me that you don't base that view on your experience of the human condition, rather that you try and squeeze your experience into that oversimplified framework. The fact which you refuse to admit is that science does not explain most things - the things that are most relevant to us.

Well, "relevance", like many other things, seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

If you are ill, and science not only explains the cause of your illness but furnishes a reliable cure, that would be pretty damn "relevant"...especially if you would die without that cure.

The "promise" of science is that someday we will not die unless we want to...a rather drastic alteration in "the human condition", wouldn't you agree?

That outcome, if it materializes, will certainly be several centuries in the future...but that's the trend.

In the meantime, what are the trends in non-scientific "knowledge"? There aren't any. All of the speculations about "the human condition"--religious, philosophical, artistic--have completely failed to come up with anything that reliably "works".

They have a million "recipes for living"...none of which have been shown to be trustworthy. You can try one after another...and sometimes they will "work" for a little while. But then new situations arise, before which they are bewildered and helpless...their "explanations" become insulting and disgusting.

Science shows no signs of being able to explain morality, science can't tell us how to live, science can't explain the one and only truly obvious fact of the human condition, the existence of consciousness.

There are some scientists who argue that certain kinds of "morality" confer a "reproductive advantage" to those who adopt them...I'm not convinced that this particular theory is true, but it demonstrates that an effort is being made.

Science has a great deal to say about "how we should live"...or, more precisely, what the probable outcomes are of certain "life choices". You still have to make the choices--no one can do that for you--but your choices are much more informed than they ever were by the random speculations of non-scientists.

The thorny problem of consciousness is being wrestled with in many laboratories, even as we speak. Our knowledge of the brain and how it works has advanced quite a bit over the last few decades...but there is still a very long way to go, admittedly.

Will we ever "know" with certainty? Who can say?

But again, one thing we can be certain of is that non-scientists will never come up with anything more than speculation. Once in a while, by chance, the speculation will turn out to be a good one...but 99.999% of the time, it will be and has been meaningless noise. Pretty noise or ugly noise...but still noise.

What is true of relation - of form and quantity - is often grossly false in regard to morals, for example. In this latter science it is very usually untrue that the aggregated parts are equal to the whole.

Poe evidently thought that "morals" was a "science" and could be "quantified". That's actually much more extreme than my more modest outlook...I would not dream of suggesting that we were remotely close to such knowledge.

But that's the nature of unscientific speculations; this guy says this, that guy says that, no one has any way of demonstrating the superiority of one opinion over another...just babble, babble, babble.

Before humans learned how to do science, it was understandable that they would take refuge in speculation. We do seem to be "hard-wired" to seek explanations for the world around us...a bad explanation is better than none.

But now that we've begun to develop good explanations--ones that "really work"--isn't it time to send all the bad explanations to the museum?

I don't know how the universe began, how life originated, how consciousness emerged, or the "best" way to live...but I do know that real explanations exist and are ultimately discoverable.

That's the "gift" of science--it is possible to learn the real answers.

Knowing that, my present ignorance is a temporal accident and doesn't bother me at all. I feel no need to latch on to this or that speculation just in order to say "I have an explanation which I think may be true".

Speculations are not answers.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

honest intellectual

21st December 2003, 01:00

Poe evidently thought that "morals" was a "science" and could be "quantified". That's actually much more extreme than my more modest outlook...I would not dream of suggesting that we were remotely close to such knowledge.
I thought you might do that. The word 'science' did not mean in 1840 what it does now. The current usage is quite modern. Poe meant the 'study' of morals, if you prefer. And he did not think it could be quantified, which is pretty much the point he is making there.

In the meantime, what are the trends in non-scientific "knowledge"? There aren't any. All of the speculations about "the human condition"--religious, philosophical, artistic--have completely failed to come up with anything that reliably "works".

They have a million "recipes for living"...none of which have been shown to be trustworthy. You can try one after another...and sometimes they will "work" for a little while. But then new situations arise, before which they are bewildered and helpless...their "explanations" become insulting and disgusting.
Firstly, let me say how very impressed I am that you've managed to consider all art, philosophy and religion.
There are trends in philosophy and art. That's glaringly obvious.
Art, religion and philosophy can give us very good guides to life and to the pursuit of happiness. Countless people have gained a lot through their religion, through art or through philosophy. No one has ever lived a happier life by applying scientific reasoning to their life. So science can't tell us how best to live our lives. (And don't go bringing up the distant future to back up your argument. Apply your own favourite maxim -"It doesn't exist".) 'Non-science' can and does tell us how to live our lives, how to attain happiness and how to attain pleasure . That is relevant.

redstar2000

21st December 2003, 15:59

Art, religion and philosophy can give us very good guides to life and to the pursuit of happiness. Countless people have gained a lot through their religion, through art or through philosophy. No one has ever lived a happier life by applying scientific reasoning to their life.

Countless people? And "no one"?

You "know" this, of course, because you "asked around" and that's what everyone told you, right?

Right???

Well, I'm in a position to dispute your second claim, at least. "Scientific reasoning" is the reason that I'm alive. When I was 8 years old, I contracted pneumonia...with a fever of 105 degrees F. In those long-lost days, doctors made house-calls. Within a few hours, I received what looked like a quart of penicillin in my young ass.

The doctor mentioned "casually" to my parents that I would have been dead in less than 24 hours without treatment.

I learned this much later, of course...along with the fact that lots of kids died that way when my father was a child. In much of the world, they still do.

You may have your art, religion, and philosophy and much comfort may you gain from them.

I'll take science.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

honest intellectual

22nd December 2003, 00:27

Again, I have said over and over that science is important in certain spheres. How many times will I have to re-iterate that? (Also, not that it's really relevant to the argument, but the effects of penicillin were discovered acidentally)

I don't know how the universe began, how life originated, how consciousness emerged, or the "best" way to live...but I do know that real explanations exist and are ultimately discoverable.
What? How could you possibly know that? Whatever happened to 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence'? Have you reneged on that completely now? What evidence is there that science can tell us how to live?

redstar2000

22nd December 2003, 05:16

What evidence is there that science can tell us how to live?

I didn't say that it "can".

But if the question is a real one that has real answers that actually work, then the evidence of the effectiveness of the scientific method up to now strongly implies that only science will discover those answers.

It may not, of course, be a "real" question at all. That is, it may conform to the grammatical conventions of the English language for asking a question, but is actually babble.

"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" is not a real question, even though it "looks like one" in English. There's no such thing as an "angel"...and therefore the "question" of "how many" is just noise.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

honest intellectual

27th December 2003, 00:31

"The Answer...."
"Yes.......?"
"To the question..."
"Yes.......?"
"Of Life, the Universe, and Everything..."
"Yes.......?"
"Is......."
"Yes.......?"
"Forty-two."

Sorry, I had to do that - getting back to the point:

Countless people? And "no one"?

You "know" this, of course, because you "asked around" and that's what everyone told you, right?

Right???Don't talk such petty nonsense. It's beneath you.

I didn't say that it "can".
I don't know how the universe began, how life originated, how consciousness emerged, or the "best" way to live...but I do know that real explanations exist and are ultimately discoverable.

That's the "gift" of science--it is possible to learn the real answers.I just thought it might be fun to juxtapose those two quotes. Admittedly, you did not say it can at present, but you did say it can theoretically, which is what I meant.

I feel no need to latch on to this or that speculation just in order to say "I have an explanation which I think may be true".

Speculations are not answers. This is the same as when you said all that the non-scientific disciplines can do is "guess". The fact is, that whether you like it or not, all science can do is guess based on observations and adapt the hypotheses if needed. This is no different from the artistic or philosophical reasoning - the only difference is formality