Thread: physics is a weak argument

Thank you for the compliment, Djzura, but I think I'm going to have to agree with Asher on this one. Science seeks to find order in nature, not in politics or government. However, national governments are the largest funders of theoretical research, so in that regard, it is in the best interest of science to ensure that national governments endure. Private institutions are also highly involved in cutting-edge research, but almost exclusively only when that research is predicted to lead to a marketable commodity, which usually requires previous foundational and theoretical research (likely government-funded) to lay the ground-work for potential applications.

People don't place enough importance on what they feel within themself is true. That is the true authority. You can rely on nothing but yourself to verify it 100%

What is evidence anyway? Is there technically such a thing? People come to conclusions from decisions based on what they feel they know and what they observe and gain through their experience. Truth does not become real to you because of someone elses evidence. It is only realized through your experience.

The fact remains that there is very little right now that physics understands and reveals about the structure and workings of the universe. You can know this by the control physics has over reality and what it can and can't do. What it's potential is measures it's value.

People who say that our knowledge of physics can explain most of the mysteries of life and the universe do not understand the complexity of creation that they are living in. Or the potential of it. Many things are not seen or imagined that exist. Most realize there is alot we don't know. It is arrogant to think we know so much when we have so little control over our lives and so many questions to answer for.

Physics is a subject in development that will expand. And it has and will have many practicle uses. Certain things will not be discovered until a certain level of maturity is developed in the individual. If it could be revealed that knowledge would be dangerous to them. This means humanity has to evolve to a certain level to spiritually handle the power that the knowledge reveals.

People don't seem to realize that science is only one aspect of the spirituality that they are applying to their life. There is many other subjects that are studied and used that tie into what we know. All subjects are ultimately just different aspects of the same subject. You could call that subject whatever you want but I would call it the subject of truth.

Originally posted by D.Jenkins
People don't place enough importance on what they feel within themself is true. That is the true authority. You can rely on nothing but yourself to verify it 100%

I'm going to refer you to Neruo's shroom-induced dancing, yellow midgets. Raw human perception is actually very unreliable and highly subjective - hence the often substantial disagreements between eye-witnesses of the same crime as to what actually occurred.

What is evidence anyway? Is there technically such a thing?[/b]

Yes. Yes, there is.

Truth does not become real to you because of someone elses evidence. It is only realized through your experience.[/b]

So you're not going to believe that the sun is fueled by nuclear fusion until you jump on a spaceship and jet off 8-light-minutes to visit it yourself? Of course, if fuel prices are a problem, you could always build your own underground neutrino detector. But if you're on a budget, you could just purchase the latest Scientific American and read about the latest research at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory. The downside of that last option is, of course, that you'll have to accept "someone else's evidence" as valid and not part of some vast scientific conspiracy to convince the world of a a false reality.

The fact remains that there is very little right now that physics understands and reveals about the structure and workings of the universe.[/b]

Did you read the rest of this thread before posting?

You can know this by the control physics has over reality and what it can and can't do.[/b]

Our physical, scientific understanding of the behavior of reality has allowed for vast technological advances (read: fine control of reality). Do you think that computers, GPS, modern medicine, or any number of other technologically-informed fields would be possible without an accurate description of reality?

People who say that our knowledge of physics can explain most of the mysteries of life and the universe do not understand the complexity of creation that they are living in.[/b]

That depends on how you define "mysteries". If you're speaking of subjective perception with no claims on physically-manifest phenomena (i.e. mysticism, spirituality, etc) or of a deeper structure to reality which is likewise not physically manifest , then you're correct, science is mute on such subjects, as it should be. If, however, you're speaking of our understanding of physically perceivable phenomena, I suggest you go back and read or re-read this thread.

Certain things will not be discovered until a certain level of maturity is developed in the individual. If it could be revealed that knowledge would be dangerous to them. This means humanity has to evolve to a certain level to spiritually handle the power that the knowledge reveals.[/b]

So you think humanity was "spiritually ready" to handle the consequences of atomic weapons when they were developed during WWII? Looking around at the state of international politics today, I'd have to disagree with you on that one. Knowledge is not "granted" to us by some universal librarian when we are deemed "ready". It was Einstein himself, after the development of the atomic bomb which his understanding of the interconversion between mass and energy informed, who stated, "It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity." That is as true now as it was then. There will always be those who utilize technology in potentially destructive ways not because they should, but simply because our science has advanced far enough that they could.

There is many other subjects that are studied and used that tie into what we know. *All subjects are ultimately just different aspects of the same subject. [/b]

I'm not sure if this is a directed comment or not, but I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise in this thread.

Again Peregrine. Putting the topic back inline.
D.Jenkins. There are a lot of holes in your ideas.
I think most of this is put into a similar perspective, still I'll add a few things.

Originally posted by D.Jenkins
People don't place enough importance on what they feel within themself is true. That is the true authority. You can rely on nothing but yourself to verify it 100%

I believe I realize what you are saying here. As far as beliefs would go. That is about as far as it would go.
The human perception of their egos, and the things that feed that ego are far from accurate.
There is nothing wrong with believing within yourself. But you have to ask. How obscured is this view.
That is what science is for. Taking the guess work out of things. Yes there will be educated guesses from time to time in the grey areas but that is because science has not YET provided a clear perspective.

I agree that it would be arrogant to think we know very much. But in the scientific community it is a relentless struggle to gain more knowledge of the unknown. But I don't get the impression that they feel they have all the answers.
One reason this idea may have surfaced is the ongoing restructuring of what science tells us. Giving people the assumption that the prenoted theory was totally incorrect. Which is not the case. It is based on building blocks. Stepping stones.

Physics is a subject in development that will expand. And it has and will have many practicle uses. Certain things will not be discovered until a certain level of maturity is developed in the individual. If it could be revealed that knowledge would be dangerous to them. This means humanity has to evolve to a certain level to spiritually handle the power that the knowledge reveals. [/b]

I wish as sentient beings we would think this way. Not so.
With the advent of nanotechnology, gene & atmospheric manipulation human engineering, so on and so forth there will be a point in which we will no doubt as Peregrinus stated, "There will always be those who utilize technology in potentially destructive ways not because they should, but simply because our science has advanced far enough that they could." + will.

That's ok some people will not understand what I have said.

Your right that we have technology we cannot spiritually handle. This is one of the downsides of speeding evolution up a bit. The universe is dominated by good through intelligence. Even if you do not understand the use, presence, or power of this intelligence. It will not change your inability to overpower it.

Physics is not a weak argument. The subject is a tool to be used and it's knowledge is empowering to anyone who would use it. The knowledge and approach to the subject Science and conclusions about truth in general comes from the same approach I am talking about. Science is not suppose to believe things because someone says so.
Our approach to science is an understanding about how we come to know things to the best of our ability. We are relying on our own discernment to find those answers. There is no other way science has been realized, or religion for that matter. Any subject. Ultimately it is our own discernment and decision and there is no-one else to rely on but ourself. Evidence does not become truth to you through someone elses experience. Something is only 100% true through your own experience.

I was browsing around the site and read this whole thread - very interesting read, from all sides. I'm surprised that no one came to mongreloctopus's defense. First off, I am a bit in between the two points of view expressed, maybe slightly more toward mongreloctopus's. I consider myself a "seeker of truth", it may sound pretentious, but hopefully as not as pretentious as some of Peregrinus's posts.

Over first read, I found a few weaknesses to Peregrinus's arguments...

1. Let's take in Peregrinus's perspective (or at least what I can based on what I've read from her), and then let's take a step back. Basically, she is assuming many things:
she pre-supposes man is in the dark to begin with - with no inherent access to understanding; she assumes that science as a whole is one big noble quest toward understanding what is perceivable; she assumes that most if not all progress in science was made with rational, logical steps towards the advancements; she assumes that science does minimize human bias; and she assumes that science is the "best we have now." and that "It works now."

I admit she writes in a very clear, coherent way, but that doesn't make all her ideas valid. And someone really should have challenged her on all of this when this debate was initially occurring.
First off, all of these assumptions and pre-suppositions work against her theory that science minimizes human bias - any assuming or supposing is THE human bias. She assumes that we as sentient beings do not have access to knowledge besides that which we perceive or are told to by the scientific community. I have been in different states of mind where knowledge ceased and wisdom flowed. I'm not even claiming this as proof of anything, just to state another perspective.
Second, she seems to always describe science as this big noble quest to understand the perceive-able. Uhmm, how many scientists are dedicated to this? I would bet a lot more are into the manipulative aspects of it - i.e. engineering deadlier and more efficient weaponry, better and better over-the-counter drugs, more and more billions of kinds of plastics, and, in general, just manipulating what can be created with what we have discovered to work. Hardly a noble quest. More of a quest for profit. And thats not to say all, but definitely a huge percentage.
Thirdly, I seem to get the feeling that she thinks all science is is one big march forward, with no intuitive moments, no breakthroughs made while under the influence or dreaming or just joking with friends ("How about we try that?"). Her science, which I don't really equate with the general mood of science, seems almost robot-like, anti-human even.
Lastly (although I could have made this even longer and included more assumptions, but I hope someone else out there is brave enough to stand up to her razor debating skills ), she is assuming that science is the "best we have now". That is one big, fat, pre-supposition - did she scour the world for other ways, other methods, opened herself to new languages, new destinations, new ways of living, new states of awareness, anything? I'm not saying she didn't, but to claim anything to be the "best we have" is more than a little presumptuous.

2. She uses "is" way too much. An open-minded person, a truly open-minded person, does not have to carve out their arguments by placing the limiting "is" everywhere. This leads me to believe besides being a devout scientist, she may have also been in the debate club in high school . Lets take a few examples.. "Because it is the best we have now."; "That is a human bias, not a scientific one."; "Science is a process..."; "scientific knowledge is constantly evolving..."; "Old knowledge is refined..."; "It is evidence of intelligence..." and on and on and on.

Again, she seems to be assuming that all of her IS statments are inherently true. In this way she can build a belief system within her posts to lead you to exactly where she wants to end up and where she wants you to end up. Its easy to make IS statements, but thought of in a slightly different way, it is easy to break the IS trance by looking at alternatives. Life IS hard; Life IS fast; Life IS deadly; Life IS great - and you can go on with as many adjectives as you want, and then make whole support systems for your arguments.

3. And this may not really be a weakness, but it may be considered character flaws - she seems to be very judgemental, egotistical, and mostly hypocritical...

Judgemental & Egotistical - just read her posts - she is basically calling mongreloctopus a moron and not intellectually-minded enough to even promote any new ideas. Basically, just about every response has a veiled personal insult directed towards mongreloctopus, which makes her HYPOCRITICAL when she then goes on to say .. "Wow, resorting to personal insults. Now that definitely furthers your arguments! Way to elevate the discussion, man!"

So, I said my piece. Reality is multi-dimensional happenstance and science has mostly become a way to manipulate what we know to be true about it. Science didn't create anything that wasn't already possible, it just seems like it to us who usually have not the vision to see around the bend in the road.

The thread is revived! It’s ALIVE!!!

WO, your claim that my defense of science as a way of knowing is weakened by the presence of too many personal assumptions is unsubstantiated, unjustified, and nothing more than a shaky construction built upon a foundation of logical fallacies through your use of straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks. Also, your own assumption that my ability to effectively advance and defend my position is a result of participation on some school debate team is false. I never was. I simply pay attention.

Over first read, I found a few weaknesses to Peregrinus's arguments...
1. Let's take in Peregrinus's perspective (or at least what I can based on what I've read from her), and then let's take a step back. Basically, she is assuming many things:
she pre-supposes man is in the dark to begin with - with no inherent access to understanding... She assumes that we as sentient beings do not have access to knowledge besides that which we perceive or are told to by the scientific community. I have been in different states of mind where knowledge ceased and wisdom flowed.[/b]

How else does one gather information except through perception? Your entire life is simply a series of perceptions – those “different states of mind” which you claim are nothing more or less than perception. And where have I ever stated that science is the only purveyor of truth and knowledge? I can, in fact, recall several threads in which I argued against that very mindset. Science studies what is physical and perceivable. On subjects which do not meet those qualifications, science is mute. If you'd actually read my posts as you claim to have done, you would have known that.

Accusing one’s opponent of holding a position which they have never held nor advocated and then attacking the validity of that position which you have falsely attributed to them is called making a “straw man” argument. You attack the straw man but not your opponent and hope that anyone who’s watching isn’t perceptive enough to notice the switch. Well, you can knock down all the scarecrows you want WO, but my arguments still stand.

Second, she seems to always describe science as this big noble quest to understand the perceive-able.[/b]

Wow, you’re just throwing words into my mouth, aren’t you? Do you have clothes with which to dress this second straw man, or would you like me to loan you some of mine so that it will look more realistic?

Where did I state that science is a “noble quest?” Science is fundamentally done for curiosity's sake - to improve our understanding of the physical world which we inhabit - and what is discovered through the scientific process is then applied by corporate and governmental interests (which hire scientists and engineers for pay which almost never takes into account the “profit” earned by the parent organization, btw) to manipulate the physical world in ways which the dominant socio-cultural paradigm judges to be of benefit. Any nobility which one sees in such a pursuit is a value judgement (and therefore outside of the realm of science) and matter of personal opinion - one which I have, incidentally, never expressed.

Science progresses, often with a near-total disregard for its potential applications. It discovers the principles and provides an understanding of the mechanisms. Our society determines how those principles are applied. If there was no perceived military need for atomic weapons, would they have been created? If there were no market for new pharmaceutical medications, would they continue to be developed? If our society did not demand new plastics, would their formulas continue to be modified and studied? The answer is “no” to all three questions. Science can be used to the great benefit of humanity – it is a very powerful tool – but we as a society decide how to use it. Don’t blame the scientific process for social irresponsibility.

she assumes that most if not all progress in science was made with rational, logical steps towards the advancements[/b]

I have never denied the role of Eureka moments, coincidence, or circumstantial discoveries in the advancement of science. I wrote at least 10,000 words in this thread, and in order to challenge my position, you have to resort to accusing me of positions I’ve never proclaimed nor defended. So, this makes straw man #3, I believe. You are either engaging in purposeful deception or are unwittingly assuming things about my beliefs for which I have given no indication. You do know the meaning of “hypocrisy,” don’t you?

she is assuming that science is the "best we have now". That is one big, fat, pre-supposition - did she scour the world for other ways, other methods, opened herself to new languages, new destinations, new ways of living, new states of awareness, anything? I'm not saying she didn't, but to claim anything to be the "best we have" is more than a little presumptuous. [/b]

So is misinterpreting and taking out of context my proclamation about the value of science in explaining the physically perceivable world. I hold that our current scientific understanding is the “best one we have now” for explaining the physical world in which we exist. If you think that angles or demons pushing planets around space or lightning and thunder caused by warring gods is a better explanation, you are welcome to that opinion, but you’d be hard pressed to use such an explanation to build a coherent understanding of physical reality which posesses the predictive power of modern scientific theories. And as for my experience with different languages, cultures, and belief systems – don’t make assumptions. So far, you’re 0 for 5.

2. She uses "is" way too much. An open-minded person, a truly open-minded person, does not have to carve out their arguments by placing the limiting "is" everywhere.[/b]

You must be joking. If you seriously think that I use conjugations of the verb “to be” too much, and are advocating that my position would be strengthened if I reduced the frequency with which I use the most common verb found in human languages and replace it with something which implies uncertainty in the veracity of my statements, you should consider enrolling yourself in one of those debate courses in which you were so convinced that I have participated. If one has confidence in one’s position, one should express it.

Again, she seems to be assuming that all of her IS statements are inherently true.[/b]

So you are accusing me of believing in the validity of my own statements. You are accusing me of not attempting to deceive you, and are claiming that so doing weakens my argument. Do you realize how absurd that is? Of course I believe that my statements are true. I would not have made them otherwise. If you believe that the subject of one of those "is statements" does not deserve its predicate attribution, question that specific aspect of my argument - do not attack my use of verbs.

3. And this may not really be a weakness, but it may be considered character flaws - she seems to be very judgemental, egotistical, and mostly hypocritical...[/b]

Wow, and now, after all those straw men, you move right on to ad hominem attacks! Are you attempting to use as many logical fallacies in your rebuttal as possible, or are you simply unaware that believing me to be arrogant does not, in fact, cause my argument to be any less effective or complete?

And as for your claim of hypocrisy on my part: The pot shouldn’t call the kettle black. Your entire rebuttal of my position is predicated upon the existence of unwarranted assumptions which you claim that I have made. Yet, you have cited no evidence for any of the assumptions which you have attributed to me, and in fact my posts in this thread and in others show that I have made no such assumptions. So, in essence, you are assuming (improperly) that I assume.

all of these assumptions and pre-suppositions work against her theory that science minimizes human bias - any assuming or supposing is THE human bias.[/b]

It would seem that you are far more guilty of this bias than am I, since your entire rebuttal to my arguments has been one long string of false assumptions and logical fallacies, which, as well as being erroneous, are almost entirely irrelevant to the factual construction of my position. Whether someone thinks science to be a noble endeavor, believes it to progress as as smooth evolution rather than as a punctuated equilibrium, doesn't "get out enough" in the world, is arrogant, or has an affinitiy for the verb "to be," has nothing to do with the value of science as a process to discover and inform human beings of the intricacies of the physical, perceivable world.

If you wish to argue the validity of science as a way of knowing, don’t just make shit up. If there is a flaw with my argument, find it and cite it. Accusing me of positions I’ve never held and attacking my personal character does nothing to advance your cause.

EDIT: Woke up and realized I left some stuff out. Also, Howie, I don't get angry in these sorts of debates. Anger only leads to mistakes.

Well I can say with some certainty that physics is a week argument compared to the one that we are all seeing in this post!

For good debate it is essential to keep more with the facts and push aside the biased towards each other from the argument.
Sure..let it fuel your fire, but it proves nothing unless you can actually discredit the other persons credentials making their argument unsound.
I am not sure that any of us have those facts available. If their character seems to make them a person of linear thought, it can be noted. Much past this is unnecessary.
I just am presemptively posting in the event that tempers begin to flare.

Just like most things in life, you should stand where you can see both sides of the fence.
An underlying philosophical or theoretical principle = metaphysics vs. physics are like Democrats & Republicans at times, hardliners!
But we don't have to draw a hard line in the sand towards either side.
This discussion as seemed pretty open to me.

Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to the dark side.

Don't worry about anyone here going over to the dark side, Howie. Although they get to wear the more impressive costumes, they always get killed in the end. A less imaginative costume is almost always preferrable to premature death. 8)

(Damn, is this really what sleep deprivation does to one?)... Ok, anyway.

Originally posted by Howetzer
Well I can say with some certainty that physics is a week argument compared to the one that we are all seeing in this post!

Physics is a weaker argument than the one used in which post?

Originally posted by Peregrinus
Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to the dark side.

Don't worry about anyone here going over to the dark side, Howie. Although they get to wear the more impressive costumes, they always get killed in the end. A less imaginative costume is almost always preferrable to premature death. 8)

(Damn, is this really what sleep deprivation does to one?)... Ok, anyway.


Physics is a weaker argument than the one used in which post?

Well you would get a cool light saber had one chosen the darkside.

I was referring to the rather intellectual debate going on in this thread.
Doesn't make sense considering that the discussion is about Physics.
& I have had sleep.

Originally posted by Howetzer+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Howetzer)</div>

Well you would get a cool light saber had one chosen the darkside. [/b]

I know! The evil guys get the best weapons and the best costumes Which is why it makes it that much more meaningful when the good guys defeat them, coming from behind, triumphing over the odds against them, yadda yadda... That doesn't in any way negate the instrinsic badass-edness of double-sided lightsabers. Are you trying to turn me to the dark side? Because, you know, it's tempting... But NO! See, good prevails.

<!--QuoteBegin-Howetzer
I was referring to the rather intellectual debate going on in this thread. Doesn't make sense considering that the discussion is about Physics.

Ah, gotcha.

[quote]& I have had sleep. [/color]
I was referring to myself

Sorry its taken so long to respond - I have no internet at my apartment and work is cracking down on my surfing/posting time.

I meant no disrespect in my post, sorry if it came across that way. The "personal attack" was directed at how you came across in the older post I read. I don't know you, and I would never assume anything about you personally, just that you came across that way.

Ok, well first off, I said that I found a few weaknesses in your argument, not that your argument as a whole is weak or useless, not that you aren't an excellent debator (I was just guessing you were in a debate team or something, not assuming), not that science never helped the world, nor anything else. I think the basic idea that I am trying to get across is that science is not infallible, is not omniscent, is not a God, is not The Answer, and quite frankly is not only limited by our own perception, but is also, in turn, reinforcing the confines of that limited perception and, consequently, limiting our understanding.

How else does one gather information except through perception?[/b]

I have no clue, but this is one of science's basic flaws - it starts at the assumption that we perceive what actually exists. What if we are creating our perception (either individually, culturally, globally) as we sit here existing? The information we perceive (if we really are perceiving it at all) is raw data interpreted by our brain - which does not provide us an unobstructed view of anything really - all of our thoughts are colored by our experiences, our memories, our fears, our hopes, our human-ness. To shove this aside and say that thats not what science is for is like locking yourself in a room and claiming whatever is in it with you to be everything that exists, and the walls to be the limits of the perceivable universe.

You must be joking. If you seriously think that I use conjugations of the verb "to be" too much, and are advocating that my position would be strengthened if I reduced the frequency with which I use the most common verb found in human languages and replace it with something which implies uncertainty in the veracity of my statements, you should consider enrolling yourself in one of those debate courses in which you were so convinced that I have participated. If one has confidence in one's position, one should express it. [/b]

Well, if I was hell-bent on changing another person's beliefs and wanted to toss aside my open-mindedness to cultivate a life of defending my strictly held positions, then maybe I should use IS more, but to my mind thats old paradigm stuff. To take an example, I see a stop sign. The old paradigm thinking may say 'That stop sign IS red', a few OTHER ways to think about it are: 'That stop sign may be red.' 'I perceive that stop sign as red, but its only the light not absorbed by it that is.' 'That octagon-shaped object, which is mostly empty space is dark, dark pink.' and so on and so on. Language limits our beliefs even more so than dogmatic scientists (as opposed to open-minded scientists, which I respect and do think exist, just not in the numbers you think do). Language limits my thinking as well as yours as well as science's as well as all of culture's. Language guides and solidifies thoughts and actually creates virtual realities within any given listener's mind. Its an important idea and one I don't think you should just foo-foo away.

So you are accusing me of believing in the validity of my own statements. You are accusing me of not attempting to deceive you, and are claiming that so doing weakens my argument. Do you realize how absurd that is? Of course I believe that my statements are true. I would not have made them otherwise. If you believe that the subject of one of those "is statements" does not deserve its predicate attribution, question that specific aspect of my argument - do not attack my use of verbs. [/b]

No, I accuse you of building a house of cards with your statements. You seem to be assuming that each statement you make is irrefutable, and thus the argument you are making is made of solid fact. Most, if not all, of your individual statements are subjective and are up for debate, regardless of how enslaved by them you feel or want us to feel. I look at how your sentences are phrased, how you construct them. Your sentences support your paragraphs, which are, in turn, your arguments. Normal language analysis type stuff. If I misinterpreted your sentences or your paragraphs, then at least we can pinpoint the disconnect and re-discuss it in other terms. Again, this is not to say that you don't make good arguments, just that they are really just arguments for belief systems.

since your entire rebuttal to my arguments has been one long string of false assumptions[/b]

I think everyone assumes way too much, including scientists. I know its scary to even consider the possibility that we really can't know the nature of reality, but that may just be the case. Science seems to assume that we can know everything by way of it, and that initial presupposition keeps it doing fancy parlor tricks like manipulating atoms and making better bombs. It still hasn't really gotten to any real understanding about the nature of reality, just further explanations.

I guess what I really want to say is that science is very good at manipulating systems and processes that we know to exist, as well as point to other ones which may exist - but the sheer number of paradigm shifts that humanity has been through makes a strong case that the reality that we perceive and base our beliefs around is a slippery notion - sure, its easy for science to re-create results in some sterilized lab type setting, but in the world the exact same set of preconditions is an impossibility - the strange forces associated with quantum physics confound even scientists, and that is the "fundamental" base of current mainstream understanding. Science as an ideal is great, as a process in the rest of existence its only good. Science has had a wonderful p.r. department over the years, but even in one of science's best examples - the medical field - science is still going back to ancient medicinal secrets and herbal remedies for guidance. To take a broader look at this specific issue, we could say that science broke away from feeling/intuitive/nature long ago only to come full circle back to it and find that the whole trip, besides making some neat toys and pollution, was an exercise in futility.

ps.. When i am talking about science, I mean to say how science is actually being used in the real world not the ideal of science, or your idea of science. Since finding the secret of life and unveiling the mystery of the universe(s) is not profitable by themselves, real world science is dominated by defense spending, silicon valley geek boys, and pharmacuetical lab monkeys..

-J

Okay, back from my trip. (So you needn't apologize for being late in responding, since I'm doing the same thing myself )

Wayward Oneironaut, if you continue your attempt to criticize my argument on superficial and irrelevant grounds, I will no longer be participating in this discussion. Come up with a relevant gap or flaw in my logic, and I'll respond as best I can.

Originally posted by Merriam Webster Dictionary+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Merriam Webster Dictionary)</div>

per•ceive * *
1 a : to attain awareness or understanding of b : to regard as being such <perceived threats> <was perceived as a loser>
2 : to become aware of through the senses[/b]

Perception is that process by which human beings gather information - it is our access to reality, and nowhere in the definition of “perceive” is the process limited to a given sense, nor are the senses defined. If you obtain information, it must needs be through perception. Even if you have some mystical pepper-induced hallucinagenic experience in which a desert-dwelling coyote with the voice of Johnny Cash instructs you on the course of you life, (I really hope someone gets that referrence...) that's still perception.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wayward Oneironaut
this is one of science's basic flaws - it starts at the assumption that we perceive what actually exists.

I already had this argument with Belisarius. It went on for many, many pages, so if you want my thoughts on this topic, read them here, particularly the part about our human perception being an interpretation of something (i.e. not irrelevant to reality), and the utter pointlessness in living one’s life assuming that all perception is mere trickery.

Originally posted by Wayward Oneironaut+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wayward Oneironaut)</div>

The information we perceive (if we really are perceiving it at all) is raw data interpreted by our brain - which does not provide us an unobstructed view of anything really - all of our thoughts are colored by our experiences, our memories, our fears, our hopes, our human-ness.[/b]

Yes, and the scientific method seeks to strip away as much of the individual scientist’s bias as possible so as to obtain as objective a description of reality as possible. While those biases are an integral part of the human experience, they are considered an obstruction to scientific progress when they limit the scope and thoroughness of scientists’ inquiries.

Originally posted by Wayward Oneironaut+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wayward Oneironaut)</div>

To shove this aside and say that thats not what science is for is like locking yourself in a room and claiming whatever is in it with you to be everything that exists, and the walls to be the limits of the perceivable universe.[/b]

The physically perceivable universe is the necessary boundary of scientific inquiry. For everything else you have religion, philosophy, and imagination. The scope of science does not define reality – it’s not the be-all, end-all purveyor of truth. It is a highly effective and extremely powerful means of investigating those aspects of reality which are its domain. On the subject of what if anything exists outside of the physically perceivable universe, science is mute – as it has been and should always be.

Originally posted by Wayward Oneironaut
Well, if I was hell-bent on changing another person's beliefs and wanted to toss aside my open-mindedness to cultivate a life of defending my strictly held positions, then maybe I should use IS more, but to my mind thats old paradigm stuff.

And if I want my posts to go on for pages because they’re filled with bloated sentences of linguistically-implied disclaimers, I’d write as you do. I think I use enough of them already, what with all of the “according to our most current and advanced measurements and analyses...” that I spew all over the board when speaking on scientific subjects. However, when I feel my position to be sound, I’ll use the word “is”. If you find a flaw in such a confidently-proclaimed position, bring it to my attention. So far, you’ve mentioned no flaws in either my logic or my factual information, but instead focused on a disagreement with my writing style. When you want to actually debate the topic of this thread instead of its linguistic format, let me know.

Originally posted by Wayward Oneironaut
Language limits our beliefs even more so than dogmatic scientists (as opposed to open-minded scientists, which I respect and do think exist, just not in the numbers you think do).

You don’t have to listen to dogmatic scientists, do you? If you’re so concerned about the deleterious effects of their positions on soft and impressionable minds, review the data yourself and draw your own conclusions. And since I'm the one actually operating within the scientific community, I think I'm probably the better judge of how open- or close-minded the majority of scientists are.

Originally posted by Wayward Oneironaut
Language limits my thinking as well as yours as well as science's as well as all of culture's. Language guides and solidifies thoughts and actually creates virtual realities within any given listener's mind. Its an important idea and one I don't think you should just foo-foo away.

As one who has studied both language and psychology at university, I don’t deny the effects of language on the mind’s interpretation of reality. However, what I “foo-fooed” away was not the idea that language plays an important and formative role in one’s worldview, but rather that I should radically adjust my use of the English language away from its most common verb so as to sound more unsure of myself. I’m not a CYA attorney. So again, I challenge you to find a flaw in the argument, not its language. “You’re writing too persuasively in an attempt to influence the minds of readers” isn’t a valid criticism. Being skilled at rhetoric and competent at clearly presenting a position is not a defect. If I sound confident, it's because I am. If you want to show me that that confidence is misplaced, challenge the argument, not the words or grammatical structure with which it is expressed.

Originally posted by Wayward Oneironaut
No, I accuse you of building a house of cards with your statements. You seem to be assuming that each statement you make is irrefutable…Most, if not all, of your individual statements are subjective and are up for debate regardless of how enslaved by them you feel or want us to feel. I

Then refute them. Then debate them. I hold those positions because up to this moment, my previous experience in both intellectual and individual pursuits has supported them. If something happens tomorrow which causes me to reevaluate them, then that’s what I will do. A slave to my statements? For one who advocates open-mindedness, you are one terribly judgmental individual. You have no idea why I came to my beliefs or how strongly I hold them and yet you immediately declare me to be a dogmatic follower of some entrenched paradigm which you have failed to elucidate. Attack the argument itself, not its language and not its messenger. You have so far said nothing to weaken my position.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wayward Oneironaut@
Science seems to assume that we can know everything by way of it, and that initial presupposition keeps it doing fancy parlor tricks like manipulating atoms and making better bombs.

Science assumes that through its methodology, ever-more accurate and predictive descriptions of physically perceivable reality are possible. As I’ve stated innumerable times before and as you and many others have ignored, science does not purport to define reality or truth. Know everything? If “everything” is contained within our physically perceivable world, then perhaps one day science, if continued to be practiced by an a stable and advancing civilization, will uncover it all. Otherwise it won’t. Learn a little bit about science before making such bold and incorrect judgments of its purpose and role.

And the fact that science evolves through paradigms and theories to incorporate new information is not a shortcoming, but rather its greatest strength! The fact that our scientific understanding of reality is constantly being modified and added to only means that there is more to know. When science becomes static, it is dead.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wayward Oneironaut
ps.. When i am talking about science, I mean to say how science is actually being used in the real world not the ideal of science, or your idea of science.

Then you speak of science as a tool of society and not science as a pursuit of knowledge and way of knowing (as was the original topic of this thread). The two are quite distinct. If you don’t like the way scientific knowledge and methodologies are being utilized, then write your congressperson and complain about the priorities of modern, western culture. Science is conducted by human beings and human beings are cultural creatures; however, science as a pursuit and method of inquiry is without culture, and just about every human being on this planet uses that method in his/her life (albeit often in a looser form).