physics is a weak argument

I put forth the proposition that the scope of human perception is so limited and narrow that it's utter foolishness to assume that we have unlocked the secrets of the universe in just the past, what? 200 years? It's important to be skeptical...But that does not mean to automatically assume something does not exist until it can be "proven" in a laboratory. True skepticism is NOT taking a stance either way. I'd like to also point out, that so far NOTHING can be proven. The best we can do is disprove something, but even that is a pretty weak way to decide if something really exists. (The same problems with proof exist with disproof...Often it just depends on your specific perception of the object.) Perception IS reality...Don't be so sure that your perception reaches to the ends of the universe, or even to all of the processes that exist just on this planet--We are all taught from a very young age how to perceive the world around us, and most of us believe absolutely that what we perceive is really the way things are...If you are really serious about discovering "reality", you would approach everything with a totally open mind and try to perceive every situation and every concept from as many different vantage points as possible.

According to you your position, we can close this subforum though. Or rather close anything that involves evidence and arguments.

Cmon...You can do better than that--I've seen your work, master-of-the-concrete. Let's hear a rebuttal with more heart!


My point in all of that, was that your brand of "skepticism" is pretty hypocritical. You automatically deny the existence of anything that does not fit into the "reality" that you have been taught to perceive, and yet you blindly accept anything that fits into this "reality" you have been taught to perceive. Just because there is a laboratory experiment conducted, does not prove that a phenomenon exists nor does not exist. In fact, you have no logical way of even knowing whether or not these laboratory experiments have really taken place, or if there is some sort of massive conspiracy built around your life just to fool you. Obviously, this is somewhat of an extreme idea, but you shouldn't be so quick to condemn theories and ideas that have existed for much longer than you (OBE, psionics and all that other nonsense), just because the current mainstream scientific paradigm says it's not possible. Remember, "science" has been proven wrong constantly since belief first came into existence...What it makes it so infallible now?


Just as a side note, I have no reason to believe that any "psychic" phenomena exists, but I also have no reason to believe it doesn't exist...Aside, of course, from all the scientists and professors with PhD's that say it's nonsense...

Why don’t you learn a little about science before belittling its contributions to human knowledge? Science is not a thing which can be proven wrong. Science is a process which advances our knowledge of physical reality through a process designed to minimize subjective human bias. As a the product of a process rather than a body of beliefs, scientific knowledge is constantly evolving and being refined as new technology is developed and new discoveries are made. Science has not been “proven wrong constantly since belief first came into existence” because you cannot disprove a process. Old knowledge is refined and replaced by new knowledge. Those old beliefs about the nature of reality were, at the time, the best that human scientific inquiry could provide. But technology changes, opening new avenues of investigation, and new ideas are conceived to test the old ones. Science is not invalid because it changes and grows in refinement and its ability to describe and model the natural world. That is precisely its strength. Unlike the dogma of religion which previously in western culture (and currently in other cultures) claimed the role of disseminator of the truth of reality, science is not fixed. It does not claim that the world is 6000 years old despite an undisputed body of evidence to the contrary simply because that’s what has always been believed. Stubbornness of belief should not be equated with correctness of belief. It is evidence of intelligence and a critical mind that new information is incorporated into old beliefs or, if justified, allowed to replace them entirely.

As for your position on the nature of “proof”: under the strictest definition of proof, nothing can be proven. But if for the history of human experience, apples fall toward the ground rather than toward the sky, it’s a fairly safe bet (I’d give it odds of about 1:10^20) that if you sit beneath an apple tree in the summertime and watch the apples fall, they’ll fall toward the ground. Does that prove that apples will always fall toward the ground? To most people, yes. But you could argue, and obviously have, that all that proves is that apples in the past have fallen to the ground. There could be a radical spontaneous reversal of gravity in the next second, caused by an unforeseen physical interaction, that causes the next apple that falls from a tree to fall toward the sky. It could. But it’s not likely. Really not likely.

Your argument is simply not a valid commentary on science. You propose to replace a well-researched, well-studied scientific phenomenon with a vast conspiracy theory. Do you have proof of a conspiracy? Because I could take you to a scientific laboratory and show you those experiments being performed. "But what if they really drugged you and put you in the most super-realistic, alien-technology-inspired VR Holodeck ever and it’s all just an illusion! See, then it’s still a conspiracy, just a bigger one!" But what if, what if. You can always come up with a more complicated, more unlikely hypothesis for a given phenomenon, but that does not in any way weaken the accepted scientific explanation unless you can present more compelling evidence of your position than can a global community of research scientists.

Now, I could pull out Occam’s Razor as a justification for the scientific explanation, but I find it hard to believe that you actually subscribe to such a ridiculous proposition, so I’m just going to leave this as it is.

Also, who exactly was your intended audience with that post? Who is this “you” who “automatically deny the existence of anything that does not fit into the "reality" that you have been taught to perceive, and yet you blindly accept anything that fits into this "reality" you have been taught to perceive”? To direct such unsupported, blanket stereotypes at an entire forum is not only rude, but it weakens your argument. What is the validity of your argument if it is directed at nothing but a spurious psychological construct devised as an easy target?

now that had heart...

Clearly, you misunderstood...When I say that "science has been proven wrong", I mean not that the concept of science was proven wrong, but that at any given point in its "evolution" the underlying "beliefs" that make up its existence (yes, they are beliefs, not facts) have been shown by a more recent version of science to be blatant falsehoods...The fact that there still does not exist any one "version" of reality that has been discovered by "science" that can still hold up to any "scientific" testing is a pretty good indication that "science" still hasn't given us anything except for a vague way to describe a mind-blowingly small portion of the known universe (here's a good contribution from "science"). Blind belief in religion is no different than blind belief in the validity of physics, and it's obvious, when you have to keep coming up with different theories to explain why our current physics doesn't to describe that which lies outside the finite range of human experience.

You seem to be claiming that I am saying that no "science" has any meaning or use whatsoever, and that's simply not the case. Real scientists will use science as a tool to attempt to better understand the world around them and the universe, without turning it into a religious fanticism. A real scientist will know that the equations he uses are just a guide to help him predict the behavior of most of the common things he can perceive...But he must also realize that this science, as you say, is a process--a very young process, and has not included in its vast, blanketing reach something so simple as why apples fall to the ground...

Just because certain phenomena cannot be measured with our numerous instruments that can detect every kind of radiation in the universe or across every dimension that has been "proven" to exist (how many are there now? I've lost track..10? 11? 26?), simply does not mean that these phenomena don't exist.

As for Occam's Razor, it's more of an interesting idea than a theory to base your life around. Like I said, perception is learned, and Occam's Razor is totally subjective.

And the "you" in my post was directed towards Korittke, because I thought I might get a good argument from him, so I'll ignore the last bit.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mongreloctopus
Clearly, you misunderstood...When I say that "science has been proven wrong", I mean not that the concept of science was proven wrong, but that at any given point in its "evolution" the underlying "beliefs" that make up its existence (yes, they are beliefs, not facts) have been shown by a more recent version of science to be blatant falsehoods

---

Not true. Some previous scientific theories have been proven incorrect; however, the majority have been found to be specific instances or less precise versions of more encompassing theories formulated later. Newton’s formulation of the gravitational force, for instance, is still used by civil engineers and architects to build the bridges and buildings you use every day. Newton’s equations actually emerge from Einstein’s theory of general relativity for non-relativistic situations. Newton was not wrong. His theory was simply incomplete. The same is true of the evolution of our understanding of electromagnetism and atomic and subatomic structures and interactions. Scientists build on and revise the work of the past. This is the nature of the scientific process, and again, it is its virtue. Please actually study the history of science before you post inaccurate statements.

Quote:

---

...The fact that there still does not exist any one "version" of reality that has been discovered by "science" that can still hold up to any "scientific" testing is a pretty good indication that "science" still hasn't given us anything except for a vague way to describe a mind-blowingly small portion of the known universe[/b]

---

Quantum mechanics is the most well-tested, most accurate, and most successful scientific theory in history. It is not “vague,” but a highly versatile and specific description of physical reality. It is not complete for well-known and freely admitted reasons, most notably the incapability of relativity and quantum mechanics at subatomic scales under relativistic influences and also because of the lack of a tested theory of quantum gravitation. This in no way negates QM’s usefulness nor its valuable insight into the nature of the subatomic world. Were science as wishy-washy as you attempt to portray it, you would never be able to make your posts because the computers on which you compose and post them would not work.

Quote:

---

Blind belief in religion is no different than blind belief in the validity of physics, and it's obvious, when you have to keep coming up with different theories to explain why our current physics doesn't to describe that which lies outside the finite range of human experience.[/b]

---

Wrong on two counts.
One: Science is vastly different from religion, for the very basic reason which I stated in my first post and which you have conveniently ignored. It is the nature of science to evolve. It is the nature of religion to stagnate.
Two: Science does not attempt to describe that which lies outside the finite range of human experience. How can one test what one cannot experience? The limits of human perception are the limits of science – science seeks to describe the perceivable world. And of course, technology has vastly expanded the available range of experience, so “human experience” is by no means limited to the perception of the unaided human senses.

Quote:

---

You seem to be claiming that I am saying that no "science" has any meaning or use whatsoever[/b]

---

You did title your post “physics is a weak argument”. Perhaps you should give more thought and consideration to your chosen subject line if you do not wish such misunderstandings to occur in the future.

Quote:

---

But he must also realize that this science, as you say, is a process--a very young process, and has not included in its vast, blanketing reach something so simple as why apples fall to the ground...[/b]

---

Excuse me? That’s called gravity and it has been studied by the modern scientific process for almost 350 years.

Quote:

---

And the "you" in my post was directed towards Korittke, because I thought I might get a good argument from him, so I'll ignore the last bit.[/b]

---

Well, he didn’t seem too interested, but you have piqued the interest of a “real scientist” who finds your critique of science weak at best. If you intend your post simply for one person, perhaps you should consider a private message, or, if you enjoy the public attention of a forum discussion, you should mention your target debater by name so as to avoid confusion.

Yes, you keep stressing "revision", and that's exactly my point. We expect for science to keep being revised and changed as new knowledge enters the system...So why put so much faith in it now?

Gravity may have been studied for 350 years or thousands of years...It doesn't matter. We still have absolutely no idea why it exists, or what it is--only that it does seem to exist.

And again, you go back to trying to prove that I disbelieve in science, which is sort of a silly point to try to make, since I've already explained that the only qualm I have with "scientists" is when they believe that theories we have today describe all of existence, and anything that doesn't fit neatly into a theory or a reading off of an instrument does not exist.

Religion evolves just as much as science does. Religion has just as much proof and evidence to the subscribers of religion, as science does to the subscribers of science. Just because you don't believe in religion doesn't invalidate it (side note: I do not subscribe to religion). To a scientific person like yourself, obviously, religion is utter foolishness, but it's just another way to experience and describe the perceptions of everyday life--just like science.

If there's one point I'd like you to take from my posts, without any sort of confusion, it would be this:

Science, like religion, like any kind of philosophy, is just a way to orient one's "internal" world with the "external" world. That is, as I'm sure we agree, perceptions ultimately make up reality. It's very easy to learn to perceive something, just as it is very easy to learn to not perceive something. I believe that many scientists proclaiming to be skeptics are not truly skeptical in nature because of their inherent bias towards anything that doesn't fit into a theory put forth by someone else who shares their learned perceptual capacities.

Some examples of this...The flat earth, earth being the center of the universe, blood being the medium of heredity, just the word "atom" itself (indivisible). In fact, I bet you would be able to find a large number of people who simply do not believe that lucid dreaming exists. There is no objective way to prove its existence (sure you can bring up EEGs or fMRIs conducted on people "lucid dreaming", but there's no way to know for sure whether they were lucid without asking them) There are countless "truths" that have been, as you say, "revised". I know I won't get you to admit that they were wrong, because "science is a process", but by that token you should never believe that anything science has to offer is guaranteed to be upheld by future generations of scientific progress. I'm not asking you to disavow that science has a place in human understanding of the universe, because that's not what I believe. I believe that any idea that can be imagined, should be considered as seriously as any theory that has been "proven" by today's standards--if not, wouldn't we find ourselves in the midst of stagnation?

Had I had any previous experience with you, Peregrinus, my posts would've been directed towards you. Ultimately it didn't matter...You became involved, so my plan worked. But, since this is what you seem to want,

I HEARBY CHALLENGE PEREGRINUS TO A PUBLIC DEBATE (retroactively, of course)

You asked for it:

Quote:

---

Yes, you keep stressing "revision", and that's exactly my point. We expect for science to keep being revised and changed as new knowledge enters the system...So why put so much faith in it now?

---

Because it is the best we have now. It works now. And, I’ll just come right out and say this, it is not wrong now. It is incomplete in certain specific and acknowledged areas, and perhaps even in others not yet discovered due to technological limits. However, as was Newton’s formulation of gravity, our modern formulation of the standard model and quantum field theory (I am assuming here your beef is primarily with quantum mechanics since everyone who doesn’t understand it seems to have a beef with quantum mechanics) is more than likely an approximation of a more narrow range of situations which will be more thoroughly described by the next formulation developed. That is, incidentally, a major qualification for the next theory which will either modify or replace our current quantum mechanical model – it must match the quantum mechanical predictions on all of the myriad experiments which QM has predicted with heretofore unmatched precision. You work with what you’ve got, and what we’ve got now is pretty damn good. To decide to wander through the darkness of self-imposed doubt because what we have now isn’t perfect is no better than a man standing in a dark and windowless room bemoaning the lack of light but refusing to turn on the incandescent bulb which dangles above his head because the lightbulb isn’t natural sunlight and therefore illuminates the world only imperfectly.

Quote:

---

Gravity may have been studied for 350 years or thousands of years...It doesn't matter. We still have absolutely no idea why it exists, or what it is--only that it does seem to exist.

---

Wrong. I am not your science tutor, so I’m not going to give you a lesson on relativity or quantum mechanics. However, before you post such inaccuracies again, learn about that which you profess so ignorantly. Go read up on the relativistic and quantum mechanical understandings of gravity. Those certainly do not represent the profound ignorance you propose..

Quote:

---

And again, you go back to trying to prove that I disbelieve in science, which is sort of a silly point to try to make, since I've already explained that the only qualm I have with "scientists" is when they believe that theories we have today describe all of existence, and anything that doesn't fit neatly into a theory or a reading off of an instrument does not exist.

---

Then you have no qualm and your entire “public debate” here is moot. No trained and respected scientist believes such nonsense. Unlike you, they have been trained in the history of scientific discovery and the methods of its progress. It is their job and their passion to revise and perhaps even overthrow the work of the past for more accurate understandings of the physical world. That is the point. You are, by the way, unqualified to hold this debate if you do not even comprehend such a foundational thing as that.

Quote:

---

Religion evolves just as much as science does.

---

If you actually believe that you are far more delusional and disconnected from reality than you seem.

Quote:

---

Religion has just as much proof and evidence to the subscribers of religion, as science does to the subscribers of science.

---

No. Religion is based on faith, which is quite the opposite of the physical evidence upon which science operates.

Quote:

---

Just because you don't believe in religion doesn't invalidate it (side note: I do not subscribe to religion). To a scientific person like yourself, obviously, religion is utter foolishness, but it's just another way to experience and describe the perceptions of everyday life--just like science.

---

You should not presume the beliefs of those whom you do not know.

Quote:

---

I believe that many scientists proclaiming to be skeptics are not truly skeptical in nature because of their inherent bias towards anything that doesn't fit into a theory put forth by someone else who shares their learned perceptual capacities.

---

That is a human bias, not a scientific one. The scientific process is designed to circumvent and overcome such biases through a rigorous methodology of experimentation and testing of hypotheses. If a scientist proposes a hypothesis which is in line with previous work, and that hypothesis, when tested, is shown to be false, it doesn’t matter whether the scientist liked that hypothesis or found it comforting. It is incorrect and s/he must abandon it. Now, personal bias can affect how thoroughly a given scientist tests a hypothesis; however, in a global community, when a new hypothesis is tested by one scientist, others test it as well to either confirm of disprove the earlier results. One person’s preference cannot stem the tide of research and progress.

Quote:

---

Some examples of this...The flat earth

---

Even in ancient times, observant philosophers and scientists did not believe this. The very fact that as a ship sails toward the horizon, its mast gradually sinks indicates a round earth and not a flat one.

Quote:

---

earth being the center of the universe

---

Without the proper technology to test this hypothesis, it could be neither confirmed nor rejected. The fact that the orbits of celestial bodies had to be incredibly complicated in order for the geocentric model to accurately predict the placement of objects in the sky should have been a clue of the model’s inaccuracies, and to some, it was. With the development and refinement of the telescope by medieval scientists (Galileo being the most well known), more detailed observations of celestial objects were possible and it was the Catholic Church (a vast, organized, stagnant religion with a vested interest in the status quo) which most vehemently opposed the heliocentric model which was suggested by Galileo’s discovery of moons orbiting the planet Jupiter.

Quote:

---

blood being the medium of heredity

---

An approximation of the reality of DNA as the medium of heredity. The discovery of DNA as the carrier of genetic information in the mid-20th century was the culmination of discoveries which began almost a century before. Back in medieval times, when blood was believed to be the carrier of genetic information, there did not exist the precise biochemistry necessary to test that hypothesis. As stated before, many scientific discoveries are dependent upon technology which allows us to probe more deeply into reality, thus revealing where previous scientific models fail.

Quote:

---

just the word "atom" itself (indivisible)

---

Again, this is an approximation. Before the discovery of electricity, there was nothing in ordinary experience to indicate that atoms were not indivisible. It wasn’t until J.J. Thompson’s work on cathode ray tubes which demonstrated that electrons, components of atoms, can be stripped from their atoms and emitted. Not until the technology of the cathode ray tube was developed could such an experiment be performed to test the indivisibility hypothesis.

Quote:

---

In fact, I bet you would be able to find a large number of people who simply do not believe that lucid dreaming exists.

---

Probably. However, most people I’ve talked to have either experienced it or believe that it is indeed possible.

Quote:

---

There is no objective way to prove its existence (sure you can bring up EEGs or fMRIs conducted on people "lucid dreaming", but there's no way to know for sure whether they were lucid without asking them)

---

Really? And experiments performed where lucid dreamers are told to move their eyes in a specific pattern upon attainment of lucidity and these patterns are then observed in their rapid eye movement – what are those?

Quote:

---

you should never believe that anything science has to offer is guaranteed to be upheld by future generations of scientific progress.

---

No, you shouldn’t. However, that does not mean the you should not use what science has to offer now when it accurately describes the physical world in a useful and insightful way. If you are waiting for perfection, you will die an unhappy man.

Quote:

---

I believe that any idea that can be imagined, should be considered as seriously as any theory that has been "proven" by today's standards--if not, wouldn't we find ourselves in the midst of stagnation?

---

Sure, you can ask me to consider the idea that flying purple armadillos really exist and just haven’t been discovered yet because when in the proximity of anything else, they have the ability to turn invisible, but I’m not going to go perform experiments to test that hypothesis unless you can present evidence for why you believe it. You have to have a reason for your ideas if you want them to be seriously considered. Just saying, “Well, I imagined it so go test it,” won’t cut it.

Quote:

---

I HEARBY CHALLENGE PEREGRINUS TO A PUBLIC DEBATE (retroactively, of course)

---

I should warn you that that may not be a very wise move. So far, you haven't made a very impressive showing.

Hahahah it must be great to have already unravelled the mysteries of the universe. I hope you enjoy your brand of omniscience--afterall, perception is reality. I was under the assumption that science was generally practiced by the open-minded... but, then, we all know what happens when we assume. With such great scientists as you who can easily spew forth religious, er, scientific rhetoric, it's no wonder that modern-day science can already explain everything. I hope one day that I too can join the world of textbooks filled with facts.

We have reached an impasse, obviously, you refuse to even consider the possibility of something beyond the realm of scientific perception...And that just happens to be in what I'm interested. I hope your "scientific journey" leads you to exactly where you intend...Mine, on the other hand, I hope leads me to somewhere I never expected. Good day.

Wow. What a debate!
I am half and half here. There is the true an the untrue.
When my head stops spinning, I think I will put more thought into my response.

*But due to the fact that we are in large vobering a broad spectrum of ideas, I am going to move this to Extended discussion Forum!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mongreloctopus
Hahahah it must be great to have already unravelled the mysteries of the universe. I hope you enjoy your brand of omniscience--afterall, perception is reality. I was under the assumption that science was generally practiced by the open-minded... but, then, we all know what happens when we assume. With such great scientists as you who can easily spew forth religious, er, scientific rhetoric, it's no wonder that modern-day science can already explain everything. I hope one day that I too can join the world of textbooks filled with facts.

We have reached an impasse, obviously, you refuse to even consider the possibility of something beyond the realm of scientific perception...And that just happens to be in what I'm interested. I hope your "scientific journey" leads you to exactly where you intend...Mine, on the other hand, I hope leads me to somewhere I never expected. Good day.

---

Congrats on the most well written cop-out ever posted on DV.

EDIT: And by the way, lucid dreaming is an accepted and studied phenomenon in the realm of psychology, not at all controversial.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker

Congrats on the most well written cop-out ever posted on DV.

---

Here, here! :cheers:

However, I think its a little unfair that Peregrinus didn't get a quality response to validate her time and effort in posting her argument.

Mongreloctopus,


That was a sorry rebuttal full of inaccuracies and weak attempts at intentional deception. Indeed even calling it a rebuttal is a disservice to intelligent debate.

My response in no way indicates a sense of omnipotence or a belief that science has “unraveled the mysteries of the universe”. In fact, had you actually bothered to read my post and come up a relevant response rather than the trite cop-out you chose instead, you would realize that I stated quite the opposite – hence that lengthy discussion of revision and evolution in science. Neither did I spew rhetoric – my response was my own and certainly more well-contemplated than yours – and to call someone “close-minded” after they logically and methodically dissect your entire argument is nothing but childishness.

And like In The Moment, I, too, am sorry that you were not appropriately prepared to follow through with that gauntlet you so arrogantly dropped.

EDIT: I didn't see Howetzer's reply and dislike double posts.
Science is a bounded method of inquiry into reality. I've never claimed otherwise and have, in fact, argued extensively on this board about where those boudaries lie. However, the problem is that far too many people who lack a basic understanding of science misinterpret "bounded" and "limited" as "useless." They hold science to a standard of perfection that it itself does not profess. Science seeks to describe what is perceivable and testable. It strives to answer how the world works, not why it works. Science does not ascribe meaning to the world. It cannot investigate religious, mystical or faith-based beliefs unless those beliefs make some claim about physical, perceivable reality. (This is exactly what I was arguing w/ Belisarius about last year, incidentally.) Science is very good at what it does. It has allowed for vast advances in our understanding of the physical world which has resulted in amazing new technology with the potential to greatly improve human life. But if you want insight into God, go talk to a priest, not a scientist (at least not a scientist in his or her professional capacity).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mongreloctopus
Perception IS reality....

---

So If I would take some shrooms those dancing yellow midgets would be real :o :D

First off, I agree with the dead ol' greek dude that said that we can not obtain any objective truth. Our mind creates the image of the world we see, not our eyes. It goes with all sences and things.
However within this perception we can state that there are likeabilities. Like evolution, it's likely, but not proven. And the big-bang theory sounds likely to me, but it might not be true. Physics have shown to be correct 100% of the time till now, even for expetions theories have been created. I would have to say physics is one of the most 'likeable' theories there is. Certainly in the apects of things like for gravity, it seems to be correct all the time. So I would have to say Physics is a good argument.

WOW Peregrinus, that was impressive, although you probably have a too much time on your hands. :mrgreen:

:bravo:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dudesuperior
you probably have a too much time on your hands. :mrgreen:

---

Thanks. And no doubt. ;)

You see, the problem which I discovered shortly after getting into this long session of repeating the same thing over and over, and reading the same thing over and over, is simply this: what I am trying to discuss is something that lies outside of the boundaries of current known science. To argue the case for this current scientific paradigm, a prepubescent school girl could easily misspell "quantum physics" in google and get all the material she needed. There is no evidence and no proof for those concepts that lie outside of the framework of this paradigm. That's exactly the point. If you had studied the "history of science" as much as you claim to, you would know that all paradigm shifts have been as a result of some usually small, radical group of people that defied the current mainstream beliefs, by proposing theories and ideas that went completely contrary to what was accepted and "proven". Scientific progress is not made by burrying your legs in several feet of mud and jerking off on the faces of the other idiots around you, but by actually trying to discover something NEW.

Here's a novel suggestion: instead of BLINDLY believing in everything your professors teach you, why not try to think critically instead, and realize that NOT everything you read in reports is actually true. You know, I heard that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, from what I've read, there were multiple sources of intelligence....

I'd be willing to bet that you have NEVER conducted any kind of experiment dealing with quantum physics, astrophysics, string theory, whatever.

Yeah, it's a great skill to be able to read and take notes on what someone else has written, but when you start to close the walls in around you take everything for granted (that's called faith, darling), then you are no different than a religious zealot.

Denying even the possibility of the existence of some kind of phenomena that are not detectable (yet) by scientific instruments just means that our technology is lagging behind our ability to conceptualize the possible.

I suggest you take your sense of intellectual superiority and place it squarely in your ass next to your head, your blind faith, narrow field of view and your recycled, boring arguments--I'm sure there's plenty of space.

As to the cop-out, that's fine. Hearing your repeat over and over that science is never proven wrong, it evolves, blah blah blah..Yeah, yeah I know. That's great. There's more to science than being able to prove or disprove something. If I'm not mistaken, the point is to try and perceive as much as possible, using tested ideas as stepping stones. You're missing the next step.

As for me, cop-out or not, this argument IS totally fruitless--to be interested in an argument, I have to be learning something new or opening my eyes to a new perspective. I've heard all of this many times before during the undergraduate process--thus my quest for something new... but thanks anyway.

Although this discussion has seemed to be milked to it's fullest extent I feel it could go on.
It is two sided. Not much will transpire from that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mongreloctopus
This argument IS totally fruitless--to be interested in an argument, I have to be learning something new or opening my eyes to a new perspective. I've heard all of this many times before during the undergraduate process--thus my quest for something new... but thanks anyway.

---

What would make this a learning curve.
What do you actually want from this topic mongreloctopus? Aside from pointing who why OR what to blame.
What can change to make things different :?:
A societies change of curriculum maybe?
More funded research?
:idea:

Wow, resorting to personal insults. Now that definitely furthers your arguments! Way to elevate the discussion, man! :goodjob2:

As for my scientific qualifications which you insult preemptively: I graduated with my degree in Physics magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. I have conducted original peer-reviewed, published research on the thermal conductivity of multi-walled carbon nanotubes grown via plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition and also at the US Department of Energy on the detection of elemental mercury released at coal-fired power plants via the technique of cavity ringdown spectroscopy. Now you’ve seen mine. Why don’t you show me your creds.

Quote:

---

what I am trying to discuss is something that lies outside of the boundaries of current known science.

---

Well, then attacking science on what it does study is rather futile, isn’t it?

Quote:

---

To argue the case for this current scientific paradigm, a prepubescent school girl could easily misspell "quantum physics" in google and get all the material she needed.

---

Not to argue it well. Was that your own tactic, though?

Quote:

---

There is no evidence and no proof for those concepts that lie outside of the framework of this paradigm.

---

Duh. Science studies what is physical and perceivable. There is no evidence outside of this because you cannot, by definition perceive anything outside of the perceivable.

Quote:

---

That's exactly the point. If you had studied the "history of science" as much as you claim to, you would know that all paradigm shifts have been as a result of some usually small, radical group of people that defied the current mainstream beliefs, by proposing theories and ideas that went completely contrary to what was accepted and "proven".

---

Oh, I’ve read my Thomas Kuhn. And those revolutions, by the way, were the result of an accumulation of evidence in support of a hypothesis counter to that which was currently accepted. That “radical group of people” don’t hold up picket signs at scientific labs to get their views accepted. They have to support their position with experimental or at least mathematically theoretical evidence. And, by the way, if you would actually read my response, I said that “the majority” of old scientific theories were not patently incorrect but rather less accurate than their revisions. The idea of an interstellar ether, for instance, was just plain wrong.

Quote:

---

Scientific progress is not made by burrying your legs in several feet of mud and jerking off on the faces of the other idiots around you, but by actually trying to discover something NEW.

---

Lovely image, but you might want to attempt a somewhat more intellectual approach if you want to be taken seriously.

Quote:

---

Here's a novel suggestion: instead of BLINDLY believing in everything your professors teach you, why not try to think critically instead, and realize that NOT everything you read in reports is actually true. You know, I heard that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, from what I've read, there were multiple sources of intelligence....

---

You really need to stop making assumption about people you do not know. How can you possibly presume to know my behavior and level of skeptical inquiry in class. You need to check your arrogance at the "reply" button. And as for your immature implication that I am a poor scientist because the country from which I hail involved itself in an unjustified war – that is low and in very poor taste. The manipulation of the intelligence information which was used to justify an invasion of Iraq was political, not scientific. And just so you’ll shut up with these personal jibes, I protested the authorizations for war on the ground that the evidence presented was flawed and fallacious weeks before the US Congress even signed it. Do not resort to personal attacks, Mongreloctopus. It is a sign of a person who no longer has anything constructive to add and nothing left to lose except for some shredded pride.

Quote:

---

I'd be willing to bet that you have NEVER conducted any kind of experiment dealing with quantum physics, astrophysics, string theory, whatever.

---

And you would lose that bet, wouldn’t you? Want me to set up a paypal account for the transfer of your money?

Quote:

---

Yeah, it's a great skill to be able to read and take notes on what someone else has written, but when you start to close the walls in around you take everything for granted (that's called faith, darling), then you are no different than a religious zealot.

---

You are getting far too personal. You do not know me and are setting me up as some sort of straw man. You are not justified in this and it does not further your argument. At all.

Quote:

---

Denying even the possibility of the existence of some kind of phenomena that are not detectable (yet) by scientific instruments just means that our technology is lagging behind our ability to conceptualize the possible.

---

Did I suggest otherwise? Add some more straw, Mongrel. Just keep stuffin’ it in.

Quote:

---

I suggest you take your sense of intellectual superiority and place it squarely in your ass next to your head, your blind faith, narrow field of view and your recycled, boring arguments--I'm sure there's plenty of space.

---

Oh, now that’s convincing! You sure must know what you’re talking about, because the utilization of head-in-ass metaphors is certainly an indication of vast intellectual capacity and a thorough comprehension of the issue at hand.

Quote:

---

There's more to science than being able to prove or disprove something. If I'm not mistaken, the point is to try and perceive as much as possible, using tested ideas as stepping stones. You're missing the next step.

---

Well, you are missing the point. The point is not to perceive as much as possible, but to perceive and describe in such a way as to futher our understanding of the phenomenon and, if applicable, enable predictions about future behavior.

Quote:

---

As for me, cop-out or not, this argument IS totally fruitless--to be interested in an argument, I have to be learning something new or opening my eyes to a new perspective.

---

How can you open your eyes when they are so clearly glued shut?

It's late and I'm lazy, so I'm just going to give my opinion based on the first post.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mongreloctopus
I put forth the proposition that the scope of human perception is so limited and narrow that it's utter foolishness to assume that we have unlocked the secrets of the universe in just the past, what? 200 years? It's important to be skeptical...But that does not mean to automatically assume something does not exist until it can be "proven" in a laboratory.

---

True. I agree with you that there's too much of a 'Science = Truth' mentality these days. This leads to two dangerous things:
1) Pseudo-science which also proves lots of things. This can lead to wrong ideas by applying the scientific method improperly or by consciously falsifying data.
But there's a much more horrible monster here then pseudo-science...
2) 'Not Science = Not Truth'. It was not scientifically proven? It's untrue. It CANNOT be scientifically proven? It CANNOT be true. Science is not the only source of knowledge. Science has it's limits. Science can be wrong. To assume it alone is the criteria for truth is something that's done far too often these days.

Quote:

---

True skepticism is NOT taking a stance either way.[/b]

---

Not true, actually. True skepticism resigns to the fact that we can doubt everything and therefore it is impossible for us to attain true knowledge about anything. A point of view of which I believe disproves itself by it's own uselessness.

Quote:

---

I'd like to also point out, that so far NOTHING can be proven. The best we can do is disprove something, but even that is a pretty weak way to decide if something really exists.[/b]

---

I've had this discussion with someone once. I still think Descartes proved his own existance with the simple cogito ergo sum. I, at least, can't see what Descartes disproved here, except for his own non-existance. Which, by the principle of contradiction, again proves his existance.

Quote:

---

Perception IS reality...[/b]

---

Does the name Berkeley ring a bell?
Berkeley still needed God to keep a room from disappearing whenever everyone left and stop perceiving it, though. Perception is indeed everything we know about reality... But there's also a priori knowledge (no senses, knowledge originating in thought only). Whether this knowledge says something more about reality is a debateable subject, though.
There's a degree of consistency in the universe that makes science practical. Maybe not a source of true knowledge, but I don't think that was ever the domain of science anyway. Science wants to attain knowledge about the world we can perceive, the empirical. It is then up to philosophy to determine whether our senses can be trusted.

Quote:

---

Don't be so sure that your perception reaches to the ends of the universe, or even to all of the processes that exist just on this planet--We are all taught from a very young age how to perceive the world around us, and most of us believe absolutely that what we perceive is really the way things are...If you are really serious about discovering "reality", you would approach everything with a totally open mind and try to perceive every situation and every concept from as many different vantage points as possible.[/b]

---

Have you ever tried to see a tree just as it is? According to Kant, this is impossible, we can only see a tree in the way it presents itself to us, not it's objective reality. Our minds cannot comprehend all the sensory data we get, so we structure reality using language. Seeing everything might well just be beyond human capabilities.

Science tries to understand and label things in the reality we perceive with our senses. Due to the large amount of consistency in the empirical world, it is succesful up untill now. One mistake is trying to apply science to the non-empirical (like the mystical). Another is assuming science is the only way to obtain true knowledge, and the extreme variant is even worse, assuming that if it is not scientific, it is UNTRUE. If science stays within its domain, there's nothing to worry about, and it is a very powerful tool in understanding the empirical world. Again, the mistake is assuming science holds true over all domains.

I wouldn't call this a "debate" as much as a beatdown. :shakehead2:

HEY!I have credentials too :furious:
I have ummmm math 101 and aahh I know there is something else in there? :huh:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ataraxis
I wouldn't call this a "debate" as much as a beatdown. :shakehead2:

---

Yes ataraxis. My attempt to broaden the conversation and to add a comedic atmosphere has not been successful.

This seems like an attempt to hijack the point behind my "But it defies the laws of physics" (all the way do to the 'an invalid can get on google and research blah blah' line) while completely misinterpreting the point, so I won't bother to comment much on it. (Bnd shame on you for that duck-out attempt at the 'debate' that You challenged Peregrinus too, Mongrel. :nono: )

But, as usual:
"Very well made points, Peregrinus." :goodjob2:

From what I have gathered from the original post, mongrel seems to point out a dead old philosophical parable formulated from what he probably heard somewhere in philosph101. As if anyone on a lucid dream forum does not "keep an open mind"

A s far as what Peregrinus has posted which was really a sheer intelectual clarity on physical science and its worth, well you just cant argue against it unless your an anarchist and anarchy leads to destruction which is what we aim against as scientists and explorers of the endless.. :!:

Quote:

---

A s far as what Peregrinus has posted which was really a sheer intelectual clarity on physical science and its worth, well you just cant argue against it unless your an *anarchist and anarchy leads to destruction which is what we aim against as scientists and explorers of the endless.. :!:[/b]

---

:?: :? wtf. i loosely consider myself an anarchist, and i'm all for the scientific method when it is applied appropriately...you are mixing apples and ostrich eggs with your strange tie-in between anarchism, science, and destruction.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Yes. Yes, there is.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. :P

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 :-P ), 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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. :evil:

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Well you would get a cool light saber had one chosen the darkside. :evil: [/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. :angel:

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

---

Ah, gotcha.

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

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 :D

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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).