Why the struggle? That's much of what scientists try to do. Wait. This year I seem to be often misunderstanding things others write. I'll blame it on stressful hols.lol. So let's see if I did that here. By "what things are" do you mean "the physical configuration of various things" - as in the characteristics of a hydrogen atom? Or do you mean "the nature of physical reality overall"? I've been responding based on the former.
Science...
- Thread starter Max_B
- Start date
Red
New
Well, I think it is rather misleading to think that we can 'do science' without a subjective framework. Unfortunately I think the subjective framework that we employ most often is the erroneous belief in objectivity. ie it is hard to separate the science from the belief system from which it emerges, although, of course, not impossible. I do think that there is an element of the scientific method that will prevail with replication. However, as Saiko points out there are other ways of knowing which are almost wholly rejected by science and the communities that control acceptable fields of study.
So, with regard to the Woolacott video, her experiences with meditation are not validated by her colleagues and therefore will not likely make progress in scientific knowledge/ circles. The "what things do" part of meditation can be studied, although few studies are done, and the subjective interpretation part of the experience, (the 'outside'/'inside' reality) is not something that science is willing or able to tackle.
I mean, useful abstraction is sort of vague. I think close approximation is a bit better.
This is seemingly why I'm beginning to accept that science almost certainly will never give us a full picture of reality, and we're entirely fooling to think that our version is even close to being correct.
Max_B
Member
no the latter... Lol
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
I think there's also the separation of finding out how to manipulate the environment within existing boundaries and actually knowing what things are. As noted in various circles at the moment we've been robbed of certainty about what used to be defining characteristics of matter - spatial extension, local causality (in terms of both space & time), certainty of position. (I liked Bitbol's discussion of the Empirical Stance and how it relates to the advent of QM, though I'd also have to admit the parts that really dug into QM ultimately lost me.)
Yet despite our current ignorance on the nature of matter we can still manipulate reality at the macro or even micro level. Even our ignorance of macro-level aspects of the body doesn't stop us from utilizing statistical methods to develop drugs (which isn't to say there might not be some quantum biology involved). So on the level of application we've never needed to know exactly how things worked.
Where I think philosophy comes in is setting some potential boundary conditions for what counts as understanding in the sense of "knowing what things are", which science can aid in answering via its investigation of relations. I'd say as a physicist Smolin gets into this kind of philosophy when he asks what led to us having particular laws of physics and what it means for time to be real rather than illusory but IMO any kid honestly asking "Why" continuously is doing philosophy of science.
I also don't think philosophy can tell us what things are. I'm inclined to suggest that when philosophy tries to provide definitive explanations rather than critiques of assumed understanding of phenomenon it can only serve as a guide for further research.
Arouet
Member
I was borrowing Saiko's language for that post but "close approximation" is the way I think of it as well.
Saiko, Iyace is hitting on what I was trying to get at: the problem is not that science can't give us a full picture of reality, the problem is that some people seem to consider that to be a failure of science rather than a limitation of science. It is an unrealistic expectation and leads to anti-science sentiments.
Science is a tool. An extremely useful one but one that is not that easy to wield and has its limitations. Often its a two steps back one step forward process that can quite frustrating for some.
Once you come to terms with the fact that science will likely never present a complete picture (and that even if it does in some instances we have no way of knowing it anyway) then you can push that criteria aside and not worry about it any more. Our goal should be to continue pressing forward, expecting to stumble, reach dead ends, retrace our steps but take satisfaction in uncovering what we can, and adjusting as we go.
I think you're ignoring the point. The belief that it's a "close approximation" is part of that point. Science is done by individuals and each abstraction is influenced by ideas and beliefs of the individual that comes up with it. Sometimes the model might turn out to be a close approximation but often it isn't even close to that. :)
And peoples view of science is also based on those ideas and beliefs. You may claim that science doesn't give us a full picture but you do belief it gives a "close approximation." You, like others, are also reluctant to see science as we know it - to be only one way to knowledge.
You claim your goal is to continue learning but to me - using science (AWKI) as the only method is like someone putting only a screwdriver in a toolbox and claiming they're going to continue to build new structures.
The rest of your post seems to be a re-sating of what I already stated: "status-quo science is just one tool. A useful tool but not the only tool."
Arouet
Member
I've never claimed science to be the only way to knowledge (although for certain questions it may be the most reliable way that we currently know of, and for other questions it may be entirely inappropriate). I'm happy to consider any approach. As I recall, in the past I've tried to press you on your view of what some of these other approaches are, and why we should rely on them but I haven't been able to convince you to go into details. All due respect, you seem to prefer to hint at your approach but don't seem willing to discuss it in detail.
Hurmanetar
New
I generally agree. I think the key word here is "things". Science is first of all induction (observation of general patterns) then classification (hierarchical naming of different patterns - the origin of "things") then the induction and classification of patterns of interactions between these named "things" (what things do), and then the logical and mathematical modeling of these patterns to make predictions about future recurrences of these patterns.
Attempting to tell us "what things are" in the ontological sense is an exercise in (literary) deconstruction which is self-reflexive. It is an impossible task to complete, yet attempting it can have interesting effects due to the resulting boundary dissolution. Attempting it will result in either a vicious circle or infinite regress. A "thing" is a mental dashed line placed around some recurrence of a pattern. Where we choose to draw the localized dashed lines in this singular reality is up to us. We can zoom in (reductionism) or zoom out (oneness).
Far.From.Here
New
For one: See the entire corpus of occult or esoteric literature.
And of course I'd ignore that. This forum itself is awash with details of other approaches. As for "why we should" - I'm not here to tell you that. Fish in whatever stream suits you. Plus I have provided some details of my perspective when I deem it appropriate. But you seem to like to expound on what approaches others should/shouldn't rely on.
It's is a failure of science, insomuch that there is a growing consensus that science will tell us everything. As humans, we seek absolute answers. There is a God who loves and cares. There is an afterlife when I die. Me and my wife are soulmates.
I agree that if you can properly evaluate the uses of science, then you see them as limitations. Most people still need science as a cure all for all ontological questions, so to them, it's a failure.
Far.From.Here
New
Or maybe more to the point: What is the true nature of reality? Is there something or nothing or both?
That's a part of it. But most are still looking to some authority to give them the info. And most see that authority as whatever they've been raised to see.
For me, science has always been most useful when it's focused on accomplishing the wonders that the "dreamers" connect with. IMO any abstractions that aid in that goal are useful, any that don't, are not.
politicaljunkie
New
Reality is far more ambiguous to my mind, and I agree with the need for absolute answers. This is rather well demonstrated in any public forum. For those of you who live in the UK, (myself included) an excellent example of this can be seen on the guardian website. Almost any article about religion or consciousness, will experience an onslaught of atheists (not an issue in itself) and new age loons who will see everything as a binary either/or choice If one has the audacity to suggest consciousness is anything more than an illusion or an emergent property, you are automatically relegated to being some sort of nut job. The comments section really is a shining example of the term 'groupthink' And this is of course a problem in almost any case. Fox news is a circle jerk for right wingers, MSNBC for the left, Answers in genesis for creationists, the Dawkins forums for atheists and skeptics.
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
Well there's definitely something, even if it's only one person thinking up everything.
After that things get tricky. :-)
Hey, Sci!
Can't be one person thinking everything. Otherwise there would be no continuity to the trees in my back yard, since I am not thinking about them continuously.
~~ Paul
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
Ah I was just referring to Descartes. If you can be sure of one thing, it's that you are thinking.
On the subject of continuity...well I think the questions of Idealism and Solipsism will probably take this thread off course. :-)
David Bailey
Member
Suppose you thought up a whole imaginary garden (I am sure some people do), and then concentrated on one corner of it - say some rose bushes. The rest of the garden would not go away even though you didn't think of it for a while!
I'm not really buying into a God thinking it all up, but we have to avoid facile arguments.
David