Science thread - anything interesting?

It really depends on what you mean by "truth." I assume you're referring to truth in a philosophical and moralistic sense, in which case science is not necessarily the only way to explore and discover 'moral truth' (nor does it or any of its students purport it to be... not the sane ones at least).

Having said that, it can help change the way in which moral questions are analysed. Scientific fact can help illuminate certain moralistic questions like "When does it become wrong to abort the fetus in a mother's womb?" by answering questions such "When does it develop consciousness?", "When does the nervous system develop?" that only scientific understanding can help answer.



Then we might as well give up all endeavors to discover as much as we can about the world we live in. Let's give up on finding cures for terminal diseases - how can we know that what we've discovered is really the "truth"?

Remember, science deals with what we can know. It has never pretended to the ultimate answer to all truths in all its various disguises. Science is about the discoverable, the testable and the provable. As I said, the more we discover through science, the more likely it is we'll be able to shed more light on certain philosophical, ethical and moral 'truths'.

Those who wish to use fanciful supernaturalistic reasoning to discover 'truth' are more than welcome to, but they'd have a hard time trying to prove their reasoning in a fashion where anyone could look at and agree with.



The belief in, say, evolution is not the same as a belief in God. The reason for this is because the evidence so overwhelmingly points to evolution being true that it would take a rather stubborn and ignorant mind to reject it. Like many other scientific facts. The facts are there, and they're readily available for anyone to find out. But the belief in God is based on faith, sometimes coupled with weak evidential reasoning (it makes me feel good to believe in God; therefore God exists. Life is complex; therefore God exists).

Of course, a scientist may become so enamored with his or her own theory that they will do anything to twist the facts to fit to that theory. But science has a way of weeding out the bad ideas, and its very nature allows other scientists to disprove faulty theories and shine a spotlight on mischievous and narrow-minded scientists (of whom are rare). Bad science is short lived; good science survives.



Epistemology is covered in scientific thinking, and it's always there for consideration. But dwelling on it too much doesn't really prove particularly fruitful if you want to advance scientific understanding about the world. If a biologist discovered a cure for cancer and it proved to work on numerous occasions thereafter, I don't think epistemology would be particularly high on any scientists' list of considerations.

Epistemological thinking is an important part of human discourse I would agree, but there are times when it's not as important. You could argue that we can never really be sure that we really exist, and as an extension scientific facts aren't really facts at all. It's an interesting thought experiment, and there's no real way to disprove its claims - but that kind of reasoning gets us no where. If we're to advance our understanding about this world, any data and evidence we collect in order to prove scientific theories have to be accepted -to some degree- as reality.

More importantly, I think you'll find the vast majority of scientists are incredibly humble. It's the nature of science that encourages them to be like that. To question what they do not know, to question what they already know, and not to blindly accept things just because it feels right. Healthy skepticism is an important part of science, and it goes hand in hand with humility. Read just about any science book and I think you might change your mind about what science is really about. (Authors like Brian Greene, Leonard Susskind, Richard Dawkins, Simon Singh are all excellent communicators of science. If you're looking for a more philosophical slant on science, then Sam Harris or Paul Davies might interest you more.)

All I can suggest is to read a few books about science. Your preconceptions about science (or more accurately, scientists) may change greatly.

(I thought I had to go make dinner, but no one is hungry...)

I believe many scientists are humble by the way. It's just that some seem not.

When I read back I think we are talking about two different things. Because you defend science, it's like I'm criticizing it, which is not or which was not my intention to do. I was just talking from epistemology/ontology side of things, because I like to question everything, even if we really exist. Since this is the science topic, I'll shut up now and leave it to science.

Thank you for the book recommendations. I will read Einstein if you read Kant about time and space and our knowledge and understanding and the like (if you haven't already) OK?

I enjoy discussing with you and at the same time it frustrates me sometimes, because it's like we're talking different things. Oh, I did get The God Delusion (even thought about you when I bought it hehe) but haven;t started yet. Summer holiday I guess.

Ahh, gotcha.




I don't think scientists in general claim to know the Truth (with a capital t, i.e. absolute truth), but that there is much truth (with a small t) we can learn and so far has learned. We'll likely never have a perfect theory, but that doesn't mean that we can't have theories that reflect reality to such a high degree that they might as well be considered truth in any practical sense of the word.




Science isn't a truth in itself, it's a method that is used to approach truth. That said, I don't agree with your comparison. Beliefs are not equal, if one of them is well-evidenced and the other poorly evidenced, then former is much more rational and more likely to be true. I think it's to over-simplify to lump them together, and I don't find it very useful or meaningful to do so.




I think there's reasonable humility and unreasonable humility and I think there's reasonable pride and unreasonable pride. I think the videos I linked to communicate reasonable humility (we're insignificant considering the vastness of space; we're connected to the animals kingdom and aren't as unique as we used to think) and reasonable pride (we have accomplished so much and we have an immense potential). Compare this to unreasonable humility (we're dirty sinners that deserves to be tortured in Hell) and unreasonable pride (the Universe was made for us; the animals we share the planet with are vastly inferior to us and was made for our benefit). One of these approaches I have no issues with, the other I consider potentially harmful.




I think the best approach is to always consider the general definition, or the definition the person you're talking to is likely to adhere to. Spirituality is generally linked to some supernatural aspect of religion, so if one uses it, but has a non-supernatural definition in mind, one will generally not be communicating one's position properly.

Peter

You probably did something with the quote button

Here's a TED talk by Sam Harris that might interest you, Bregje:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sam_h … right.html

Thanks! I'm 8 minutes in and will finish the rest later. It's a very 'humanist' approach, I like that. Science of experience is interesting. At the same time science is part of our experience of course.


It always makes me a bit sad when morality is linked to religion. I mean when they say without religion there are no values or something. I am very strongly against that. That's why I love teaching ethics and moral exploration without the context of any religion! Phew.

PS. Sam Harris could be related to Ben Stiller...!

I'd do him. Harris is awesome.


Ahem..

I fixed Peter's post, but first posted a quote of his post by accident.

Peter had opened a quote tag, but didn't close it. I built in a check that closes all openend but uncloed quote tags, so that's why the whole thing was odd.

Oldest dildo ever found.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/27 … t_phallus/

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Moz08RhEWgo/S … lsiako.jpg

Seriously. How can this bridge: 1) shake and move like this and 2) shake and move like this and still not brake?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chaiT3RXXRk

Yeah, now that you mentioned it, it looks a odd......

Nope! Not fake at all.

Crazy stuff. But what's up with the iPone app thing, then?

Looks like something out of a science fiction film. Hard to believe it's real (although the Guatemala earthquake obviously was).