Printable View
All who agree with the proposition* are proponents of scientism. And you agree with the proposition . . . I'll let you draw the conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
*"All that which exists is that which is scientifically verifiable." (Your dimensional qualifications don't alter anything here.)
"There are more strange things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than you have dreamt in your Philsophy." -- Hamlet. (Philosophy meant "science", in those days.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Climacus
Not sure why you're pointing this in my direction. And, yes, I'm quite familiar with the history of philosophy. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Quote:
Originally Posted by Climacus
I think there is flaw in your argument. Science is not science if it lets go unsolved mysteries yet known to man. A hundred years ago things that were thought to be impossible and in your words ' off the table, not open for discussion.'' are now ON the table and not only discussed but processed by science alone.
The real meaning of true Science is to keep on investigating anything and everything that comes to mind or may touch the scientific query and curiosity.
No. If scientists qua scientists are methodological naturalists, as is usually conceded today, then it's follows logically that much will be "off the table." In seeking to explain phenomena scientists qua scientists can not - not will not but can not - appeal to the supernatural. For science would stop at that point and philosophy would begin. So, again, extra-scientific propositions like "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" are neither provable nor disprovable by science qua science. And, again, there's nothing wrong with that. (We can, of course, use science-informed premises in a philosophical argument for or against one of the above propositions.)Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
(Maybe you mean something like, "Phenomena previously explained only supernaturally are now explained naturally." Well and good. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.)
No, it's not. Modern science does not investigate anything and everything. That would include science investigating the non-scientific, which is absurd. Modern science investigates that which is accessible to the scientific method - considerably less than everything (!). For instance, science doesn't and can't investigate a priori logical truths; it presupposes them.Quote:
The real meaning of true Science is to keep on investigating anything and everything that comes to mind . . .
I thought there was something like the Science of the Soul as well....so you mean science has limited itself to 'priori logical truths'? What if some of these 'truths' changed over the time??
No. What I said was that science presupposes logical and mathematical truths, without which it could not operate. These truths are not accessible to the scientific method, but science wouldn't work without them. And, yes, science is limited by these axioms, but so is everything else - and a jolly good thing too.Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
If you understood what we're talking about, you wouldn't ask this question. A priori logical and mathematical truths - like modus ponens - are necessary truths. They cannot not be true. So, your question reads: "What if that-which-cannot-change changed over time?"Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
You are saying the same thing I'm saying, except that in your case, you do not want to accept that it is science that actually sent you and all philosophers to the museum. You just have a hard skin, and want to get out on weekends. But we can't give you a pass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Climacus
Yes, and writing novels is only a way of asking and answering questions about the human condition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Scientific method is the unique way of asking and answering questions about the natural world. Science is somewhat bigger and has quite a lot of human mixed into it.
Generally, scientists quite often study things that they do find interesting and beautiful - well, at least they would like to if they were provided the grants for it. They are not robots who do stuff without motivation or emotion, caring only about applications and results, beauty is quite often a rather important reason for studying some things.
And by beautiful I do not mean the "oooh, pretty rocks!" thing that you keep bringing up though that can be there too - it is something of a deeper level, I think I could compare the difference to the difference between enjoying a novel and enjoying the cover picture of a novel - the simile is not perfect, but I just want to make clear that "pretty rocks" certainly isn't what I have in mind when I speak of beauty of science. Maybe the difference between the beauty of a chess board and the beauty of a chess game is a better simile - yes, I think I'll stick to that one. Can chess be thought of as an art form? Although it's "only about" winning?
I have posted this quote before on a rather similar discussion on this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Keep in mind - I don't want to imply that all of science is beautiful - as you said, it is not it's main motivation, so there are not-so-aesthetic results too. But occasionally some rather beautiful results are found. And I would like to believe that the aesthetics is quite an important reason why people do it.
I don't think I implied at all scientists are just mindless robots. It takes a lot of imagination and creativity to come up with scientific discoveries. There can even be beauty in the process of the scientific method itself, in designing experiments, and in discovering abstract principles and facts about the universe, but it still doesn't quite make it into art.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taliesin
Too much logicgetting mixed up with science.....more power to modus ponens and modus tollens!Quote:
Originally Posted by Climacus
By some a Complete lack of understanding of the limits of science,its presuppostions and what it can and cant show. Not to mention the limits of technical or scientific language to 'describe' the 'truth'. Hence the popularity still of novels,art and poetry,not to mention the grand daddy of them all,personal experience. One would think that the men in lab coats have the human condition fully encompassed with their theoretical niceties. Ignoring the fact that hundreds year old entrenched 'scientific theories' get overturned regularly. Scientism is the new fundamentalism,religious in its dogma and fervour but like religion,wholly inadequate to describe the human condition.
Well it's not the method, that's just the skeleton. Results are just the tail end and not the motivating factor, the beauty of science usually found in the subject itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I understand what Taliesin means when he says that there is beauty in science. I was attracted to ecology and plants because of the absolute beauty and perfection in the systems. With ecology, I just love following feedback loops around, everything is so balanced. It's literally awesome to see what happens when one aspect of a niche is altered, tiny little details which you couldn't have even imagined would have been affected are affected. And plants, they're wonderful, they do everything that animals do (eat, mate, breathe, die) except they do it more efficiently and they're much more resiliant. On a micro scale the details of plants are wonderfully simple, but on a macro scale their forms are so complex and with such variation. My favorite thing of all is fungi, I spend quite a bit of time in the fall dissecting mushrooms and I wish that I could see the whole of the species underground, threaded around everything, just poking through the earth here and there. I loved learning about how they mate, it was the best thing that I have ever studied.
There definately is beauty and passion in science, and the appreciation of science is as profound for those who are are into it as books are to those who enjoy literature. It's this obsessive love for the subject itself that drives people to research it in the first place. As for whether it's an art, I'm not so sure. Doesn't that imply creation? Scientists don't usually "create" anything (I guess that you could argue that they create theories, but that doesn't seem quite right). Enjoying science is comparable to enjoying literature, but creating science =/= creating art.
I think creativity is a very primitive delusion. And if you include the vehicles in the process, the activity reduces to relationships and transformations of what's already given.
Well, the point is that science is not the be-all and end-all. Science is great. And its discoveries can be awe-inspiring. But we must be aware of its presuppositions and demarcations. There is an intellectual danger here. For we have a tendency to reductionism. In the later Middle Ages, logicism was popular. After Descartes, mathematism gained credence. And today it's scientism, which is the least tenable of the three (!).Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
People nowadays are reading the likes of the aforementioned Dawkins, uncritically, and being led astray. He's a good biologist, and an engaging popular-science writer too, but he has only a schoolboy's grasp of logic and philosophy. And it's this inadequacy that leads him, and similar writers, into overstatement and error. This is embarrassingly obvious in books like The God Delusion, but is just as painful in others like The Blind Watchmaker.
First this:
Then this:Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
Anyway, I know you'd like to think that philosophy is dead and buried, bit it's very much alive and well. And if you were up-to-date in the philosophy of science you wouldn't be so cocksure.Quote:
You are saying the same thing I'm saying
About the philosophy of art, I think you guys are a little confused. The fine arts ultimately produce beauty for its own sake. And they employ any number of means - philosophy, for instance - to that end, but only as matter to form. Now, yes, scientific theories can be beautiful. And often, as the history of science witnesses, the more beautiful theory is given priority over the less beautiful. But here the beauty is not produced for its own sake. It is now matter to form. And it is logically accidental. So, again, what differentiates the fine arts from everything else is that they produce beauty for its own sake. That is their raison d'ętre.
By the way, Drkshadow03, you didn't respond to my earlier post. What do you think?
Posts like this remind me of what Orwell said about modern English writing in Politics and the english language.Quote:
Originally Posted by Climacus
You say a lot of vague things without giving examples like "For we have a tendency toward reductionism.", "And today it's scientism which is the least tenable of the three (!)."
I've heard all these criticisms of science before and I think I have a pretty good idea what they're trying to say in general, but the way you state it makes me wonder if you even know what you're talking about or you're just firing off a series of intelligent sounding phrases.
I don't doubt that some, maybe lots, of people misconstrue the scientific ideas presented in the works of writers like Dawkins and science writing in general, but that does not say much about science itself.
One good thing that you'll pick up from reading those popular science books is the idea that despite how wrong any individual scientist may be, that does not take away from science in general and, in fact, only makes it stronger. Maybe Dawkins does make overstatements and errors (again, you don't cite specific examples) but that does not mean that it's "intellectually dangerous" in viewing science as the best way to make observations of the physical world. It is I think in many ways the be-all end-all because its only purpose is describing things that already are. Even if God existed, for example, that wouldn't disprove science, it'd probably just mean that God is somehow based on science.
And about the aesthetic of science and people who view science as beautiful:
I don't think anyone is really saying science is an art. What they're saying is that it has it's own beauty, it's own poetry if you will. Those who see the beauty of science aren't just awed by the epic pictures of space or the cool technological innovations, but also by the tiny details/trivia and by the principles behind science. We (I'm one of them) are amazed by the neatness in the chaos (and vice-versa) of nature. We're amazed by how such few rules can lead to such complexity and diversity and how you can predict a variety of things based on these few rules.
In the end it's like Juniper said, it's the same as having an appreciation of Literature, but also philosophy or comic books or TV shows or whatever you like. It's having an appreciation for even the tiny details and being familiar with its language. I don't think that feeling this way necessarily means that you'll start "worshipping" science anymore than really loving TV shows means that you'll worship them or think that you can explain anything all of the time by watching them.
You'll find that I gave three historical examples of reductionism: logicism, mathematism, and scientism.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberbob
Well, how can I help you? Shall I spell it out in less technical language? (By the way, I've made no criticism of science, but only of popular-level misconceptions about science.)Quote:
I've heard all these criticisms of science before and I think I have a pretty good idea what they're trying to say in general, but the way you state it makes me wonder if you even know what you're talking about or you're just firing off a series of intelligent sounding phrases.
We've no quarrel here.Quote:
I don't doubt that some, maybe lots, of people misconstrue the scientific ideas presented in the works of writers like Dawkins and science writing in general, but that does not say much about science itself.
We could write tomes on this theme. (Remember, I'm talking about logical-philosophical rather than scientific blunders; Dawkins' popular-level books consists mostly of philosophising about science.) As a for instance, in The God Delusion Dawkins notes, 'I've forgotten the details, but I once piqued a gathering of theologians and philosophers by adapting the ontological argument to prove that pigs can fly. They felt the need to resort to Modal Logic to prove that I was wrong.' But the ontological argument just is an experiment in modal logic, the logic of the possible and the necessary. Dawkins is making a fool of himself. There are many of these sorts of unwitting admissions of ignorance. But they're more or less innocuous. Worse are his actual 'arguments.' But critiquing them would take more space. If you like, I can go ahead and do so, when I've the time.Quote:
Maybe Dawkins does make overstatements and errors (again, you don't cite specific examples)
This is a straw man. I said reductionism was intellectually dangerous. Not science qua science.Quote:
but that does not mean that it's "intellectually dangerous" in viewing science as the best way to make observations of the physical world.
No, why would it? My initial point was that science qua science can neither prove nor disprove extra-scientific propositions, like 'God exists.' But, again, we may prove or disprove such propositions philosophically with science-informed premises. (Big difference.)Quote:
Even if God existed, for example, that wouldn't disprove science . . .
Actually I'm pretty sure that is exactly what Cafolini said.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberbob
Originally Posted by cafolini @ 16
Quote:
The problem you have with that is that science is the art and the life of the day. All the rest is merely historical and lingers on with reduced energy.
The filosophy of science has been in the museum for decades. Science and the systems of confusions called philosophies are mutually exclusive. The so-called scientific method and the philosophy of science never, ever worked but for the stability of involution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Climacus
If you could, although I don't think you might have the brain to do it, when you quote me, please quote the entire paragraph.
I didn't respond because I was still thinking it over. I think the problem is exactly what I said, overemphasizing aesthetics subordinates theme, story, basically content to style. It's overly formalistic. It assumes the primary purpose of art is to produce beauty and any truths art might reveal about the nature of the world are only there to function as a kind of tone coloring and guiding principle for the structure of the overall piece and to add to the work's innate beauty. However, another possibility exists; the primary purpose of art is to reveal truths about human condition and experience through the means of aesthetic beauty. Style can just as easily be there to make the content that much more interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Climacus
I'm not convinced necessarily that the origin of the literary arts stems from some abstract desire for aesthetic beauty, but rather I think they have their origins in the joys of story-telling itself and in the need of making sense of the world--regardless of style. You're making a lot of good points, though, and sharing some wonderful food for thought.
If what you're saying is true, then it seems that while there are many things that are 'artistic,' there's is no such thing as art qua art. It seems to me that you're mixing things - at the moment, truth and beauty - that certainly admit of mixture, but which can also be taken in isolation. Now, you can serve both masters - truth and beauty - for a time, but conflicts of interest will eventually emerge. And what then? Well, I would say, at such a juncture, the artist follows beauty, and the truth-seeker follows truth. There may be artistic philosophers and philosophical artists, yet philosophers and artists are two different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Here's another way of looking at things. Like you, no doubt, I read both Plato and Aristotle. But whereas I enjoy reading Plato, reading Aristotle is a chore. If ever I understand Aristotle fully, I will never read him again. Yet if ever I fully understand Plato, I will continue to read him. Why? Not to learn anything. For I will have done that already. No, I will continue to read him because his writing is beautiful and beauty qua beauty gives ever-renewable pleasure. Knowledge qua knowledge does not.
Moreover, what about the non-propositional arts? Surely 'truth' is not pertinent here. Chopin's étude in c-sharp minor, true or false? Klimt's Jurisprudence, true or false? The questions are meaningless. Truth-values cannot be ascribed to non-propositional things. What is beautiful needn't mean anything.
Maybe you're right. I don't have any strong opinions about the origins of art. But I would be very much surprised if its genesis was attributable to anything like what I'm talking about. I'm thinking of the 'fine arts,' which are relative latecomers.Quote:
I'm not convinced necessarily that the origin of the literary arts stems from some abstract desire for aesthetic beauty, but rather I think they have their origins in the joys of story-telling itself and in the need of making sense of the world--regardless of style.