Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Problem With Science: It's Not Credible


Recommended Posts

The bottom line is that all we can do is interpret linguistic statements, and Zen tries to get us beyond that, and it does without "facts". That is the whole point of loans- teaching without facts and beyond the limits of language

If anyone wants to argue with that, you would have to do it without interpreting language. Good luck with that

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

...without facts and beyond the limits of language

 

 

I don't believe it -- not for a minute

You're under the gun -- so you take it on the run

 

UD

 

Wasn't it Pythagoras who taught that earthly music was

but a dim echo of the Divine Music of the Spheres?

 

Perhaps not... more likely it was REO Speedwagon

Link to comment

You must suffer when someone gives a testimony.

No, it's just the opposite because I know the word "true" doesn't really mean anything more than "I agree with you"

 

It's nice to hear all those folks agree with me.

Link to comment

A statement of fact stating that there are no facts...perhaps you (and Nietzche) need to clarify

Well for you and JLHPROF, does that answer the question or do you still want to talk about it more?

Link to comment

Well I don't know that it is my job to teach a Nietzsche class.

It is itself an interpretation and not a statement of "fact". Facts correspond to some reality outside of themselves, interpretations are just that- interpretations of linguistic meanings.

The assertion is basically that it is impossible to get "outside" of language to find some "reality" to which language corresponds, so all we can hope for is an imperfect understanding of what someone else says or our own understanding and interpretaton of our own personal experience.

Maybe this will help.

If you actually want to get into it, we can.

Explain to me what a "fact" is and how you know it is a "fact"

:) I actually agree with the statement...at least I think I do, despite its almost paradoxical nature. I don't believe we can confidently state that we absolutely know something is a fact, since a likelihood always exists that there is a variable for which we aren't accounting. However I do think through a proper approach that we can asymptote quite closely towards knowledge, as evidenced by the predictive and explanatory power of our ideas. However even this belief requires some critical assumptions that we may never know to be true or false. Edited by SmileyMcGee
Link to comment

:) I actually agree with the statement...at least I think I do, despite its almost paradoxical nature. I don't believe we can confidently state that we absolutely know something is a fact, since a likelihood always exists that there is a variable for which we aren't accounting. However I do think through a proper approach that we can asymptote quite closely towards knowledge, as evidenced by the predictive and explanatory power of our ideas. However even this belief requires some critical assumptions that we may never know to be true or false.

Yeah but....    ;)

 

I would say the problem with your view is that there is, for you, STILL the idea that IF we could "account for all the variables" it STILL would in principle be possible to find out what was "true" or "false" which corresponds to "reality".

 

The difference between us, is that I think that no such state of affairs is possible, at least that is the way I see "reality"

 

We will never know the color of radio waves, or really what "blue" "really is" independent of our perceptions.  We describe blue as we experience it- and we can define in terms of specific wavelengths of light, but even those definitions are man- made

 

Essentially what I am saying is that because we are human, we can NEVER get "outside" of human definitions in language or human perceptions in human experience to "know" what is "really out there"

 

We live in a bubble of human creation and human perceptions and human definitions of what humans perceive.

 

I don't see how that is debatable.

 

People take that as being ridiculous- I have had people actually say that "yeah that works until you walk into a wall- then you find that the wall is not part of human creation"

 

That kind of objection totally misses the point.  That wall I walk into is still a HUMAN PERCEPTION of what we in English call "A WALL".    I am not saying that if we drive a car over a cliff that is only happening "in my mind"- the point is that human minds can never be ANYTHING OTHER THAN HUMAN MINDS.

 

That is what Nietzsche meant when he said that "there are no facts, only interpretations".   That is what Rorty is saying when he says there is no distinction between "reality" and "appearances"

 

What you see is what you get.  Saying a proposition is "true" is redundant, unless you are intentionally lying.   "The snow is white is true" because the snow is white, not because the statement "corresponds" to some reality outside our perceptions of it.

 

I would appreciate your reply- sincerely- because YOU are precisely the kind of person I would like to be able to explain this idea to.

 

Virtually everyone on this board believes in "facts" corresponding to "reality" and most won't discuss it with me any more.

 

They think their position proves "eternal truth" thereby validating religion when in fact what that view does is DISPROVE RELIGION.  Those who believe in "facts" are atheists.

 

Your typical atheist wants everything to be proven by "facts".   My whole point is that there are no such things, and I have most of 20th century philosophy behind me.

 

The "philosophies of men" are totally in our favor as believers but no one seems to know that.   I am on a bit of a crusade to tell Mormons that, because we are the only ones who COULD possibly get that idea.   Our faith fits perfectly with it, but no one knows it.

 

The world out there is busy worshipping the "unknown god" of what humans have created, but we know that God himself is human.

 

If humans created it all, God created it all.   It is an inescapable conclusion and no one sees it

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

That's pretty deep. I'm still wrestling with finding out "Bill Nye the Science Guy" only has a BS in engineering.

Yeah.

 

In my opinion he lacks the qualifications to be an "atheist"  ;)  As Kevin C would say, he is still a "2" on the Perry Scheme, it's just that his authorities are now scientists instead of the Bible, therefore God is a fraud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Perry

Link to comment

Yeah but....    ;)

 

I would say the problem with your view is that there is, for you, STILL the idea that IF we could "account for all the variables" it STILL would in principle be possible to find out what was "true" or "false" which corresponds to "reality".

 

The difference between us, is that I think that no such state of affairs is possible, at least that is the way I see "reality"

 

We will never know the color of radio waves, or really what "blue" "really is" independent of our perceptions.  We describe blue as we experience it- and we can define in terms of specific wavelengths of light, but even those definitions are man- made

 

Essentially what I am saying is that because we are human, we can NEVER get "outside" of human definitions in language or human perceptions in human experience to "know" what is "really out there"

 

We live in a bubble of human creation and human perceptions and human definitions of what humans perceive.

 

I don't see how that is debatable.

 

People take that as being ridiculous- I have had people actually say that "yeah that works until you walk into a wall- then you find that the wall is not part of human creation"

 

That kind of objection totally misses the point.  That wall I walk into is still a HUMAN PERCEPTION of what we in English call "A WALL".    I am not saying that if we drive a car over a cliff that is only happening "in my mind"- the point is that human minds can never be ANYTHING OTHER THAN HUMAN MINDS.

 

That is what Nietzsche meant when he said that "there are no facts, only interpretations".   That is what Rorty is saying when he says there is no distinction between "reality" and "appearances"

 

What you see is what you get.  Saying a proposition is "true" is redundant, unless you are intentionally lying.   "The snow is white is true" because the snow is white, not because the statement "corresponds" to some reality outside our perceptions of it.

 

I would appreciate your reply- sincerely- because YOU are precisely the kind of person I would like to be able to explain this idea to.

 

Virtually everyone on this board believes in "facts" corresponding to "reality" and most won't discuss it with me any more.

 

They think their position proves "eternal truth" thereby validating religion when in fact what that view does is DISPROVE RELIGION.  Those who believe in "facts" are atheists.

 

Your typical atheist wants everything to be proven by "facts".   My whole point is that there are no such things, and I have most of 20th century philosophy behind me.

 

The "philosophies of men" are totally in our favor as believers but no one seems to know that.   I am on a bit of a crusade to tell Mormons that, because we are the only ones who COULD possibly get that idea.   Our faith fits perfectly with it, but no one knows it.

 

The world out there is busy worshipping the "unknown god" of what humans have created, but we know that God himself is human.

 

If humans created it all, God created it all.   It is an inescapable conclusion and no one sees it

 

It is true that all of us view reality at least a little differently. However I am equally confident that the closer we get to reality the healthier mentally and physically we are.

Link to comment

It is true that all of us view reality at least a little differently. However I am equally confident that the closer we get to reality the healthier mentally and physically we are.

We are all equally "close" to reality, it just depends on what reality you are talking about.

 

If you can tell me what "closer to reality" means I would appreciate it, and who gets to measure that.  You are the scientist so you should be able to measure it, right?

 

Five feet closer?   Two inches closer?   How do you know?  We can even put it in centimeters and get all scientific if you like.  ;)

Link to comment

We are all equally "close" to reality, it just depends on what reality you are talking about.

 

If you can tell me what "closer to reality" means I would appreciate it, and who gets to measure that.  You are the scientist so you should be able to measure it, right?

 

Five feet closer?   Two inches closer?   How do you know?  We can even put it in centimeters and get all scientific if you like.  ;)

It is measured in lumens. Go towards the light... D&C 93

Link to comment

"there are no facts, only interpretations". 

 

Interpretations of what exactly?  Can we have interpretations without facts to interpret?  I agree that given human limitations of perception, we can never know anything with certainty in this life, all we can do is make interpretations of what we perceive, but that says nothing of what might be possible on the other side of the veil.

 

Essentially what I am saying is that because we are human, we can NEVER get "outside" of human definitions in language or human perceptions in human experience to "know" what is "really out there"

 

What if we can as Gods tap into something that gives gives us unlimitted and uninhibitted perception of all things from the perspective of all things through the all seeing eye, the light of Christ?  An existence where we no longer have to fill in the gaps of missing puzzle pieces or pixels on the screen with our own interpretations, but it is an unchanging knowledge, and undefiable perspective.  Where we know because we are in all things and all things are in us, through the light of Christ - the fulfillment of the at-one-ment.

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

It is measured in lumens. Go towards the light... D&C 93

There you go.

 

Subjective AND objective at the same time!   It's too bad we don't have "spiritual light-o-meters." to measure spiritual lumens  ;)

Link to comment

There you go.

 

Subjective AND objective at the same time!   It's too bad we don't have "spiritual light-o-meters." to measure spiritual lumens  ;)

My wife says she drinks Coke to prevent glowing in the dark and Interrupting my sleep. Very generous of her don't you think?

Link to comment

Interpretations of what exactly?  Can we have interpretations without facts to interpret?  I agree that given human limitations of perception, we can never know anything with certainty in this life, all we can do is make interpretations of what we perceive, but that says nothing of what might be possible on the other side of the veil.

 

 

What if we can as Gods tap into something that gives gives us unlimitted and uninhibitted perception of all things from the perspective of all things through the all seeing eye, the light of Christ?  An existence where we no longer have to fill in the gaps of missing puzzle pieces or pixels on the screen with our own interpretations, but it is an unchanging knowledge, and undefiable perspective.  Where we know because we are in all things and all things are in us, through the light of Christ - the fulfillment of the at-one-ment.

Great questions.

 

Interpretations of language and experience, and you hit on both.

 

Facts are linguistic statements.  It is a "fact" that light travels at x miles per hour (too lazy to look it up- 186,000 mph as I recall)

 

What is that statement besides being a "fact"?  Why do we call it a "fact"? 

 

Some humans called "scientists" earned that tile by taking a bunch of courses in college.  Those courses were indoctrinations in cultural beliefs, and taught in natural languages.  They earned "degrees" showing that they had mastered to definitions to be learned and applied.  These definitions have been developed over thousands of years of human observations of human experience.

 

The word "light" was defined in these courses in ways I do not understand because I have not taken the courses.  But it included, I think, various descriptions of light as a wave, light as a particle, various human inventions to "measure" ( a human concept- measurement, defined in human defined parameters- angstrom units, feet, centimeters etc-  remember a meter was originally the length of Napoleon's arm  and a "foot" was  the length of someone's actual foot  ;) )

 

They learned - by human standards- to create and use "instruments" of human creation to "measure" these things in ways that are prescribed in their courses as culturally defined by others who had achieved the title of "scientist"- not unlike a priesthood- to be "authorities" in such matters.

 

Anyway, they took these gizmos out, and by means I do not understand since I have not been initiated into the proper mysteries, created a linguistic statement which shows the "fact" that light "travels" at a humanly defined "speed" of what we call in human language, (I believe) 186,000 (in itself a humanly defined language of numbers) "miles" per "hour"- all humanly defined terms all established as "real" by humans.

 

So the "fact" that "Light travels at 186,000 miles per hour" is completely defined by the human mind to explain perceptions which are also humanly created.

 

The fact is a construction and definition of human experience as we measure things.  Light itself is a human experience- it comes into our eyeballs and is interpreted in our minds.  But in itself THAT is not even a correct description because the description itself presumes something "outside" our experience so even that description violates its own terms.

 

It is the point made earlier that "there are no facts, just interpretations" is indeed itself only an interpretation because it is itself an expression in human language!  That is the brilliance of what he said.

 

There is no escaping it.  Any statement in language is an interpretation of symbols- words are not things!!

 

Perhaps you are right that as gods we might have access to a reality outside human creation BUT::::

 

DO YOUR REALIZE WHAT THAT MEANS?

 

That means God is aware of things he did not create, because even God has perceptions.  Or maybe he does not have perceptions.   I don't know what that means either way because all we have is language to discuss it.

 

What I do postulate is that all we see and know is in some way OUR human creation- what comes after we can only guess, or experience wordlessly.

 

THAT to me is what mystical experience is.

Link to comment

My wife says she drinks Coke to prevent glowing in the dark and Interrupting my sleep. Very generous of her don't you think?

Wives are the best!

 

(I know what it takes to survive....  ;) )

Link to comment

I think that the idea of seeing "things as they are" is either impossible or a tautology.

 

We either

 

1- already see things "as they are" because all there is is our perception of things, so things are as we see them

or

2- can never get outside our perceptions to see things "as they are"

 

There is of course the third possibility that we might see "things as they are" by the spirit or as we will see them in the hereafter, but that is all speculative.

 

There is not a problem with speculation about that obviously- that is what we mean by "faith" anyway- the substance of things NOT SEEN which are "true".   No problem with that imo, but at least let's recognize that for what it is.

Link to comment

Thanks for the explenation MFB!

 

I follow you on the "fact" that facts are only linguistic statements and that linguistic statements are only interpretations of perception.  Where I struggle with is the idea that linguistic statements do not or cannot correspond (represent or symbolize) to actual things that exist in and of themselves, independent intelligences embodied in eternal matter and organized by God thorugh obedience to his command, or left unorganized in outer darkness through disobedience.

 

So the "fact" that "Light travels at 186,000 miles per hour" is completely defined by the human mind to explain perceptions which are also humanly created.

 

I see how the measurement of "miles per hour" is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, it only helps us to perceive and define, in our limited ability, the attributes of light.  I don't know if I can agree that perceptions are entirely humanly created however.  Perception requires the existence of at least three independent things - the thing doing the perceiving, the thing being perceived, and light (light of Christ) which illuminates all things and all senses.  You throw those three things into a room and a person will create a "perception" but cannot have one independent of them.  This perception is an imperfect interpretation until all things are perceived. 

 

There is no escaping it.  Any statement in language is an interpretation of symbols- words are not things!!

 

I would say that any statement in language is a symbol of actual things as we perceive them and not necessarily as they are.  Words are not things, but they may someday perfectly symbolize them as they are.

 

 

I think that the idea of seeing "things as they are" is either impossible or a tautology.

 

We either

 

1- already see things "as they are" because all there is is our perception of things, so things are as we see them

or

2- can never get outside our perceptions to see things "as they are"

 

There is of course the third possibility that we might see "things as they are" by the spirit or as we will see them in the hereafter, but that is all speculative.

 

There is not a problem with speculation about that obviously- that is what we mean by "faith" anyway- the substance of things NOT SEEN which are "true".   No problem with that imo, but at least let's recognize that for what it is.

 

Or there is option #2

 

We may indeed be able to someday see things as they are, as we both -

 

1. See things imperfectly now and form imperfect perceptions in our mind based on limited information like we do with pixels on a screen, so things are not necessarily as we see them now.

 

2. Will someday be freed from the limitations of mortal perception to be one with all things in a way which is imperceiable at present.

 

Of course, neither of our positions is provable, nor do I believe that either belief effects the way we live in righteousness.  So, if we both continue to live righteously, we will one day see "eye to eye".

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

The problem with science as I see it is theory is to often accepted as fact and many scientists are slow to accept new theorys when they oppose heretofore accepted concepts.

As they should be, however, nowhere near as slow as some religionists.

Link to comment

The problem with science as I see it is theory is to often accepted as fact

 

Scientists have levels of confidence, not absolute certainty. 

 

 

 many scientists are slow to accept new theorys when they oppose heretofore accepted concepts.

 

It is called scientific scrutiny, the theory of Evolution has survived scientific scrutiny for more than a century, that is why it is very successful. 

Scientists don't jump to conclusions too quickly.

 

 

As they should be, however, nowhere near as slow as some religionists.

 

Many fundamentalists here still do not accept scientific theories, they like pseudoscience. 

Edited by MormonFreeThinker
Link to comment

The problem with science as I see it is theory is to often accepted as fact and many scientists are slow to accept new theorys when they oppose heretofore accepted concepts.

 

Unless they are the inventor of the concept. Then there is a tendency to charge ahead. Still, the culture of publishing in the hard sciences is very good. They rightly put new (and sometimes old) ideas through the ringer. Now if you wander off to sociology or psychology or philosophy......wow....

Link to comment

Thanks for the explenation MFB!

 

I follow you on the "fact" that facts are only linguistic statements and that linguistic statements are only interpretations of perception.

Ok fantastic. Now hold that thought exactly THERE and look at the next sentence.

 

Where I struggle with is the idea that linguistic statements do not or cannot correspond (represent or symbolize) to actual things that exist in and of themselves,.... snip...

Very crucial point! No one is saying that they do not "represent" or "symbolize" what we call "things"- that is blatantly the case. How exactly they do that is something philosophers and linguists argue about. In fact that is a whole sub discipline called "semiotics".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_(semiotics)

The problem with the correspondence theory of truth is not located there- the problem with the correspondence theory is that it says that PROPOSITIONS are "true" if and only if they CORRESPOND to the "real world". The problem with saying that is that we can never get OUTSIDE of those perceptions- as you yourself fully understand in your first statement above- that "facts are only linguistic statements and that linguistic statements are only interpretations of perception."

See the difference? The correspondence theory says that "correspondence to the real world" is what makes the statement TRUE- but we can never KNOW if IN FACT the statement "corresponds" to the real world because ALL WE HAVE ARE PERCEPTIONS of the "real world" and not the "real world itself" So statements CANNOT ever "correspond" to the real world because they are SYMBOLS of our PERCEPTIONS.

The reason that this is so crucial for believers is that it can be totally "true" that "Joseph Smith saw God" BECAUSE we are not talking about whether or not "God" is "real" or whether or not Joseph even really "saw" God- we are ONLY stating that "Joseph stated that he had a perception of God". That statement IS TRUE- he really did SAY that, that he had a perception of God.

Does that "correspond" to a "reality" beyond the statement that includes a "real God"? No more or less than any other statement by anyone including the statement that "light travels at 186,000 miles per hour"

Scientists interpret their perceptions to show that "light travels at 186k mph". That is "true" Joseph interpreted his perceptions to say that he "saw God". That is equally true. The snow is white is "true" because that is the way we perceive it.

In all these cases the word "true" is superfluous to the statements. Light travels at 186k mph. Snow is white. Joseph saw God. The word "truth" only becomes relevant as a contrast to "false". Saying that "It is false that Joseph saw God" is saying that Joseph never had that perception and made it up. It's a lie. And so with the others.

So again, "the snow is white" is not "true" statement because it "corresponds" to a reality beyond perceptions but because in fact we perceive the snow to be white. We look out the window and yep- the snow is white. Our perceptions tell us the snow is white. We are not worrying about if it is "really" white- I would not even know what that means. Of course it is white. That's what I see- that's the way it is. Saying that it is "true" that it's white is redundant- it delivers no more information than just saying that "the snow is white"

But I cut your statement in two- and this is the rest of it-

 

..... independent intelligences embodied in eternal matter and organized by God thorugh obedience to his command, or left unorganized in outer darkness through disobedience.

Sorry- you lost me there.

  

I see how the measurement of "miles per hour" is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, it only helps us to perceive and define, in our limited ability, the attributes of light.  I don't know if I can agree that perceptions are entirely humanly created however.  Perception requires the existence of at least three independent things - the thing doing the perceiving, the thing being perceived, and light (light of Christ) which illuminates all things and all senses.  You throw those three things into a room and a person will create a "perception" but cannot have one independent of them.  This perception is an imperfect interpretation until all things are perceived.

How can perceptions NOT be "humanly created" if they are human perceptions? Your "three things" are all human perceptions themselves of what cannot be- remember? There are no "independent things" independent of human perceptions. The word "light" is what? A symbol of a human perception.

What happened to the idea that "linguistic statements are only interpretations of perception."? Remember those are YOUR words.

So your "three things" statement IS a "lingusitic statement"- right? and therefore that linguistic statement is "only an interpretation of perception". You are still looking for an independent reality independent of human perception which you can never "get outside" to see if it exists.

It's one thing to "get" this idea in a flash, it's something else to think this way full time!

 

 

I would say that any statement in language is a symbol of actual things as we perceive them and not necessarily as they are.  Words are not things, but they may someday perfectly symbolize them as they are.

 

Or there is option #2

 

We may indeed be able to someday see things as they are, as we both -

 

1. See things imperfectly now and form imperfect perceptions in our mind based on limited information like we do with pixels on a screen, so things are not necessarily as we see them now.

 

2. Will someday be freed from the limitations of mortal perception to be one with all things in a way which is imperceiable at present.

 

Of course, neither of our positions is provable, nor do I believe that either belief effects the way we live in righteousness.  So, if we both continue to live righteously, we will one day see "eye to eye".

 

I have no problem with this, this is a statement of faith with which maybe I agree or disagree, but either way that is irrelevant to what counts as "truth" in this world

 

Maybe we will see "things as they are" or maybe not- again, this is a statement of faith.   I am not sure if I agree or not, that is another discussion.

 

Here we are talking about a subject about which we cannot speak in human language, which makes it hard to talk about.  ;)

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...