Tarski Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 I just don't know how saying "Rocks existed before anyone knew anything about them" is useful. There is no way to verify it and it seems pretty irrelevant to anything important unless it gives someone com fort. I have no problem with giving comfort incidentally. If one finds comfort in feeling that we are "getting closer and closer to Truth" in a scientific sense, to me, that is a statement of faith- a religious statement, and I certainly have no problem with statements made on faith. Most of what I believe is "taken on faith". And faith is perfectly "rational". I probably just thought you were going all positivist on me and saying that "rational" = "Scientifically verifiable" which I have definite problems with I just don't know how saying "Rocks existed before anyone knew anything about them" is useful. There is no way to verify it and it seems pretty irrelevant to anything important unless it gives someone com fort. I have no problem with giving comfort incidentally. If one finds comfort in feeling that we are "getting closer and closer to Truth" in a scientific sense, to me, that is a statement of faith- a religious statement, and I certainly have no problem with statements made on faith. Most of what I believe is "taken on faith". And faith is perfectly "rational". I probably just thought you were going all positivist on me and saying that "rational" = "Scientifically verifiable" which I have definite problems with I just don't know how saying "Rocks existed before anyone knew anything about them" is useful. There is no way to verify it and it seems pretty irrelevant to anything important unless it gives someone com fort. I have no problem with giving comfort incidentally. If one finds comfort in feeling that we are "getting closer and closer to Truth" in a scientific sense, to me, that is a statement of faith- a religious statement, and I certainly have no problem with statements made on faith. Most of what I believe is "taken on faith". And faith is perfectly "rational". I probably just thought you were going all positivist on me and saying that "rational" = "Scientifically verifiable" which I have definite problems with I would say that scientific activites strive to be rational but I am not inclined that rationality is limited to scientific rarionality, Perhap we can invoke Witgenstien and say that knowing what is rational is a matter of family resemblances along the lines of his description of games. We don't have a fool proof account of what science it. We only have exemplary cases and the abilty to identify an activity on the basis of sufficient famly reseamblance to established scientific areas.Certainly we expect anthropology or phychology to be scientific in differet way than physics. ......blah.bhizha..and now as the letters dance around on the screen, my sleeping pill is pulling me down into a word of irrationality. Is that Alice I see talking to hooka smokin critter. zzsxdff4**/
Tarski Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 Now see, there you go again. Metaphysics beyond language. Evidence "Corresponds" to perceptions. You just moved it to the past. You are still talking about "existence". Of course they "existed" it is just a trivial observation. Every THING exists by definition. Perception is not the problem, the problem is that the story is still in language. You just do not get this. The past is just as "really" NOT "corresponding" to language as the present. Old things are still things. Did you read that Rorty piece at all? Trust me, I am not going to be "cured" by evidence. That is the whole pointOh now of course they exist?? Didn't you say only words exist at some point? Did you deny that rock and volanoe did not exist in before man.Why is it a problem that the story is in langauge? Look, you said:I just don't know how saying "Rocks existed before anyone knew anything about them" is useful. There is no way to verify it and it seems pretty irrelevant to anything important unless it gives someone com fort. I pointed out both how it is useful and how we can verify things. What more do you want. If your a scientist thats useful.
mfbukowski Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 (edited) OK here is the distinction. The linguistic CONTEXT of the statement is what gives it meaning. That is straight Wittgenstein. Read the Rorty. If a scientist is saying (in effect) "The existence of these stones, found adjacent to the xyz bone in this skeleton of this Dinosaurus Creaturus ABC, gives us evidence that these proto-birdy thingys ( ) used rocks to aid in their digestion" that is one thing. That is a statement IN SCIENCE - in the context we understand and have created culturally about those scientific theories and evidence for what we call the "evolution of dinosaurs" and that may further the theory of how these creatures evolved- WITHIN THE THEORY. THAT is the context. If we say abstractly without a context or reference point that " Old rocks existed before there was language"- THAT is an entirely different context which is speaking about the metaphysics of "existence" and the relationship between humans and the whole notion of existence itself and all the other stuff we have been discussing. It's no better or worse than the old "if a tree falls in the forest...." discussion which goes nowhere because it is based on metaphysical semantics. A philosopher might take something like that and PUT IT IN A PHILOSOPHICAL CONTEXT and give that discussion meaning about metaphysics or whatever, but on its own it says nothing. It's just a meaningless utterance, with no context or making no sense. As Rorty says, it needs a "vocabulary" or what Witt. would call a "language game" in other words, a linguistic CONTEXT that gives the words meaning. That context is socially constructed in language. Without a context, just saying that "Rocks exist" is meaningless blather. It is self-evident. Of course rocks exist, so what? Or in another context maybe it makes no sense at all, if one is saying something linguistic that is about what happened before language existed. It's like asking Who were you before you were you? Can God make a rock so big he cannot lift it? Pointless blather.. What point is one who says that trying to make? THAT puts it in a context and gives the statrement meaning This conflation is facilitated by confining attention to single sentences ("ROCKS EXISTED BEFORE LANGUAGE")as opposed to vocabularies. For we often let the world decide the competitionbetween alternative sentences (e.g., between "Red wins" and"Black wins" or between "The butler did it" and ''The doctor did it"). Insuch cases, it is easy to run together the fact that the world contains thecauses of our being justified in holding a belief with the claim that somenonlinguistic state of the world is itself an example of truth, or that somesuch state "makes a belief true" by "corresponding" to it. But it is not soeasy when we turn from individual sentences to vocabularies as wholes.When we consider examples of alternative language games - the vocabulary~f ancient Athenian politics versus Jefferson's, the moral vocabularyof SaInt Paul versus Freud's, the jargon of Newton versus that of Aristotle,the idiom of Blake versus that of Dryden - it is difficult to think ofthe world as making one of these better than another, of the world asdeciding between them. When the notion of "description of the world"is moved from the level of criterion-governed sentences within languagegames to language games as wholes, games which we do not choosebetween by reference to criteria, the idea that the world decides whichdescriptions are true can no longer be given a clear sense. Edited March 8, 2015 by mfbukowski
MormonFreeThinker Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 remember us well for our skepticism I am still waiting, why are you skeptical?is it because you did your own scientific research? or because of an internet search and biased websites?
3DOP Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 I am still waiting, why are you skeptical?is it because you did your own scientific research? or because of an internet search and biased websites? Hi again Mormon Free Thinker. I did not know that you were expecting some kind of reply from me. I doubt my answers will satisfy you. But here they are. 1) Why am I skeptical? ---Grace. 2) Is it because you did your own scientific research? ---Negative. 3) Or because of an internet search and biased websites? ---Negative.
ERayR Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 Hi again Mormon Free Thinker. I did not know that you were expecting some kind of reply from me. I doubt my answers will satisfy you. But here they are. 1) Why am I skeptical? ---Grace. 2) Is it because you did your own scientific research? ---Negative. 3) Or because of an internet search and biased websites? ---Negative. Don't be surprised if MFT now lets you know he considers your opinions are worthless.
Rob Osborn Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) I am still waiting, why are you skeptical? is it because you did your own scientific research? or because of an internet search and biased websites? Biased websites? There arent really biased websites are there? LOL... Edited March 9, 2015 by Rob Osborn
changed Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 The universe is made up of 2 things: 1.) Things which act2.) things which are acted upon It seems science is great at predicting the motions and properties of #2. I'm not sure that it has the ability to deal with free will though.
Tarski Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) The universe is made up of 2 things: 1.) Things which act2.) things which are acted upon It seems science is great at predicting the motions and properties of #2. I'm not sure that it has the ability to deal with free will though.Is that Skousen's little metaphysics? Edited March 9, 2015 by Tarski
thesometimesaint Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 The universe is made up of 2 things: 1.) Things which act2.) things which are acted upon It seems science is great at predicting the motions and properties of #2. I'm not sure that it has the ability to deal with free will though. Without the latter the former is impossible.
Gervin Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) Without the latter the former is impossible.Without the ladder the dormer is impossible. My philosophy of cleaning windows. Edited March 10, 2015 by Gervin 1
MormonFreeThinker Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) 1) Why am I skeptical? ---Grace It is okay to have doubts, but doubt your doubts too. Be Open Minded Don't be surprised if MFT now lets you know he considers your opinions are worthless. Do you have peer-reviewed evidence or did you do your own scientific research? Edited March 11, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker
ERayR Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 Do you have peer-reviewed evidence or did you do your own scientific research? Impossible as I have no peers. Nobody will come down to my level.
MormonFreeThinker Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 Impossible as I have no peers. Nobody will come down to my level. Why do you like to challenge a scientific consensus without doing your own scientific research?
ERayR Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 Why do you like to challenge a scientific consensus without doing your own scientific research? Why do you accept said scientific consensus without doing your own scientific research? 2
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 Why do you accept said scientific consensus without doing your own scientific research?It is not even a consensus 1/2 the time we are discussing things with MFT.
ERayR Posted March 14, 2015 Posted March 14, 2015 It is not even a consensus 1/2 the time we are discussing things with MFT. It may be in his mind but then who knows.
MormonFreeThinker Posted March 14, 2015 Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) Why do you accept said scientific consensus without doing your own scientific research? I can cite the scientific literature, most of it agrees. Newton did his scientific research when he challenged the consensus. Einstein did his scientific research when he challenged the consensus. Galileo did his scientific research when he challenged the consensus. I don't challenge the consensus because I haven't done my scientific research, I have nothing new to offer. What about you, why do you challenge it without doing your own scientific research? Do you have something new to offer? Edited March 14, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker
Nofear Posted March 14, 2015 Posted March 14, 2015 http://m.slashdot.org/story/214763Fodder for the anti-science crowd. 1
ERayR Posted March 14, 2015 Posted March 14, 2015 I can cite the scientific literature, most of it agrees. Newton did his scientific research when he challenged the consensus. Einstein did his scientific research when he challenged the consensus. Galileo did his scientific research when he challenged the consensus. I don't challenge the consensus because I haven't done my scientific research, I have nothing new to offer. What about you, why do you challenge it without doing your own scientific research? Do you have something new to offer? It is great that all those did their scientific research but have you done yours? Do you have something new to offer?
thesometimesaint Posted March 14, 2015 Posted March 14, 2015 It is great that all those did their scientific research but have you done yours? Do you have something new to offer? How many times do you have to re-invent the wheel?
3DOP Posted March 14, 2015 Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) I can cite the scientific literature, most of it agrees. Newton did his scientific research when he challenged the consensus. Einstein did his scientific research when he challenged the consensus. Galileo did his scientific research when he challenged the consensus. I don't challenge the consensus because I haven't done my scientific research, I have nothing new to offer. What about you, why do you challenge it without doing your own scientific research? Do you have something new to offer?Dear Free Thinker, I can see your reasoning. A major problem is probably that none of us are equal to the task of being the next Galileo, Einstein, or Newton. Do we have the resources if we had the mental capacity to do scientific research personally? Do we think that the effort, perhaps a lifetime of energy spent, is worth the result? If I had the intelligence, the resources, and the energy, I would have to almost consider it "a calling" before I could commit myself to such a venture. My humble "calling" if you will, has been to drive a truck. My state in life as a son, husband, and father has required that I spend most of my time and physical energy at supporting my family. The kids are grown and out now, but my aged mother and handicapped sister-in-law have moved in. I work as hard now in my latter years in the hope that I can retire someday in a fashion that will not make us a burden on our children. Of course, you do not expect me to abandon my family responsibilities in favor of scientific research opposed to the consensus. I am sure that you can appreciate that many of us, when we begin to wonder about questions such as are raised by the scientific community are precluded from doing our own private investigations for reasons such as I have mentioned. So why do I not accept the consensus? For the same reasons that I do not necessarily reject the consensus. I am only skeptical. I do not see any reason for trusting that the consensus is correct. There are many reasons why the academic community can wish to retain an unwarranted establishment of a status quo. I have mentioned one or two that were not convincing to you. Allow me to try another. When once one has spoken something and taken a public position, it tends to become more firmly intrenched in our own minds than is warranted. I would entitle this reason to be agnostic about science claims, the psychological reason. Scientists of the physical world are no less susceptible to this psychological certainty than are philosophers, theologians, historians, or even truck drivers. Assuredly, the person who has raised trust money to fund research, while writing and speaking publicly is going to need great courage, even perhaps heroic courage, to disappoint those who he once led to believe what now appears to be doubtful. Flipfloppers lose credibility and are disappointments to proteges, peers, and their own mentors. You cite the examples of three great thinkers to show how we must respond if we would fail to accept scientific consensus. I suggest that your examples illustrate that for those of us who are unable, or simply unwilling, we can devote our energies elsewhere while in good conscience before God and man simply say that we are skeptical. While most of us cannot do scientific research, we can easily grasp the history of science. It is filled with examples of false consensus. I believe the history of science illustrates the wisdom of remaining open-minded ourselves to the possibility that a great thinker in the future might possibly overturn completely what is now accepted in any given field of science. Maybe a few thousand years of consistency will enable future generations to have more confidence in the history of science. But in 2015, when it comes to this subject, I cannot be anything but an infidel. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Rory Edited March 14, 2015 by 3DOP 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 14, 2015 Posted March 14, 2015 3DOP: Galileo had two metal balls and a small telescope. Newton had an apple. Einstein had a chalk board. So as far a physical resources go it doesn't take many. Though the ability to think logically and creatively at the same time is a definite help. I don't believe that the pursuit of science means abandoning friends, family, religion, or our other commitments. In fact I believe those other things give meaning and purpose to the science we do. Being a good scientist means to be always skeptical. However that skepticism rarely means always completely starting over by reinventing the wheel. Generally it is just a refinement of the wheel.
Gervin Posted March 14, 2015 Posted March 14, 2015 3DOP: Galileo had two metal balls and a small telescope.I don't think we need that kind of language around here. 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 14, 2015 Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) I don't think we need that kind of language around here. No double entendre was intended. Edited March 14, 2015 by thesometimesaint
Recommended Posts