Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2019 12:21 PM
36 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,599 Year: 9,635/19,786 Month: 2,057/2,119 Week: 93/724 Day: 25/68 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is beyond the reach of science?
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1792
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1 of 13 (573571)
08-11-2010 10:54 PM


After reading some recent posts I was reminded of something my father told me. He said " Watch out for the true believers, they are always blind to something." I always thought that he was referring to the vehement theists but I am wondering if it doesnt apply in a more general sense.

I am not a theist, at least not by any definition that I have seen. A couple of years ago a cousin of mine died. I had a box of old cigarette packs that were covered in notes that he had kept. Things like how much he had to drink, how much he had smoked. I was cleaning up one day and threw the box on the fire. Clear as a bell I hear his voice saying "Hey, dont do that". It freaked me out because it didnt make sense. It didnt and doesnt fit with the way I KNOW that the universe works.

Is my 'faith' in the scientific method blinding me to something?
Is there anything beyond the grasp of the scientific method? Will it eventually provide the correct answer for any question?

I am not sure where these questions belong and please excuse my pedestrian mind for wandering out onto the highway.

Edited by Dogmafood, : Changed title/clarification


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by ProtoTypical, posted 08-11-2010 11:12 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded
 Message 3 by AdminPD, posted 08-12-2010 7:19 AM ProtoTypical has responded
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 08-13-2010 7:39 AM ProtoTypical has responded
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 08-13-2010 8:58 AM ProtoTypical has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1792
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2 of 13 (573573)
08-11-2010 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ProtoTypical
08-11-2010 10:54 PM


Removed.

Edited by Dogmafood, : Irrelevant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ProtoTypical, posted 08-11-2010 10:54 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 3 of 13 (573614)
08-12-2010 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ProtoTypical
08-11-2010 10:54 PM


Rather Muddled
A better title would be: Can we be blinded by what we know to be true?

Unfortunately I don't see a clear discussion starter.

Open mind to what?
Blinded from what?

If you want to discuss cognitive dissonance, then you need to rework the OP.

As written, I'm not inclined to promote this topic. Needs to be clearer.

Missing the mistake is not because of what you know to be true, it was because of what you assumed to be true.

Edited by AdminPD, : Rendered Invisible PNT Discussion - Unnecessary for Thread


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ProtoTypical, posted 08-11-2010 10:54 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by ProtoTypical, posted 08-12-2010 11:00 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1792
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 4 of 13 (573880)
08-12-2010 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by AdminPD
08-12-2010 7:19 AM


Re: Rather Muddled
Of course its muddled. Thats where the questions come from. You have to see it more as a cloud of thought rather than a train.

OK. I changed the title and did some heavy editing.

Edited by AdminPD, : Rendered Invisible PNT Discussion - Unnecessary for Thread


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by AdminPD, posted 08-12-2010 7:19 AM AdminPD has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 5 of 13 (573928)
08-13-2010 6:50 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the What is beyond the reach of science? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 6 of 13 (573936)
08-13-2010 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ProtoTypical
08-11-2010 10:54 PM


Clear as a bell I hear his voice saying "Hey, dont do that". It freaked me out because it didnt make sense. It didnt and doesnt fit with the way I KNOW that the universe works.

Is my 'faith' in the scientific method blinding me to something?

No - you are just ignorant of a certain fact about the way the universe works. Or more specifically: how the human mind works. Hearing voices is quite common. It doesn't mean you are necessarily delusional or what have you. Nor does it mean your dead cousin wanted you to preserve some notes.

I'm not going to pretend to tell you the exact mechanisms behind your auditory experience but it is quite banal as far as temporary hallucinations are concerned. It being 'clear as a bell' doesn't reduce the chances of it being a hallucination.

Is there anything beyond the grasp of the scientific method? Will it eventually provide the correct answer for any question?

Who is the better music composer? Mozart, Beethoven, Rossini? Soft Cheese or Hard Cheese? Tastes Great? Should Shatner have played up the Latin and not split an infinitive in "To boldly go...' or should he have stuck to the wording which splits it to allow for a more poetic delivery with the stresses in the most assertive/bold places?

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ProtoTypical, posted 08-11-2010 10:54 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by ProtoTypical, posted 08-13-2010 10:16 AM Modulous has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 7 of 13 (573947)
08-13-2010 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ProtoTypical
08-11-2010 10:54 PM


Dogmafood writes:
He said " Watch out for the true believers, they are always blind to something." I always thought that he was referring to the vehement theists but I am wondering if it doesnt apply in a more general sense.

Yes, "true believer" is often used in a non-theistic sense. It is used to refer to people who seem absolutely committed to a particular view, and seem completely immune to any evidence to the contrary. For example, it is used to refer to some people who believe that the Twin Towers of the trade center were actually taken down by explosives set up on the inside, presumably by the US government. Such people are usually called "conspiracy theorists" because they see massive conspiracies everywhere. But when their arguing style shows that they will ignore all evidence that disagrees with them, they are called "true believers".

You can google "true believer" (with the quotes) for more information.

Dogmafood writes:
Clear as a bell I hear his voice saying "Hey, dont do that".

These sorts of incidents do occur. I think most psychologists would say that it is your mind playing tricks on you. That is, the events evoked some old memories.

I'm inclined to think that might well be the explanation. However, such events are rare and sporadic, so hard to investigate.

Dogmafood writes:
Is my 'faith' in the scientific method blinding me to something?

You should not be depending on faith here. The scientific method works mainly because it is based on skeptical observation, rather than faith.

Dogmafood writes:
Is there anything beyond the grasp of the scientific method?

There are certainly questions that science has not yet settled, and perhaps may never settle. The mandate for science is to investigate what it can, and follow the evidence. There's no requirement that it answer everything.

Should I eat steak or chicken tonight? Now there's a simple question which is outside the province of science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ProtoTypical, posted 08-11-2010 10:54 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by ProtoTypical, posted 08-13-2010 10:11 AM nwr has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1792
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 8 of 13 (573965)
08-13-2010 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by nwr
08-13-2010 8:58 AM


You should not be depending on faith here. The scientific method works mainly because it is based on skeptical observation, rather than faith.

I dont have the intellectual capacity or the time to vet every bit of scientific observation. I accept that the scientific method is sound and that the scientific community does its due diligence. Isnt this faith?

There are certainly questions that science has not yet settled, and perhaps may never settle. The mandate for science is to investigate what it can, and follow the evidence.

I understand that we dont have all of the answers yet but are we not on the road to omniscience?

There's no requirement that it answer everything.

Isnt there? If I could prove that there was a quantity but that it was unknowable isnt this injurious to the scientific method?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 08-13-2010 8:58 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Huntard, posted 08-13-2010 10:21 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded
 Message 11 by nwr, posted 08-13-2010 10:58 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1792
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 9 of 13 (573966)
08-13-2010 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Modulous
08-13-2010 7:39 AM


Who is the better music composer? Mozart, Beethoven, Rossini? Soft Cheese or Hard Cheese? Tastes Great? Should Shatner have played up the Latin and not split an infinitive in "To boldly go...' or should he have stuck to the wording which splits it to allow for a more poetic delivery with the stresses in the most assertive/bold places?

I think all of these questions could be answered if the objective parameters could be established.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 08-13-2010 7:39 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Modulous, posted 08-24-2010 11:39 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 466 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 10 of 13 (573967)
08-13-2010 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by ProtoTypical
08-13-2010 10:11 AM


Dogmafood writes:

I dont have the intellectual capacity or the time to vet every bit of scientific observation. I accept that the scientific method is sound and that the scientific community does its due diligence. Isnt this faith?


No, for everything you did check, it turned out to be correct, therefore, it is safe to assume that something that is reported from science is tentatively (This is important) true.

I understand that we dont have all of the answers yet but are we not on the road to omniscience?

Hardly, for the very simple fact that we'll never know if we know everything. That is not to say that we know a great deal already though, and that at some point, we will reach a point of knowledge that we really have no need to learn more, but that doesn;t mean we know everything.

Isnt there?

Nope.

If I could prove that there was a quantity but that it was unknowable isnt this injurious to the scientific method?

I'm sorry you lost me there. Also, if something is unkowable now doesn't mean it will be unknowable for ever.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ProtoTypical, posted 08-13-2010 10:11 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 11 of 13 (573973)
08-13-2010 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by ProtoTypical
08-13-2010 10:11 AM


Dogmafood writes:
I understand that we dont have all of the answers yet but are we not on the road to omniscience?

No, we are not on that road. I'm inclined to think that the idea of omniscience is merely a myth, anyway.

Dogmafood writes:
If I could prove that there was a quantity but that it was unknowable isnt this injurious to the scientific method?

We know that the ratio is a quantity, but we also know that we cannot find the exact decimal expansion by scientific or mathematical means. This does not seem to pose any problem for science or for mathematics.

(I'm not sure if latex support is broken. Preview is not working for this post. I'll try submitting as a post and see what happens.)

This is what happened on submission:

Internal Server Error

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator, admin@evcforum.net and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

I am disabling the latex, to try again.

Latex is working now - the text and background colors are incorrect, but that will have to wait. --Admin

Edited by Admin, : Correction.

Edited by Admin, : Rerender after latex fix.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ProtoTypical, posted 08-13-2010 10:11 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1792
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 12 of 13 (574091)
08-14-2010 12:02 AM


There is alot for me to digest here. I should have taken AdminPD's advice more to heart when s/he suggested that I clarify my OP.

This question is like a splinter in my mind. I ll leave it for a while and consider again what it is that I am trying to get at.


  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 13 of 13 (576525)
08-24-2010 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by ProtoTypical
08-13-2010 10:16 AM


I think all of these questions could be answered if the objective parameters could be established.

Yeah - but it's the establishing of objective paramaters that is impossible since questions necessarily rely on subjective judgements.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ProtoTypical, posted 08-13-2010 10:16 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019