Letters to the Editor
-
@droogoy
I said:
if you want to believe these procedural methods are the only operations in the universe that can apprehend meaningful ideas, go right ahead. But I dare say most scientists (or at least theorists of science, and definitely historians of science) would not agree.
You wrote:
Well, given that recent surveys (e.g. 'New Scientist') have disclosed a majority (> 60%) of scientists are atheists I would have to disagree. Physicists like Steven Weinberg most assuredly would dispute there are any "alternative modes" that can apprehend anything meaningful.
-----
I was not claiming that most scientists are believers (frankly, I'm surprised if even 20% or 30% of scientists are theists). I am arguing that most scientists acknowledge that science, which produces certain kinds of knowledge because it follows certain kinds of procedures, does not monopolize all the meaning in the universe. There are whole domains (aesthetics, ethics, history, politics, etc.) that produce knowledge through different epistemological bases. Even theology is a branch of knowledge that has its own history and methods (although there is a hot controversy among academics in theology about whether the discipline should offer itself only as a history and disallow arguments that assume a priori the existence of a god).
So my objection was to the many commenters who write off any knowledge but scientific knowledge as just so much flim-flammery. I haven't read Weinberg--would he really dismiss any interpretive knowledge as nonsense? My reading in the history of science suggests that Kant's fact/value distinction is still acknowledged by scientists as a pretty fundamental distinction.
-
"Infinities"?
ScottsValleyBob wrote:
In a universe full of infinities, we have absolutely no idea about virtually anything.
Really? Then care to explain how it is that spacecraft manage to land on Mars or Venus? Or how your computer with its millions of electronic components came to be? Yuh think it just happened by magic?
The fact is that knowledge is currently being added at the rate of one entire Oxford University library every six months. This is all iron clad, useful knowleddge, from the significance of cytochrome -c in evolution, to entanglement in quantum dots, to the spherical harmonics from UV data that disclose dark energy.
As for "infinities", I've no idea what you are talking about. What "infinities"? Please elaborate and then show they are so ubiquitous and considerable that the inhibit all but very meager knowledge as you claimed.
I await your answer with bated breath.
-
oh PLEASE
"If teaching creationism in schools is offensive to you, then don't teach that OR evolution. If you teach one, teach the other...and everything is fair." --anon
Are you high? You are equating science with religious myth as having equal value...equal validity...equal worth in a SECULAR school system?
That is why atheists are so angry. Arguments like that are considered valid...and valuable, and worth listening to, by many in this country.
-
Weinberg et al
benthead wrote:
I haven't read Weinberg--would he really dismiss any interpretive knowledge as nonsense?
Pretty much so, just as Feynman once did (in the Intro to one of his 'Feynman Lectures' in that three-book series - where he does an excellent take down of philosophy. (On the audio tape of the lecture, it's even better, as he has his class laughing in hysterics)
My reading in the history of science suggests that Kant's fact/value distinction is still acknowledged by scientists as a pretty fundamental distinction.
Well, in a way. But you have to go to many individual scientists to get a grip on it.
As philosopher of Science, Henry Margenau has noted (The Miracle of Existence) in the absence of P-facts and defined C-constructs, any syllogism or argument will have too many meta-statements, and break down to mere circularity.
What are these?
Consider E = mc^2, which Einstein eqn. constitutes a specific formalism for a very particular operational definition linking energy and mass. We say it is a closed formalism, embodying closed symbols and operational definitions.
Scientific epistemology allows us to regard E, m and c as constructs, connected via operational definition to what we call P- (perceptual) facts. That is, these facts are based on experimental measurement confirmed numerous times. Hence, these measurements provide an open avenue out of any would-be tautologies. Thus, we expect a correlation like:
C ---- P
re-affirming closure, significance and NO meta-linkage.
Now, consider the open-ended verbal statement:
“I see a desk”
There is here no connectivity between construct and perceptual fact. The words in quotation marks are a metaphor. The desk is NOT a P-fact, nor is seeing it a P-experience (experience wholly grounded in sensation). After all, a host of attributes (color, size, shape, density etc,.) are omitted, so we are left with an abstraction or mere shell of desk in terms of an actual, material correlate.
The open-ended process above creates a dynamic that yields an effective transition from a recurring complex of attributes, sensations to a simple, bare-bones construct, ‘desk’. This process goes by the name ‘reification’
In effect, the construct ‘desk’ is – as represented- part of no set of defined ensemble of sensations that can be precisely named, defined. (Since all attributes are omitted). To boil it down, “I see a desk” is devoid of any context since no attributes are assigned. It is left to the beholder or cognite to fill these in.
By contrast, anyone who invokes 'E = mc^2' has no latitude or degrees of freedom to fill in anything, and hence invite circularity. Since all P-facts are already defined by specific constructs – which have very exact meaning in physics. (e.g. c – the velocity of light, or about 300,000 km/sec)
There is no wiggle room, and this lack of wiggle room means there exists pre-defined context.
By contrast to this, the proponent of a vitalist or supernatural paradigm offers a claim that is subjective because the observer must provide an assumed closure - unlike in the case of E = mc^2. where all symbols are fixed.
This subjectivity arises precisely because the claimant (or uninformed recipient of the claim) must fill in the blanks - so to speak - and provide a subjective frame. For all intents, s/he may also give whatever “definition” he wants of supernatural or "living universe", to try to have it every which way, with no accountability. (Unlike a scientist, who – if he claims observation of a new quark or an axion- must show empirical data that consistently shows it, as well as the means to confirm it.)
In the absence of P-facts and a defined C-construct (e.g. which concretely answers : ‘What is God (or soul, or supernatural etc.)?, What specific attributes does it have that are recognized by all) the claimant is in a parallel position to the Cretan. He is constrained to making an endless assertion that cannot be fortified or validated by argument.
He claims something, even if only a possibility statement, but his system remains open since:
i)He’s not defined what exactly 'God' or ‘supernatural’ means
ii)He has no P-facts to back it up which can be confirmed (independently) outside his reference frame
iii)He uses circular arguments to return to his original claim.
Hence, he is trapped within the realm of meta-statements unable to describe anything outside themselves..
To escape a Godelian loop, and disclose some semblance of menaing, the supernatural-vitalist is obliged to:
i)Provide operational definitions for his terms (“God”, “soul”, “supernatural” etc.) , at least
ii)Provide one single construct based on (i), showing how this construct makes use of the definition,
iii)Provide a single percept or perceptual FACT that would even allow for it to be compared to a scientific hypothesis- say to explain the same phenomenon. (Energy might be a starting concept here)
iv) Provide a single unimpeachable fact or example to show life or the cosmos has an immanent meaning or purpose beyond that which humans can craft.