Evidence, specifically scientific evidence.

[Thermos aquaticus]

The only thing science can reveal to us is how the physical world works. This gives us the ability to manipulate it to our own advantage. And that is a powerful tool. But that's all it is. It is not a gateway to wisdom, or truth.

The Earth moving about the Sun is not a truth? Knowing which antibiotic to use in order to stop an infection is not wisdom?

Yet there are many here who seem to believe that it is the ONLY gateway to truth, and that our ability to control and manipulate physical existence IS wisdom and truth. And in this belief they are neglecting any interest in pursuing real wisdom or truth.

What is real wisdom and truth, and what is the evidence that backs your claims?

 

[exchemist]

The Earth moving about the Sun is not a truth? Knowing which antibiotic to use in order to stop an infection is not wisdom?



What is real wisdom and truth, and what is the evidence that backs your claims?

Agree in principle but, to don my pedantry hat once more, it is only fair to say that the Sun can be said to move about the Earth rather than vice versa, if one wants to choose a coordinate system centred on the Earth. All motion is (famously) relative, after all. But of course you get a simpler system of motions if the sun is chosen as the origin.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Agree in principle but, to don my pedantry hat once more, it is only fair to say that the Sun can be said to move about the Earth rather than vice versa, if one wants to choose a coordinate system centred on the Earth. All motion is (famously) relative, after all. But of course you get a simpler system of motions if the sun is chosen as the origin.

To complete the tale of pedantry, probably the most accurate description is to say that both the Sun and Earth move about a single point which is the barycenter.

 

[Audie]

I find beer to be a better beverage for BS sessions. Wine goes better with fine dining.

YOU, Sir, are no philosopher.

 

[Audie]

As to "Sciencism", that appears to be a simply a false charge. Scientific evidence is evidence used for questions that science can answer. That is what this thread is about. It is not about morals, those arguments tend to be outside the real of science. It is not about the existence nor nonexistence of gods. It merely deals with the questions that science can answer.

Of course it is a false charge. Those making it cannot find a specimen to show me; the only time you ever even hear the term is from theist sorts who are
trying to show how they are wiser and more in touch with reality than them
scientismists.

 

[Audie]

But he is part of the universe, as are we all. So the universe most certainly does have brain cells!

I think his point in part is that we do not stand outside the universe, looking in. We are a part of it that can look at the rest.

So I will ask you, is the battleship self aware?

 

[Audie]

I think that is too dismissive. Science reveals to us how the world seems to work, yes. But the goal is far from restricted to being able to manipulate the world to our advantage. We didn't all want to be engineers, noble profession though it is! I would contend science is a source of profound and deeply satisfying knowledge and wisdom too, even though our models remain provisional and we agree the map is not the territory. That is not to say it is the only source of wisdom and knowledge, obviously. If it were, we would have nothing but science departments at our universities.

Well said.

 

[Audie]

Exactly. If you and I and he are thinking, it is thinking, n'est ce pas?

I mean, I don't know what inferences one can usefully draw from such an observation, but it seems logically unassailable to me.

As I pointed out, that is for talk around a drip candle in a wine bottle.

It does not have to have any usefulness, other than entertainment.

Not a lot of usefulness in photos of distant galaxies, either.

Tho those may well makeus wiser in some ways, while idle
"philosophy' talk may do the opposite.

 

[exchemist]

To complete the tale of pedantry, probably the most accurate description is to say that both the Sun and Earth move about a single point which is the barycenter.

Touché!

 

[exchemist]

So I will ask you, is the battleship self aware?

Depends on the computers, I suppose. Excluding the crew, I mean

 

[exchemist]

As I pointed out, that is for talk around a drip candle in a wine bottle.

It does not have to have any usefulness, other than entertainment.

Not a lot of usefulness in photos of distant galaxies, either.

Tho those may well makeus wiser in some ways, while idle
"philosophy' talk may do the opposite.

I always have time for philosophy. (Which means I hold de Grasse Tyson in a certain amount of contempt, unfortunately , but there we are.)

It seems to me it does no harm to remember that, while we often try to observe as if we are outside the world we observe, because it helps detachment, we are in fact a part of the world too.

Perhaps we are slightly more aware of this today than in earlier ages, due to our rather belated concerns about the impact we have on our environment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

YOU, Sir, are no philosopher.

Thank you!

 

[ecco]

No. His point was that the universe is self aware, that IT can think.

Exactly. If you and I and he are thinking, it is thinking, n'est ce pas?

I mean, I don't know what inferences one can usefully draw from such an observation, but it seems logically unassailable to me.

You believe that it is logically unassailable that the rock in my yard can think?

 

[Subduction Zone]

To complete the tale of pedantry, probably the most accurate description is to say that both the Sun and Earth move about a single point which is the barycenter.

Oh we are being pedantic here. Then no:

Since the Solar System has more than just the Sun and the Earth its barycenter is constantly moving. There is no single Earth Sun barycenter due to the pull of the other planets (especially Jupiter) on the Sun.

 

[ecco]

...probably the most accurate description is to say that both the Sun and Earth move about a single point which is the barycenter.

Ya gotta love science.

 

[exchemist]

You believe that it is logically unassailable that the rock in my yard can think?

That is being deliberately obtuse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You believe that it is logically unassailable that the rock in my yard can think?

Since I am no philosopher, again many thanks @Audie, would have to say no.

 

[exchemist]

Oh we are being pedantic here. Then no:

Since the Solar System has more than just the Sun and the Earth its barycenter is constantly moving. There is no single Earth Sun barycenter due to the pull of the other planets (especially Jupiter) on the Sun.

Excellent! And the whole shebang moves around the galactic centre, in no doubt a slightly lumpy way......

It's all relative, man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Excellent! And the whole shebang moves around the galactic centre, in no doubt a slightly lumpy way......

It's all relative, man.

No philosophy! It is too early in the day for either wine or beer.

 

[exchemist]

No philosophy! It is too early in the day for either wine or beer.

Heh heh, not where I am. I shall shortly have a small Dutch genever and then a couple of glasses of white Bx with my kedgeree.....

Would be more but these days I have to manage ze dicky tickerr (if you know 'Allo 'Allo).