Isn't the exclusivity of Scientific Verification accepted on faith?

[cladking]

Both really since the technology relies on the science. We would hardly have the first transistors without the theory behind these.

We don't really understand how transistors work. We know how to make them and are continually finding ways to make them smaller but why some materials conduct electricity better than others is one of those things we discover through trial and error rather than understanding.

In the old days when it was necessary to use matched transistors in stereo equipment. Even though you had an entire crate of transistors made "exactly" the same they'd each have a unique power output and it was necessary to select two similar ones to build equipment. Then there were variable pots to adjust the two transistors to the specific unit. Each piece of equipment that came off the assembly line was different. They're still different but getting the right sound is far less labor intensive.

 

[cladking]

I believe I addressed every relevant point at least tangentially. Let me know if I missed something.

Everything is perspective and some things are invisible from the perspective of modern language. That most of us practice science as a belief system is quite apparent when one looks at the facts. Even Hawking came out recently to "disprove" the existence of God. How much better can my point be shown?

 

[Mock Turtle]

We don't really understand how transistors work. We know how to make them and are continually finding ways to make them smaller but why some materials conduct electricity better than others is one of those things we discover through trial and error rather than understanding.

In the old days when it was necessary to use matched transistors in stereo equipment. Even though you had an entire crate of transistors made "exactly" the same they'd each have a unique power output and it was necessary to select two similar ones to build equipment. Then there were variable pots to adjust the two transistors to the specific unit. Each piece of equipment that came off the assembly line was different. They're still different but getting the right sound is far less labor intensive.

Yes, we might not know the complete story with regards semiconductors, but it was theory that enabled them to be constructed, and why we have our computers now - all based on that that initial fumbling in the dark. Science might be such but what else is there? The fact is that there have been lots of developments that came from scientific predictions when they just didn't seem to have any relevance - I believe lasers fall into this category, when there wasn't an apparent use for them when first posited, now they are used all over the place.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You're looking at things we do know or might come to know in the future.

I'm talking about the important things like the specific nature of the apple that will fall on the head of the scientist who thereby solves the unified field theory. Maybe if we knew how the future were to unfold we could plant the tree to grow the apple in just the right place and fall in its time. What is the shape of the cloud that will lead a child to wonder the nature of reality on a planet at the other end of the cosmos in countless billions of years?

When we look at things we see what we know and understand. We don't see that we can't predict the weather more than seven days ahead because the forces that shape it are chaotic. We can't predict the future because the future is comprised of events that haven't occurred yet. We can't predict the future because nature is infinitely complex and while the tides of Venus might have no effect on design specification for a bridge in Schenectady they certainly have an effect on that bridge when it is built. These effects are cumulative and eventually affect the future. In the long run they become the present.

Reality takes place in real time and each moment is dependent on the preceding moment where the length of a moment is unknowable but certainly exceedingly brief. Countless atomic collisions are taking place over even the shortest unit of time. Real time unfolds as a result of these collisions and eventually even the most minor collision manifests to have a massive effect in the real world and given sufficient time would affect the entire universe.

Reality is complex to a degree that dwarfs the concept of infinity even if infinity exists at all. The odds against reality unfolding as it has is a number so large that a new means would need to be used to express it at all (10 ^ 10 ^ 10 ^ 10 ^ 10 ^ 10 ^ X) (and even X would be large).

Yet everyone seems to know exactly what they see.

I'm sorry, I just don't see what the problem is regards prediction, since it seems to me we are doing as best we can - as individuals usually to do so - in providing things and concepts for the future, and I can hardly see any reasons why we would have a need to have anything more than this.

 

[Mock Turtle]

We know a million times more than we did in 1900 and hundred million times more than in 1800.

The problem is we don't even know the tiniest percentage of a billionth of everything there is to know and never will. We'll never be able to predict anything in the long term or the small scale.

That matters not a jot to the average person though does it?

 

[cladking]

I'm sorry, I just don't see what the problem is regards prediction, since it seems to me we are doing as best we can - as individuals usually to do so - in providing things and concepts for the future, and I can hardly see any reasons why we would have a need to have anything more than this.

"Prediction" is not only how we can judge the accuracy of scientific understanding but it is also the reason both ancient science and modern science were invented. It is the cause and the test of any science. "Science" that can't predict is not science at all. Our science only works because reality affects experiment but that it does work can be seen in its ability to make some exceedingly "easy" predictions. Even a sparrow knows what time the sun comes up (appears over the horizon) even if it doesn't know the seconds to eight decimal points ten years in advance.

But the important questions lack even the equations to frame and if the equations existed the quantities the variables would be unknown. Does a young man marry Catherine or Veronica? These are the most important sorts of questions and science doesn't help. How ironic that these are the sorts of questions our logical brains that can only be accessed in stage 4 sleep are adept at solving. This is the same logical brain that formed the basis of Ancient Language and by extension ancient science and modern religion.

There never were and never will be simple answers in life but countless millions of people have adopted modern science as THE answer. They see reality in terms of the models of scientific theory and believe these answers are everything and are all founded in fact and substance even though they are not; only theory has substance but none of its extrapolations and interpolations. When we see reality we are seeing what we believe preferentially to what exists because of our programming. This allows opinion masquerading as science that is unable to make the simplest prediction to hold sway. We have countless beliefs about reality that are not founded in science and are simply wrong. This affects everything in our lives from personal finances to government. We have built an economy based in waste and greed and then complain there's not enough for everyone and each believes there's never enough for himself.

It is our beliefs at fault and modern language lies at the heart of these beliefs, not science. Modern science may be the only means that can be used by modern language speakers to come to understanding but we aren't there yet and "there" isn't nearly so omniscient as people already believe we are.

 

[cladking]

That matters not a jot to the average person though does it?

It matters a great deal. The more we know the better we can predict and the more likely we are to spot nonsensical and unscientific prediction. The more we know the more useful products can be made and the more affordable they'll be. The more we know the more likely we can make paradigm shifting discovery and come to better know ourselves and our nature.

But we'll never really know too much of anything.

I believe homo sapiens died out at the Tower of Babel and were replaced by homo omnisciencis. Part of the reason we can't see this is that we know everything so can't be bothered with other opinion even when it is based on evidence and logic. Most of the reason is our language masks any attempt to peer into its nature. Just as our technology would appear "magical" to primitives Ancient Language appears "magical" or incomprehensible to us.

Since we know everything it follows we understand how science works so we know Egyptological theory can't be in error. Since it is not in error it follows that I'm wrong about everything. All of reality is wrapped up in a nice neat package and modern man sits at the very crown of creation working to give God Himself a run for his money.

So which is it? What is reality? We need a new option; "none of the above".

 

[cladking]

Yes, we might not know the complete story with regards semiconductors, but it was theory that enabled them to be constructed, and why we have our computers now - all based on that that initial fumbling in the dark. Science might be such but what else is there? The fact is that there have been lots of developments that came from scientific predictions when they just didn't seem to have any relevance - I believe lasers fall into this category, when there wasn't an apparent use for them when first posited, now they are used all over the place.

You must have a better computer than I do; I'm fumbling more with each new one i buy and Bill Gates makes each new version more incomprehensible and more enigmatic than the last as we raise two generations of kids who won't even be able to think except linearly like a computer. We've already achieved "artificial intelligence" and soon it will affect every college graduate.

They've simply engineered the labor intensive bits out of the production line. This is hardly reflective of any increased understanding at all.

 

[Mock Turtle]

There never were and never will be simple answers in life but countless millions of people have adopted modern science as THE answer. They see reality in terms of the models of scientific theory and believe these answers are everything and are all founded in fact and substance even though they are not; only theory has substance but none of its extrapolations and interpolations. When we see reality we are seeing what we believe preferentially to what exists because of our programming. This allows opinion masquerading as science that is unable to make the simplest prediction to hold sway. We have countless beliefs about reality that are not founded in science and are simply wrong. This affects everything in our lives from personal finances to government. We have built an economy based in waste and greed and then complain there's not enough for everyone and each believes there's never enough for himself.

Nothing else has done what science has - so people tend to get use to the idea. What alternatives are there?

It is our beliefs at fault and modern language lies at the heart of these beliefs, not science. Modern science may be the only means that can be used by modern language speakers to come to understanding but we aren't there yet and "there" isn't nearly so omniscient as people already believe we are.

Perhaps but I have more optimism in science than anything else, even if many mistakes are made along the rocky road.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You must have a better computer than I do; I'm fumbling more with each new one i buy and Bill Gates makes each new version more incomprehensible and more enigmatic than the last as we raise two generations of kids who won't even be able to think except linearly like a computer. We've already achieved "artificial intelligence" and soon it will affect every college graduate.

They've simply engineered the labor intensive bits out of the production line. This is hardly reflective of any increased understanding at all.

Bill Gates has long gone from computing I believe, but I will admit that we are often at the mercy of the techies - I stopped upgrading after Windows 7, simply because of the bullying approach to upgrade, and the fact that it was a perfectly decent OS. I perhaps have an advantage, being an engineer who has done some programming, and can usually take a PC apart and put it back together such that it still works.

I still hate the complexity though - mostly of the software aspects.

 

[cladking]

Nothing else has done what science has - so people tend to get use to the idea. What alternatives are there?

Perhaps but I have more optimism in science than anything else, even if many mistakes are made along the rocky road.

Science is great and the only tool in our toolbox. But there are many "alternatives". Better education earlier to emphasize metaphysics would help a great deal. We could develop a language of science where more words have a distinct and specific meaning. We could add a seventh step to the scientific process; "metaphysical implications".

But, perhaps most importantly, computers could probably be programmed to use ancient science since they are so logical and have sufficient memory (probably) to define modern science in terms of ancient science. Ancient science could be run concurrently with modern science as a sort of check and to help get us over hurdles (like the unified field theory).

Ancient Language is obsolete for humans but there's no reason concepts and processes can't be borrowed from it for our own purposes.

The "problem" with science has nothing to do with science. The problem is we don't understand it or its results and there are clues for how to redress these problems in AL and ancient science. They'll also open better means to understand ourselves and nature as well as our place in nature and the place of other species. If we could just understand elephant communication it might open up the possibility of numerous new gadgets and means to protect them.

There's a huge world and all of reality that needs a closer look and the means we are using is limited. We need to put a great deal of effort into the right places in the name of efficiency, prosperity, and understanding. We need diversity of opinion but we need to all read from the same book if not the same script. Maybe if we better understood ourselves and one another we'd discover war is rarely a solution to anything at all.

 

[cladking]

Bill Gates has long gone from computing I believe, but I will admit that we are often at the mercy of the techies - I stopped upgrading after Windows 7, simply because of the bullying approach to upgrade, and the fact that it was a perfectly decent OS. I perhaps have an advantage, being an engineer who has done some programming, and can usually take a PC apart and put it back together such that it still works.

I still hate the complexity though - mostly of the software aspects.

My problem with computers is largely the result negative transference from my old programming days in the 1960's. Of course even more problematical is the fact that I think almost strictly intuitively. I gave up trying to deal with the world logically when I was 12 so I wasn't really great at programming either.

Bill Gates just made computers easy for programmers with no regard to users whatsoever. Nothing is logical or intuitive. Now they're in it so deep they can never back out. Every year it gets easier for programmers and more incomprehensible for me. I can't even operate a stereo or a camera any longer and soon film will be a thing of the past and I'll have worn out the very last turntable. When I buy new products it's not unusual for me to take out the computer and replace it with a switch. It's so nice to just be able to turn things on and off without the device arguing with me.

When I take things apart they might not work any longer but I always have a box of spare parts that came from it so I can fix it. (no smilie necessary)

 

[Mock Turtle]

My problem with computers is largely the result negative transference from my old programming days in the 1960's. Of course even more problematical is the fact that I think almost strictly intuitively. I gave up trying to deal with the world logically when I was 12 so I wasn't really great at programming either.

Bill Gates just made computers easy for programmers with no regard to users whatsoever. Nothing is logical or intuitive. Now they're in it so deep they can never back out. Every year it gets easier for programmers and more incomprehensible for me. I can't even operate a stereo or a camera any longer and soon film will be a thing of the past and I'll have worn out the very last turntable. When I buy new products it's not unusual for me to take out the computer and replace it with a switch. It's so nice to just be able to turn things on and off without the device arguing with me.

When I take things apart they might not work any longer but I always have a box of spare parts that came from it so I can fix it. (no smilie necessary)

On my course in the late 60s, we were taught digital and analogue computing - Fluid Logic stuff - not sure that got anywhere.

 

[Audie]

On my course in the late 60s, we were taught digital and analogue computing - Fluid Logic stuff - not sure that got anywhere.

Late 60s

Isnt that like the late, or upper paleosomething?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Late 60s

Isnt that like the late, or upper paleosomething?

Could be, I'm not sure I can remember much that far back.

 

[joelr]

Based on another thread...

Follow along with me here, while I present the opening statements for this discussion.

First off the point of this thread for my part is not to call science and the empirical method into doubt, but to hopefully illustrate a point.

A good number of materialists and skeptics often point to science as a verification method for information in an exclusive way. Claiming that science alone constitutes valid evidence or proofs to establish a premise.

My question is: isn't this a belief?

What exactly gives the impression that science alone should be accepted as valid for verifying information? What argues for that?

On what authority should this be accepted?

Note: I am not trying to throw science out the window here. I am trying to determine why the premise of science alone as evidence should be accepted.

If this authority for science alone as evidence is science itself- isn't this coming near the kind of circular argumentation fundamentalists are often accused of with their scriptures?



Sure science carries evidence. That is not what I am debating, for my part. I am asking why we should accept that science exclusively verifies information? Science exclusively?

Science isn't a "thing" it's a method. We don't accept science because it's science but because it carries certain probabilities.
This is where it gets it's authority, probability. Scientific laws explain how things will happen with the highest probability, it doesn't mean different things can't happen or a theory can't turn out to be incorrect in some way.

Then from our knowledge of science and the way we know reality works we can create a common sense which also is probabilistic.
For example it's not a scientific law that Romulus wasn't a real demi-god with supernatural powers but most of us here believe this to be true.
We cannot say with 100% certainty that he was a fictional character but the probability is in our favor.

 

[cladking]

Science isn't a "thing" it's a method. We don't accept science because it's science but because it carries certain probabilities.
This is where it gets it's authority, probability. Scientific laws explain how things will happen with the highest probability, it doesn't mean different things can't happen or a theory can't turn out to be incorrect in some way.

Then from our knowledge of science and the way we know reality works we can create a common sense which also is probabilistic.
For example it's not a scientific law that Romulus wasn't a real demi-god with supernatural powers but most of us here believe this to be true.
We cannot say with 100% certainty that he was a fictional character but the probability is in our favor.

I can't disagree with you but I don't support your implications. It seems we all have pretty strong opinions about almost everything and no two people really agree about anything.

What we know especially about the physical world appears to be an excellent framework for reality but we still can't make many simple predictions or design machines that don't break. We can only predict the short term and large scale. Other events are beyond our sight just as chaotic systems are mostly unpredictable.

I'd guess that "Romulus" is a confusion of a real person by the way.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

We don't accept science because it's science but because it carries certain probabilities.

I understand why one should accept science. I accept it.

Do you think this thread is my way of implying I don't?

This is where it gets it's authority, probability. Scientific laws explain how things will happen with the highest probability, it doesn't mean different things can't happen or a theory can't turn out to be incorrect in some way.

Precisely my point.

I won't address the Romulus statement because it'd be rehashing what I said in this thread about 20 times.

If I thought I had any further new details to add, I'd share them.

 

[joelr]

I understand why one should accept science. I accept it.

Do you think this thread is my way of implying I don't?




If I thought I had any further new details to add, I'd share them.

Beyond that it seems like a semantics issue. It's like saying "why should our best method for finding out knowledge about reality be trusted as our our best method for finding knowledge?"

 

[joelr]

What we know especially about the physical world appears to be an excellent framework for reality but we still can't make many simple predictions or design machines that don't break. We can only predict the short term and large scale. Other events are beyond our sight just as chaotic systems are mostly unpredictable.

I'd guess that "Romulus" is a confusion of a real person by the way.

What simple predictions can't we make? Science predicts that machines will break, our most fundamental level of reality cannot be pinned down to 100% accuracy. Science taught us that - the Uncertainty Principle and the fact that we can only know probabilities means some things are eventually going to break or not go as predicted.

But no, we can predict long term, the sun will go nova in 5 billion years. As to small scale, our most accurate theory ever invented by humans - quantum electrodynamics can predict the magnetic moment of the electron to a decimal point far greater than any other theory. A very small scale.

Romulus is on of the pre-Christian dying and rising savior messianic demi-gods who died for the sins of his followers. Like Jesus he definitely was not a real person but a myth taken from Zorastriniasim.