Log in

View Full Version : Physical or Online?



Pages : 1 [2]

All Good Things
05-18-2008, 09:45 AM
That's an illustration of the progress of knowledge.

I would agree, but re-phrase slightly: it's an illustration of the progress of repeated error to "best-explained" knowledge.

Which takes us back to my original point: science is a material philosophy, a methodology, not a collection of facts or principles that have turned out to be largely wrong throughout history. The procedures and principles of scientific inquiry and validation are useful to us -- profoundly so -- at the present time but nothing beyond that.

It takes a while for budding scientists to "get" this. It took me almost my entire college career! Just like young linguists who struggle with the notion of universal grammar and the fact that the way "ordinary" people actually speak is the "true" language, not what a grammar book says, up-and-coming physicists, biologists and chemists have been indoctrinated by the Science-as-God teachers in high school and think that science and technology are revealed truths. They are obnoxiously confident that their knowledge allows them to dismiss or laugh at every other philosophy or theory or approach. Some even snort at valid competing scientific hypotheses -- something really dangerous and stupid. They are clueless about how slippery the ground is underneath them.

I wish you well in your pursuit of beauty. It is a noble one, and God knows we need more beauty in this word. It's one of many reasons that I always choose "beauty" in the "beauty or truth?" dichotomy.

Jay Zeno
05-19-2008, 01:00 AM
I would agree, but re-phrase slightly: it's an illustration of the progress of repeated error to "best-explained" knowledge.There are things we know now that we didn't know before. There are things to know in the future that we don't know now. That's a progress of knowledge.


Which takes us back to my original point: science is a material philosophy, a methodology, not a collection of facts or principles that have turned out to be largely wrong throughout history. No doubt, there are things that humans "knew" before that turned out not to be correct. In science, in religion, in just about anything. But when it comes to scientific "truths," I think you keep attributing facts and principles to what is more properly theory.

I agree. Science is a process, often messy, like just about all human processes. But without it, we'd still be hunter-gatherers. We surely wouldn't be communicating over great distances via keyboards. And that's my point. (I guess; this has all been fairly deconstructive and circular.)




The procedures and principles of scientific inquiry and validation are useful to us -- profoundly so -- at the present time but nothing beyond that.Really. Crop mutation? Gunpowder? Optical magnification? Those have not had effects well beyond their own present time?



up-and-coming physicists, biologists and chemists have been indoctrinated by the Science-as-God teachers in high school and think that science and technology are revealed truths. Obviously, bad teaching. I was never taught that in high school or college science. That's anathema to the whole meaning of "scientific process."


They are obnoxiously confident that their knowledge allows them to dismiss or laugh at every other philosophy or theory or approach. Some even snort at valid competing scientific hypotheses -- something really dangerous and stupid. They are clueless about how slippery the ground is underneath them.That's being human. I can rather imagine non-scientists being like that.



I wish you well in your pursuit of beauty. It is a noble one, and God knows we need more beauty in this word. It's one of many reasons that I always choose "beauty" in the "beauty or truth?" dichotomy.It's a bit of an artifice to me. The dichotomy, I mean. Saying "beauty or truth?" to me is a bit like saying, "Tilapia or weightlifting?" I mean, they have their place, and I don't see one to the exclusion of other or in opposition thereto.

The pursuit of beauty worked out well today, I think. Even a crumbling old ruin can command an interest in its character.

MeanGirl
05-19-2008, 01:12 AM
online totally lie more imo, they can be oh so popular without looking the part if you know what i mean. Here I am cute as a button and shy as hell and never get any attention online but in person they all tell me the truth ...yeah they do.

threlayer
05-19-2008, 11:02 AM
Tough choice. My cat is sneaky. I'll have to think about it.

On the other hand, he hasn't brought thieves and bums into the house, or stolen valuable coins and cameras, or busted expensive monitors, or knocked holes in the wallboard, or stolen cars, or gotten them smashed up and impounded, or lied about who they are, or stolen my work, or lied to police to getme in trouble, or smoked dope, or gotten smashing drunk/violent enough to attract police. I could go on and on. But I find it pretty tough to find people who don't lie except for my music friends.

Mily
05-19-2008, 11:08 AM
Sorry, but the cats and dogs are STILL winning by a long shot. :D

Jay Zeno
05-19-2008, 11:47 AM
Well, they're helped by handicapping. TOO and I are proving how dreary online acquaintances can be.