On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Jim Davis wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: denstar >> Science is meaningless without Philosophy. Context, you know. > > Another statement often made... but rarely backed up. Care to try? ;^)
The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness. ( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science) Newton, was probably more on a god quest than not, sorta, as well, neh? Not that he could say much about it at the time, heh. It's the questions that drive us, and the data helps form those questions, or whatever, but the beginning and ending is the question. Science is like data, or the collection of data, defining the box for us to think outside of, perhaps. Somehow this is all related to consciousness. What good is data if you don't know what to do with it? FWIW, I think this is a tomato tomaaato type deal-- your idea of science is probably laden with philosophy, whereas I'm sorta splitting them up. Heh. The splitting of things... taxonomy... I love the stuff. It's all related tho... That's the crux. There is a separate aspect, you know- the place where imagination comes in, where you seem to be gifted with knowledge from the gods, or whatnot. That's not science, that's thinking. Thinking trumps science. Science is worthless without thought, and what about ethics and morals? Without the overview, of "why", or whatever... bah. Not my best 'splanation. Science came from philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science (Sorta :-)) You could probably add "sorta" and "maybe" to just about anything I say, especially when I say it as fact. > I might agree that the human condition may be meaningless without > philosophy, but science doesn't seem to _need_ philosophy. I do think that > a well-rounded scientist is a better scientist - I think that a well-rounded > anything is better than an obsessive monophile - but to claim > "meaninglessness" seems excessive. If you couldn't think, it would be meaningless. I think you're confusing the discipline with the action, or whatever. All scientists are philosophers, by their very nature. > Somehow I get the impressive that you may have, unknowingly, set your jaw a > bit. I don't feel (heh) that "thinking" gets the respect it deserves. Everyone wants to be a scientist, not many want to be philosophers (the discipline, or even just calling themselves such). Not very "certain" you know, and a lot of people associate science with certainty (tho it's sorta bout the opposite, right? ;-). It's a real brain twister-- science doesn't predict, really, tho it's used to. > You seem to agree that something is "science" until it elicits wonder... > then for some reason you seem to demand that it be labeled something else. > The instant I think "he's finally seeing a bit of real science!" you're > pulling back into the metaphysical. I love the metaphysical! It's just that it's the exciting aspect, for me, of science. Sorta like, I *love* "random". Chaos. I love chaos. and Order, and how they relate. How science relates to the metaphysical (it's there, dude!). Self-organizing systems. DNA and all the cray-z-ness. I think we've fooled ourselves, in general, into thinking things are "a certain way", because of the ideas of Science and whatnot. I'd argue that the ideas have been misinterpreted, as the fact that X has done Y, Z times, doesn't really mean what people think it means. I know, I'd keep taking it down the road, eventually getting to the point where maybe gravity will just shut off, or something silly like that, but i feel we are bound by our beliefs, or perception, perhaps. Something like that. Which is why I love the "strange" aspect of "hard" science. Randomness, for instance. Quantum entanglement and whatnot. The idea that maybe thought, itself, is more powerful and important than we generally, heh, think. What does science have to say about thought? Are there questions science cannot answer? (Something about feed-back loops should probably be inserted [here], and doing stuff with ones that never return data, perhaps. Bah.) > That sense of wonder you feel when contemplating the Drake Equation IS > science. Some of the best kind of science: the science of the unproven > hypothesis, the science of the wild prediction based on solid fact - the > science of discovery! I know, and I love it all! The proven, the unproven... it's sorta like my way of balancing, by giving *real* thought to ideas that, well, are sorta proven, but, well.... I'm just trying to maximize my relation to everything, ya dig? EXPLORE EXISTENCE, to type in caps. As far as testing belief, even. Why not? It's all in our heads, in the end-- at least everything that matters to us. -- Think how different human societies would be if they were based on love rather than justice. But no such societies have ever existed on earth. Mortimer Adler ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;203748912;27390454;j Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:268416 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
