On Mar 3, 2009, at 5:46:43 AM, Krimel <[email protected]> wrote: [MP] .... theories aren't "proven" let alone b y themselves; they simply gain in static power the longer they remain "not dis-proven" by a scientist with a different hunch. In the end that still makes a theory no more than a hunch. It will ALWAYS be a hunch until it is proven wrong by a new hunch or proven as "fact." And a "fact" it is still nothing more than a hunch, just one with an official blessing for being the last one standing for long enough that no one bothers to question it anymore. At that point it takes heretical status to unseat the hunch, usually at the cost of one's profession, sometimes even of one's life. But it is still and *always* just a hunch.
[Krimel] I was with you on the whole theism thing but here you are just playing some silly spin gamea. "Hunch"? "Official hunch"? Hunch this! Theories are never, ever "proven". They can only be supported or disproven. This characteristic of the inductive method was well known from the get go. It is ludicrous to say that a "hunch" "stands for long enough that no one bothers to question it anymore." Scientific theories are always being questioned. Over and over which every new experiment, with each new study. In that sense, heresy is at the heart of science. All statements in science are tentative. Calling them "hunches" is just a lame attempt at being provocative. [MP] This is because that's all science is; the constant refinement / capsizing of hunches. That "in science a theory is as good as it ever gets" [and I completely agree with dmb on that] pretty much assures that this will always be the case. This actually defines the rather pedestrian limitation of science; always guessing, always trying to prove, forever seeking to be right, and as such never allowing itself enough room to actually comprehend. [Krimel] By its very nature science can never make anything more than tentative statements. That is its strength not a weakness. Your allusion to actual comprehension makes a common point. Science frequently takes a rap for this. It's the whole; science doesn't make us wiser; materialism doesn't produce happier lives. Yadda, Yadda, Yadda... So science is supposed to take the blame for what is and has always been the job of philosophers, theologians, politicians and artists. What a bunch of pussies. Science collects data and organizes it into theories. Scientists are doing their jobs and doing it extraordinarily well. It is the humanities that have fallen two centuries behind. Whatever the state of moral decline; whatever lack of "comprehension" there is; it results not from science but from the whole romantic mind set of sitting around whining while the world whizzes past. Since Newton philosophers have been playing catch up and basically sucking at it. Willblake2 now writes: Science has been in the air lately. I'm new so maybe it always has been. Science seems to be considered to be vastly different from religion or philosophy; I do not believe it is. They are like two brothers walking hand in hand towards the same destination. In my opinion, the subject of this post should be Faith/Another Faith. I have come to believe, with my two neuron brain, that understanding the world through scientific eyes is as much faith as seeing it through religious (if you will) eyes, the only difference may be the sense of gratitude and level of requirements for a miracle. I was so entrenched in Scientific reality that I did not question it. My experience now tells me that it may not be alone. I have read in posts herein that reality can be dependent on seeing the world more through the right brain or left brain (as the physical psychologist would claim), this may be true. Even in the scientific world (which, like sisyphus, I have had the burden to roll for many years) the perception of metaphysics (as I understand to be "what is the nature of our being"), varies widely. Although the concepts do overlap. For example: To a social biologist, there is life meaning to an increase in human organization or complexity where communities or the internet creates living beings; and their is the concept of codependency. To a structural biologist, there is meaning in the appearance of forms as they relate the the existing environment, and the concept of an individual struggle being involved or evolution from the inside out is what makes life. To a biochemist there is meaning in chemical reactions as being the driving force and life being a consequence of that. To a physical biologist (a road I traveled) life is conveyed through the travel of electrons from higher potential to lower potential or simple electricity. That is, the required jumping of electrons from the things we eat, over to oxygen, the air we breath for existence. Life is the harnessing of that propensity in electrochemistry, that current, and forms are a consequence of it. Perhaps life was created by the electrons as a joy ride (certainly that would be the electrons perspective). To the quantum physics, life can be a "vector collapse" from a probabilistic universe, created by something called consciousness, which Il would assume to have. Our dynamic connection with such consciousness could be through the quantum tunneling happening at the synapse. This may be where Quality (consciousness) comes in and is simplified through the doors our 5 sense perception machine (Gotta make this relevant to MoQ); quantum tunneling, that is, things arriving from somewhere without going in between. For me it is useful to remember that my perception is limited to the five senses which are basically at the chemical level of existence. The electron's perception may be completely different. Indeed, radio wave photons would have a completely different sensory perception than ours as would the black hole. The same humble notion applies to time and its percepton. To a short-lived particle, human existence may appear static. To mother earth's perception we individuals are like a raindrop hitting the ground. To a Galaxy, we don't even really exist.. How can these things have perceptions? In exactly the same way we have the personal sense of perception. Only you see through your eyes, but you are but a sack of stuff. Explain that and you will have your answer. In my opinion, All we feel is an illusion, or reality, whatever you want to call it, and and there are I'm sure subtle reality differences between people. If I want to change that reality because it feels better I should. However, if I feel that by creating detail to my reality, through the labeling process of science, makes it more real, what level of detail do I need to prove it is real? When I simply accept it as real then I am operating off Faith. There seems to be a lot of righteous triumphalism in these posts about our "evolution" above the simpleminded, which is great, and I am currently partaking in that with this post. I would like to see what it is like to make Quality my current reality. It may be interesting. Maybe it will be like living in the "Now", as professed by Hinduism and other philosophies. Willblake2 Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
