Hi all, Let me first say that I carry the burden of scientific training, Ph.D. and all. That means full indoctrination.
I read, below, scientific facts thrown about as though they were truths. The earth is 5 billion years old! Did you measure this, or are you parroting somebody's opinion? Oh, it has been proven. Please explain to me that proof. Is it all based on assumptions? Science is a convention, that seems to provide some predictability to our lives. That predictability comes true simply because the cause and effect are supporting each other, like a closed logical circle, no other reason. 1 + 1= 2. What does that mean? Absolutely nothing more than a convention. Neuronal firings that are shared amongst people. The more people that have similar neuronal firings (or patterns), the more meaningful it seems to be. Why? Because we like company. It is my opinion that science describes that which is considered outside of us; this includes the brain as described by science. Spirituality describes that which is within ourselves. It is my belief that which is within is much greater than what is outside. (It could also be said that the world we create is within (and I don't mean within the brain)). The "rules" for describing spirituality are very different from the rules of science. There is no cause-effect. If we could transmit feelings directly (no thoughts or words in between) it would be much easier to convey spirituality. Instead we are left with the scientific (logical) tool of language. Science has sacrificed that within for that outside. For every word concerning experience in English, there are forty in Sanskrit. It is because of this obsession with that which is outside, that we find no real meaning or satisfaction or truth. How could there be? Science has taken much away. There is no balance. It seems that the more detailed we make this outside, the more dominant it becomes, until it is all. What an illusion! The real war is between that which is within, and that which is outside (without). I think this has something to do with MoQ... Willblake2 On Apr 16, 2009, at 2:55:56 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: Marsha -- > Are the things Science tell us Truth or just useful truth? > Is Evolution the Truth? Is Quantum Theory and the Special Theory of > Relativity the Truth? Are facts "Truth'? If so, that's what Science reveals. We experience events in time, thus we intellectualize that everything in existence comes into being and evolves. That is "our truth" as finite observers of nature. So is the precept of cause-and-effect. Existence is a relational system, and scientists work in this frame of things, giving us the means to deal with the world we experience. As a rational, consistent, and productive discipline the scientific method can't be faulted. [Ham, previously]: > Science is a utilitarian approach to the world as it is experienced. [Marsha]: > This may be your opinion, Ham, but is it the opinion of all scientists? > Are there groups of scientists who hold different, even conflicting, > opinions about the scientific knowledge they present? Are there some > scientists that believe the knowledge they present represents an absolute, > objective reality? All human beings have "opinions". The neat thing about Science is that subjectivity is rejected by the methodology. Certainly scientists argue among themselves and, depending on their field of expertise, not all scientists are the "objective purists" that their discipline calls for. But that's a human fallibility, not a fault of Science. What feeds the media and excites public curiosity are controversial theories like global warming for which there is some evidence but no infallible proof. The earth is over 5 billion years old, while the history of man stretches back only 10,000 years. On the scale of a roll of toilet paper whose 394 squares are each 11 cm. long, all of human history would represent only 0.1 cm. of the last square. That's far too little time to gather predictive information about earth's climatic cycles. > With what percentage of trust should it override first-hand experience and > intuition? Who makes that determination? The scientists? Surveying the > history of science, how many scientific theories from the past thousand > years still hold as true? Now what percentage would that be? What does "first-hand experience and intuition" tell you about molecular changes and planetary orbits, the chemical nature of an apple, the processes of photosynthesis and genetic transfer? Could Edison have invented the incandescent light bulb by intuition? With what percentage could your experience of diabetes give you the knowledge to treat it? > There is only (t)ruth, unless you're speaking of what is discovered when > something has been proven to be false. There is no (T)ruth. Right. Truth is relative to the knowledge available at any particular time. > How do you know science's "useful truths" are always reliable and > effective for survival? If they are useful, they are effective in solving the problem they relate to. > Was there survival before science? Of course, if you call "survival" a life span of 40 years, most of which is spent foraging for food and avoiding predators. > Can we know the reliability and effectiveness of the future? Does the > past always predict the future? You say we have > learned to control our environment, yet our water supply is > becoming increasingly polluted? You say we have learned > to prevent and cure diseases, yet malaria and tuberculosis are reaching > epidemic proportion. You site the mass > production of goods when in truth we have created a mass production of > garbage. Yes there is instant global communication, but there is very > little of intelligence being communicated. And humanities survival is yet > to be determined, it does not seem > assured by anyone's standards. History is the best predictor of future events, but nothing in existence is a certainty. Having the means to make water potable doesn't mean that we won't pollute its source. Modern medicine has eradicated smallpox, malaria, and TB in most of the industrial world, but epidemics can still occur in unprotected societies. If we've produced "garbage", it's because the market demands it. (Would you want Science to control human desire?) The fact that people communicate in gibberish and fill the Internet with pornography and small talk only demonstrates their value sensibility. Do you think Science should regulate human behavior? Or is it that you want the goals of Science to be regulated by philosophers, or perhaps the State? I think you expect too much of empirical Science. It seems that you, like others here, are looking for a Master Guide to a safe and happy life. That's the promise of religion, not Science. Humans who are unwilling to accept the challenges of life are not long for this world. We are all endowed with reason and the freedom to choose those values that will enhance our life experience. Socrates said "the unexamined life is not worth living." My moral axiom is: Know yourself and your values, and your life will be guided by rational decisions. [Ham, previously]: > "Science Wars" is a myth generated largely by the liberal mindset of > academia which is swayed more by emotion than reason. IMHO. [Marsha]: > With this statement you have earned a thump on the head. "Science Wars" > is a label, like "War on Terror" or "War on Drugs". It is time scientific > value be confronted, explored and understood with an eye on intelligent > reevaluation. It is a reassessment that matters, not the label. Exactly what is it about empirical Science that you fear or find objectionable, and how would you "reevaluate" (or revamp) it to better serve your moral or philosophical needs? Curiously, Ham 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/
