Science!

[Nameless]

SCIENCE!


Physics? Biology? Chemistry? Quantum Mechanics?
Space? Earth? Plants? Animals? The feature?
The past? The Present? Robots?
The peak of scientific brilliance: Hover cars?
Evolution? Abiogenesis? Creationism?
Theories? Philosophy?
SCIENCE!

Whether you’re a professional scientist, an ameture, or just have a love for science, discovery and finding the truth... Or even if you just want to post witty useless facts, motivation posters and have a light scientific talk but don't want to open up a whole new thread for it, discuss it all here!


This thread will not commence until someone science-hi5’s me.

SCIENCE! *hi5*

[AKA_Bait]

SCIENCE! ::Hi Five!::

Here's to the most sucessful project in epistemology and metaphysics so far! Self supporting and doing so well that like all children, it has hit the point where it doesn't want to keep it's childhood lables and has moved out the the house.

[averagejoe]

SCIENCE! *high five*

Just because I like giving/receiving high fives! *high five*

Aaaaaand I'm off to take my electrodynamics midterm. Relativistic electrodynamics no less. Woo, all jittery.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

SCIENCE: HI FIVE!

I'm pretty fired up about the Kepler project! They are looking for smaller, rocky planets circling in the habital zone around their stars.

Water on Mars, possibly water on Europa, and now a satellight telescope that can spot an in-close planet?

Best space program since the Mars Rovers!

[Nameless]

SCIENCE: HI FIVE!

I'm pretty fired up about the Kepler project! They are looking for smaller, rocky planets circling in the habital zone around their stars.

Water on Mars, possibly water on Europa, and now a satellight telescope that can spot an in-close planet?

Best space program since the Mars Rovers!

hi-5!

The only issue with mars however, is that if we're trying to escape an apocalyptic earth, we need to get as far away from earth as possible... And well, Mars is pretty close. :smalltongue:
But they found some fossilised bacteria which means that technically speaking, we can be a hundred percent sure that there is, or at least was, extraterrestrial life. :smallsmile:

Yay aliens!

[Egiam]

::HI 5!::

Don't believe everything you believe. Visit The Sceptics Encyclopedia (http://www.skepdic.com/)!

[Helanna]

Science: Hi-five!!

Actually, right now I hate physics class. My teacher is an absolute demon. Physics in general is great though!

Actually, I'm trying to create a magic system based on physics and chemistry. Just started working on it. I think good things will come of this thread . . .

[Sneak]

http://wearscience.com/img450/science_robot.gif

http://wearscience.com/img450/germ_wrangler_f.gif

http://wearscience.com/img450/dog_show.gif

http://wearscience.com/img450/kiss_the_cloner.gif

http://wearscience.com/img450/cheers.gif

http://wearscience.com/img450/destroy_the_moon_f.gif

http://wearscience.com/img450/martian_next_door.gif

...

...

...

http://wearscience.com/img450/i_believe_in_science.gif

*high five*

[Nameless]

Science: Hi-five!!

Actually, right now I hate physics class. My teacher is an absolute demon. Physics in general is great though!

Actually, I'm trying to create a magic system based on physics and chemistry. Just started working on it. I think good things will come of this thread . . .

I stand by the quote I wrote a couple of years ago:
"Magic is just science we don't understand"

[Admiral_Kelly]

Don't believe everything you believe. Visit The Sceptics Encyclopedia (http://www.skepdic.com/)!Skepticism is more of a philosophy stating 'nothing beyond what is known through empirical evidence is to be believed' than a science. Yes, skeptics may use science but skepticism in of itself is not science.

[Keris]

http://wearscience.com/img450/germ_wrangler_f.gif

I have one of those. Not as fast as you might think though, but the eggs taste nice.


I stand by the quote I wrote a couple of years ago:
"Magic is just science we don't understand"

That sound's an awful lot like a simple reversal of Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

[Ninja Chocobo]

SCIENCE!
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/4986/1201912224186.jpg

[Boo]

SCIENCE! *hi-fives*

I'm more into Geology and Chemistry than any others. I used to hate Physics until I learned how easy it is (this delayed realization was due to many absences).

I'm actually pretty good at remembering the PTE, but mainly just their names and symbols. All the other details, including periods and families, seem to elude my brain for the most part.

I've been wondering what it would be like to get a job as a Paleontologist, not Paleonclimatologist mind you, and to work in an excavation site. I'm into history like that.

[Sneak]

In any case, my experiences with science are fairly new...but so far, I like it.

I mean, I'm only a sophomore in high school. So middle school science is pretty much all useless. As a freshman, I was forced to take a weird umbrella course called BSCS Biology that really focused mostly on ecology. This year I'm taking "chem extended." Next year I'll be taking AP chem.

I come from a science-y family, though. My brother is a premed bio/chem major, after all...

[Nameless]

I have one of those. Not as fast as you might think though, but the eggs taste nice.



That sound's an awful lot like a simple reversal of Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

I know very little about C.Clarke to be honest. do you have a link?
But what do you know, great minds think alike I guess. :smalltongue:
But I guess it depends what he means by that. What I mean is the myths about witches, and magic is basically what we have today with science.
For example, potion making is the same as making drugs and chemistry.
If for example, we see someone now shooting bolts of energy through their hands, our first reaction would be "magic". But if we try to understand it, we would be able to explain what's actually happening with science, meaning that it's not magic anymore, simply a "reaction".
So I guess you could say, yes I do believe in magic.
I don’t know what he means by his quote, but that’s how I see it.

[Eldan]

SCIENCE!

Biology student, 6th semester. Specializing in Ecology (Insects, mostly), Evolution and for some strange reason a little Neuroscience.

Also:
Science! (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1452#comic)

[averagejoe]

I used to hate Physics until I learned how easy it is

Hahahahahaha.


I know very little about C.Clarke to be honest. do you have a link?
But what do you know, great minds think alike I guess. :smalltongue:
But I guess it depends what he means by that. What I mean is the myths about witches, and magic is basically what we have today with science.
For example, potion making is the same as making drugs and chemistry.
If for example, we see someone now shooting bolts of energy through their hands, our first reaction would be "magic". But if we try to understand it, we would be able to explain what's actually happening with science, meaning that it's not magic anymore, simply a "reaction".
So I guess you could say, yes I do believe in magic.
I don’t know what he means by his quote, but that’s how I see it.

It's even simpler than that. For it to be science we don't need to be able to analyze the reaction itself, one just needs to be able to say, "Okay, so when you do this and that and that then such and such an effect happens," and be able to do so predictably.

[Assassin89]

Science!

I took AP chem and AP physics in high school, meaning that I did not have to take chemistry in college.

Physics is an easy class for me.
At the college I am attending, I completed Mechanics, and I am now taking electomagnetics and optics.

[Galileo]

Science!

I'm currently taking Electronics at high school, and haven't yet soldered my fingers together.
I once duelled one of my friends because he wanted our warcry to be "In the name of Science!" and I wanted "We shall do it... For Science!"

[Mushroom Ninja]

Science!

Because math is fun.

[Serpentine]

Skepticism is more of a philosophy stating 'nothing beyond what is known through empirical evidence is to be believed' than a science. Yes, skeptics may use science but skepticism in of itself is not science.Eh? :smallconfused: That sounds more like cynicism to me. Scepticism is about keeping an open mind, about not accepting something or dismissing it out of hand but looking for evidence that supports or refutes it. Exhibit A: The Australian Skeptic Society (http://www.skeptics.com.au/index.html), of which my mother is, or was, a member.
In summary - my approach to teaching and learning across all content areas seeks to inculcate a skeptical skill-set, and a skeptical frame of reference. I define skeptic in Humbug! as: “a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions” (OED). In the introduction to the booklet, I also attempt to make a crucial distinction between skepticism and cynicism. "The skeptical student is one who is in the habit of questioning received wisdom. Skepticism is a desirable trait in any person in any walk of life, but it is an essential foundation of scholarship. However skepticism is sometimes confused with cynicism, and it is very important to preserve the distinction. A person who is cynical is one who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest. The outlook of a cynic is often contemptuous and mocking. The outlook of a skeptic is by contrast positive and productive. He or she assumes nothing about motives, and is focussed on deeper understanding of issues and on feasible solutions to genuine problems.In other words, no, skepticism is not a science, but it is a crucial virtue in scientists, which is what I believe Egiam was actually getting at.

More to the point... WOOOOO CRYPTOZOOLOGY! :BIGGRIN: Also zoology in general. Astrobiology's an interesting one, too...


That sound's an awful lot like a simple reversal of Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".To put it another way for Nameless, "If a person can't explain how something works, they call it magic."
Of course, I reckon it goes the other way, too: "Any sufficiently primitive technology is indistinguishable from magic." - The people in the past weren't any stupider than us. If they used something, they believed that it worked, and they had logical reasons for that belief, even if we now know (or think we know) that it didn't work or, more likely, that their reason for it working was wrong. Thus, we call it "magic" or "superstition". I have an associated line of thought, but 'snot allowed. I'm happy to discuss it if anyone wants to PM me, though.

[Boo]

Hahahahahaha.

All things considered, it's surprisingly easy at this point. The later stuff will undoubtedly be hard, but I'm still not very interested in it to actually get into those classes.

*gives Nameless an arm and a leg for the new beginnings of a friend doll*

I had considered making this thread myself once, but didn't since I hadn't the care to put an effort into typing any of it.

@^: Don't forget Wegener's theory on continental drift! Good thing we didn't go with that one, eh?

[Serpentine]

Not familiar with that one. Asplaign?

[Mando Knight]

That sound's an awful lot like a simple reversal of Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

Because any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20081205)SCIENCE! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ForScience)

[Boo]

Not familiar with that one. Asplaign?

Here's his wiki page. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener)

He proposed the theory that continents were slowly drifting along the surface of the earths crust. It wasn't all that off from the tectonic plate theory, but had we accepted it, we wouldn't be where we are today in the study of the planets. We'll, that's my thought anyway.

[averagejoe]

[FONT="Courier New"]All things considered, it's surprisingly easy at this point. The later stuff will undoubtedly be hard, but I'm still not very interested in it to actually get into those classes.

That's how they lure you in. You take AP physics or the introductory college courses and everything's all good. Then, BAM, you just got 30% on a midterm. And that was a B, because no one else has any idea what the heck is going on.

I might be a little bitter right now. Exhausted at the very least. It seemed like a good idea at the time, I tells ya.

[Boo]

That's pretty much the case for a lot of courses. I still don't plan on taking Physics later on, but instead Chemestry and some sort of Geology. I'm the type looking for general experience. Stories to tell. I don't care if I graduate college or not. I'll try, sure, but the money will be going towards my experience in it, not the education I could have gotten off the internet for free.

That's my problem with university and college. They make you pay for something that you could learn from the internet. There are good reasons for going into them, but we're here to discuss science so let's not get into that.

>>
<<

Geology! Woo!

[Agamid]

"Science" has become the new battle-cry (catch-phrase) or my little brother and his friends... and this is their theme song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IlHgbOWj4o

[Admiral_Kelly]

Ideally, Serpentine, you would be correct. That is what skepticism should be about. Unfortunately, everything I hear from skeptics is "attack, attack, attack" instead of "consider, consider, consider". Any notion not backed by empirical evidence is initially dismissed as hogwash and claims which support its existence sends them into debunking mode without considering the possibility of the claim being true.

Subjects often targeted by skeptics include (or, for a great many, consist entirely of) claims of the paranormal, religious beliefs, and the outright absurd. Granted, we should not let charlatans and urban legend run amok especially if the consequences could lead to people getting hurt, but the methods of the skeptic community leave no room for the possibility of something they disagree with being true. Worse, sometimes they associate or outright call philosophical arguments they make 'scientific skepticism' as to ridicule opponents in a debate over a philosophical matter.

The skeptic community is a bit biased when it comes to what subject matter they should cast doubt upon. As said before, debunking myths has its purpose, but what about putting scientifically backed claims at an inquiry? Not doing this neglects to realize science is an evolving process and often a scientific claim considered true will later be proven to be false. Perhaps there is more publicity to be gained by questioning popular beliefs than claims with more validity in the field of science or perhaps the practice is easier.

Nonetheless, I happen to agree with most of what skeptics say (I do not believe in alien visitations, psychic powers, big foot, etc.). It is the fact most of them are so closed-minded in their way of thinking which leaves me to turn away in disgust.

In conclusion, using skepticism to keep an open mind is something crucial towards scientific research. At the same time, they should not be arrogant as to use skepticism as a tool for promoting one's own personal agenda.

[Erutaron]

SCIENCE! *hi5*

Chemistry... Specifically the chemistry of flavour and cooking. They'res nothing like the reaction of ingredients, mixing into homogeneous or non-homogeneous mixtures, becoming flavour explosions...


Bill Nye: Science rules!

[Serpentine]

Kelly: It's not what it should be about, it's what it is about. The people you describe are not skeptics, but cynics. An idea is not what people do with it. Unfortunately the only examples I can come up with are religious or political... Christianity is not the Crusades, Communism is not USSR totalitarianism. Skepticism is not the people who claim to be skeptical in order to appear reasoned.

[Thufir]

SCIENCE!


Because maths is fun.

I keep telling people this, and they don't believe me.

Yesterday, I performed (With some fellow G&S people) at the Newcastle event of the Ig Nobel UK Tour (http://improbable.com/improbable-research-shows/ig-uk-tour/).
They have some funny science. Take a look at the list of past winners...

[GoC]

I'm doing maths and physics at uni. Currently enjoying Thermal Physics.:smallcool:


As said before, debunking myths has its purpose, but what about putting scientifically backed claims at an inquiry?
Scientifically backed claims have already had an extensive testing and enquiry process.


Not doing this neglects to realize science is an evolving process and often a scientific claim considered true will later be proven to be false.
It's a common myth that a widely held theory in science can be proven wrong. People often completely ignore that important little quantifier that says how sure the scientists are of something.
Pretty much anything that scientists have been sure about has never been proven wrong, only incomplete. It's only the the theories thrown out there for consideration (like the plum pudding model of the atom) that are later proven wrong. Ask Thomson if he would bet $1000 on his model being correct and he'd turn you down. Bet a modern scientist $1000 for General Relativity and he'll just laugh.
The only way to "disprove" an accepted theory is to take it to an extreme which was never intended (Newtons laws of motion are an example).

Give one example where I widely held theory was proven wrong in the arena it was intended to cover.


It is the fact most of them are so closed-minded in their way of thinking which leaves me to turn away in disgust.
It so happens that after the twentieth time you disprove some claim about ghosts or perpetual motion machines you get a bit fed up and are inclined to ignore all such future claims due to the fact you've got better things to do.

[Mushroom Ninja]

I keep telling people this, and they don't believe me.


They've obviously never taken calculus.

[Kcalehc]

Semi-Science Hi-5

Engineer here, electrical. I take your science and make it do useful stuff. :)

[averagejoe]

As said before, debunking myths has its purpose, but what about putting scientifically backed claims at an inquiry? Not doing this neglects to realize science is an evolving process and often a scientific claim considered true will later be proven to be false. Perhaps there is more publicity to be gained by questioning popular beliefs than claims with more validity in the field of science or perhaps the practice is easier.

What? Science by its very nature puts its ideas before inquiry to be endlessly tested by others. It really isn't science otherwise. I mean, it isn't as if the scientific canon is held as some sacred text by any scientist; in fact, pretty much the only way to make a big name for yourself in the scientific field is to take some well known theory and prove that it doesn't work in some cases. If anything the problem is the other way; one gets too many people who don't know what they're doing trying to write papers that "disprove" general relativity, or what have you.

The problem is that you also have to account for the fact that the previous theory was observed to be true in pretty much every other instance. For example, Newton's mechanics worked for years, and still work, even though they were "proven wrong" by Einstein, and one notices that Einsteinien mechanics turn into Newtonian mechanics for sufficiently small velocities. This is because Newton wasn't wrong, he just didn't have enough data to account for anything; however his claims have been tested extensively for hundreds of years, and found to be perfectly correct in certain limits.


They've obviously never taken calculus.

Eh, calculus is neat, but in the end it's basically just plugging into equations, with some exceptions. The really fun stuff comes after.


Semi-Science Hi-5

Engineer here, electrical. I take your science and make it do useful stuff. :)

Ah! Application! Boo! Boo!

:smallbiggrin:

[Narkis]

SCIENCE! *hi5*

Physics student here, second semester. I plan to specialize in Nuclear Physics when I get the chance in a couple years.

[Nameless]

Science!

I took AP chem and AP physics in high school, meaning that I did not have to take chemistry in college.

Physics is an easy class for me.
At the college I am attending, I completed Mechanics, and I am now taking electomagnetics and optics.


I used to really like physics in school physics. :smallsmile:
I was extremely angry with while I was there though. They moved to bottom class and I still have no idea why, they never explained. I proved myself so many times that I could be in top.
When it came to my mock exams, I finished the paper for bottom set, still had time left, so I took the top class's paper as well and got every question correct without even studding the subject before. But they still wouldn't let me take the top paper for my final exam, which meant I couldn't get higher then a C grade.
I'm still angry about it, I really wanted an A in at least physics and biology. :smallannoyed:
The annoying thing is they never even told me why I was moved down.


To put it another way for Nameless, "If a person can't explain how something works, they call it magic."

Which is why I believe that science is magic, but with explanation.
...
Wait, does this mean scientists and nerds are actually wizards!?! :smalleek:


*gives Nameless an arm and a leg for the new beginnings of a friend doll*

Hoorah! *puts doll in magic Science ring of freindship*

[cody.burton]

SCIENCE!

Specifically, Physics. Because bio can be derived from chem, and chem is derived from physics. As for math, it's just a tool. :smalltongue:

[averagejoe]

SCIENCE!

Specifically, Physics. Because bio can be derived from chem, and chem is derived from physics. As for math, it's just a tool. :smalltongue:

"Just" a tool? Doing physics without math would be like... trying to blacksmith using scotch tape and a banana. I can't think of any gaming analogies, because any game that has an item even half as useful as math is really, really broken.

[Thufir]

An analogy which occurs to me is like playing D&D without dice. Sooner or later, you just have to make up a result.

[Nameless]

SCIENCE!

Specifically, Physics. Because bio can be derived from chem, and chem is derived from physics. As for math, it's just a tool. :smalltongue:

Physics can pretty much cover everything in a way.

PHYSICS!

[Serpentine]

Meh. Maths might be The Tool or The Only True Science, but only like flour. It's boring and dry. It's only interesting until it's combined with other ingredients to make the delicious cake of biology.

[Coidzor]

I'm just waiting for the day we have Megaman. Because then I'll be killed by rampaging industrial robots and all will be well because humanity will die off, leaving only SCIENCE to remain...

Edit: ...You have to admit, with mathes alone, one can't really feed one self.

[GoC]

Meh. Maths might be The Tool or The Only True Science, but only like flour. It's boring and dry. It's only interesting until it's combined with other ingredients to make the delicious cake of biology.

*foams in the mouth*:smallfurious::smallfurious::smallfurious:

[DigoDragon]

Science is great. It comes in many flavors. Something for everyone!
My flavor of choice is Astronomy for it's interesting theories on how the universe might work. I like the "Mars is a survived moon" theory best.

[averagejoe]

Meh. Maths might be The Tool or The Only True Science, but only like flour. It's boring and dry. It's only interesting until it's combined with other ingredients to make the delicious cake of biology.


Edit: ...You have to admit, with mathes alone, one can't really feed one self.

I'm skeptical as to whether either of you have done any real maths. :smalltongue:

Anyways, past a certain point physics is nothing but maths, since we have no actual physical intuition about it, those sorts of things being outside our normal perception.

Also, Serp, I'm not sure what you mean by "The Only True Science." Math isn't a science. :smallconfused:

[Cubey]

I'm skeptical as to whether either of you have done any real maths. :smalltongue:


I agree. Everything up to high school level (and university possibly, if you're studying something light on... well, science) included is just the very basics of mathematics. It's like voicing your opinion on classical lit when your only contact with literature was learning the alphabet without actually reading anything.

[Admiral_Kelly]

Give one example where I widely held theory was proven wrong in the arena it was intended to cover.Easily. Man was once said to evolve from apes. Evolution models now show man most likely evolved from a shared ancestor. It was once held that an object shot in the air at an angle would fall straight down when it reached its zenith - disproved. Mercury was thought to have one extremely hot side and one extremely cold side due to not rotating. Scientists now know Mercury makes a full rotation two times every three cycles meaning the temperature of the planet is much more balanced.

That's three examples. TVtropes has an article about the nature of how science evolves in relation to science fiction which makes a good read [link (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScienceMarchesOn)].

[Battleship789]

SCIENCE! *hi5*

Math and Physics undergrad. :smallsigh::smallannoyed::smalltongue:

Doing some basic quantum mechanics (1-dimensional) on the physics side now, along with multivariable calculus on the math side.

[averagejoe]

Easily. Man was once said to evolve from apes. Evolution models now show man most likely evolved from a shared ancestor. It was once held that an object shot in the air at an angle would fall straight down when it reached its zenith - disproved. Mercury was thought to have one extremely hot side and one extremely cold side due to not rotating. Scientists now know Mercury makes a full rotation two times every three cycles meaning the temperature of the planet is much more balanced.

That's three examples. TVtropes has an article about the nature of how science evolves in relation to science fiction which makes a good read [link (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScienceMarchesOn)].

None of these examples mentions theory at all. Scientists have been wrong about things (including theories, but we've restricted this discussion to theories that were already well-proven and widely accepted, if I'm understanding correctly) but usually that has to do with incomplete data or misinterpretation of the theory. The only actual theoretical example you gave was the cannonball one, and I'm pretty sure people thought that before science was as we think of it today.

[Admiral_Kelly]

None of these examples mentions theory at all.How so? Is a theory not a model based on scientific evidence as currently understood? I am aware a theory is not a conjecture or hypothesis; however, from what I understand and looked up, the things I have listed were, at the time, theories.
Scientists have been wrong about things (including theories, but we've restricted this discussion to theories that were already well-proven and widely accepted, if I'm understanding correctly) but usually that has to do with incomplete data or misinterpretation of the theory. The only actual theoretical example you gave was the cannonball one, and I'm pretty sure people thought that before science was as we think of it today.There has always been science as long as man could observe and think of the facts for himself. The fact it was called something else previously does not change that. I'll drop this point, however, since I cannot find any information about when this idea was excepted and when it was disproved or any other specifics on the matter.

Further; before the finding of DNA and the study of matter on a molecular level, there have been tons of widely accepted theories accepted based on the current evidence at the time.

Additionally, to add to the list of examples I present the aether (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories) - a once scientific concept now discredited.

[averagejoe]

How so? Is a theory not a model based on scientific evidence as currently understood?

Yes. However, there is a distinction between a theory and an application of theory. For example, F=dp/dt (or, in the Newtonian limit, F=ma) is a theory; indeed, one of the most important theories in physics, arguably the most. The behavior of a cannonball is not a theory in and of itself, it is something you predict and explain with your theory. If your theory does not correctly predict (say) the motion of objects then either 1) your theory is incorrect or 2) you do not have all the data. For a scientific theory to become widely accepted it has to be demonstrated many times for it to be correct; this is what GoC was referring to, I believe.

For example: in the late 1800's/early 1900's the big thing was that the current physical theories did not explain some things about electrodynamics. Many theories were invented and disproved (including the aether) before Einstein finally wrote his famous paper on relativity in electrodynamics. The thing about the theory is that it sharply contradicted Newton in places; in some sense Newton was found to be wrong. However, Newton was clearly not wrong; for hundreds of years his theories had been used, tested, and never once observed to be incorrect. Einstein's theory had to account for this fact, which is why general relativity looks like classical mechanics when v is very small. A theory as well traveled and widely tested as any of these cannot really be proven "wrong" because, frankly, they work. They may (have, and probably will) be proven to be incomplete, but any new theories that do not somehow completely reinvent physics have to, essentially, include the old ones that have been shown again and again to work.

Now, take, for example, what you said about Mercury. They were wrong about this, but this does not represent a theoretical breakdown. If it had then, upon discovering the rotation of Mercury, many physical laws would have to be rewritten. The breakdown came because they thought it didn't rotate when actually it did; in other words, the theory predicted something other than it should have because it was given incomplete or erroneous data.


I am aware a theory is not a conjecture or hypothesis

Apperantly not; or, at least, you don't fully appreciate what this means.


Further; before the finding of DNA and the study of matter on a molecular level, there have been tons of widely accepted theories accepted based on the current evidence at the time.

Additionally, to add to the list of examples I present the aether (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories) - a once scientific concept now discredited.

These are both conjectures and hypotheses. The aether was widely accepted as the best hypothesis out there, for example, but it was never made theoretical because no one could detect it. It was just because no one could think of anything better for awhile that it was so popular. I'm less familiar with biology, but, again, if no one had actually seen any of these mechanisms they were theorizing about, then it's simply conjecture. The bottom line in science is what can be seen, demonstrated, and reproduced.

[Admiral_Kelly]

Wait a minute; if the current observable evidence and scientific understanding had shown Mercury has no rotation, would that not be a theory in of itself or am I missing something here? You do make some good points though. If I am wrong about my rhetorical statement then I will concede the accepted conclusion of Mercury's rotation and later discovery of a rotation was not disproof of a theory but application of a theory where the observations were off.

I am a bit confused about this Einstein VS Newton issue. According to your post, had Einstein not proved Newton wrong in some areas? Or is it Einstein proved Newton's theory non-universal; which, if Newton's theories were held as universal, is still proving him partially wrong?

Further, was the aether a theory or not? In one paragraph you say it was a disproved theory and in the last you say it was merely a hypothesis. Wikipedia has an article on 'aether theories' but does not consistently call them theories in the article itself. At least one is listed as superseded by general relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories#Superseded_physics_ theories).

[Serpentine]

Easily. Man was once said to evolve from apes. Evolution models now show man most likely evolved from a shared ancestor.First of all, I would assume that the common ancestor of Homo sapiens and other apes would have been a type of ape. Secondly, I've heard of this idea ("Evolution says that humans evolved from chimps! Isn't that ridiculous?") as a common misconception, but so far as I know it's pretty much always been considered incorrect. I'd like to see a quote from Darwin to this effect, if you have one, but even if he did say that, it's pretty generally understood that he got a few things wrong - I'm sure he, himself, would have acknowledged that likelihood. Thirdly, wasn't this particular argument more about big things? This, and the other examples, are all just teeny-little-bitty supposed applications of the big theories. It's like saying that it was a big deal when my beau's long-held belief that peas are orange was corrected and that it has implications for the very nature of colour. No, not really - his eyes just don't see colour properly, because he's colourblind. You would've been better off using the four elements, or the four humours, as examples - now those are long-held and widely-supported theories that were proven to be bunk.
Finally, I feel I should qualify (or maybe correct, but I don't know about that) one of GoC's statements: By it's very nature, scientific theories must be disprovable. That doesn't mean that it is worthless, unreliable or that a heavily-supported theory is destined to be debunked. It just means that scientists must always be on the lookout for something that doesn't fit with what is already known, and every theory must be readily defendable.
I think one of the greatest advances in modern science is the understanding that we actually know very, very little. The more we find out, more more we discover we have yet to know. I think that's brilliant.

[Thanatos 51-50]

SCIENCE! Lo-five and fist-bump.

To be specific here, Meterology and Oceanography (And their applications to stuff, yay for my job!)
WOO!

[Nameless]

SCIENCE! Lo-five and fist-bump.

To be specific here, Meterology and Oceanography (And their applications to stuff, yay for my job!)
WOO!

Ocean.
The final frontere.

:smalltongue:

[averagejoe]

Wait a minute; if the current observable evidence and scientific understanding had shown Mercury has no rotation, would that not be a theory in of itself or am I missing something here? You do make some good points though. If I am wrong about my rhetorical statement then I will concede the accepted conclusion of Mercury's rotation and later discovery of a rotation was not disproof of a theory but application of a theory where the observations were off.

Actually, I don't know much about it, I just thought that was what you were saying. However, "Observable evidence and scientific understanding" showing Mercury having no rotation wouldn't be a theoretical breakdown. The observational part would just be people not having sufficiently sensitive instruments, or perhaps misinterpreting that evidence. Now, if they developed theory based on this, and then they found their initial observation to be incorrect, then that theory would probably be brought into question. However, we are discussing not just any theories, but theories that are (or were) widely accepted, and if that's the case then one would need to see their evidence from multiple sources.


I am a bit confused about this Einstein VS Newton issue. According to your post, had Einstein not proved Newton wrong in some areas? Or is it Einstein proved Newton's theory non-universal; which, if Newton's theories were held as universal, is still proving him partially wrong?

A little of both. Einstein's theory is definitely more universal, so some people will say, "Oh, see, Newton was wrong, since you can just replace his theories with Einstein's." Which, while technically true, is somewhat misleading. Data had been gathered for centuries that supported and confirmed Newton's theories, you see. They're essentially the basis for physics. When the theoretical discrepancy is smaller than the sensitivity of your instruments (as is the case for Newton vs. Einstein, for the most part) then it really makes no difference which you use.


Further, was the aether a theory or not? In one paragraph you say it was a disproved theory and in the last you say it was merely a hypothesis. Wikipedia has an article on 'aether theories' but does not consistently call them theories in the article itself. At least one is listed as superseded by general relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories#Superseded_physics_ theories).

Ah, forgive me, I was using theory in the ordinary sense of the word, which is probably bad form in such a discussion. You'll find that most people don't worry too much about the distinction too much. (To comment on the bit about the Wikipedia article.)

[Winterwind]

There has always been science as long as man could observe and think of the facts for himself. The fact it was called something else previously does not change that. I'll drop this point, however, since I cannot find any information about when this idea was excepted and when it was disproved or any other specifics on the matter.Actually, if we set 'science' equal with the use of the scientific method - which might not be the original definition of science, but is nowadays - then science has been around for only a few hundred years. Making models trying to explain the world is not enough to qualify as science. Putting up proof, having the rest of the scientific community look over and try to recreate your results independently, having each hypothesis be falsifiable and trying to falsify it - that's science. And this philosophy is still rather young.

[Boo]

Math technically isn't a science. It's related to science in almost every way, but it still isn't a science. It's been labeled as "The Mother of all Science" but that doesn't mean they're the same. They're just related. Math is the mother, science is the son/daughter.

And *hi-fives* I just used chemistry to bake mango-pear cinnamon buns! :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

The Science of Discworld 2 went into this, it made the distinction between science and technology, and pointed out that Archimedes wasn't really a scientist, and Newton was only one sometimes (in later life especially, he tended to be an alchemist rather than a chemist)


It was quite interesting.

[Telonius]

Math isn't a "science," per se. It's a priori reasoning, and science is concerned with proving or refuting a posteriori propositions. But without math, science couldn't exist, since it would have no basis on which to compare and predict things.

Anyway, hooray for science, without which I would be unemployed! :smallcool:

[Xanedan]

http://wearscience.com/img450/germ_wrangler_f.gif





I know a few people who might get a kick out of that.

I'm a military laboratory technician trained in clinical laboratory science and clinical microbiology. I took pretty strongly to microbiology (though my training course was a 2 month rush job to work along side civilians with 6+ years of education in the field) and run the department on weekends.

I'm typing this whilst waiting a few hours for my oxacillin wells to yield sufficient bacterial growth to finalize another case of MRSA up on the ICU.

/dreamjob

[GoC]

Easily. Man was once said to evolve from apes. Evolution models now show man most likely evolved from a shared ancestor. It was once held that an object shot in the air at an angle would fall straight down when it reached its zenith - disproved. Mercury was thought to have one extremely hot side and one extremely cold side due to not rotating. Scientists now know Mercury makes a full rotation two times every three cycles meaning the temperature of the planet is much more balanced.
1.Did scientists really say they thought it likely that man evolved from modern day apes? I can't find anyone in the history of science who believed that. Sounds like it was something the common populace though.
2. When was this? Who believed it? The scientific method only began to be used fairly recently.
3. Was this an actual "we think this is likely" theory? Or just a placeholder and they actually though "we don't have enough evidence on this to make a firm conclusion"?

I'm asking you to prove that when people extensively tested something and did the tests correctly that they were wrong when they filled in the gaps in in the range they tested.
For analogy: they gathered lots of data and put the dots on the graph, then made a function to fill in the places without dots. Prove that there is a place between two dots where the fitted function is very wrong.

See how hard that will be? And how unlikely science will be fundamentally wrong?

EDIT: A lot of things people think scientists are certain on are things they're actually pretty uncertain about.
There is unfortunately a massive gulf between what the science is and what the layman thinks the science is.

[hamishspence]

given that "evolved from common ancestor" goes right back to Darwin, I doubt it's ever been serious assumption that that common ancestor was a modern style ape.

though, some theories do get modified over time- some people thought large brain evolved first, initially, but fossil evidence has tended to show that upright posture came first.

[Nameless]

Easily. Man was once said to evolve from apes. Evolution models now show man most likely evolved from a common ancestor. It was once held that an object shot in the air at an angle would fall straight down when it reached its zenith - disproved. Mercury was thought to have one extremely hot side and one extremely cold side due to not rotating. Scientists now know Mercury makes a full rotation two times every three cycles meaning the temperature of the planet is much more balanced.

That's three examples. TVtropes has an article about the nature of how science evolves in relation to science fiction which makes a good read [link (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScienceMarchesOn)].

Fixed for you. :smalltongue: :smallbiggrin:

[kpenguin]

Fixed for you. :smalltongue: :smallbiggrin:

Uh, what? Isn't that the same thing?

[Nameless]

Uh, what? Isn't that the same thing?

Yeah I just prefure the term "common" more. :smalltongue:

[kpenguin]

Anyway, what's the deal with String Theory? I'm of divided mind about it

On the one hand, it apparently can explain a whole damn lot of the universe. On the other hand... (http://xkcd.com/171/)

[averagejoe]

Anyway, what's the deal with String Theory? I'm of divided mind about it

On the one hand, it apparently can a whole damn lot of the universe. On the other hand... (http://xkcd.com/171/)

It's generally overblown, from what I've gathered. The strip pretty much has it right. A lot of it is a bunch of people, each excited about finding the Next Big Thing.

[The Minx]

SCIENCE *high five*

Biology rocks.

Also, I second (third?) the interest in Kepler. ^^



Ideally, Serpentine, you would be correct. That is what skepticism should be about. Unfortunately, everything I hear from skeptics is "attack, attack, attack" instead of "consider, consider, consider". Any notion not backed by empirical evidence is initially dismissed as hogwash and claims which support its existence sends them into debunking mode without considering the possibility of the claim being true.

Subjects often targeted by skeptics include (or, for a great many, consist entirely of) claims of the paranormal, religious beliefs, and the outright absurd. Granted, we should not let charlatans and urban legend run amok especially if the consequences could lead to people getting hurt, but the methods of the skeptic community leave no room for the possibility of something they disagree with being true. Worse, sometimes they associate or outright call philosophical arguments they make 'scientific skepticism' as to ridicule opponents in a debate over a philosophical matter.

The skeptic community is a bit biased when it comes to what subject matter they should cast doubt upon. As said before, debunking myths has its purpose, but what about putting scientifically backed claims at an inquiry? Not doing this neglects to realize science is an evolving process and often a scientific claim considered true will later be proven to be false. Perhaps there is more publicity to be gained by questioning popular beliefs than claims with more validity in the field of science or perhaps the practice is easier.

Nonetheless, I happen to agree with most of what skeptics say (I do not believe in alien visitations, psychic powers, big foot, etc.). It is the fact most of them are so closed-minded in their way of thinking which leaves me to turn away in disgust.

In conclusion, using skepticism to keep an open mind is something crucial towards scientific research. At the same time, they should not be arrogant as to use skepticism as a tool for promoting one's own personal agenda.


I don't know which people you refer to who are out for their "personal agenda", most self-described skeptics I encounter are just what they say.

Anyway: if someone claims something, the correct approach is to doubt the claim unless the one making the claim provides evidence for it. After all, there is a limitless number of competing ideas which might be true. Doing this is not closed minded, it is the correct skeptical approach. In the words of Mike Shermer (editor of Skeptic magazine), one has to be open minded enough to accept new ideas, but not so open minded that one's brains fall out. :smallwink:

Science is based on things which are tested and/or for which empirical evidence exists, and it is put to the test routinely and consistently by researchers. It is the people targeted by skeptics who want a free pass past the gauntlet of peer review. To criticize these skeptics because they target some ideas more than others with their criticism is to miss this crucial point.


EDIT: I went back to this post and saw that the writing was horrible, so I fixed it. :smallwink:

[averagejoe]

SCIENCE *high five*

Finally, someone who shares my love of spelling "high" correctly. Oh, wondrous lady, where have you been all my life?

[Kcalehc]

2. When was this? Who believed it? The scientific method only began to be used fairly recently.

Most students of physics should be aware of this, as its historicaly relevant to the study of motion. It is Aristotles theory of Impetus (which incidentally was wildly inacurate)

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/physics/astrocourses/ast203/impetus_theory.html


Aristotelian trajectory:
Impetus comes from surrounding air, which receives it from the pusher (a catapult, for example). This results in a straight line trajectory, with decreasing velocity.
At a certain point, the force is exhausted so the projetile falls downwards in a straight line

Although yes, this was before scientific method was in widespread use.

[The Minx]

Finally, someone who shares my love of spelling "high" correctly. Oh, wondrous lady, where have you been all my life?

Hee hee. :smallbiggrin:

Mostly poring over notes, print outs and computer screens. :smallsmile:

[Nameless]

Anyway, what's the deal with String Theory? I'm of divided mind about it

On the one hand, it apparently can explain a whole damn lot of the universe. On the other hand... (http://xkcd.com/171/)

It sounds interesting and if true, should help with time travel.
I hope they don't travel back in time though, the universe is complicated enough and we don't need more alternate universes then we already have. :smalltongue:

[Winterwind]

Anyway, what's the deal with String Theory? I'm of divided mind about it

On the one hand, it apparently can explain a whole damn lot of the universe. On the other hand... (http://xkcd.com/171/)It is a theoretical model of certain appeal, the work on which has led to considerable new developments and insights in mathematics, which is however taking more and more flak within the physicist community, as it is, essentially, a non-scientific hypothesis - string theory has not made any predictions which could be tested (within the energy limits available to mankind now or in any foreseeable future), and actually consists of hundreds of thousands of different models with nary a way to determine which of them (if any) is the correct one. So, while the work associated with string theory, like developing the tools needed to formulate and work with it, has been quite useful, the string theory itself is of very limited usefulness at best, and increasing numbers of physicists believe that so many scientists working on something that is, essentially, not science at all is a huge waste of talent and time.

(I should note however that my statement here might be somewhat coloured by the professor under whom I made my physics diploma (basically Master) was one of those who are extremely skeptical regarding the string theory, and 'extremely skeptical' is a very euphemistic description)



It sounds interesting and if true, should help with time travel.
I hope they don't travel back in time though, the universe is complicated enough and we don't need more alternate universes then we already have. :smalltongue:As much as I hate to be a spoilsport, as physicist I have to say a big No to that. :smalltongue:
To the best of my knowledge, the only instances of time running backwards that are part of theories considered to be potentially correct by the scientific community occur beyond Schwarzschild radii (read, black holes), which are not exactly the right conditions for a time machine. :smallwink:
For example, Kruskal coordinates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal_coordinates) are a potentially correct model - if not exactly a testable one either - of what happens beyond a Schwarzschild radius and basically predict that space becomes timelike - there remains only one direction - and time becomes spacelike - one can move about freely. I'm doubtful whether this Wikipedia article can be understood without some extensive experience with the General Theory of Relativity though. A very fascinating subject, if you ask me.

[Nameless]

It is a theoretical model of certain appeal, the work on which has led to considerable new developments and insights in mathematics, which is however taking more and more flak within the physicist community, as it is, essentially, a non-scientific hypothesis - string theory has not made any predictions which could be tested (within the energy limits available to mankind now or in any foreseeable future), and actually consists of hundreds of thousands of different models with nary a way to determine which of them (if any) is the correct one. So, while the work associated with string theory, like developing the tools needed to formulate and work with it, has been quite useful, the string theory itself is of very limited usefulness at best, and increasing numbers of physicists believe that so many scientists working on something that is, essentially, not science at all is a huge waste of talent and time.

(I should note however that my statement here might be somewhat coloured by the professor under whom I made my physics diploma (basically Master) was one of those who are extremely skeptical regarding the string theory, and 'extremely skeptical' is a very euphemistic description)


As much as I hate to be a spoilsport, as physicist I have to say a big No to that. :smalltongue:
To the best of my knowledge, the only instances of time running backwards that are part of theories considered to be potentially correct by the scientific community occur beyond Schwarzschild radii (read, black holes), which are not exactly the right conditions for a time machine. :smallwink:
For example, Kruskal coordinates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal_coordinates) are a potentially correct model - if not exactly a testable one either - of what happens beyond a Schwarzschild radius and basically predict that space becomes timelike - there remains only one direction - and time becomes spacelike - one can move about freely. I'm doubtful whether this Wikipedia article can be understood without some extensive experience with the General Theory of Relativity though. A very fascinating subject, if you ask me.

If you ask me, I think travelling back in time is best left untested. I may sound ignorant, and although it would be a great achievement, I believe those are one of the few things in science (very few things) I believe should be left out.
Travelling forward in time is a different matter, and much more simple in theory.
It's believed that when astronauts go into space, and then come back down to earth, they've actually travelled into the future by a fraction of a second. The time travel theory that convinces me the most is the worm hole one, and going past the speed of light.
But generally speaking, I think we should stop worrying about time travel and focus on other things in science... LIKE HOVER CARS! :smallbiggrin:

[averagejoe]

If you ask me, I think travelling back in time is best left untested. I may sound ignorant, and although it would be a great achievement, I believe those are one of the few things in science (very few things) I believe should be left out.

How come, out of curiosity?


Travelling forward in time is a different matter, and much more simple in theory.
It's believed that when astronauts go into space, and then come back down to earth, they've actually travelled into the future by a fraction of a second. The time travel theory that convinces me the most is the worm hole one, and going past the speed of light.

Future time travel is pretty easy. For one, you're traveling into the future right now. :smalltongue:

You're not quite correct about the astronaut thing. What happens is things traveling at high velocities with respect to you experience time at a slower rate than you do. A similar method of future time travel would be some form of cryostasis (if we can ever figure out how to wake the people up. :smallwink:)

Wormholes and faster than light travel are, as far as I know, theoretical impossibilities. Which isn't to say it can't happen, but we'd need a serious readjustment of our theory. For one, we'd have to tread carefully and not violate causality. (http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html)

[Winterwind]

If you ask me, I think travelling back in time is best left untested. I may sound ignorant, and although it would be a great achievement, I believe those are one of the few things in science (very few things) I believe should be left out.Well, I think you can relax, then, as so far everything points to it not being possible at all. :smallwink:


Travelling forward in time is a different matter, and much more simple in theory.
It's believed that when astronauts go into space, and then come back down to earth, they've actually travelled into the future by a fraction of a second.That's not believed, that's proven. As in, it has been experimentally observed and verified to be the case.
Though it has nothing to do with space and being astronauts, and is not exactly time travel either; as averagejoe already said, it is merely an effect of time slowing down when travelling at high velocities (the way time dilatation was experimentally observed was by taking two extremely precise atomic clocks with perfect synchronization, and then having one fly for a while in a high-speed plane; they were decidedly out of sync afterwards, by exactly as much as Special Theory of Relativity predicted).
That's not entirely exact either, to be honest (what really does the trick here is the change of the system of reference), but it's close enough.


The time travel theory that convinces me the most is the worm hole one, and going past the speed of light.I am frankly not quite sure what the worm hole theory would be; none of the courses on relativity I attended ever mentioned worm holes. I thought these were a pure science-fiction, not scientific concept, though as I see now in Wikipedia it would appear I was mistaken with regards to this. Still, understandably I cannot make an informed comment on that.

As for going past the speed of light, relativity indeed predicts that something moving with more than the speed of light would travel backwards through time. It would also have further strange features, to say the least, such as negative energy and imaginary mass. Theoretical particles with these properties are called tachyons and usually if a theory necessitates their existance it is immediately disregarded on account of that alone. In other words, while I won't be quoted on saying that FTL is impossible, it is in massive violation of the current theories.


But generally speaking, I think we should stop worrying about time travel and focus on other things in science... LIKE HOVER CARS! :smallbiggrin:Iunno... I enjoy discussions of fundamental things more than specific applications... :smalltongue:

[averagejoe]

I have to say that, even though I currently hate it right now, optical pumping is pretty cool. (My hate comes from an irrational emotional response coming from me having to give an oral presentation on it in about an hour, which I am super nervous about.)

Is it weird that I see the science thread much like how other people seem to see the depression thread? Gosh but I'm getting tired of school.

[Winterwind]

I have to say that, even though I currently hate it right now, optical pumping is pretty cool. (My hate comes from an irrational emotional response coming from me having to give an oral presentation on it in about an hour, which I am super nervous about.)Optical pumping? You mean, as in trying to achieve population inversion, for example in a laser?
Yes, that's pretty cool, alright. :smallcool:


Is it weird that I see the science thread much like how other people seem to see the depression thread? Gosh but I'm getting tired of school.Huh... that particular comparison didn't occur to me yet.
But yes, it is immensly enjoyable. :smallbiggrin:

[Nameless]

How come, out of curiosity?

Well, if you look at the traditional theory of time travel. Going to the past will change the future etc.
The we have something similar the butterfly effect, which scares me a little to be honest.
If you look at the multiple universe theory, (which I came up with in secondary school, thought I had a breakthrough that eliminated all the paradoxes, but then learned someone else got there before me ._.) then we’re not really going back in time, and we won’t really be changing anything.

The real answer is that even if we can travel back into our own past, it scares the hell out of me.
Luckily though, I don’t think we can. :D


You're not quite correct about the astronaut thing. What happens is things traveling at high velocities with respect to you experience time at a slower rate than you do. A similar method of future time travel would be some form of cryostasis (if we can ever figure out how to wake the people up. :smallwink:)


That's not believed, that's proven. As in, it has been experimentally observed and verified to be the case.
Though it has nothing to do with space and being astronauts, and is not exactly time travel either; as averagejoe already said, it is merely an effect of time slowing down when travelling at high velocities (the way time dilatation was experimentally observed was by taking two extremely precise atomic clocks with perfect synchronization, and then having one fly for a while in a high-speed plane; they were decidedly out of sync afterwards, by exactly as much as Special Theory of Relativity predicted).
That's not entirely exact either, to be honest (what really does the trick here is the change of the system of reference), but it's close enough.


How dare you argue with that American/oriental physicist of whom I can never remember the name of which I probably misunderstood horribly! :smalltongue:


I am frankly not quite sure what the worm hole theory would be; none of the courses on relativity I attended ever mentioned worm holes. I thought these were a pure science-fiction, not scientific concept, though as I see now in Wikipedia it would appear I was mistaken with regards to this. Still, understandably I cannot make an informed comment on that.

If space does in fact bend as the theory suggests, then it makes a lot of sense to me.
Then again, we may be completely wrong about worm holes.
Either way, It’s a nice theory.

[bibliophile]

I don't think these've been mentioned yet, but are too cool not to.

FUSION POWER! (getting there)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER


COMMERCIAL SPACE TRAVEL! (getting there)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_two

[averagejoe]

Well, if you look at the traditional theory of time travel. Going to the past will change the future etc.
The we have something similar the butterfly effect, which scares me a little to be honest.
If you look at the multiple universe theory, (which I came up with in secondary school, thought I had a breakthrough that eliminated all the paradoxes, but then learned someone else got there before me ._.) then we’re not really going back in time, and we won’t really be changing anything.

Well, either way it would be fairly easy to test with inconsequential things; for example, walking through a doorway, then traveling back in time a few moments and trying to punch yourself in the arm or something (so it wouldn't interfere with any events, but the past would still be changed.)

This point of view has never made a lot of sense to me, however, and no one seems to be able to pull it off without everything being full of contradictions as to how it works. I really don't get time paradoxes, and I tend to find them more a product of humanity's general egocentrism than any real thought. I mean, my grandfather didn't die before my father was born, so it's obvious that neither I nor anyone else chose to go back and kill him. To say, "What if I went back and killed my own grandfather," makes about as much sense to me as, "Yesterday I think I'll have made toast instead of cereal." You ate cereal yesterday, and nothing you do now can change that.

However, this is all philosophy. There's no scientific basis at all.


How dare you argue with that American/oriental physicist of whom I can never remember the name of which I probably misunderstood horribly! :smalltongue:

Be wary of the casual study of physics; there are a lot of quacks out there. (Also, you rarely learn any physics one way or the other.) Someday I'll put together a bunch of warning signs or something.

[Naleh]

SCIENCE! *high five*

Multiple universes seems to be the only solution to causality problems, but I greatly doubt practical time travel is possible at all.

Wormholes... Well, they aren't technically FTL. They're just shortcuts. And, yes, since space appears to be curved, it appears wormholes could exist - but there's nothing with enough gravity to make one.

Yeah, I'm a bit of a party pooper with these things. :smallredface:


Well, either way it would be fairly easy to test with inconsequential things; for example, walking through a doorway, then traveling back in time a few moments and trying to punch yourself in the arm or something (so it wouldn't interfere with any events, but the past would still be changed.)
By definition, changing the past is interfering with events. What if, after being punched in the arm, you didn't go through the door? At the very least, existing in the past will imperceptibly alter air currents, which will eventually completely change the weather and the course of history. (Butterfly effect.)


This point of view has never made a lot of sense to me, however, and no one seems to be able to pull it off without everything being full of contradictions as to how it works. I really don't get time paradoxes, and I tend to find them more a product of humanity's general egocentrism than any real thought. I mean, my grandfather didn't die before my father was born, so it's obvious that neither I nor anyone else chose to go back and kill him. To say, "What if I went back and killed my own grandfather," makes about as much sense to me as, "Yesterday I think I'll have made toast instead of cereal." You ate cereal yesterday, and nothing you do now can change that.
I can understand where you're coming from. Several fields of science - or of layman's understanding of it - do seem to be a product of humanity's egocentrism. Obviously you never went back and killed your grandfather, because he hasn't been killed. But the thing is, what stops you from going back and killing your grandfather?

You might never try, but you also might never encounter the colour yellow - that doesn't mean yellow doesn't exist.




Anyway, time travel aside, the reason I'm bringing this thread back from the edge of inactivity is to ask: What does everyone think of dark matter? (Not to be confused with antimatter!)

A vast amount of matter, which interacts with the "normal" universe only through gravity... Now, I could accept that, if there was any evidence. And indeed there is - it doesn't seem galaxies have enough gravity to hold themselves together without dark matter.

But if it exists, then it should gravitationally coalesce in the same way as ordinary matter. In fact it should gravitationally coalesce with ordinary matter. Which would make everything heavier. Which would mean that when we measured a star's mass, it would include the dark mass. Which would mean that galaxies would appear to have as much mass as they need.

[Random NPC]

SCIENCE! *hi-5*

I'm a Bioengineering student, taking right now Biophysics, Electronics and Mathematical Methods.

So, I have to juggle with Amino Acids, Proteins and Enzymes, Diodes, Op-Amps and MOSFETs, and Partial derivatives, matrices and infinite series.

By the way, I hate Diodes, Op-Amps, MOSFETs, transconductance, dopants... ARGH! :smallfurious:

[Serpentine]

Anyway, time travel aside, the reason I'm bringing this thread back from the edge of inactivity is to ask: What does everyone think of dark matter? (Not to be confused with antimatter!)I like coming up with party-pooping explanations of "supernatural" phenomena, and I reckon that maybe dark matter could have something to do with some of 'em. For example, ghosts: Assuming (possibly erroneously) that some people really have seen these things, then they must be made of something, or those people couldn't have observed them. However, we don't seem to be able to otherwise detect them, and most of them cannot be touched or otherwise interacted with. What if the "stuff" they're made of is dark matter, that for some reason becomes visible under certain circumstances? What if things and/or events put a sort of "imprint" on it, that is "replayed" at a later time? Maybe even the higher electrical output that (I suppose...) is produced by the human brain and/or body in times of extreme emotion could increase the likelihood of this "imprint" being formed.
Of course, I have absolutely evidence of this, and I can't think of any way to test it, and I have no idea whether what is known about dark matter (little to none?) might support it. But hey, it's a theory, and at least as viable a one as all those others out there :smallwink:

[Killersquid]

SCIENCE! *High five*

First year of college, taking Bio 100 as an introductory course to Biology. Not doing the best, don't know if its because I'm bad at it or still getting used to college life.

Also, I suck at math I think.

[Winterwind]

Anyway, time travel aside, the reason I'm bringing this thread back from the edge of inactivity is to ask: What does everyone think of dark matter? (Not to be confused with antimatter!)Fascinating. Though not nearly as spooky as dark energy. At least it behaves like other things we know (except ignoring most interactions), interacts with gravity normally, etc. Dark energy, of which there is thrice as much, does not.

Personally, half of me wishes the good old theory that it is in fact neutrinos held true, as it would mean it is at least a kind of particles we know already, and half that it is something completely novel, with a million of untold secrets to unravel ahead of us. :smallbiggrin:


A vast amount of matter, which interacts with the "normal" universe only through gravity... Now, I could accept that, if there was any evidence. And indeed there is - it doesn't seem galaxies have enough gravity to hold themselves together without dark matter.

But if it exists, then it should gravitationally coalesce in the same way as ordinary matter. In fact it should gravitationally coalesce with ordinary matter. Which would make everything heavier. Which would mean that when we measured a star's mass, it would include the dark mass. Which would mean that galaxies would appear to have as much mass as they need.We can not only determine that there has to be dark matter for the structures we see in the Universe to have formed*1, we can also determine where it has to be for the structures to have formed the way they did. Thusly, we can keep regular and dark matter apart. And as far as I know, dark matter does in fact not typically coalesce with ordinary matter.

*1 If going with the theories that assume dark matter that is; those are the most likely ones, most fitting the observations, but they are not the only explanation. Alternative theories that scientists work on (though often more as thought experiment to gain a better understanding of relativity, rather than because they truly assume those alternatives to be the real description of the Universe; there is just too much that indicates that dark matter exists) include, for example, the assumption that relativity breaks down on very large scales, and hence gravity functions differently than we assume it to when dealing with galaxies, or that some laws of nature (in particular, core elements of the General Theory of Relativity) might be changing over time.

[Naleh]

We can not only determine that there has to be dark matter for the structures we see in the Universe to have formed*1, we can also determine where it has to be for the structures to have formed the way they did. Thusly, we can keep regular and dark matter apart. And as far as I know, dark matter does in fact not typically coalesce with ordinary matter.

No, but you see, that doesn't work.

When two specks of 'visible' dust pass by each other in space, they exert gravity on each other, pulling them closer together. Eventually enough specks can be attracted together to coalesce into a solar system.

When a speck of 'visible' dust passes by a speck of 'dark' dust, they exert gravity on each other, pulling them closer together. But they can never accumulated into a solar system?

[Verruckt]

SCIENCE! :High Five:

I type this in my "Stand Back, I'm going to try SCIENCE!" shirt, so I feel much at home here. I'm majoring in Philosophy in school, and have a ravenous interest in Quantum Physics as well. I think they are the most fascinating fields of study available today, but an engineering student friend of mine at another school suggested that this shows I simply have a huge appetite for pain. I've gotten to the point in my studies that allows me to be 100% certain that I can be certain of nothing...:smallfrown:

It's thoroughly confusing, but offers such great opportunities. For instance I am currently trying to convince one of my professors to allow me to write my term paper debating whether or not it is even possible to talk about philosophy without coming across as an immensely pretentious douche receptacle. (My instinct is to say yes, but then again I enjoy reading Dresden Codak, so I may in fact be a pretentious douche receptacle, which does little to help my argument:smalleek:)

Any way, it's an utterly bamboozling field, but someone's got to study it :smallsmile:

[Nameless]

Then how can you be certain that you can be 100% certain that you can never be certain? :smalleek:

[Verruckt]

Then how can you be certain that you can be 100% certain that you can never be certain? :smalleek:

And now you know my pain :smallamused:. All I really mean is that since I'm studying philosophy I have to consign myself to never finding any concrete answers. As soon as a philosopher figures out something concrete they aren't doing philosophy any more, they've founded a science (or at least that's my understanding.) All this is stuff I'm finding out in my intro classes mind you, so as I go forward I can look forward to increasingly complex ways of saying "I have a great idea about the way everything works! Read this paper and watch it collapse in on itself 50 or so pages in!" At least Kant and Kierkegaard had the presence of mind to admit the necessity of the eventual "leap of faith".

[Winterwind]

No, but you see, that doesn't work.

When two specks of 'visible' dust pass by each other in space, they exert gravity on each other, pulling them closer together. Eventually enough specks can be attracted together to coalesce into a solar system.

When a speck of 'visible' dust passes by a speck of 'dark' dust, they exert gravity on each other, pulling them closer together. But they can never accumulated into a solar system?When two specks of 'visible' dust pass by each other in space, they exert gravity on each other, pulling them closer together so that other interactions kick in - most importantly, the electromagnetic interaction, that binds them into actual atoms, and those into bigger structures. Sure, enough dark matter put together could form a body held together by gravity alone, but depending on its nature and velocity the gravity of, say, a mere star might not suffice to effectively trap it, allowing it to escape again. Neutrinos, which shoot right through normal matter without being stopped in any significant amounts would be a good example for that.

[Pyrian]

Then how can you be certain that you can be 100% certain that you can never be certain? :smalleek:Short answer: you can't.

Long answer: certainty is a logical impossibility given what we think of our own capacities, so our certainty of our lack of certainty is approximately equivalent to our uncertainty in our own abilities.

[Nameless]

And now you know my pain :smallamused:. All I really mean is that since I'm studying philosophy I have to consign myself to never finding any concrete answers. As soon as a philosopher figures out something concrete they aren't doing philosophy any more, they've founded a science (or at least that's my understanding.) All this is stuff I'm finding out in my intro classes mind you, so as I go forward I can look forward to increasingly complex ways of saying "I have a great idea about the way everything works! Read this paper and watch it collapse in on itself 50 or so pages in!" At least Kant and Kierkegaard had the presence of mind to admit the necessity of the eventual "leap of faith".

So you could say that phylosophers are just faild sientist. :smallamused::smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

[averagejoe]

I can understand where you're coming from. Several fields of science - or of layman's understanding of it - do seem to be a product of humanity's egocentrism. Obviously you never went back and killed your grandfather, because he hasn't been killed. But the thing is, what stops you from going back and killing your grandfather?

You might never try, but you also might never encounter the colour yellow - that doesn't mean yellow doesn't exist.

See, but, again, that question doesn't make any sense to me. Nothing stops you from doing it, you didn't do it. I might as well ask, "What stops me from having gone to the movies yesterday instead of sitting at home?"


And now you know my pain :smallamused:. All I really mean is that since I'm studying philosophy I have to consign myself to never finding any concrete answers. As soon as a philosopher figures out something concrete they aren't doing philosophy any more, they've founded a science (or at least that's my understanding.) All this is stuff I'm finding out in my intro classes mind you, so as I go forward I can look forward to increasingly complex ways of saying "I have a great idea about the way everything works! Read this paper and watch it collapse in on itself 50 or so pages in!" At least Kant and Kierkegaard had the presence of mind to admit the necessity of the eventual "leap of faith".

That's funny, because as a scientist I have to consign myself to never being able to know anything.

If philosophy doesn't give concrete answers then what's the use of it?

[Verruckt]

That's funny, because as a scientist I have to consign myself to never being able to know anything.

If philosophy doesn't give concrete answers then what's the use of it?

Bertrand Russel wrote on that question far better than I can hope to explain here. (in a piece called "On the Value of Philosophy" no less) The gist of it is that science and philosophy are of equal use, science trying to determine "how" and philosophy trying to determine "why".

[Naleh]

See, but, again, that question doesn't make any sense to me. Nothing stops you from doing it, you didn't do it. I might as well ask, "What stops me from having gone to the movies yesterday instead of sitting at home?"

So, in the hypothetical situation that someone builds a working time machine... they will never use it? Whether they want to or not, they won't?

[averagejoe]

science and philosophy are of equal use

I'd dispute this, but it isn't like a philosopher could give a concrete reason why it's correct. :smalltongue:

Edit:


So, in the hypothetical situation that someone builds a working time machine... they will never use it? Whether they want to or not, they won't?

I lay no claim to knowing what will happen in the future. That has yet to be determined.

[Verruckt]

I'd dispute this, but it isn't like a philosopher could give a concrete reason why it's correct. :smalltongue:


To quote Berty:

"Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good."


As to your time travel question, the way I've always thought about it is this: If you think of time from an atemporal standpoint, looking at it as an infinite string of finite lines (big bang to big crunch, rinse repeat ad infinitum) then any and all time travel within one finite line has happened, you don't need to worry about time travel changing the past because if it will then it already has.

[averagejoe]

not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves

That is patently untrue; I'll grant that philosophers have the bad habit of constructing questions that can inherently not be answered, and perhaps there is some value in contemplating koans, but I have certainly obtained some definite answers through my own philosophies that have directly helped me in my life. Contemplating answers in vain is masturbation; don't get me wrong, I don't use this as derogatory, but it also doesn't really do much for anyone else.

[Verruckt]

That is patently untrue; I'll grant that philosophers have the bad habit of constructing questions that can inherently not be answered, and perhaps there is some value in contemplating koans, but I have certainly obtained some definite answers through my own philosophies that have directly helped me in my life. Contemplating answers in vain is masturbation; don't get me wrong, I don't use this as derogatory, but it also doesn't really do much for anyone else.

You pretty much hit it on the head, and the debate is still raging as to whether anything can be considered really "true". Dissertations written by people much smarter than I have been done on the subject and still found wanting. If you figure out a bulletproof case for or against absolute "Truth", let me know, I'll write the book and we can split the Nobel prize money.

[averagejoe]

You pretty much hit it on the head, and the debate is still raging as to whether anything can be considered really "true". Dissertations written by people much smarter than I have been done on the subject and still found wanting. If you figure out a bulletproof case for or against absolute "Truth", let me know, I'll write the book and we can split the Nobel prize money.

Yes, but quibbling over such details is exactly what's silly about philosophy. You search for these grand notions, even if they have no use to you beyond academic curiosity and a bit of prestige. Sticking one's fingers in one's ears and chanting, "Brain in a jar," does nothing for anyone. On the other hand, science makes no claim to absolute truth, and yet you use a computer, probably live in a house, and have probably never had any serious worry of dying from exposure, starvation, or disease. If physics has taught me one thing, it's that it's stupid to worry about nanometers of precision when your ruler can only measure millimeters. That was a metaphor for how one should regard the search for absolute truth, by the way.

[Verruckt]

Yes, but quibbling over such details is exactly what's silly about philosophy. You search for these grand notions, even if they have no use to you beyond academic curiosity and a bit of prestige. Sticking one's fingers in one's ears and chanting, "Brain in a jar," does nothing for anyone. On the other hand, science makes no claim to absolute truth, and yet you use a computer, probably live in a house, and have probably never had any serious worry of dying from exposure, starvation, or disease. If physics has taught me one thing, it's that it's stupid to worry about nanometers of precision when your ruler can only measure millimeters. That was a metaphor for how one should regard the search for absolute truth, by the way.

But wait, it sounds to me like you're saying we shouldn't bother to contemplate things we can't hope to understand, and by that logic no caveman should ever have tried to figure out fire, because no matter how hard he looked at it he would never be able to figure out that heat was caused by molecular agitation just by looking at it. Just because we can't ever ultimately reach the goal doesn't mean we should not attempt to pursue it anyway. Science is full of examples of situations were more useful things have been discovered incidentally or by accident during the pursuit of something totally different. Philosophy is useful because at some point someone was sitting there with their fingers in their ears chanting "Brain in a jar" when they got the idea for the law of identity. Boom, mathematics. (incidentally, "somebody" was Aristotle) Philosophy gave us Logic, and you don't need a grounding in ethics to make the value judgment that Logic is a good thing. Philosophy is useful because without it we end up with Rappacini's Daughter, it provides the heart between the head and the hands, it gives us a "why", some reason for advancement other than knowledge for it's own sake.

[Pyrian]

Science was born of philosophical concepts that had no practical use at the time they were invented, and most of modern engineering and science was also born of so-called "pure science" that had no application at the time it was invented. Mathematics has whole branches devoted to finding interesting math with no practical purpose whatsoever and yet they have frequently failed (occasionally spectacularly), constantly being harvested by physicists for models.

Be very careful about what you declare useless.

My problem with most philosophy isn't that it's useless, it's that it's obviously wrong - conclusions are almost invariably drawn from incomplete evidence or shaky premises or, worst of all, outright faulty logic.

[averagejoe]

But wait, it sounds to me like you're saying we shouldn't bother to contemplate things we can't hope to understand, and by that logic no caveman should ever have tried to figure out fire, because no matter how hard he looked at it he would never be able to figure out that heat was caused by molecular agitation just by looking at it. Just because we can't ever ultimately reach the goal doesn't mean we should not attempt to pursue it anyway. Science is full of examples of situations were more useful things have been discovered incidentally or by accident during the pursuit of something totally different. Philosophy is useful because at some point someone was sitting there with their fingers in their ears chanting "Brain in a jar" when they got the idea for the law of identity. Boom, mathematics. (incidentally, "somebody" was Aristotle) Philosophy gave us Logic, and you don't need a grounding in ethics to make the value judgment that Logic is a good thing. Philosophy is useful because without it we end up with Rappacini's Daughter, it provides the heart between the head and the hands, it gives us a "why", some reason for advancement other than knowledge for it's own sake.

I'm not saying that philosophy is useless; indeed, I believe that I said a few posts ago that philosophy has had real direct use in my life. I'm saying that it seems to put great importance on very silly things; I pick on "no absolute truth" because people seem to like to bring that one up, yet I've never known it to add anything to an argument. Well, except for arguments about the nature of truth, of course. But this is the sort of thing you see all the time in philosophy; people get so enamored by these high concepts and unanswerable questions that they forget to make an actual argument or point.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't contemplate things we don't understand. I'm saying it's useless to bring up such things in argument as points, especially when we already have fairly universally agreed on close-enough-for-government-work ideas that are perfectly serviceable, and lose nothing when you use them. I acknowledge that no one really knows whether there is absolute truth, I choose to believe that nothing is absolutely true, and as a scientist I cannot admit to knowing anything. This does not mean that what most people mean by "true," has no validity, and it doesn't mean I can't hold a conversation to that effect. This understanding can extend to most such concepts.

Also: I don't know what you mean by the law of identity, and I don't know who Rappacini is or why I should care about his daughter.

[GoC]

Philosophy has many branches. Most of them completely useless. The useful one is currently called logic/mathematics. I'm not sure there is anything else useful in philosophy but somehow I doubt it.

[Verruckt]

I'm not saying that philosophy is useless; indeed, I believe that I said a few posts ago that philosophy has had real direct use in my life. I'm saying that it seems to put great importance on very silly things; I pick on "no absolute truth" because people seem to like to bring that one up, yet I've never known it to add anything to an argument. Well, except for arguments about the nature of truth, of course. But this is the sort of thing you see all the time in philosophy; people get so enamored by these high concepts and unanswerable questions that they forget to make an actual argument or point.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't contemplate things we don't understand. I'm saying it's useless to bring up such things in argument as points, especially when we already have fairly universally agreed on close-enough-for-government-work ideas that are perfectly serviceable, and lose nothing when you use them. I acknowledge that no one really knows whether there is absolute truth, I choose to believe that nothing is absolutely true, and as a scientist I cannot admit to knowing anything. This does not mean that what most people mean by "true," has no validity, and it doesn't mean I can't hold a conversation to that effect. This understanding can extend to most such concepts.

Also: I don't know what you mean by the law of identity, and I don't know who Rappacini is or why I should care about his daughter.

Firstly, Truth is important because its pursuit forms the basis for most scientific endeavor. Without wanting to know the Truth, what is the motivation for new discovery?
Secondly, Wikipedia is your friend:
The Law of Identity, in simplest terms, is that A=A, or 1=1. You can see how this might be vital to math, physics and well, everything.
Rappaccini's Daughter is a short story by Hawthorne that serves as a sort of cautionary tale about scientific ethics, which brings us to:


Philosophy has many branches. Most of them completely useless. The useful one is currently called logic/mathematics. I'm not sure there is anything else useful in philosophy but somehow I doubt it.

*Points angrily at Ethics* The ability to make "correct" value judgments is pretty vital to every decision in life. I have yet to take more than a brief overview of Ethics and even that bare whiff is enough to convince me of its necessity.

and you should damn well know that you intentionally thick troll :P

[averagejoe]

Firstly, Truth is important because its pursuit forms the basis for most scientific endeavor. Without wanting to know the Truth, what is the motivation for new discovery?

I'm not sure how one follows the other, at least in light of what I was saying about it.


Secondly, Wikipedia is your friend:

It really isn't. The article on Rappaccini's Daughter did nothing to help me figure out what you meant by using the expression. I already knew what the law of identity is; I know a good deal more mathematics than most people. I asked what you meant by it there. I'm still not sure, looking back.

[Nameless]

Today I talked about SCIENCE! with some freinds at college. :smalltongue:

[Winterwind]

And? What new insights were gained by that discussion? :smallsmile:

[GoC]

*Points angrily at Ethics* The ability to make "correct" value judgments is pretty vital to every decision in life. I have yet to take more than a brief overview of Ethics and even that bare whiff is enough to convince me of its necessity.
I'd forgotten that ethics was a part of philosophy. Still, there are huge areas of philosophy that are useless.

[Eldan]

Science! (http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/22039/?a=f)

Seriously. It's ridiculously cool. I've already seen it a few months ago, but yesterday, we talked about Ghost in the shell, and I remembered it again.

[TheBST]

I'd forgotten that ethics was a part of philosophy. Still, there are huge areas of philosophy that are useless.

At the same time, I consider large parts of science to have little 'use'. Cosmology for instance.

But then again, isn't this debate- about the 'usefulness' or certain areas of study, a philosophical matter rather than scientific one? To me, that shows there's a lot of value to be had in philosophy. Science is about how the universe works, philosphy is about what we should do with all that information. Both important.

[Serpentine]

So far as I can tell, the vast majority of the value of philosophy, much like most of the rest of the Arts, is not the specific knowledge or conclusions that you come to, but that it teaches you how to think, how to reason, weigh up options and arguments, improve debating and general communication skills, etc. But mostly how to think. Thus, I think it is quite important in science. Incidentally, I believe it's actually technically (or something) called "The philosophy of science".

So. Science... How freaking awesome is the internet, people?!

[averagejoe]

At the same time, I consider large parts of science to have little 'use'. Cosmology for instance.

But then again, isn't this debate- about the 'usefulness' or certain areas of study, a philosophical matter rather than scientific one? To me, that shows there's a lot of value to be had in philosophy. Science is about how the universe works, philosphy is about what we should do with all that information. Both important.

Well, when I was talking about usefulness I meant in the context of determining what that line of inquiry was meant to determine.

How is cosmology useless? It's such a wide field that it's not really a claim one can definitively make.

The problem with the philosophical view of ethics and such is that there is rarely any reason to prefer one philosophical view over another except for purely subjective reasons. In this sense philosophers know little to nothing, and so their actual influence on things is rather debatable.


So far as I can tell, the vast majority of the value of philosophy, much like most of the rest of the Arts, is not the specific knowledge or conclusions that you come to, but that it teaches you how to think, how to reason, weigh up options and arguments, improve debating and general communication skills, etc. But mostly how to think. Thus, I think it is quite important in science. Incidentally, I believe it's actually technically (or something) called "The philosophy of science".

So. Science... How freaking awesome is the internet, people?!

Actually, this is especially true for math and the sciences. Learning how to think, I mean. A physics teacher will most often let you have any "memorizable" information readily available to you, and in fact the only reason not to make the tests open book is because then the students will waste time flipping through the book instead of doing the test; it's a prevention against self sabotage. The tests will have questions and situations which you have never seen before, and you have to find some sort of solution. A doctorate level physicist will often have trouble with an undergraduate test, because experience will only take you so far, you have to learn how to correctly reason.

One may say that this is even more true for math, as there are less things one has to memorize to get by. The goal of both is effectively the same, however; to teach one to think.

The internet is totally awesome. I am still overwhelmed by the fact that nearly any information I want is mere keystrokes away, and that I am right now communicating with people across the globe.

[TheBST]

How is cosmology useless? It's such a wide field that it's not really a claim one can definitively make.

The problem with the philosophical view of ethics and such is that there is rarely any reason to prefer one philosophical view over another except for purely subjective reasons. In this sense philosophers know little to nothing, and so their actual influence on things is rather debatable.


Money, time and effort that could be better spent fixing things down here.

Of course philosophy is subjective. Logic studies aside, it's mostly a study of the purely subjective so any 'view of ethics' is naturally subjective. The fact that it can't be measured in any scientific sense makes it harder to debate it's 'worth', but philosophy- as a study of knowledge itself and ways of perceiving the world which intersects with psychology, sociology and politics- doesn't seem to me that easy to dismiss. Case in point: wouldn't you say the philosophy of skepticism has helped the scientific community?

[Trizap]

I have finally discovered this thread.

Perfect. I have many crazy theories, they are probably wrong.

that won't stop me from posting them in this thread...........muahahahahahaa....

beware, I am Mad Scientist Trizap!

[averagejoe]

beware, I am Mad Scientist Trizap!

I doubt that. (http://cowbirdsinlove.com/46)


Money, time and effort that could be better spent fixing things down here.

If that's the case, then it goes doubly for philosophy grants. Cosmology, at least, produces results that have application in sciences that do help to fix things down here.

In addition, this statement doesn't actually answer my question. I asked how cosmology was useless. Where to put time, money, and effort is a moot point anyways; the time, money, and effort spent on most things is less than optimum given available resources, but that doesn't mean those things are completely useless. You're raising a completely different issue, one of practicality rather than one of use.


Of course philosophy is subjective. Logic studies aside, it's mostly a study of the purely subjective so any 'view of ethics' is naturally subjective. The fact that it can't be measured in any scientific sense makes it harder to debate it's 'worth', but philosophy- as a study of knowledge itself and ways of perceiving the world which intersects with psychology, sociology and politics- doesn't seem to me that easy to dismiss. Case in point: wouldn't you say the philosophy of skepticism has helped the scientific community?

Of course it does; that wasn't my point. My point is that it's debatable to what degree one can actually attribute these sorts of things to philosophers. The value in philosophy lies more in getting people to practice it than the ideas it produces.

[Trizap]

I doubt that. (http://cowbirdsinlove.com/46)

.........huh, you have good point.

but I am a mad scientist, I have a theory, that its possible to transmit your thoughts as radio waves to the atoms around you and manipulate them on the subatomic level since electronic signals is technically energy manipulated in subtle ways, and become a wizard through the subatomic manipulation of atoms.

time travel, fast interstellar space travel, and non-vehicular flight can all be attained by manipulating gravity.

matter =energy=gravity=space=time,

therefore,
matter = time
energy = space
space = matter
gravity = matter
time= energy
gravity = time!!

therefore you can transmute matter into time and so on!

[Verruckt]

So far as I can tell, the vast majority of the value of philosophy, much like most of the rest of the Arts, is not the specific knowledge or conclusions that you come to, but that it teaches you how to think, how to reason, weigh up options and arguments, improve debating and general communication skills, etc. But mostly how to think. Thus, I think it is quite important in science. Incidentally, I believe it's actually technically (or something) called "The philosophy of science".

So. Science... How freaking awesome is the internet, people?!

That's actually my philosophy professor's "bumper sticker" definition of philosophy. As he says "Thinking about how we think about stuff". That, to my mind, is extremely useful. Heck, the scientific method is a product of such thought, it's a way of analyzing a phenomenon so that you really know what's going on with it, and can react to it in a reasoned and objective way. To go back to the earlier example of fire, if we didn't have reasoned, curious scientific/philosophical thought we'd never had harnessed it. Thanks to philosophy we can form reasoned decisions. It allows us to study the implications and moral ramifications of any new discovery.

I guess I'm just beating the old Ethics/Logic drum here, but I don't know much else yet :smalleek: I'm probably not the person who should be wearing the Paladin of Philosophy hat here.

also yes, the internet is really freaking awesome, it's the piece of knowledge I would preserve for 10,000 years if I had to choose just 1 (that or books, equally useful imho).

INTERNET!

[averagejoe]

.........huh, you have good point.

but I am a mad scientist, I have a theory, that its possible to transmit your thoughts as radio waves to the atoms around you and manipulate them on the subatomic level since electronic signals is technically energy manipulated in subtle ways, and become a wizard through the subatomic manipulation of atoms.

time travel, fast interstellar space travel, and non-vehicular flight can all be attained by manipulating gravity.

matter =energy=gravity=space=time,

therefore,
matter = time
energy = space
space = matter
gravity = matter
time= energy
gravity = time!!

therefore you can transmute matter into time and so on!

Good luck with that. I find that splicing DNA from dinosaurs with human subjects to create shock troops and laborers is a much more efficient and feasible method for world domination. However, this hypothesis remains yet untested.

[Trizap]

Good luck with that. I find that splicing DNA from dinosaurs with human subjects to create shock troops and laborers is a much more efficient and feasible method for world domination. However, this hypothesis remains yet untested.

............uh who said anything about world domination? aren't you going to tongue lash me about how my theories are wrong!? and how those theories are actually hypothesis's since they are not tested? I do not care about world domination, I just want to see if any of my theories have value or possibility!

[TheBST]

I doubt that. (http://cowbirdsinlove.com/46)If that's the case, then it goes doubly for philosophy grants. Cosmology, at least, produces results that have application in sciences that do help to fix things down here.

Of course it does; that wasn't my point. My point is that it's debatable to what degree one can actually attribute these sorts of things to philosophers. The value in philosophy lies more in getting people to practice it than the ideas it produces.

Philosophy grants? Ok- if they exist I really should rethink my position...

I completely agree with your last sentence.

[averagejoe]

............uh who said anything about world domination? aren't you going to tongue lash me about how my theories are wrong!? and how those theories are actually hypothesis's since they are not tested? I do not care about world domination, I just want to see if any of my theories have value or possibility!

I didn't see the point. You said you were a mad scientist. :smalltongue:

Aren't all mad scientists trying to take over the world? Honestly, what's the point of being mad except to excuse horrendous actions?

[Pyrian]

Honestly, what's the point of being mad except to excuse horrendous actions?Well, it's also used to justify inordinate - but poorly understood - sudden breakthroughs.

[Uncle Festy]

Ahem.
For SCIENCE!
:smallbiggrin:

[Serpentine]

Hmm... I've got a scientific/philosophical question. Pretty old one, but whatever. I don't think it should be too political...
Scientists working under the Nazi regime performed experiments on a number of their prisoners. The experiments were brutal and cruel, but they were on important things and came up with some crucial information that possibly couldn't be found any other way, such as the effects and treatment of hypothermia. Without condoning their actions in any way, and considering they were under orders and that from their point of view the subjects were sub-human and/or the enemy, did the ends justify the means?
Some Wiki-style background. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_experiments)

Incidentally: What is... SCIENCE (http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/science/)?

[averagejoe]

Hmm... I've got a scientific/philosophical question. Pretty old one, but whatever. I don't think it should be too political...
Scientists working under the Nazi regime performed experiments on a number of their prisoners. The experiments were brutal and cruel, but they were on important things and came up with some crucial information that possibly couldn't be found any other way, such as the effects and treatment of hypothermia. Without condoning their actions in any way, and considering they were under orders and that from their point of view the subjects were sub-human and/or the enemy, did the ends justify the means?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Noooooooooooooooo.

I mean, come on, I would have thought that there have been enough movies made with stark warnings and not-so-veiled morals that this issue should be laid to rest.

[Serpentine]

Mmmm... Just because that seemed too quick and hard-line, a quote from the wiki article:

Contemporary knowledge concerning the manner in which our bodies react to freezing is based almost exclusively on these Nazi experiments.I don't think it's likely that there's any other way to get this sort of data without actually freezing someone, and many lives have probably been saved with this knowledge. If we didn't get it from the Nazis, where would we get it from?

[Uncle Festy]

Incidentally: What is... SCIENCE (http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/science/)?

:smalleek:
Augh seizure augh argh ahh! ¬.<

[averagejoe]

Mmmm... Just because that seemed too quick and hard-line, a quote from the wiki article:
I don't think it's likely that there's any other way to get this sort of data without actually freezing someone, and many lives have probably been saved with this knowledge. If we didn't get it from the Nazis, where would we get it from?

I dunno, freezing mice? Looking at people who just happen to get frozen? We wouldn't have gotten it at all? I know little about biology and medicine.

I don't see how the fact that we used this data to save lives which otherwise would have been lost is at all relevant.

[snoopy13a]

Science is bleh :smalltongue:

I worked for a couple of years in a biochemistry research lab at a medical school. Anyway, my job basically consisted of killing rats and running Western Blots.

There's always the pressure of getting good results so the lab can publish papers and continue to get NIH grants. If you don't get good data and publish papers, you'll lose your NIH funding and people lose their jobs. It's called "publish or perish".

It isn't unheard to have people fudge results or even fabricate them. Careers depend on it.

On the bright side, I used to get free stuff from vendors (like Fisher Scientific T-Shirts) and I'm a co-author on a couple of journal articles (don't ask me about them, I didn't write them :smalltongue: ).

Also, if you really want to be a researcher in biochemistry or human biology, I'd recommend the MD/PhD route. The researchers in my department who were also medical doctors (including my boss) weren't under the same pressure as the straight PhDs. That's because if a MD's laboratory research goes south, they still have their clinical work. PhDs have to scramble to find new jobs.

[Pyrian]

I don't see how the fact that we used this data to save lives which otherwise would have been lost is at all relevant.You did recently express contempt for the philosophy of ethics. :smallamused:

Almost everyone recoils in horror at the very idea of inflicting greivous harm for a greater good down the road. The response is visceral, and yet very few people can actually explain it, because logically the ethics of few deaths being better than many deaths seems hard to argue with from a utilitarian viewpoint.

The first, and IMO overly basic response, is of course "principle", an idea which comes very naturally to people. Yet, the plethora of moral codes in existence makes principle seem relatively mutable; on the other hand, those codes tend to have a lot in common at their core (the Nazi experiments, for example, depended on the subjects being seen as inherently inferior beings). So, tossing that parenthetical aside, why else does this idea seem inherently abhorrent across cultural boundaries?

In my opinion, the answer is uncertainty. Moral quandaries are almost always posed in magically knowable universes - which are universes very different from our own!

So, dial back the knowledge aspect. You're a researcher. You're contemplating conducting an experiment whose results you don't know but from ample experience can say will probably fail and probably help nobody. It might someday save some people - you think. Now do you inflict torture and death on some poor saps?

Hopefully not.

Many of the Nazi experiments described would be very difficult to even get IACUC approval for performing on animals, nevermind people.

[Verruckt]

Mmmm... Just because that seemed too quick and hard-line, a quote from the wiki article:
I don't think it's likely that there's any other way to get this sort of data without actually freezing someone, and many lives have probably been saved with this knowledge. If we didn't get it from the Nazis, where would we get it from?

I'd argue both of those assumptions. I doubt you'd need to freeze humans to figure out the way cold effects mammals, and I further doubt that you couldn't do the same sort of stress tests with willing volunteers. And as useful as saving the lives of a few hypothermia victims is, I don't think we've quite equaled the number of people killed in the camps. That way, amusingly and disgustingly, they failed even their own Utilitarian aims and slipped into simple Sadism.

(I know, sadistic Nazis, who'dathunkit?)

[averagejoe]

Well, I guess that blind spot fits in with your apparent contempt for the philosophy of ethics. :smallamused:

Almost everyone recoils in horror at the very idea of inflicting greivous harm for a greater good down the road. The response is visceral, and yet very few people can actually explain it, because logically the ethics of few deaths being better than many deaths seems hard to argue with from a utilitarian viewpoint.

See, this horror seems logical and natural to me. You have these people who, by choice, every day, go into work and cause people great pain, harm, and death. Not only this, but these people are being supported and funded by the government, which is ideally supposed to protect its people. The problem is that once you start doing stuff like this, there's no reason it couldn't happen to anybody. The problem is that people are choosing to do this, and there isn't any reason that they couldn't choose to do it to anyone the like.

On the other hand, the people who are dying from hypothermia, or whatever, are dying from natural causes; tragic, yes, but not something that can be ascribed to anyone. One can try to prevent it by altering the circumstances of their life, but in the end no malicious force is coming at them, it's simply the course of things.

Heck, even serial killers aren't on the same level, because they operate outside of established laws. It is one thing to have a guy stalking around and killing people, but needing to hide this; it is quite another to have a facility set up, in plain view, with full support from the authorities, to murder people.

It is a problem of social contract. The issue isn't the number of people who die, the issue is the safety each person needs to feel. It's like in military films when you have a team of guys risk their lives to save the life of one guy. The actual numbers are irrelevant; it doesn't matter how many people die to rescue that one person. The reason you do this is because that one person fights for you at great risk to themselves, and if you want people to continue fighting for you at great risk to themselves, then each person has to believe that they will never be abandoned by the people they are fighting for. More people might die, but it maintains the herd. I suspect this is highly idealized, and the military may not actually work this way, but it serves as an example.

So that is why the fact that it saves lives is irrelevant. The consequence doesn't matter; the problem is that you're effectively sacrificing people, which cannot be condoned, for fear that one might be sacrificed next.

Edit: Also, I don't actually have contempt for the philosophy of ethics; indeed, I've spent much time and brainpower on just that. I just think that it doesn't do as much as philosophers claim it does.

[Reluctance]

...Without condoning their actions in any way, and considering they were under orders and that from their point of view the subjects were sub-human and/or the enemy, did the ends justify the means?

To clarify, is this "is there merit to using this data, reprehensible as the experiments might be", or "for the sake of argument, can reprehensible actions be excused if the end result advances the greater good/avoids a worse atrocity"?

Because the latter essentially comes down to gut-level revulsion, thus the need to dehumanize the subjects in all cases. Guessing why would have to come down to some "this outlook had an evolutionary advantage" handwave, as with similar explanations for gut-level reactions. The attitude that N% of your population is expendable would be bad on a social scale for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is that you'll be regularly redefining who's expendable as you use up each group, and thus burning quickly through your population. But morality tends to avoid such speculative practicalities.

The former can be pretty incendiary, so I'll just say that I see data as value-neutral.

[Naleh]

I often wonder why it is that I'm in such a minority, in that I would kill a few people to learn how to save many more lives.

(Note that the rest of the deaths caused by the Nazi regime are not relevant to this question, and are of course reprehensible.)

As for Pyrian's redesigned question: It depends on a lot. Such as how major an issue I'm looking at (death by falling into a star vs. cancer), and what the experiments are.

[Pyrian]

The problem is that once you start doing stuff like this, there's no reason it couldn't happen to anybody.The premise was that it couldn't, but whatever; medical ethics do not even exclude volunteers, and IMO for good reasons, as written above. I don't think your line of reasoning actually adds up, averagejoe. Society makes decisions which sacrifice people constantly - and nobody's immune. (The military is even worse.) That's just life. We drive cars to the sacrifice of ~40,000 people a year in the U.S.A. - many of them through no fault of their own. Very very little of that is strictly speaking more necessary than merely convenient. You could easily die at any moment on the altar of easy transportation. (Just recently a plane fell out of the air for no known reason and landed on a house a block away from my ex-girlfriend, killing most of a family.)


On the other hand, the people who are dying from hypothermia, or whatever, are dying from natural causes; tragic, yes, but not something that can be ascribed to anyone. One can try to prevent it by altering the circumstances of their life, but in the end no malicious force is coming at them, it's simply the course of things.So you accept doing nothing to save someone as ethical? Very few people will agree with that - as a utilitarian, myself, I find the distinction fairly elusive. You had the power, made a choice, and someone's dead as a result. The distinction is, again, uncertainty, rather than strictly agency (though that distinction is extremely fuzzy since conscious agency is entirely inversely proportional to uncertainty - you can't make a moral choice while in complete ignorance of the consequences).


The consequence doesn't matter...Even by your own argument, the consequence is everything - but "people won't accept it because people won't accept it" is ultimately a circular causality. Why would we have evolved to not accept deliberate sacrifice for a greater good unless such a visceral response improves the survivability of the group? Your answer to the question posits the result as the cause. Of course once the instinct is there, it in turn provides it's own cause (as that's what it means to be an instinctive motive), but my post sought to dial that back to first causes.


Guessing why would have to come down to some "this outlook had an evolutionary advantage" handwave, as with similar explanations for gut-level reactions.That's exactly what I was getting at, and I don't consider such reasonsing to be a "handwave" at all. I am firmly of the opinion that human moral instincts are, overall, actually ahead of human logical ethics in the general population; large scale unethical behavior is normally induced through the application of poor logic!


The attitude that N% of your population is expendable would be bad on a social scale for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is that you'll be regularly redefining who's expendable as you use up each group, and thus burning quickly through your population.Here you're just redefining the terms altogether. The whole prior discussion was explicitly regarding behavior that saved more lives than it cost.

[Serpentine]

I doubt you'd need to freeze humans to figure out the way cold effects mammalsMaybe, but look at a different field. I don't know whether it's changed now, but on a doco I saw some time ago, it was mentioned that cars simply are not properly safety-tested for children. This is because noone is willing to offer their children's bodies to science. The reason crash-test dummies are realiable is because they are based on the data collected from smashing actual human remains in car crash simulations. They have no child bodies with which to collect the same data, so "child" crash-test dummies are essentially small adults, and therefore almost certainly don't yield the same experimental results, and therefore vehicles are less safe for children than they could be. Now, that's just within-species. How can we be sure that other species react anything like the same? In fact, I think I can say with great certainty that the normal test species - rats - would almost certainly not produce the same results, because of sheer size.

and I further doubt that you couldn't do the same sort of stress tests with willing volunteers.You couldn't go as far with willing volunteers, unless they were willing to almost certainly give up their lives.

And as useful as saving the lives of a few hypothermia victims is, I don't think we've quite equaled the number of people killed in the camps.Of course not. But, not everyone in the camps were used in the experiments, and I would be willing to bet that more people have been saved than were experimented on.

Honestly, I don't think I really have a solid view on this. I think we should value the data we have, but in the same way that we might value... say, the information we probably got about the geological, biological, psychological, economic and sociological results of the Boxing Day tsunami. Yeah, we got a lot of good stuff, but we really don't want it to happen again. I think we should appreciate the little good we got from something horrific, but not use it to justify the horror.

[GoC]

Science is about how the universe works, philosphy is about what we should do with all that information. Both important.

No, engineers do that.:smalltongue:

[GoC]

Hmm... I've got a scientific/philosophical question. Pretty old one, but whatever. I don't think it should be too political...
Scientists working under the Nazi regime performed experiments on a number of their prisoners. The experiments were brutal and cruel, but they were on important things and came up with some crucial information that possibly couldn't be found any other way, such as the effects and treatment of hypothermia. Without condoning their actions in any way, and considering they were under orders and that from their point of view the subjects were sub-human and/or the enemy, did the ends justify the means?
I'd say that question is impossible to answer.
My gut tells me no but my mind tells me yes.
I'm going to say yes but it should be discouraged and punished due to the dangerous precedent.

averagejoe: Let's say you've got a weird type of disease that only effects humans. It has a long symptom-less period but the disease self-modifies (you're 99% sure) during that period and all attempts at vacines have failed due to that. Millions are dieing every year because of this disease.
Would you be justified in grabbing some people off the death row and infecting them with the disease to observe it?

[averagejoe]

The premise was that it couldn't, but whatever; medical ethics do not even exclude volunteers, and IMO for good reasons, as written above.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Hypothetically, if the government decided it was okay to sacrifice a group of people that did not include me, I would still fear for myself. When I say, "It could happen to anyone," I mean that once it becomes "okay" for a government to start sacrificing people, then there's little to stop them from harvesting from another group, to declare that group expendable for whatever reason.


I don't think your line of reasoning actually adds up, averagejoe. Society makes decisions which sacrifice people constantly - and nobody's immune. (The military is even worse.) That's just life. We drive cars to the sacrifice of ~40,000 people a year in the U.S.A. - many of them through no fault of their own. Very very little of that is strictly speaking more necessary than merely convenient. You could easily die at any moment on the altar of easy transportation. (Just recently a plane fell out of the air for no known reason and landed on a house a block away from my ex-girlfriend, killing most of a family.)

This is quite different. None of this is done by anyone with the specific intent to kill (besides the military, but I'll get to that), and there are legal consequences for anyone who increases the danger of these activities. Plus, there is no one making these people take any sorts of transportation, this is a choice these people make, effectively accepting the risk for the sake of convenience.

Similarly, the military is a volunteer organization, and it is well known that one might have to risk one's life. I mean, they do have the draft, but the last time we tried that a lot of people got pretty PO'ed, if I remember correctly. Which, really, helps to demonstrate my point.


So you accept doing nothing to save someone as ethical? Very few people will agree with that - as a utilitarian, myself, I find the distinction fairly elusive. You had the power, made a choice, and someone's dead as a result. The distinction is, again, uncertainty, rather than strictly agency (though that distinction is extremely fuzzy since conscious agency is entirely inversely proportional to uncertainty - you can't make a moral choice while in complete ignorance of the consequences).

Where did I suggest that nothing be done to save someone? I'm talking about why the existence of hypothermia as a lethal entity is less socially harmful than a government sanctioned horrible medical experiment lab.


Even by your own argument, the consequence is everything - but "people won't accept it because people won't accept it" is ultimately a circular causality. Why would we have evolved to not accept deliberate sacrifice for a greater good unless such a visceral response improves the survivability of the group? Your answer to the question posits the result as the cause. Of course once the instinct is there, it in turn provides it's own cause (as that's what it means to be an instinctive motive), but my post sought to dial that back to first causes.

Really? I said that? I'm saying very little about the causes; I'm saying why it is wrong, not why it might be wrong in some absolute sense. I'm also not caring to speculate on the source of the visceral response, I'm only saying that it seems logical to have one. I'm not saying "why," only that there is a potential logical basis for it. No one knows "why."

Two quick questions. What premises are you operating off of, and if, hypothetically, there was no uncertainty as to the effects, would it be morally okay?


averagejoe: Let's say you've got a weird type of disease that only effects humans. It has a long symptom-less period but the disease self-modifies (you're 99% sure) during that period and all attempts at vacines have failed due to that. Millions are dieing every year because of this disease.
Would you be justified in grabbing some people off the death row and infecting them with the disease to observe it?

Probably. Desperation and self preservation tend to allow for the justification of activities that would normally be considered wrong.

[Nameless]

And? What new insights were gained by that discussion? :smallsmile:

Well, I managed to convince them why they shouldn't worry about Co2 affecting the climate.
Then we discussed mutations. She argued that mutation WAS evolution, I said no it wasn't, however mutations can cause to evolution.
Then we talked about some other irrelevant stuff before moving on to music and listening to Queen and Turisas on her iPod and singing out load so that the whole class could hear.
Finally her and the other person tried to get me to remember there names but I still can't remember them after 6 months of being in the same college. :smallsmile:

[Serpentine]

Well, I managed to convince them why they shouldn't worry about Co2 affecting the climate.Oooooh, you just opened a big can of worms there. I'm just gonna say, regardless of whether CO2 does influence the climate, it is irrefutably demonstrated that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is effecting the oceans right now, and as a result all coral reefs - at the very least, or rather to begin with - are under extreme threat, possibly already practically doomed. It might not feck us up as bad as climate change (if that's a natural, rather than anthropogenic, occurance), but it will still feck us up in a major way, and is worth acting on already.

Hmmm... Science... Delicious, tasty science... Let's have a look through my Wildlife Fact-file. Did you knoooooow... an eagle owl was once seen carrying a full-grown red fox in its talons, and they are known to fly out and seize shot birds before they hit the ground?
...
Yah...

[Winterwind]

I often wonder why it is that I'm in such a minority, in that I would kill a few people to learn how to save many more lives.Presumably, because the instant you have set up a society where the sacrifice of individuals for the "greater good" is accepted, you have removed the most basic foundation of anything that might keep a horrendous regime of pure terror that steps all over people at bay. The moment you embrace torture and mistreating others, no matter the reasons, you have descended to the exact same level of evil as our former regime. Human rights are untouchable for a reason. :smallannoyed:

[hamishspence]

I remember that some of the immune-attacking, currently incurable, viruses that exist, are airborne (can infect via coughing and sneezing) Fortunately, said viruses only infect animals.

But, if such a virus were to make the species jump, I can certainly see people embracing previously unthinkable options.

[Nameless]

Oooooh, you just opened a big can of worms there. I'm just gonna say, regardless of whether CO2 does influence the climate, it is irrefutably demonstrated that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is effecting the oceans right now, and as a result all coral reefs - at the very least, or rather to begin with - are under extreme threat, possibly already practically doomed. It might not feck us up as bad as climate change (if that's a natural, rather than anthropogenic, occurance), but it will still feck us up in a major way, and is worth acting on already.

Hmmm... Science... Delicious, tasty science... Let's have a look through my Wildlife Fact-file. Did you knoooooow... an eagle owl was once seen carrying a full-grown red fox in its talons, and they are known to fly out and seize shot birds before they hit the ground?
...
Yah...

The more I read and watch about C02 and climate change, the less I believe in the theory, and Al Gores twisted information doesn't exactly help the case.
At the moment I can quite happily say; "C02 doesn't effect the climate" and not regret it.
And even if it is effecting coral reefs, I don't think we should worry about it too much. The main problame with C02 is health issues really.

[averagejoe]

Careful. We seem to be drifting toward polotiks.

[lsfreak]

My view on the cold experiments:
What was done by those who performed the experiments was unconditionally reprehensible. The end in no way justifies the means. However, that does not mean we cannot benefit from the knowledge gained. Anyone performing such experiments should be dealt with accordingly; using the knowledge gained is, however, does not condone the actions taken but makes the best out of a horrifying situation.

Part of the problem is the immediate, gut reaction to "Nazi." Take a completely different situation. Someone commits murder by exploiting faulty wiring to ignite a house fire while the person was sleeping. The act of murdering the person is absolutely reprehensible. However, should this stop the company from taking action over the faulty wiring? After all, the faulty wiring would not have been known without the murder, at least not until another person died. Should that stop the company from using this new knowledge to issue a recall?

[Serpentine]

And even if it is effecting coral reefs, I don't think we should worry about it too much. The main problame with C02 is health issues really.This is, in itself, a truly terrible thing to say, but also incredibly ignorant. Coral reefs are "the rainforests of the sea". The vast - vast - majority of marine biodiversity is within reefs. They are the spawning grounds and nurseries of countless non-reef marine creatures, very many of which humans use or even rely on. Millions, maybe even billions, of people around the world depend on healthy coral reefs for their basic sustenance and/or economic maintenance, and the economies of entire nations - even Australia - would be crippled or even utterly obliterated if the reefs crash. They are used for food, delicacies, building materials, tourism, decorations, pets, fertilisers, medicines and who knows how many other things, and that's without their own intrinsic values as focal points of intense and fragile biodiversity. Significant damage to these habitats could have untold effects on the entire oceans and the beaches and islands that abut them, and the aforementioned millions of people who depend on the ocean for their lives and livelihoods. It's like saying "Hey, it wouldn't directly effect our health if we burnt down the Amazon Rainforest. Well, as long as we're not breathing in the smoke, anyway. Trees? Millions of unique and irretrievable species? Thousands of tribal groups whose ways of life and knowledge will be lost forever? Pffft, whatever. It's more important that we preserve the woods outside my town."
[/soapbox rant]

[Nameless]

This is, in itself, a truly terrible thing to say, but also incredibly ignorant. Coral reefs are "the rainforests of the sea". The vast - vast - majority of marine biodiversity is within reefs. They are the spawning grounds and nurseries of countless non-reef marine creatures, very many of which humans use or even rely on. Millions, maybe even billions, of people around the world depend on healthy coral reefs for their basic sustenance and/or economic maintenance, and the economies of entire nations - even Australia - would be crippled or even utterly obliterated if the reefs crash. They are used for food, delicacies, building materials, tourism, decorations, pets, fertilisers, medicines and who knows how many other things, and that's without their own intrinsic values as focal points of intense and fragile biodiversity. Significant damage to these habitats could have untold effects on the entire oceans and the beaches and islands that abut them, and the aforementioned millions of people who depend on the ocean for their lives and livelihoods. It's like saying "Hey, it wouldn't directly effect our health if we burnt down the Amazon Rainforest. Well, as long as we're not breathing in the smoke, anyway. Trees? Millions of unique and irretrievable species? Thousands of tribal groups whose ways of life and knowledge will be lost forever? Pffft, whatever. It's more important that we preserve the woods outside my town."
[/soapbox rant]


This planet has been through A LOT worse then loosing it's coral reefs. I can give you a whole list of what it's been through but I think you already know what they are, among those things have been extinctions and mass-extinctions. And guess what? They haven't all been because of humans. And look at the planet now. The planet has dealt with those mass extinctions, it did amazingly. Look how it dealt with other normal extinctions, it didn’t even scratched the Earth.
The trouble is, people under estimate the Earth and the echo system. It's not what people think, it's also what you get taught in school; "The Earth is at a delicate balance and if you take one thing away, or damage one thing, the whole system comes crashing down causing Armageddon".
But quite frankly, it's really not like that and you can just look at history.
And if there's any animal that will be able to deal with out coral, I’m pretty sure it's humans. We under estimate nature, and we under estimate ourselves.

[averagejoe]

I think you're kind of missing the point, Nameless. I don't think Serp is saying that we absolutely couldn't survive such a thing, she's saying it would be incredibly damaging.

Besides, I'm inclined to think that unique forms of life are worth preserving in and of themselves.

[Nameless]

I think you're kind of missing the point, Nameless. I don't think Serp is saying that we absolutely couldn't survive such a thing, she's saying it would be incredibly damaging.

Besides, I'm inclined to think that unique forms of life are worth preserving in and of themselves.

Yes, however I think to stop using fossil fuels, especially at this point in time will be MUCH worse for the human race then loosing the coral reefs. We practically live of oil and coal.

[averagejoe]

Yes, however I think to stop using fossil fuels, especially at this point in time will be MUCH worse for the human race then loosing the coral reefs. We practically live of oil and coal.

You didn't say that it was better than the alternative, you said that we didn't have to worry about it. Clearly we should if it will affect people's lives.

[Nameless]

You didn't say that it was better than the alternative, you said that we didn't have to worry about it. Clearly we should if it will affect people's lives.

But if the alternative is worse then what might happen then why worry about it unless we can actually do something about it?
The only other option I see is to create GM coral but I don't see that being as a probable solution.

The fact is anything we do might have some sort of negative impact, that's life. But we can't just stop doing things because of that.
If the coral reefs do disappear, I'm pretty confident that we'll be able to manage without it.

[Serpentine]

*ahem*
Bull.
Yes, the world has been through disasters. No, not all of them - not even most of them - have been because of humans. Of course, most of them happened before humans even existed, and we probably wouldn't have survived them ourselves. However, this one most probably is because of humans. We even have a relatively straight-forward solution: Cut down on fossil fuels. There are heaps of viable alternatives, an entire planet- and superecosystems-worth of reasons to change and very few good reasons not to. We may have an impact no matter what we do, but that is absolutely no excuse for going ahead and making all the impact you can, and there are plenty of ways and reasons to minimise that impact.
Also, creating GM coral isn't exactly a whole lot of good if you don't have a suitable environment to put it in, and an ecosystem that can deal with it. It would be especially silly to try when there's already an infinitely easier - or at least simpler - solution.

I simply... cannot, am utter incapable of comprehending such a... narrow-minded and callous view. It doesn't have any direct impact on us, therefore it doesn't matter if it entirely ceases to exist forever so we shouldn't even bother trying to stop that? OR, it will have a direct impact on us, only it'll just mostly be people I don't know, and stopping that from happening will inconvenience me! ARGH! We might be able to manage without them - and all the other millions of animals that are directly threatened by human activities - but what about all the other millions of organisms that rely on them? And what about all those potential cures for cancer and heart disease and the like that are going to be destroyed along with them?!
I just... It is beyond my comprehension. Utterly and completely. It's so selfish, and yet... so blind of what you'll lose. If we ever meet, I'll probably yell at you a lot.
If we lose the coral reefs, we'll lose an enormous slab of ocean abundance and biodiversity. The fishmonger will be gone. No more of that beauty. No more limestone, for building and fertiliser. I don't know what will happen to all those island communities... Those that don't starve will probably have to move to cities. Goodbye billion-dollar tourism industries and the communities that depend on them. So long medical cures and treatments. Farewell beautiful cays. No more tropical aquariums. No more turtles. Far fewer sharks, and marlins, and rays, and parrotfish, and all those others. Goodbye incredible cultural significance for millions of people. Goodbye commercial and recreational fishing and the livelihoods of everyone connected with those industries. Oh, and incidentally, so much for all those future oil deposits.
And the way we can stop it? By using less of something we're running out of anyway.
It's just... Ugh. This whole argument is disgusting.

Right, topic change time: Wanna clear up something that I thought was commonly known, but that I've recently discovered is not so much. The Theory of Evolution does not say that humans are descended from chimpanzees, but rather that we share a common ancestor back a few millions of years. That is, there was one ape, and a bunch of 'em went one way and became chimps, and another bunch went another way and became Homo sapiens.
I didn't realise how widely-spread this misunderstanding is until it came up in a class on evolution...

[Winterwind]

Full, complete, 100% agreement with Serpentine here. Well spoken, m'lady. Well spoken indeed.

[Nameless]

*ahem*
Bull.
Yes, the world has been through disasters. No, not all of them - not even most of them - have been because of humans. Of course, most of them happened before humans even existed, and we probably wouldn't have survived them ourselves. However, this one most probably is because of humans. We even have a relatively straight-forward solution: Cut down on fossil fuels. There are heaps of viable alternatives, an entire planet- and superecosystems-worth of reasons to change and very few good reasons not to. We may have an impact no matter what we do, but that is absolutely no excuse for going ahead and making all the impact you can, and there are plenty of ways and reasons to minimise that impact.


You make cutting down on fossil fuels sound extremely simple, when it will be extremely difficult.
Firs of all, looking at this idea, it doesn't really convince me at the moment. That may sound ignorant of me, but I think it's much more ignorant then to believe in this and not do anything about it, which is what most of us do, then to question it. Now, I'll have to look into a bit more before I make any judgments, but at the moment it seems to be following the exact same path as the global warming theory is.
Yes, there's plenty of alternative fuel options, unfortunately they all seem to have problems funnily enough and the most efficient ones ( such as bio-fuels and wind energy) cause A LOT of problems, a lot more the fossil fuels apparently do.



Also, creating GM coral isn't exactly a whole lot of good if you don't have a suitable environment to put it in, and an ecosystem that can deal with it. It would be especially silly to try when there's already an infinitely easier - or at least simpler - solution.

If you can create GM coral which can live in the conditions, it might work though. But as I said, it's not a very probable way.


I simply... cannot, am utter incapable of comprehending such a... narrow-minded and callous view. It doesn't have any direct impact on us, therefore it doesn't matter if it entirely ceases to exist forever so we shouldn't even bother trying to stop that? OR, it will have a direct impact on us, only it'll just mostly be people I don't know, and stopping that from happening will inconvenience me! ARGH! We might be able to manage without them - and all the other millions of animals that are directly threatened by human activities - but what about all the other millions of organisms that rely on them? And what about all those potential cures for cancer and heart disease and the like that are going to be destroyed along with them?!
I just... It is beyond my comprehension. Utterly and completely. It's so selfish, and yet... so blind of what you'll lose. If we ever meet, I'll probably yell at you a lot.


Questioning something isn't being ignorant. Thinking of ways in which we can live whilest still using fossil fuels isn't ignorant either. Was I being ignorant when I questioned my old science teacher about global warming? If I didn't question it and wasn't sceptical about it I wouldn't of have looked into after I finished my last year of school. I might be throwing my money away at all the people that come to our door asking me to "save the planet" from our plastic bags.
I don't know if you've realised from our previous conversation, but I put the comfort of humans way abouve the survival of animals.
The only point I will agree with you is that, yes, it might impact us in the future, we may loose opetunities to creat medecine etc.
Also, there's no reason for you to get personal. I disgree with some of the things you say and I can use pleanty of words to describe them but I don't actually say them because, although it seem weird I actually like you.



Right, topic change time: Wanna clear up something that I thought was commonly known, but that I've recently discovered is not so much. The Theory of Evolution does not say that humans are descended from chimpanzees, but rather that we share a common ancestor back a few millions of years. That is, there was one ape, and a bunch of 'em went one way and became chimps, and another bunch went another way and became Homo sapiens.
I didn't realise how widely-spread this misunderstanding is until it came up in a class on evolution...

Oh finally, I'm so sick and tired of people's ridicules idea's of our evolutionary past is about.
I would think that by the time I get to college I can have a reasonable discussion about evolution without 90% of people thinking we came from chimps, and they came from a plants in the ground and then shouting at me when I tell the otherwise.

[snoopy13a]

Right, topic change time: Wanna clear up something that I thought was commonly known, but that I've recently discovered is not so much. The Theory of Evolution does not say that humans are descended from chimpanzees, but rather that we share a common ancestor back a few millions of years. That is, there was one ape, and a bunch of 'em went one way and became chimps, and another bunch went another way and became Homo sapiens.
I didn't realise how widely-spread this misunderstanding is until it came up in a class on evolution...

Yes, that's the current hypothesis.

If I remember correctly, lemurs were the first primate to branch off (that means apes, including us, and monkeys share a common ancestor that lemurs do not). Later, the monkeys branched off. Gorillas were the next to branch off (chimps and us are believed to share a common ancestor that gorillas don't). Finally, chimps and us diverged.

[endoperez]

I don't know if you've realised from our previous conversation, but I put the comfort of humans way abouve the survival of animals.

Since this is in a science thread...

How do you measure "comfort of humans"? What kind of comfort we are talking about here, and in what amount?

In my opinion, as long as you can eat well (quality, not quantity) and can afford somewhat expensive commodities (a new computer every few years, a used car, a tuba) with relatively little trouble, it's good enough. You have no trouble living well, and can afford to have expensive hobbies. This can be done even if any or all of the following were true:

1) No items designed to be thrown away after being used once. No throw-away plastic/paper plates or cups, or forks, knives or spoons, or handkerchiefs, no plastic bags. The alternatives exist, you just throw them into a wash instead of into the trash.

2) Red meat and fish only eaten about once a week each, with vegetables, fruits, berries etc more common.

3) Recycling glass, metal, paper, plastics and organic waste compulsory in cities and supported outside of them (recycling receptors near shops and such)

4) Houses are a lot more expensive to build (and buy etc) initially, but save in heating and electrical bills (solar panels, double/triple windows and lots of things I don't know about).

5) Double delivery times for things ordered a continent away.


Now, I'm not sure if these would save any animal species. This is arguing about the nature of comfort and what we can comfortably live without.

[GoC]

Oooooh, you just opened a big can of worms there. I'm just gonna say, regardless of whether CO2 does influence the climate, it is irrefutably demonstrated that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is effecting the oceans right now, and as a result all coral reefs - at the very least, or rather to begin with - are under extreme threat, possibly already practically doomed.
:smalleek:
Never say something is irrefutable. Simply say "there is very very strong evidence to suggest".

And currently the only viable alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear power and we all know how hated that idea is. In order to cut down on fossil fuels in cars we would also use hydrogen for storage, which has a very ineffecient creation process which means we'd need even more energy.


This planet has been through A LOT worse then loosing it's coral reefs.

Actually I don't think it has. Losing the coral reefs is worse than losing 90% of all life on the planet and thousands of species.

Also, even if the planet has been through worse do you really want over half of humanity to die of starvation?

EDIT: Just thought I'd contribute my idea of confort: Nice dishes, bed, decent furniture, a new PC every two years, going out every saturday, a house (one room per family member+kitchen+1 bathroom per 3 family members+living room+1 other room per three family members), a well-maintained car (and one for SO) and $2000 for a yearly vacation.

[Nameless]

Since this is in a science thread...

How do you measure "comfort of humans"? What kind of comfort we are talking about here, and in what amount?

In my opinion, as long as you can eat well (quality, not quantity) and can afford somewhat expensive commodities (a new computer every few years, a used car, a tuba) with relatively little trouble, it's good enough. You have no trouble living well, and can afford to have expensive hobbies. This can be done even if any or all of the following were true:

1) No items designed to be thrown away after being used once. No throw-away plastic/paper plates or cups, or forks, knives or spoons, or handkerchiefs, no plastic bags. The alternatives exist, you just throw them into a wash instead of into the trash.

2) Red meat and fish only eaten about once a week each, with vegetables, fruits, berries etc more common.

3) Recycling glass, metal, paper, plastics and organic waste compulsory in cities and supported outside of them (recycling receptors near shops and such)

4) Houses are a lot more expensive to build (and buy etc) initially, but save in heating and electrical bills (solar panels, double/triple windows and lots of things I don't know about).

5) Double delivery times for things ordered a continent away.


Now, I'm not sure if these would save any animal species. This is arguing about the nature of comfort and what we can comfortably live without.

Comfort as in security, quality of life, safety, enjoyment.

1- I respectfully partly disagree. I still think they should be designed but if you are able to still use it after the first time, then you should. Save money, and especially if it’s made from trees.

2- I completely disagree, a person should have the choice to eat whatever he wants, whenever he wants. Unless he actually can’t.

3- Again, I disagree. It’s compulsory for us to recycle here, and most of it doesn’t actually get recycled. I also disagree most of the reasons as to why they want us to recycle them.

4- This should be completely down to the homeowner and not be made compulsory.

5- So we’re on the same page here, explain why please.


Actually I don't think it has. Losing the coral reefs is worse than losing 90% of all life on the planet and thousands of species.

Also, even if the planet has been through worse do you really want over half of humanity to die of starvation?

EDIT: Just thought I'd contribute my idea of confort: Nice dishes, bed, decent furniture, a new PC every two years, going out every saturday, a house (one room per family member+kitchen+1 bathroom per 3 family members+living room+1 other room per three family members), a well-maintained car (and one for SO) and $2000 for a yearly vacation.

That’s only theoretical, and cannot be proven. Again, people hugely under estimate nature. Did you know that 90% of animals that have been around on earth have all become extinct? Did you also know that on average 20-25 species of animals die every day. [I haven’t actually looked a lot into my last sentence, so I'll say "apprently 20-25 die".] Everything seems to be doing fine to me.

Half of humanity, if not more are starving right now.

[lsfreak]

Much of the nuclear energy scare is unfounded, from what I know, and mostly from the instinctual reaction from "nuclear" rather than anything else. For example, what if I told you the average 500MW coal power plant released enough weapons-grade uranium to make a 5 kiloton bomb every year? (And iirc, that was assuming a WW2-era bomb with only ~5% efficiency, it's been a while since I did the math). Of course, it would be infinitely hard to actually separate the particles to actually do anything with them; the point is both that a) "nuclear" anything gets people riled up, and b) coal plants have very significant impacts, possibly moreso than nuclear power.


It might be the case that 90% of all animals ever alive are extinct, but that's irrelevant. That's happened over the last 3 billion years. Should the coral reefs actually collapse, we're talking about a large percent of living species dying out in a matter of hundreds of years. And unlike the "20-25 species a day," we're not talking mostly undiscovered insects in rainforests, but larger animals that are the basis for entire ecosystems. Ecological collapse in a system as widespread as reefs would have extremely significant impacts on other ecosystems, no matter how you look at it.

That said, I think it's naive to think that humans would die out. There would be deaths on a global scale as a result, possibly worse than the epidemics of the early 20th century. But we're too damn stubborn to die out.

[endoperez]

Comfort as in security, quality of life, safety, enjoyment.

2- I completely disagree, a person should have the choice to eat whatever he wants, whenever he wants. Unless he actually can’t.
5- So we’re on the same page here, explain why please.

1. EDIT: Oops, I misunderstood. You were FOR tree-made stuff, not against as I first though.

2. Think about what you said, and this: "Half of humanity, if not more are starving right now."
That meat you eat was grown with crops that were grown in a plot that didn't grow food for the starving. A person should have a choice of eating whatever he wants, but only as long as his choice doesn't deny food from others.

5. Less air mail, more postal ships, bigger trucks or trains transporting the mail over long distances. Bigger loads consume less fuels. The amount of time it takes was just a guess.


That’s only theoretical, and cannot be proven. Again, people hugely under estimate nature. Did you know that 90% of animals that have been around on earth have all become extinct? Everything seems to be doing fine to me.

Of course most of them have died (Wikipedia claims it's 99%, not just 90%, btw). Animals have existed for about half a billion years (wikipedia again, 6,7 *10^8 yrs). However, wikipedia also mentions that "The current rate of extinction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction#Current_mass_extinction) based on statistical modelling of populations of species for which data is easily obtainable, is estimated to be 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. It is feared that 50% of species could be extinct by the end of the 21st century"

Perhaps it's not all humans, but I wouldn't call even a chance of mass extinction "doing fine". Pleistocene was 10 000 years ago.

[KnightDisciple]

Science!
You know what I'm glad science gave us?
Toilet Paper. For reals.

[Nameless]

1. But... trees grow back!
Paper rots rather quickly, and I understand without the whitening process it doesn't even have lots of chemicals. Most plastics rot slowly, and I thought they are made from oil but I just realized there might be plastic-like materials that don't require oil. I thought paper would be the lesser evil in single-use commodities.

2. Think about what you said, and this: "Half of humanity, if not more are starving right now."
That meat you eat was grown with crops that were grown in a plot that didn't grow food for the starving. A person should have a choice of eating whatever he wants, but only as long as his choice doesn't deny food from others.

5. Less air mail, more postal ships, bigger trucks or trains transporting the mail over long distances. Bigger loads consume less fuels. The amount of time it takes was just a guess.



Of course most of them have died (Wikipedia claims it's 99%, not just 90%, btw). Animals have existed for about half a billion years (wikipedia again, 6,7 *10^8 yrs). However, wikipedia also mentions that "The current rate of extinction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction#Current_mass_extinction) based on statistical modelling of populations of species for which data is easily obtainable, is estimated to be 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. It is feared that 50% of species could be extinct by the end of the 21st century"

Perhaps it's not all humans, but I wouldn't call even a chance of mass extinction "doing fine". Pleistocene was 10 000 years ago.


1- True, but the issue with paper is that a lot of trees get cut down with out being replaced to make all these items, and because so many get cut down and the tree’s don’t grow back fast enough, dissertation starts to happen in many areas. ( wow, I went all environmental :P )

2- Okay, I don’t really want to go into my whole “vegetarian” rant again, but your not realising is that in many areas such as Africa where they can’t grow much crops, they live on almost a pure meat diet. We can’t really tell them to only eat it once a week. Now I know what you might say 2we should vut down on our meet in the west so that we can give food to Africa”. But is this really the best way to deal with the situation there? Why should we work and pay for our food, and then give them some of it for nothing? The best way to deal with the issue is to help them live by themselves, get them started, help them out and teach them. That’s without looking at all the other issues they have there.

3- less time, I agree with that.

If there’s any animal that will be able to go on without coral, I’m pretty sure it’s the humans. In fact, I’m pretty sure they’ll live on with much more ease then any other animal.
And we’re talking about this, but in all seriousness… NO ONE is actually going to do anything about it. People call me ignorant for questioning this theory, but I find it even more ignorant that people who do believe in it don’t actually do anything about it.
This includes almost everyone in the playground, you’re all using computers right now, most of you are burning fossil fuels in doing so. Yeah you can say “well, I only use it for two hours a day” but the only way to actually stop it from happening, if it’s true, is to not burn any fossil fuels at all.

[endoperez]

1- True, but the issue with paper is that a lot of trees get cut down with out being replaced to make all these items

2- But is this really the best way to deal with the situation there? Why should we work and pay for our food, and then give them some of it for nothing?

1) Wait, what? I edited my post (which you quoted before the edit), because I thought you were for using paper... If you don't want to use paper throw-aways, you're using plastics, right? It might be because my country (Finland) has lots of trees and produces paper, but I thought paper was much more eco-friendly than plastics, in pretty much every way (grows back, rots fast by itself, easy to recycle).

2) The reason we should give something is because every person has a right to eat. Right to have food, and right to eat it. While helping poor areas grow their food is good, keeping the people alive until then is also important.

[lsfreak]

If there’s any animal that will be able to go on without coral, I’m pretty sure it’s the humans. In fact, I’m pretty sure they’ll live on with much more ease then any other animal.

I... I'm really not sure what to say to this, except that I think you missed the day in high school biology where they talked about food webs. While it is true, you're blowing it off as something completely unimportant, which... I really don't even know how to respond at that point.

[hamishspence]

I liked The Science of Discworld 2. "We are Pan narrans- the storytelling chimpanzee"

our similarities are quite large- larger, in fact, than our skeletal structure would suggest.

[Nameless]

1) Wait, what? I edited my post (which you quoted before the edit), because I thought you were for using paper... If you don't want to use paper throw-aways, you're using plastics, right? It might be because my country (Finland) has lots of trees and produces paper, but I thought paper was much more eco-friendly than plastics, in pretty much every way (grows back, rots fast by itself, easy to recycle).

2) The reason we should give something is because every person has a right to eat. Right to have food, and right to eat it. While helping poor areas grow their food is good, keeping the people alive until then is also important.

1-It’s not that I’m against using paper, it’s just that I think because we use so much of it, we should replace the trees we cut, especially in the Amazon. That’s like, our main source of oxygen.

2- I think you misunderstood my post. Sure, we can help them. But if we want to help them we should go about it in a different way, not just giving them food.
And we shouldn't get it into our heads that it's somthing we have to do.


I... I'm really not sure what to say to this, except that I think you missed the day in high school biology where they talked about food webs. While it is true, you're blowing it off as something completely unimportant, which... I really don't even know how to respond at that point.

Believe me when I say I was there and that I listened very carefully.

[13_CBS]

I... I'm really not sure what to say to this, except that I think you missed the day in high school biology where they talked about food webs. While it is true, you're blowing it off as something completely unimportant, which... I really don't even know how to respond at that point.

If we can somehow grow our food in vats (I believe we've already achieved that level of technology in meat), then I believe it's possible for some humans, at least, to survive for a long period of time without the ecological support of corals. Of course, poorer humans living off of the sea are probably doomed unless the vat-grown food is somehow transported to them (and either way, unless they're into shipping, said humans will likely be without a livelihood).

[Tensu]

growing food in vats would be expensive.

coral reefs, large ones at least, also affect the ocean in other ways. currents, tides, etc. a lot of dead coral could change the weather.

[Recaiden]

Losing coral would just be terrible.


That’s like, our main source of oxygen.
No, the oceans are. Algae and plankton. It's a large amount, but we'd still have plenty without it. Not there aren't hundreds of other reasons to protect rain forests. Prevent extinction, medicines, research into new medicines, so many things.
Which makes ocean acidification even more of a problem to me.

[Tensu]

plus, I is scuba diver. coral reefs are amazing. losing them would be... well, the final straw.

[GoC]

Did you know that 90% of animals that have been around on earth have all become extinct? Did you also know that on average 20-25 species of animals die every day. [I haven’t actually looked a lot into my last sentence, so I'll say "apprently 20-25 die".] Everything seems to be doing fine to me.

Half of humanity, if not more are starving right now.

Yes. Yes, roughly. No. Definitely not!
Half of humanity are NOT starving. In fact less than 17% are classified as "hungry" (malnutrition)!

[Nameless]

( Yay thread bumping)

Basically, I have a question. The question is about teleportation. I’ve heard rumours that it’s possible and has been done, but can’t find much about it.
So, does anyone know anything about teleportation theory? Or if it’s even probable?
Because seriously, other then hover-cars, teleportation is the peek of scientific brilliance. :smalltongue:

[GoC]

( Yay thread bumping)

Basically, I have a question. The question is about teleportation. I’ve heard rumours that it’s possible and has been done, but can’t find much about it.
So, does anyone know anything about teleportation theory? Or if it’s even probable?
Because seriously, other then hover-cars, teleportation is the peek of scientific brilliance. :smalltongue:

We have no reason to believe it is possible. All the teleportation stuff is just clever use of quantum mechanics. It cannot teleport macro objects.

[Quincunx]

'Twas the teleportation of a photon over [a distance irrelevantly small] (my attention wandered away from the vaguely-scientific documentary for awhile, at this point) would take X billion years to transmit [that much information], so the teleporter will remain a distant dream. . .

Aye, I wasn't paying attention, but "a photon" tells you about the scale of the inexplicable relocation of the object.

[Nameless]

'Twas the teleportation of a photon over [a distance irrelevantly small] (my attention wandered away from the vaguely-scientific documentary for awhile, at this point) would take X billion years to transmit [that much information], so the teleporter will remain a distant dream. . .

Aye, I wasn't paying attention, but "a photon" tells you about the scale of the inexplicable relocation of the object.

I find it funny how time travelling simpler then teleportation. :smalltongue:

[Arctic]

I like how there is more philosophy in the last page then actual science.

For the sake of avoiding arguments, people should cite their scientific education with their posts, where their sources comes from, etc. No point arguing with a chemist about Van Der Waals force when you merely saw a documentary about it and that's it.

[Nameless]

I like how there is more philosophy in the last page then actual science.

For the sake of avoiding arguments, people should cite their scientific education with their posts, where their sources comes from, etc. No point arguing with a chemist about Van Der Waals force when you merely saw a documentary about it and that's it.

Ah, but if Philosophy is used well it can lead to great scientific achievements! :smalltongue:
...
Aaand if used poorly it leads to some of the greatest disasters in human history but let's not talk about that. :smalltongue:

[Mx.Silver]

Ah, but if Philosophy is used well it can lead to great scientific achievements! :smalltongue:
Yes, but it's not actualy science. Which is kind of, you know, what this thread is meant to be discussing.



For the sake of avoiding arguments, people should cite their scientific education with their posts, where their sources comes from, etc. No point arguing with a chemist about Van Der Waals force when you merely saw a documentary about it and that's it.
Ok, with the exception of some undergraduate work in psychology, I don't have any formal scientific education beyon high school level. I do read a fair bit of scientific literature, but I'm not a scientist. Hence why I haven't really posted in this thread much.

[Serpentine]

Just finished a double degree in Arts and Science, the Arts focussing on History and Ancient Literature, the Science on animal science and ecology with first-year chemistry, some statistics, basic maths and some evolution. I also read scientific books cuz they're interesting (granted, they're mostly fun-fact type books).

[Nameless]

maths and some evolution. I also read scientific books cuz they're interesting (granted, they're mostly fun-fact type books).

I use Wikipedia for fun facts... And QI. :smallbiggrin:

Just over a year ago, I started reading The Origin of Species. Unfortunately, I then purchased a Terry Pratchett book and never went back to finishing the Darwin’s book.


Yes, but it's not actualy science. Which is kind of, you know, what this thread is meant to be discussing.

True, but science and philosophy work well together, if it wasn't for philosophy science wouldn't be what it is today. And if you're trying to come up with a theory it will need to involve philosophy in one way or another... At least most of the times. I guess you could say that science and philosophy work hand in hand when it comes to great discoveries.

[Eldan]

Well... a few months left until my bachelor's degree in biology, if I don't screw up any exams before then.

[averagejoe]

True, but science and philosophy work well together, if it wasn't for philosophy science wouldn't be what it is today. And if you're trying to come up with a theory it will need to involve philosophy in one way or another... At least most of the times. I guess you could say that science and philosophy work hand in hand when it comes to great discoveries.

Yes, but most of that sort of rhetoric comes from philosophers trying to elevate themselves to the level of scientist. :smalltongue:

I find the idea of everyone needing to present their credentials to be a bit distasteful. However, it is a good idea, as people seem to be in the habit of speaking with authority from a position that they don't understand.

In about a week I will be done with a double degree in maths and physics.

[Nameless]

Yes, but most of that sort of rhetoric comes from philosophers trying to elevate themselves to the level of scientist. :smalltongue:


Ahh, further proving my point that philosophers are just failed scientists! :smallbiggrin: :smalltongue:

[averagejoe]

Ahh, further proving my point that philosophers are just failed scientists! :smallbiggrin: :smalltongue:

I won't deny that I find the siren's call of not having standards of rigor to be very appealing on those long days in the lab and the long afternoons/evenings spent trying to figure out impossible problems. :smalltongue:

[Arctic]

True, but science and philosophy work well together, if it wasn't for philosophy science wouldn't be what it is today. And if you're trying to come up with a theory it will need to involve philosophy in one way or another... At least most of the times. I guess you could say that science and philosophy work hand in hand when it comes to great discoveries.

Completely agreed.

Oh, on my part, I'm a pharmacology undergrad that took extra philosophy and mathematics courses. Two topics that aren't bad to know at all :smallwink:.


I find the idea of everyone needing to present their credentials to be a bit distasteful. However, it is a good idea, as people seem to be in the habit of speaking with authority from a position that they don't understand.

Exactly why I suggested so. If it annoyed some people, then I'm sorry.

[Nameless]

*Shudders* ... Maths... My arch nemesis.... O_e

[averagejoe]

Exactly why I suggested so. If it annoyed some people, then I'm sorry.

No worries. It was actually something that was bugging me. I just don't like to cite MY credentials. Double standards and all that.

Though, to my credit, I have been arguing from a purely logical standpoint when it comes to topics I know little about.

[Winterwind]

Got my diploma (essentially, Master) in physics a year ago (focusing on cosmology), working on my PhD currently (re-orienting completely towards atmospherical physics).

[bibliophile]

Ahh, further proving my point that philosophers are just failed scientists! :smallbiggrin: :smalltongue:


Hmmmm. As an amateur philosopher, and aspiring scientist, I can assure you this is not the case. Philosophy is an important field, and is quite distinct from science. Science is in fact an application of philosophical conclusions much the same way technology the application of science.

[Serpentine]

I saw an interesting quote in the course of my History Honours class, to the effect that engineering is an art, not a science: It is the creative application of scientific knowledge, not analysis and theorising. I think there was more to it, but that's what I remember.
(The context was something along the lines of History is a creative, interpretive school, not analytical or able to seek out solid, definite facts)

[averagejoe]

I saw an interesting quote in the course of my History Honours class, to the effect that engineering is an art, not a science: It is the creative application of scientific knowledge, not analysis and theorising. I think there was more to it, but that's what I remember.
(The context was something along the lines of History is a creative, interpretive school, not analytical or able to seek out solid, definite facts)

I really hate that expression. I mean, hell, science is more of an art than a science. Applying science to things is fairly analytical, but doing anything besides things that other people have already discovered takes huge amounts of creativity and the contemplation of ideas that are completely insane and go against all one was ever taught.

The problem with history is that historians really love presenting whatever they think of things as fact, and not saying that there are a bunch of other historians who subscribe to what are, in terms of the facts, equally valid interpretations of events. It's fine for history to be a creative pursuit, but it is almost universally presented as solidly factual. This lack of the application of science in the field makes it substantially weaker, I think.

[Serpentine]

Uh... The second part of your post was basically the majority of my 5-day residential school. That hasn't really been the case at all since Post-Modernism swept the world a few decades ago. Now, it's stressed that historians can't know exactly what happened or what things were like, but are only making interpretations and reconstructions, according to peer-accepted and critiqued methods, based on what evidence is available, to the best of our abilities and with a conciousness of our own biases. There is statistical analysis used, but that, too, is quite subjective and as malleable as any other part of history. In summary: Your criticism is several decades out of date :smalltongue:

edit: The chapter on Post-Modernism from my unit's booklet (caution: long):
Topic 12. The Post-Modern Challenge—Is History still Possible?



The word ‘postmodern’ implies a link to the word ‘modern’. Postmodernism, at its essence, is a declaration that 'modernism' is obsolete. Many advocates of postmodernism claim that we have moved beyond the era of ‘modernity’, which itself is supposed to have lasted for about three centuries, into a ‘postmodern’ era.
A first step in understanding the postmodernist challenge is to understand it as a reaction to 'modernism', especially in the discipline of history. Read again the introductory section to the seminar topic on 'Grand Theories, Not so Grand Theories, and History'. Implicit in the historical approaches of the writers mentioned there was a belief that history was revealing of some fundamental truths. There were rhythms and structures in human affairs that could be uncovered, helping us to understand the past, and the present, and to see a little way into the future.
Postmodernists reject that ambition, and deny the possibility of its realisation. There is no distinct postmodernist theory, rather there is a whole range of different postmodern theories and positions. Postmodernists value difference and diversity and try to find harmony and synthesis through eclecticism. Therefore their academic writings tend to be interdisciplinary and they will range quite freely over history, sociology, literature, language, anthropology, philosophy and other disciplines. Rather than look at what is knowable they tend to look at how we know, and how our knowledge is mediated by texts, language, 'discourses' and other intermediaries. Pushed to its limits, as sometimes occurs, some postmodernists find themselves able to conclude that all history is fiction.
Your first task in this seminar is to see where postmodernists are coming from. What is it that they are reacting against? What is it that they are rejecting? What is it that they are declaring obsolete?
The first reading for this seminar, by Lawrence Cahoone, suggests postmodernism's links with 'modernism' (see also the lecture by John Atchison which follows these notes). For Cahoone, 'modernity' ‘has a relatively fixed reference in contemporary intellectual discussion’. He asserts a meaning of 'modernity' (and thus 'modernization') as ‘the new civilization developed in Europe and North America over the last several centuries and fully evident by the early twentieth century’ (p.11).
This meaning, however, is not one you should necessarily accept - not only because of its vagueness and the contingencies associated with that but also because the meaning of ‘modernity’ is variable and, in some respects, contested. Cahoone almost acknowledges this himself at the end of the same paragraph on that page where he states that ‘the more precise definition of modernity – beyond science, technology, industry, and high living standards – [is] rather difficult’.
Here is a definition of ‘modernism’ by a respected American historian, Harold James: ‘Modernism is an eclectic term which has different meanings in varied contexts, but where the meanings…shift over from one domain to the other. On one level, it means an embracing of modern life and ideas, of urbanization, industrialization and the industrial society, technology, and the application of Enlightenment ideas about human capacity for improvemen’. The other level he asserts is as a ‘cultural movement’, which is ‘often used more specifically to mean the rejection of the legacy of nineteenth century romanticism which modernism derided as sentimental, inauthentic, and aesthetically exhausted.’
Here are the also-respected historians Asa Briggs and Particia Clavin on ‘modernity’: ‘self-conscious as it became, [it] was not a new concept during the late nineteenth century nor even during the 1860s and 1870s. It has been traced back to the Renaissance…and even to the fall of ancient Rome…’. It seems that any historical period (or place?) can choose to call itself ‘modern’. In an entire chapter, titled simply ‘Modernity’, Briggs and Clavin nowhere set out a clear meaning of ‘modernity’; they demonstrate their understanding of it through an extensive selection of examples but leave the reader to do his or her best to make sense of it.
So just how stable is this notion of ‘modernism’ or ‘modernity’ upon which and against which ‘postmodernism’ positions itself? You will most often encounter ‘modernity’/’modernism’ used uncritically. You should interrogate all such instances. As the British literary and cultural critic Raymond Williams suggests: ‘As catchwords of particular kinds of change the terms need scrutiny’.
Marshall Sahlins, an American anthropologist and historian (or perhaps 'cultural historian' for some), is acutely aware of social and cultural differences across the world. In taking a global view of human society, he asserts that: ‘The very ways societies change have their own authenticity, so that global modernity is often reproduced as local diversity’. ‘Modernity’ or ‘modernism’ can be seen to be an intellectual perspective adopted from a hegemonic position and thus ‘mimic on an academic plane…’ the imperialism which would be anathema to others, thus: ‘As an attack on the cultural integrity and historical agency of the peripheral peoples, they do in theory just what imperialism attempts in practice’.
So not only does the notion of ‘modernity’ or ‘modernism’ have a contingent or contested meaning but it can be seen, by some, to be a partisan concept which is able to be used instrumentally in academic posturing. Others, of course, adopt the notion as if its meaning is common knowledge and make no effort to explain it. In the context of these issues, as well as its fundamental rejection of ‘modernity’, ‘postmodernism’ makes its play.
Can we decide to ignore or dismiss entirely the notion of 'modernity' and thus deny the ‘modernism’/’postmodernism’ dualism? In principle, of course, we can. It could be an escape to greater intellectual freedom. In practice, however, even if we refuse to engage with 'modernism' or 'modernity' as concepts, we cannot avoid a confrontation with ‘postmodernism’ – it does permeate all the social sciences and the humanities, even if not always visibly, so we must come to some understanding as to what it represents and its implications for historians.
So now move on to Cahoone’s explanation of the key themes of postmodernism (pp. 13-19 of the original). If you are coming to philosophy (Cahoone is a philosopher) or social theory for the first time, you may find this difficult. But persist with it. Read it several times if necessary until you understand the key terms and thus come to understand how Cahoone perceives ‘postmodernism’.
As Cahoone is a philosopher, here are some notes by historians about the nature of postmodernism. You should read the short essay by Jane Caplan, especially her notes on postmodernism, although her explanations of poststructuralism and deconstruction are also important. Perhaps her less convoluted explanations will help clear the air for you. You can also fruitfully read, at this time, the first paragraph of the British historian Raphael Samuels’ article ‘Reading the Signs II: Fact-grubbers and Mind-readers’ for another succinct explanation of postmodernism (noting that Samuels uses the expression the ‘deconstructive turn’ in substitution for ‘postmodernism’). We will return to Samuels shortly.
Self–Assessed Activity I
What do you understand by the postmodernist dichotomies of:
presence versus representation
origin versus phenomena
unity versus plurality
transcendence of norms versus immanence of norms
What is meant by constitutive otherness?
What, if any, are the differences between Cahoone, Caplan, and Samuels' basic understandings of ‘postmodernism’?

The postmodernists have been nothing if not bold. Not only have they ranged broadly across the humanities and social sciences, they have mounted forays against the very citadels of science. In the course of their swarming, they have made enemies. It is their attack on absolute reality, their deriding of any notion that there are real structures of society and history, their claim that even the realities of the pure sciences are cultural constructs, which have raised the hackles. The Marxist historian, Alex Callinicos, slammed the postmodernists saying that ‘the producers of this discourse … offered definitions which were mutually inconsistent, internally contradictory and/or hopelessly vague’ . Not mincing words, US scientists Paul Gross and Norman Levitt opened their salvo against the writings of the ‘muddle–headed academic left' postmodernists with the uncompromising statement that:
Muddleheadedness has always been the sovereign force in human affairs - a force far more potent than malevolence or nobility … It blunts our wisdom, misdirects our compassion, clouds whatever insights into the human condition we manage to acquire. It is the chief artisan of the unintended consequences that constitute human history.
Australian academic, Keith Windschuttle, wrote that no less than the killing of history was afoot from a potentially lethal attack by an array of French-inspired literary and social theories which deny that truth and knowledge about the past are possible. Even anti French xenophobia and outraged French nationalism seem to come into the argument. Obviously the passions are engaged, and the debate has become politicised. In fact, as Jane Caplan suggests, perhaps postmodernism is political—just as many historians would claim that modernism also is political.
A few points must be borne in mind. Most postmodernists, despite their critical engagement with ‘modernity’ and especially in the context of their assertions regarding the relativism of texts, still would like you to accept (believe?) the histories they write. Their focus is most commonly on text and discourse rather than on social structure and structural change and human agency. Postmodernists do write about the past and their material is widely published, but so, too, is that of many other historians who are, consciously or unconsciously, outside the discourses of postmodernism.
There are powerful voices who oppose postmodernism on an intellectual rather than a polemical level. The renowned English sociologist and philosopher, Anthony Giddens, clearly has no time for postmodernism, sees it as a false dawn, and locates himself unequivocally in the modernist tradition. His essay ‘Structuralism, Post-structuralism and the Production of Culture’, for example, is worth reading for its critical discussion of various centrally-important dimensions of postmodernist thinking. Postmodernism has not won the day.
One of the ‘big’ names most often centrally associated with postmodernism is Michel Foucault who always maintained that he was, before all else, an historian. A summary discussion of ‘Foucault for Historians’ is provided for you in an article by Jeffrey Weeks in the Resource Material. Foucault's works were largely about the past, although he argued against structural continuities in history and saw periods where there was a definite break with the past, and a sea change in attitudes. He suggested substituting ‘author-function’ for the individual person as author. This way of thinking could be extended to an ‘author’ becoming an ‘initiator of discursive practices’ if his or her work produced ‘the possibility and the rules of formation of other texts’ (he suggested Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud as examples). One book recommended to you below attempts to construct some histories which Foucault might have written had he lived longer. Foucault's study of power is widely acclaimed, and this concept alone can be of some use to historians, although it has been subject to strong criticism for being a decentred concept, too amorphous.
There are other postmodernist treatments of the past which you may find worthwhile and helpful. The attention postmodernists draw to the social and linguistic contexts of texts and the questioning they direct at historical assumptions can be as helpful to some as it is annoying to others.
edit mk. 2: A few paragraphs on historical method, as opposed to scientific: b) Historical Method
Whether history makes a credible contribution to knowledge or not relates closely to the critical method/s adopted by the historical profession. What clearly emerges is that despite all attempts to follow scientific method—the positing and testing of hypotheses—historical investigation is fundamentally different. Science seeks to discover the general laws underpinning nature by means of disinterested experiment which allows for objective validation through repeatable demonstration. History has no such capability. For a start, historical events are not repeatable and experiments carried out in science cannot be undertaken in history. We cannot recreate the American Civil War, for example, in order to test hypotheses about the role of slavery in causing the North/South division and the five year conflict that followed.
Secondly, the historian is no disinterested or neutral onlooker simply ascertaining the facts of history from the sources that contain them. Unlike scientists who in theory observe events from outside and have no effect on them, historians are essential cogs in the process of discovering history. Facts do not speak for themselves. They have to be found through the interrogation of sources, evaluated for their significance and selectivity connected not only to reconstruct past events but importantly to explain them. As a builder in the enterprise of historical reconstruction the historian brings to the task what J.H. Hexter calls a ‘second record’.


Each historian’s second record is in some measure individual to him. Much of it is wholly personal and private, entirely inaccessible to others except in so far as he renders it accessible. It is everything he can bring to bear on the record of the past in order to elicit from that record the best account he can render of what he believes actually happened in the past. Potentially therefore it embraces the historian’s skills, the range of his knowledge, the set of his mind, the substance, quality and character of his experience—his total consciousness. J.H. Hexter, The History Primer, 1971, p. 80.


In short history depends not only on the surviving record of the past but on what historians bring to it? It always involves a participatory interference.
All these things led R.G. Collingwood to conclude that history has its own epistemology—its own basis and brand of knowledge. In an insightful and testing section in his book The Idea of History he presents the case that historians are interested not in the past as such, or even in specific events, but in the thinking that informed past actions. A past act is dead and will remain meaningless unless the historian can understand the thought that lay behind it. In this sense history was the historian’s reconstruction of past thought. Depending on empirical evidence certainly, history also depended on the historian’s mind.

c) Outcome
So history in the end appears to be interpretative reconstructions of past events, which are considered important by the historian and which are constantly revised in line with the latest scholarship and revelation.

[averagejoe]

Uh... The second part of your post was basically the majority of my 5-day residential school. That hasn't really been the case at all since Post-Modernism swept the world a few decades ago. Now, it's stressed that historians can't know exactly what happened or what things were like, but are only making interpretations and reconstructions, according to peer-accepted and critiqued methods, based on what evidence is available, to the best of our abilities and with a conciousness of our own biases. There is statistical analysis used, but that, too, is quite subjective and as malleable as any other part of history. In summary: Your criticism is several decades out of date :smalltongue:

Hardly. This is a point of view I've reached through direct observation of empirical evidence. I'm not a huge history buff, so perhaps these guys are out there and I haven't seen them, but most of the historical knowledge I've been exposed to seems to suffer greatly from this. Maybe I've just been reading all the wrong stuff, I dunno. It has, however, rather turned me off to history, which is a shame because it is a fascinating subject.

[Serpentine]

What's the date of the books you've been reading, and what subject are they on? If they're not at least describing or directing you to the evidence upon which they make their conclusions, they're bad history. Or maybe a layman's history sort of thing, written for the casual reader who generally just wants to find out something interesting, not analyse the origin of that information.
(in case you didn't see it, I added more to my last post)

Oh, incidentally, I'm reading A History of Archaeological Thought (2nd ed, Bruce G. Trigger, 2006), and archaeology has gone through much the same process of assuming it reveals all truths to creative interpretation and acknowledgement of weaknesses (although this has happened in a shorter space of time, as only in the last couple of centuries has it been a legitimate field of research or seen as a source of any valuable information about the past).

While we're at it, what's another way of saying "trace historical relations through time and space"? The sentence has to be about one of the abilities of archaeology, and the whole source sentence is "Like palaeontology, culture-historical archaeology's chief asset is its ability to trace historical relations through time and space", and it has to be different enough to avoid plagiarism... I need a sentence thesaurus.

Oh, and seeing as credentials were mentioned, I'm currently writing an essay on evidence for my honours in history, my thesis for which is based on the roots of Christianity and its ancient mythological/theological influences, so don't try to tell me that I'm going to be "presenting whatever (I) think of things as fact", because if I do that's self-kidding in the extreme :smalltongue:
Also I did science, too, so I'm all for at least some scientific virtues to get into history/the arts, and vice-versa.

[Verruckt]

Yes, but it's not actualy science. Which is kind of, you know, what this thread is meant to be discussing.


You wound me sir :smalltongue:

On a subject that serves to unite both science and philosophy, what opinion do y'all have with regard to transhumanism? I for one think it's really cool for lack of a better phrase and it seems to generally be the way things are headed.

[averagejoe]

:smallconfused: Maybe it's just because I'm unfamiliar with the subject, but I've never thought of transhumanism as uniting science and philosophy.

@Serp: To tell the truth it has been a long time since I've read anything very historical at all, and a lot of what I have read was probably meant for the plebeians.

[Icewalker]

Transhumanism. Looks like I looked into this thread at the right time.

I've had transhumanist views basically my whole life, although didn't know anything about the actual philosophy as more widely spread until a little under a year ago.

I intend to extensively support the fields and developments myself, via hopefully establishing significant steps in the previously not really named and not sufficiently pursued field of Neuroengineering. I intend to study neuroscience with a slightly lesser focus on engineering and probably a bit in general anatomy as well.

One of the primary focuses I've been thinking of is the completely understanding and interaction with the optic nerve: having complete interpretation of the signals sent between the eye and the brain, and then interacting with the nerve such that we could send in whatever signal we want. Basically, your eye becomes a computer monitor.

Kind of like the EyeTap (http://wearables.blu.org/), but more extensive.



Transhumanism doesn't really connect science and philosophy, it's just that it crosses all the lines which people are philosophically sketchy about when it comes to science.

[Serpentine]

I think those sorts of books might just grab the prevailing views of the time and convey it to an audience in an appealing manner without taking into account the evidence or any uncertainty and without seriously considering the possibility that next week new data might turn it all on its head.

Verruckt: An explanation for the ignorant?

[Cynan Machae]

Science thread, yay!

I'm in the process of obtaining my master degree in Molecular and Cellular Biology (by the end of summer). And i got a B.sc in Biochemestry :smallsmile:

So... I've recently discovered this, and I tihnk it's a good place to share it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ig_Nobel_Prize_winners

Some stuff is.. yea :smalltongue:

[Icewalker]

Transhumanism is the philosophy that humanity is just a flawed and temporary set up, basically. We, as beings, are held back by physical restrictions, and the idea of transhumanism is the use of science and technology to bypass such limits. Generally, the end goal of transhumanism is the upload: the mapping of the brain into a computer, allowing us to function normally and live immortally as data.

I have two really good quotes to help sum it up. The first is from the short story Unready to Wear in Kurt Vonnegut's Welcome to the Monkey House:
"The mind is the only thing about human beings that's worth anything. Why does it have to be tied to a bag of skin, blood, hair, meat, bones, and tubes? No wonder people can't get anything done, stuck for life with a parasite that has to be stuffed with food and protected from weather and germs all the time. And the fool thing wears out anyway - no matter how much you stuff and protect it! Trouble with the world isn't too many people - it's too many bodies"

The second is from Battlestar Galactica:
"With eyes designed to perceive only a fraction of the EM spectrum. With ears designed only to hear vibrations in the air. I don't want to be human! I want to see gamma rays, I want to hear x rays, and I want to smell dark matter! Do you see the absurdity of what I am, I can't even express these things properly! Because I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid, limiting, spoken language! But I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws...and feel the solar wind of a supernova flowing over me. I could know much more, I could experience so much more, but I'm trapped in this absurd body."

[Serpentine]

Looking at that list:
Frigging Von Daniken! (look for Crash Go the Chariots for a really well-written and comprehensive debunking of all his crap)
That penis poster could actually be pretty interesting...
Heh heh, L. Ron Hubbard.
That's a lot o' butt-stuff.
Skimming over several years so I can get back to work...
Wooooo Karl Kruszelnicki! :biggrin:
Slime moulds can solve puzzles? :smallconfused: I miss my little bright yellow slime mould...

AverageJoe: I just found a passage in this book that I think pretty much sums up what I was trying to say.
Today, it is generally understood that past human behaviour and beliefs are not "discovered" or "reconstructed" by archaeologists (or historians) but, rather, "constructed," "inferred," or "conjectured" with varying degrees of probability.

[Verruckt]

Transhumanism. Looks like I looked into this thread at the right time.

I've had transhumanist views basically my whole life, although didn't know anything about the actual philosophy as more widely spread until a little under a year ago.

I intend to extensively support the fields and developments myself, via hopefully establishing significant steps in the previously not really named and not sufficiently pursued field of Neuroengineering. I intend to study neuroscience with a slightly lesser focus on engineering and probably a bit in general anatomy as well.

One of the primary focuses I've been thinking of is the completely understanding and interaction with the optic nerve: having complete interpretation of the signals sent between the eye and the brain, and then interacting with the nerve such that we could send in whatever signal we want. Basically, your eye becomes a computer monitor.

Kind of like the EyeTap (http://wearables.blu.org/), but more extensive.



Transhumanism doesn't really connect science and philosophy, it's just that it crosses all the lines which people are philosophically sketchy about when it comes to science.

Ah, the bread to my jelly. Thankyou, Icewalker, for working to make my childhood dreams come true. The reason I say that it brings science and philosophy together is as you say transhumanism breaks so many rules with our conventional perception of ethics and mortality that the philosophical ramifications of something as earthshattering as technical immortality just plain have to be addressed. This is the reason I'm getting into ethics, so as to help ease the transition while people like you work on the hardware (soon to be wetware:smallamused:) end of things.

Serpentine: Basically as Icewalker says. The Holy Grail of Transhumanism is the Upload, technical immortality, thought expressed as data. The reason this is so important philosophically speaking are many. We run into all sorts of fun questions, how will culture be effected by such a perfect system for the exchange of ideas? How much more quickly will science advance when language and culture is no longer a barrier to the sharing of ideas? If one was able to upload their consciousness into some sort of large network containing other such consciousnesses how would one maintain their individuality? Should one even try?

The question of A.I. also inevitably comes into this conversation, and opens up a whole other ethical and metaphysical can of worms. (My opinion on the matter: If it's rational and autonomous, it may not be Human, but it's deserving of the same rights)

Finally, transhumanism is tangentially connected to the field of nanotechnology. One of the driving ideals behind transhumanism is that the rate of technological advancement is accelerating:
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w22/Jerisalem/PPTCountdowntoSingularityLinear.jpg
accelerating towards a new paradigm shift in human nature, like the industrial revolution combined with coming down from the tress but x3 and on crack. Nanotech's big final aim (if it really can be said to have a goal) is the Maker, which can be described in layman's terms as basically an infinitely scalable Star Trek Replicator. If the Upload is the Holy Grail then the Maker is the Philosopher's Stone.

This barely even scratches the surface, but it seems to me to be an extremely important area of study for all fields, not just science and philosophy, as it really does look like this is where we're headed as a species.

Anyway, I hope that's all cogent and helpful. I tend to get overly wordy when I'm passionate about something.

Further reading:

Aaron Diaz has written a great satirical response to some of the common criticisms of transhumanism here: http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/2181/

and Wikipedia's article on the subject is a great primer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism
the list of references on the Wikipedia page is pretty exhaustive in terms of more material if you want to delve deeper into the subject.

[averagejoe]

Well, it's good to know that stuff is changing/has changed.

On transhumanism: while I'm not really anti transhumanist, the whole thing seems a bit silly to me. From what I can tell it seems like a messianic belief in what is going to happen anyways. People have always sought immortality and physical perfection, and they will utilize what aids in this when such things are created. I don't see why it needs an "ism."

[Icewalker]

Yeah, we really are moving towards a transhumanist revolution.

The Maker...haven't heard of it. What exactly do you mean by emulating the replicator, the one problem with that is the whole huge amount of energy to create mass issue.

As to AIs, we hit the interesting subject of the Technological Singularity: the computer that can design a faster computer, which can in turn design a faster computer...

[Serpentine]

Have you guys read The Ship Who Sang by Anne McCaffery? It's not quite the extreme of that, but it sounds along those lines. Basically, the brains of children with disabled and/or dying bodies are given very very expensive and very very fancy robotic bodies and, eventually, an entire spaceship to run (and pay off their debt to the government).

[averagejoe]

The reason I say that it brings science and philosophy together is as you say transhumanism breaks so many rules with our conventional perception of ethics and mortality that the philosophical ramifications of something as earthshattering as technical immortality just plain have to be addressed.

Things like that have been in existence since science had any sort of military application. It isn't bringing science and philosophy together, it's a philosophy that applies to scientific things.


Yeah, we really are moving towards a transhumanist revolution.

See, this is what I'm talking about. Why does it need to be a "revolution?" Why does it need a name? It's simply human nature. A company invents a cybernetic arm that is in every way superior to a human arm. They make it cheap enough that everyone can afford a pair. Supply, demand, consumerism, and technological advancement; these are nothing new, you're just surrounding it with a semi-mysticism.

[Verruckt]

See, this is what I'm talking about. Why does it need to be a "revolution?" Why does it need a name? It's simply human nature. A company invents a cybernetic arm that is in every way superior to a human arm. They make it cheap enough that everyone can afford a pair. Supply, demand, consumerism, and technological advancement; these are nothing new, you're just surrounding it with a semi-mysticism.

That's not quite a fair characterization. This is beyond cybernetics, beyond simple medical application. When you start talking about Immortality, Gestalts, non-human Intelligences and a Post-Scarcity society you've gone far beyond anything previous. Supply/Demand is irrelevant, and the fundamental nature of "Human Nature" comes into question. It may seem like mysticism but really that's only because we really don't quite know how it's all going to work. This is a huge change that is oncoming, perhaps not in my lifetime or the next, but it is coming with ever increasing speed, and the changes it will bring scare the crap out of some people.


Yeah, we really are moving towards a transhumanist revolution.

The Maker...haven't heard of it. What exactly do you mean by emulating the replicator, the one problem with that is the whole huge amount of energy to create mass issue.

As to AIs, we hit the interesting subject of the Technological Singularity: the computer that can design a faster computer, which can in turn design a faster computer...

Maker is just the term I've heard used in reference to a possible application of nanotechnology, I'm sure there's a more formal name but I just don't know what it is. The replicator analogy isn't perfect, the basic idea is more like a current rapid prototyping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_prototyping) technology but on a much much smaller scale. (a nanoscale in fact, go figure) Essentially it's a machine that uses nanobots, extremely precise printing and raw atomic feedstock (pure carbon, pure sulfur etc.) to build stuff from the atomic or molecular level on up. The things it builds can be anything from a book to a watch to a car to a pizza (and since we're talking atomic scale, it could be the exact same pizza you would get from you favorite pizza joint provided the machine had the template), and the size is only constrained by the scale of the machine. Neil Stephenson's The Diamond Age is pretty much the seminal bit of Sci Fi with regards to that particular piece of technology.

That book also contains an interesting take on The Singularity (he basically asks "What if we simply can't get an A.I. to work? Where do we go from there?")

[averagejoe]

That's not quite a fair characterization. This is beyond cybernetics, beyond simple medical application. When you start talking about Immortality, Gestalts, non-human Intelligences and a Post-Scarcity society you've gone far beyond anything previous. Supply/Demand is irrelevant, and the fundamental nature of "Human Nature" comes into question.

Of course it will be unsettling. Change always is. "To unsettle" could almost be a working definition for "change." However, what doesn't change is that if something is 1) desirable and 2) available then people will go for it. Unless being a computer somehow sucks noodles, I don't see what the issue is, or where the conflict comes in.


It may seem like mysticism but really that's only because we really don't quite know how it's all going to work.

No, it seems like mysticism because you use phrases like, "Countdown to singularity," an expression and idea that smacks of millennial or apocalyptic type ideas.

[Verruckt]

Of course it will be unsettling. Change always is. "To unsettle" could almost be a working definition for "change." However, what doesn't change is that if something is 1) desirable and 2) available then people will go for it. Unless being a computer somehow sucks noodles, I don't see what the issue is, or where the conflict comes in.

You don't see the conflict in a change that largely invalidates many current systems of government, asks some very troubling questions about religion, and begins to question the necessity of the Individual? Due to the nature of these boards these are ramifications we can't really talk about in depth (feel free to PM me if you like) but they are nonetheless more drastic than "Find a new way to get Food". That's why the philosophy ed of this thing is so damned important.



No, it seems like mysticism because you use phrases like, "Countdown to singularity," an expression and idea that smacks of millennial or apocalyptic type ideas.

I'll give you that, the parallels are there. I'm not sure why this matters though, so it sounds a bit like 2012 freak outs or Y2K, what of it?

[averagejoe]

You don't see the conflict in a change that largely invalidates many current systems of government, asks some very troubling questions about religion, and begins to question the necessity of the Individual? Due to the nature of these boards these are ramifications we can't really talk about in depth (feel free to PM me if you like) but they are nonetheless more drastic than "Find a new way to get Food". That's why the philosophy ed of this thing is so damned important.

You're the knowledgeable one. You can PM me if you like, but I wouldn't know what to say to you.

I will content myself with saying that I see the conflict, and I see that the conflict is already lost. Most people don't consider the philosophical ramifications of things unless they're told to, and even then the amount they consider is inversely proportional to some combination of how much they want to do that action and how convenient that action is. And this isn't like some morally questionable but efficient dish cleaner or something, this is freaking immortality, in essence. At worst it can be suppressed for a little while.


I'll give you that, the parallels are there. I'm not sure why this matters though, so it sounds a bit like 2012 freak outs or Y2K, what of it?

Well, besides the fact that I find taking a movement which is supposed to be based on the rational and scientific and surrounding it with such language and presenting it in such a way instead of speaking plainly to be unsettling at best, and besides the fact that it gives the whole idea the trappings of mysticism (which was my original point, and what I was previously responding to, that this isn't something that needs such trappings), I don't see the point. It's just a messiah that isn't human. I don't mean that parallels are there, I mean it is a messiah; a mysterious thing that will at some point make everything awesome, or at least lead us into an age that no one will conceive of.

[GoC]

Hmmmm. As an amateur philosopher, and aspiring scientist, I can assure you this is not the case. Philosophy is an important field, and is quite distinct from science. Science is in fact an application of philosophical conclusions much the same way technology the application of science.

And what philosophical conclusions would these be? Science can survive quite nicely on it's own and do amazing things. Can philosphy do that?

[Verruckt]

And what philosophical conclusions would these be? Science can survive quite nicely on it's own and do amazing things. Can philosphy do that?

I think the fact that Philosophy as a field was around before Natural Philosophy, gave birth to Natural Philosophy, and helps guide and maintain Natural Philosophy answers your question pretty succinctly.

[Nameless]

And what philosophical conclusions would these be? Science can survive quite nicely on it's own and do amazing things. Can philosphy do that?

Yes. Yes it can. It's done so for thousands of years.

[Serpentine]

Uh... Philosophy spawned science, and it's formally known as "the Philosophy of Science". I'm not particularly interested in philosophy, but so far as I can tell it's almost as intrinsic and important part of science as scientific method. Furthermore, it is philosophy that guides the directions and utilities that science takes - even if scientists/funders don't always listen.

[GoC]

I think the fact that Philosophy as a field was around before Natural Philosophy, gave birth to Natural Philosophy, and helps guide and maintain Natural Philosophy answers your question pretty succinctly.

How does it "guide and maintain" science?


Yes. Yes it can. It's done so for thousands of years.

Name one of the accomplishments of philosophy. And don't say "science" as that would be somewhat beside the point.

[KnightDisciple]

How does it "guide and maintain" science?
It helps us give a reason for science besides science for the sake of itself.


Name one of the accomplishments of philosophy. And don't say "science" as that would be somewhat beside the point.
Logic.
Ethics.
Basic foundations of modern thought.
Really, philosophy has always been the study of "Why". Science is the study of "What" and "How".
In many ways, "Why" is the more important.

[averagejoe]

It helps us give a reason for science besides science for the sake of itself.

Science for the sake of itself is why people who do science do science. In the words of Richard Feynman, "Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." Anything else is just so that non-scientists can feel good about themselves.


In many ways, "Why" is the more important.

What ways are those?

[KnightDisciple]

What ways are those?

Hm. In my view, the reasoning and intent behind an action is just as important, if not more so, as the action itself. This goes all along the scale (as it were).
Forgive me if I'm unclear here; I'm not much of a wordsmith. :smallredface:

[Icewalker]

I'd disagree with you there, averagejoe, every bit of my scientific interest is drawn from either philosophy or practical application. I think the closest one can get to 'science for the sake of science' is just curiosity, and that's really pursuit of knowledge, which has a mostly philosophical basis.

[averagejoe]

Hm. In my view, the reasoning and intent behind an action is just as important, if not more so, as the action itself. This goes all along the scale (as it were).
Forgive me if I'm unclear here; I'm not much of a wordsmith. :smallredface:

But most of the time one's intent isn't especially deep or profound, i.e. "Because I feel like it."


I'd disagree with you there, averagejoe, every bit of my scientific interest is drawn from either philosophy or practical application. I think the closest one can get to 'science for the sake of science' is just curiosity, and that's really pursuit of knowledge, which has a mostly philosophical basis.

No, the pursuit of knowledge has a fundamental psychological basis. One can philosophize about the pursuit of knowledge, but the actual pursuit is one that has always been going on. It is "Drawn from philosophy," no more than hunger or tiredness or the desire for stimulation are drawn from philosophy.

Here's the thing about science; it's hard. Really hard. And extremely tedious. And rarely rewarding. It's easy to write it off as just a curiosity when you haven't done much, but it really is one of the most grueling things one can do. Any sensible person who is merely curious would just give up and read Scientific American and similar publications. Yet every day people decide to give that proof one more hour, then another hour, then another, sitting and scribbling on blackboards and paper when they could be out playing video games or watching movies or having sex or drinking or reading books that aren't completely dry and generally obtuse and unhelpful.

You ask any scientist why they became a scientist and they will most likely describe the feeling one gets when discovering something new, that feeling that is incredibly rewarding and unique to discovery. If one was merely curious then they could simply read about this. The body of scientific knowledge is probably big enough to last a lifetime; too many scientific articles are posted every day for any one person to read. However, one does it because of a genuine love for science itself, a desire that can be sated by nothing else. Any given scientific work is also some of the most tedious work one can do, but that love makes it all worth it, unquestioningly.

Well, either that or one's parents want one to, and they somehow still have a say in one's adult life.

[Toastkart]

Science for the sake of itself is why people who do science do science. In the words of Richard Feynman, "Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." Anything else is just so that non-scientists can feel good about themselves.

Not to say that doing something for the love of it is wrong or anything, but why is doing science for the sake of science coded so importantly in our overall culture? For that matter why are knowledge and intelligence coded so importantly? It's not as if knowing enough gives you real control over something, just the illusion of it.

Also, why the non-scientist hate? I'm working on a Master of Arts in Psychology in a transpersonal/humanistic/existential program. Psychology has gotten to the point where its largest detriment is that it tries too hard to be a science. Why is a pursuit considered less valuable or less valid if it's not seen as scientific? I mean, can you prove to me that the scientific method is the only means of gaining valid knowledge?

This is for the thread as a whole and not to you specifically, but why is reductionism still the driving force behind our search for valid knowledge? Wouldn't a holistic approach open up other possibilities that reductionism denies or ignores?


What ways are those?

At the most basic level, science can give you a piece of technology or even a bit of information about the universe, but it can't tell you what to do with it.

I'm not sure I can convince you that asking why is more important than blindly doing something because for me it's such an obvious thing.

The best I can do is ask a question myself. Why would you want to cut away half of your being, half of your world, and half of your avenues to gaining knowledge? That's what you're doing when you fail to ask why. Asking why is intertwined with being itself. If you fail to consider being itself, you're left with the thingliness of things and being becomes mere idea.


But most of the time one's intent isn't especially deep or profound, i.e. "Because I feel like it."

If that's as introspectively deep as you want to get, that's your business. But why assume that that's all the deeper anyone will ever get?


No, the pursuit of knowledge has a fundamental psychological basis. One can philosophize about the pursuit of knowledge, but the actual pursuit is one that has always been going on. It is "Drawn from philosophy," no more than hunger or tiredness or the desire for stimulation are drawn from philosophy.

They may not be drawn from it directly, but they are examined by philosophy. That's close enough for me to understand what was meant by the phrase 'drawn from philosophy'.

As for the rest of your post, I don't see the relevance. There are any number of grueling tasks that people do when they could be doing something else. Work and artistic expression are two, just off the top of my head.

[GoC]

Logic.
Ethics.

Those are both seperate things. Logic is a branch of mathematics and ethics is it's own field.

I agree with averagejoe about why we do science. I've made a few proofs and discovered a few things in mathematics. Of course I later found out they'd all been discovered before but that was later...


Asking why is intertwined with being itself.
This sentence has poor grammar and is incomprehensible.
As is this one:

If you fail to consider being itself, you're left with the thingliness of things and being becomes mere idea.

[Mr. Mud]

GoC: The latter of the two grammar statements is very comprehensible to me... Maybe it would make more sense written: " 'Asking why?' is intertwined with being itself."... Bleh whatever I always hated grammar. But the former is totally trash I agree... But it still gets the general point across.

KD: (on Mathematics/Logic) Nor have I... I'd go so far as to say that logic would be a side branch of mathematics... or at least some parts of each deeply related...

[KnightDisciple]

Those are both seperate things. Logic is a branch of mathematics and ethics is it's own field.
*snip*

I've never heard of logic being a math field. Like, ever. And ethics is still really a sub-field of philosophy. I've never heard of them being divorced in concept like you're suggesting here.

Mind you, I'm not saying science is bad or anything. But I don't think it's truly an end unto itself. I've always believed it a tool for greater things.

[Toastkart]

This sentence has poor grammar and is incomprehensible.
As is this one:

I should have explained better, but its difficult to do so without being able to refer to an article by George Seidel titled Martin Heidegger and the Pre-Socratics. In it Seidel talks about how the Pre-Socratic Great Thinkers were talking about a distinction between being and thing. They referred to these as being itself and the being of things. Later philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle 'forgot' this distinction and grounded their work in the "thingliness of things", even though they still used being language.

It was a bit of an implied leap, but what I was trying to get across was that asking why mirrors the importance of philosophy as a whole, and philosophy is rooted in being. Without being you're left with just things. We have this tendency towards making dualistic extremist assumptions--science and philosophy; mind and brain--but fail to realize that they're assumptions.

Perhaps I should have just replaced 'asking why' with philosophy.

[averagejoe]

Not to say that doing something for the love of it is wrong or anything, but why is doing science for the sake of science coded so importantly in our overall culture? For that matter why are knowledge and intelligence coded so importantly? It's not as if knowing enough gives you real control over something, just the illusion of it.

I wasn't aware such a thing was coded so importantly in our overall culture. I was under the impression that most people think that you get to do awesome stuff with it, and that you either learn to love it or you give up because it is really tedious and hard, and other reasons are generally insufficient to drive you to keep going. I've never heard such rhetoric from anyone but scientists.

I'm a bit confused, because I'm pretty sure you're not suggesting that we value ignorance. Knowledge and intelligence are both of use to us in our daily lives, of course they're valued.


Also, why the non-scientist hate? I'm working on a Master of Arts in Psychology in a transpersonal/humanistic/existential program. Psychology has gotten to the point where its largest detriment is that it tries too hard to be a science. Why is a pursuit considered less valuable or less valid if it's not seen as scientific? I mean, can you prove to me that the scientific method is the only means of gaining valid knowledge?

What hate? I'm simply arguing that philosophy is not as important to science as has been generally suggested.

I would, however, ask you what method of gaining knowledge has gained anywhere near the success that the scientific method has? It has been overwhelmingly true that fields switching to a scientific mode do much better when they do (see me and Serp's history discussion above.) I find your claim that psychology is harmed by "trying to be a science," to be fairly dubious, and would ask that you back it up. Especially since, historically, the unscientific nature of psychology made it pretty much a joke.


This is for the thread as a whole and not to you specifically, but why is reductionism still the driving force behind our search for valid knowledge? Wouldn't a holistic approach open up other possibilities that reductionism denies or ignores?

This is a very vague statement. Could you clarify?


I'm not sure I can convince you that asking why is more important than blindly doing something because for me it's such an obvious thing.

That wasn't what I asked, I asked in what way the question "why" is more important than "what" or "how." I didn't ask why asking "why" is more important than not asking "why."


If that's as introspectively deep as you want to get, that's your business. But why assume that that's all the deeper anyone will ever get?

So you strenuously consider the methods, reasons, and implications of your actions every time you go to the bathroom? And you think this is widely practiced? Significant moral choices are simply not present in most of the things we do.

Either way I said nothing about my own practices.


They may not be drawn from it directly, but they are examined by philosophy. That's close enough for me to understand what was meant by the phrase 'drawn from philosophy'.

Fine. Everything that philosophy examines (i.e. everything) is drawn from philosophy. Philosophy is now a practically meaningless word because it refers to everything.


As for the rest of your post, I don't see the relevance. There are any number of grueling tasks that people do when they could be doing something else. Work and artistic expression are two, just off the top of my head.

Work is tied directly to survival, and as such takes quite a high priority. Artistic expression can be grueling, and people do it because they love to do it. I don't see what point you're trying to make, or how what I said was irrelevant to the point I answered.


I've never heard of logic being a math field. Like, ever.

Logic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic)

I mean, I hope it is a math field, or else I wasted that semester. And I kept getting funny looks when I told people logic was my hardest class. The logic you're thinking of isn't the logic I meant, people! It's definitely a post-calculus course, though.

In another sense, logic is all mathematics is.

[Icewalker]

As to your earlier response, averagejoe, I see what you mean.

Basically, from how I see it, while many people may be driven by natural ideas and the feeling of discovery and similar things, I think a number of scientists, myself included, derive their purpose from philosophical considerations. Personally, I try to function in as rational a manner as possible, which leads to a lot of philosophical consideration and it led me to science as a 'purpose', I suppose.

Also, it's probably worth noting that I believe we got onto this topic by some measure of miscommunication down the line, from the initial topic of how transhumanism tends to involve a lot of philosophical debate. On that subject: the main goal of transhumanism is immortality. That's really what it all leads to. Think about life. What people do, and why they do it. How society functions. In the long term especially, but even in the short term a little bit too, many, many things we do are in some way connected to our mortality. Even all goals exist within the frame of 'to be done before I die'. Everybody operates under the assumption that death is an inevitable thing. When that changes, so do so many things that we base our lives on.

And that's just immortality. The upload also renders numerous other requirements unnecessary.

It's things like that. Many parts of transhumanism change basic facts of society, which changes basic philosophy. That's a lot of why so many people are scared of the field.

[Graymayre]

Also, why the non-scientist hate? I'm working on a Master of Arts in Psychology in a transpersonal/humanistic/existential program. Psychology has gotten to the point where its largest detriment is that it tries too hard to be a science. Why is a pursuit considered less valuable or less valid if it's not seen as scientific? I mean, can you prove to me that the scientific method is the only means of gaining valid knowledge?


Who says that psychology isn't science? :smallconfused:

The word means "Study of the mind". Practice in it involves the same amount of scientific method as any other field. The fact that it deals in the abstract labyrinthine workings of the brain shouldn't change that. Personally, I don't see any difference between psychology and any other field.

[Icewalker]

Psychology is seen as less scientific because it is less definite. It attempts to understand the input and output of an extensive and extremely complex system, whereas a lot of sciences operate on a more base level. Basically, because the brain isn't fully understood, there is no 'right' answer in psychology a lot of the time, making it, in some views, less 'scientific'.

It's probably got as much in common with philosophy as science, actually :smalltongue:

It is a science, it's just such a blurred path to pursue that it can come across as less intensive. Eventually, neuroscience will help to close that gap. :smallwink:

Psychology is a science, at least in my opinion. It's just a really rough one because practically the entire point of science is to understand how something works, whereas psychology focuses on what something does. It's more estimation. The final goal of psychology, really, overlaps with neuroscience: understanding how the brain works. It's just taking the route of analyzing the input and output and trying to figure out what it is from what it does, whereas neuroscience takes the exact opposite route, looking at what it is and trying to understand how that makes it do what it does.

[Serpentine]

Logic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic)

I mean, I hope it is a math field, or else I wasted that semester. And I kept getting funny looks when I told people logic was my hardest class. The logic you're thinking of isn't the logic I meant, people! It's definitely a post-calculus course, though.

In another sense, logic is all mathematics is.I notice that that specifies "Mathematical logic".

Philosophy is, regardless of whether or not you acknowledge it, an intrinsic part of science. It's involved, for example, in deciding what we can and cannot do to animals and people, whether we can or can not torture small animals to death in the name of science, whether Hitler did good in his experiments on the Jews etc. It's also, as has been said, what we should do with the results of science, and what exactly we should be looking at. I suppose ethics is, really, the most obvious application of philosophy in science. Same with logic - and the people of the Victorian era and around there were basing the whole of their scientific and/or religious thought on logic, not just their mathematical thought. It goes right back to before science was science as part of its development from pure philosophy.
If you don't give any thought to why we do and should do science, and what we should do with it, fine, but don't assume that there's nothing to think about or that noone does it.

There's a few semi-sciences that can sort of fit into Sciences or Arts - as demonstrated by the possibility of doing them as part of a Bachelor of Arts or a BaScience at my uni. Aside from psychology, there's also archaeology and... uh, that's about all I can think of right now.

[Verruckt]

Gah! I disappear for a while and the conversation runs off without me:smallsmile:.

Without making a giant quote train here's my thoughts. With regards to How, What and Why I'm not entirely sure that Why is any more important than the others. The reason for that being that while it is important at all times to consider the possible repercussions of one's actions (especially in science) sometimes there just is no great Why to be asked. Sometimes, whether we want to admit it or not, stuff happens with no great reasoning or motive. If a lightning bolt hits your dog and kills it, there's only What and How, Why doesn't enter into the equation. We can go much, much farther with this but again that drifts far outside the bounds of what this board considers acceptable.

The ones who ask Why? of the universe and being and all the big ugly unruly questions fall mostly into the realm of metaphysics, which is really not my area of expertise. The most "important" question that comes out of that field of philosophy in my opinion is "Why is there nothing but something?" and the companion question that almost always gets tacked on "How do I know that there's something?" the people who believe that sense data allows one to accurately determine that there is in fact 'something' became the empiricists, who in turn spawned natural philosophy.

As I say, the field I'm interested in is Ethics, which is by far the most commonly applicable part of philosophy in the "real world" and it is the part of the philosophy that attempts to help, as I said "govern and maintain" natural philosophy. The relationship between the two is fascinating to me because they overlap so much. Science will do things that raise huge questions in Ethics that I just love. As Icewalker rightly says, the major scary thing about Transhumanism is that removing mortality from the equation changes so much. (one wonders what all the ethics of death and dying classes in colleges around the world will become)

Now if you want a real mind bender, start questioning this whole business of "Importance", as soon as you start looking at things from a non-anthropocentric viewpoint stuff starts to get weird.

[Icewalker]

(one wonders what all the ethics of death and dying classes in colleges around the world will become)

I'm guessing 'the ethics of immortality and not dying' :smallwink:

Not to mention, with the upload, one has to define dying. Seeing as we don't have it yet, we can't be sure, but it seems likely that the upload will be a 'copy the brain into a computer' not 'transfer the brain into a computer'. The important difference here is that while from an external perspective you are still you, and everything remains the same, from a personal perspective you are dying, and a copy of you is being made.

And that's not to mention 'souls'...

[averagejoe]

I notice that that specifies "Mathematical logic".

*shrug* He just said he didn't know that logic was apart of any mathematical field. Although, I do suspect that the title was a convenience in order to differentiate it from the more conventional logic. I've only ever heard my professors call it "logic," and that's what the classes are titled.

Did you think I was trying to make an argument for logic being purely mathematical? Because I was just trying to be enlightening. Really, I rarely mean more than what I say.


Philosophy is, regardless of whether or not you acknowledge it, an intrinsic part of science. It's involved, for example, in deciding what we can and cannot do to animals and people, whether we can or can not torture small animals to death in the name of science, whether Hitler did good in his experiments on the Jews etc. It's also, as has been said, what we should do with the results of science, and what exactly we should be looking at. I suppose ethics is, really, the most obvious application of philosophy in science. Same with logic - and the people of the Victorian era and around there were basing the whole of their scientific and/or religious thought on logic, not just their mathematical thought. It goes right back to before science was science as part of its development from pure philosophy.
If you don't give any thought to why we do and should do science, and what we should do with it, fine, but don't assume that there's nothing to think about or that noone does it.

I've never denied that philosophy can be applied to science; however most of what your talking about isn't science. For example, the application of science is not science any more than erecting a statue of George Washington is history. "What we should be looking at" is determined more by people with grant money than anything else. The limitation of the application of science is more a matter of laws than anything. Philosophers like to come up with "Kill a million to save a billion" scenarios, but these things are generally decided by governments.

And I'm not saying we shouldn't think about these things. Or that we shouldn't philosophize. I've never said we shouldn't philosophize. I do quite a lot of it myself. I'm saying they're not science, and I'm saying that philosophy doesn't "guide and maintain" science.


(especially in science)

No. No, no no.


More than anything this is the mentality I've been arguing against.

Science has spawned some pretty controversial stuff: the atom bomb, stem cells, human testing, and so on. Then, this is most of the exposure people get to science, and there is now this mentality that every scientist is out to wild and crazy stuff. The vast majority of science is really boring and doesn't do anything to anything. It's like:

"What does it read?"
"32.45."
*turns knob slightly*
"Okay, now what does it read?"
"34.56."
"Hmmm... it should have gone down. Have you checked all the connections."
"Well, everything seems fine. Wait, I must have jostled something loose. Yeah, now it's 20.98."
"Oh. 20.98, that's very good."

I mean, really, do we need extensive philosophical theory applied to, I don't know, an effort to measure the mass of a proton out to the fifteenth digit, or however precisely they've measured it? In looking at planets? In measuring cosmic radiation? These things to raise big questions, but you don't hear about them because they're not flashy and don't raise any big moral questions.

I mean, really, it's like those people who thought archaeologist would be an awesome profession after watching Indiana Jones only to find out that it mostly involves carefully scraping dirt off of things.

If anywhere it is "especially" important to consider the effects of one's actions it's in things like psychology (or maybe psychotherapy, I'm not sure of the proper names for things) and social engineering and such. And business. You know, things where the decision to do something or not do something might actually have an effect on people. There are some scientific discoveries that affect people in a big way, and these do need to be examined, but this is hardly the rule.

[Verruckt]

More than anything this is the mentality I've been arguing against.

Science has spawned some pretty controversial stuff: the atom bomb, stem cells, human testing, and so on. Then, this is most of the exposure people get to science, and there is now this mentality that every scientist is out to wild and crazy stuff. The vast majority of science is really boring and doesn't do anything to anything. It's like:

"What does it read?"
"32.45."
*turns knob slightly*
"Okay, now what does it read?"
"34.56."
"Hmmm... it should have gone down. Have you checked all the connections."
"Well, everything seems fine. Wait, I must have jostled something loose. Yeah, now it's 20.98."
"Oh. 20.98, that's very good."

I mean, really, do we need extensive philosophical theory applied to, I don't know, an effort to measure the mass of a proton out to the fifteenth digit, or however precisely they've measured it? In looking at planets? In measuring cosmic radiation? These things to raise big questions, but you don't hear about them because they're not flashy and don't raise any big moral questions.

I mean, really, it's like those people who thought archaeologist would be an awesome profession after watching Indiana Jones only to find out that it mostly involves carefully scraping dirt off of things.

If anywhere it is "especially" important to consider the effects of one's actions it's in things like psychology (or maybe psychotherapy, I'm not sure of the proper names for things) and social engineering and such. And business. You know, things where the decision to do something or not do something might actually have an effect on people. There are some scientific discoveries that affect people in a big way, and these do need to be examined, but this is hardly the rule.



My only response to this can only really be to ask what other field has given us the ability to render the planet uninhabitable by human beings? Yes, without ethical constraints people can do horrible things in just about any field, but what other field allows such tragedy? I totally agree that 99.9% of science is extremely monotonous dull and ethically doesn't need fiddling with. My uncle is a biological engineer at Cal Tech, he spent 5 years studying, testing, refining and testing some more in order to figure out a way to make rat feet sticky. (he also made it genetic, passed along to the young with the mother's immune system, rats are weird like that)

Cool? yes. Especially headline grabbing, ground shaking or ethically questionable? not really.

It's that .1 percent, when the spirit of ethical scientific pursuit is bastardized and twisted that made the conventional bomb from a mining tool, burned Dresden using a forest fire retardant, invented the gatling gun in an attempt to make war too horrible to fight, scorched Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the earth using an energy that could power millions of homes rather than incinerate them, gassed Jews in the name of progress, saw the Chinese used to test the effective range of Japanese hand grenades in the name of research, was used to justify racism on a twisted shadow of Darwinian thought, saw Kurds drowning in their own lungs because of a nerve agent that science created in an attempt to better understand chemicals and disease.

Yes, it is largely boring, but that .1%. This is NOT an indictment of science, more an indictment of human nature and shortsightedness. It is also NOT a call to retard scientific progress or research, I find that idea abhorrent, I'm just saying that Ethics and to a lesser degree philosophy as a whole is a necessary check on the implementation of the fruits of scientific research and the way that research is carried out. (and if research and experimentation aren't science, what is?)

Reinhold Niebuhr says it best (and I'm going to butcher this quote) "It is not the Children of Darkness that cause the most harm, but foolish Children of Light."

[Nameless]

How does it "guide and maintain" science?



Name one of the accomplishments of philosophy. And don't say "science" as that would be somewhat beside the point.

It’s philosophy that pretty much discovered the seasons and star Constellations and astrology. This greatly helped ancient civilisations know when and how to grow their crops and when to harvest them. In more modern times; most great discoveries such as some of Einstein’s theories were driven by philosophical idea’s and theories.
Evolution also started at as a phylosophical idea.

[Toastkart]

I wasn't aware such a thing was coded so importantly in our overall culture. I was under the impression that most people think that you get to do awesome stuff with it, and that you either learn to love it or you give up because it is really tedious and hard, and other reasons are generally insufficient to drive you to keep going. I've never heard such rhetoric from anyone but scientists.

I was speaking more of science in general and doing things in a scientific way.


I'm a bit confused, because I'm pretty sure you're not suggesting that we value ignorance. Knowledge and intelligence are both of use to us in our daily lives, of course they're valued.

They may be useful, but they're valued at the expense of others things, and they're valued based on assumption and rarely questioned.



I would, however, ask you what method of gaining knowledge has gained anywhere near the success that the scientific method has? It has been overwhelmingly true that fields switching to a scientific mode do much better when they do (see me and Serp's history discussion above.)

My question had nothing to do with whether they were effective or not, but rather questioned the assumption that the scientific method is the only method of gaining valid knowledge. I'd say that lived experience is a pretty good way of gaining knowledge, but since the abstract is regarded as more real than the concrete, I don't think that means much to most people.


I find your claim that psychology is harmed by "trying to be a science," to be fairly dubious, and would ask that you back it up. Especially since, historically, the unscientific nature of psychology made it pretty much a joke.

That's not entirely true. Humanistic psychology owns up to its unscientific nature, and yet its influence changed the way we do psychotherapy.

I have some articles to reference: The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology by Edmund Husserl. Humanistic Psychology: A New Breakthrough by J.F.T. Bugental. Phenomenology and the Foundation of Psychology by Amedeo Georgi. I'd also recommend the books: The Discovery of Being by Rollo May. Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity by Stephen Toulmin.

Aside from those specific readings, it's a concept very well grounded in humanistic psychological thought. Here's the wiki page on Humanistic Psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_psychology) which gives a brief overview.


This is a very vague statement. Could you clarify?

Reductionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism) is the driving force behind how science is done. Trying to understand something by breaking it down into its component parts and breaking those component parts into their component parts ad infinitum only gives you a certain kind of knowledge about that thing. Holism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism) is both contradictory and complementary to reductionism. Holism is trying to understand something by the relation of its parts, the system as a whole, and the system's relation to the world. This gets you a very different kind of knowledge.


Who says that psychology isn't science?

The word means "Study of the mind".

Sure it does, but why lay down such a finite definition for something that has an infinite nature? I wrote this as an informal paper on what psychology means.

For a seemingly technical term, for which there should be a specific definition, there is an awful lot of ambiguity about the meaning of the word ‘psychology.’ Common definitions for it include the study of the human mind and behavior. Materialist reductionists would have us believe that it is the study of the brain. Neither are wrong, but I feel that neither fully captures what psychology means. To get a better understanding we must look at the etymology of the word. The word ‘-logy’ is seemingly easy and commonly means “the study of” but this is a rather base interpretation. The word ‘psyche’ is no less difficult to understand.

The Greek roots of psyche mean soul, mind, spirit, breath, life, etc. which doesn’t get us much closer. Materialist reductionists would deny the existence of any of these subjects (period) as capable of being studied empirically. This of course leads to the limits of empirical inquiry, but that’s an essay by itself. What we can get from the meaning of the word is something distinctly alive. I mean this in the sense of a living being aware of space, time, and experience (i.e. its environment). How does the word breath fit into this meaning? What is breathing? Ordinarily you would say a process by which an organism cycles oxygen and carbon dioxide in order to stay alive. However, from a different perspective it is an intimate exchange with the world around us; a taking in and giving back on a deep level that connects us in ways that we may not realize. What we have so far, then, is psychology is the study of living beings. That doesn’t sound adequate either, as this definition is quite similar to anatomy and other medical sciences.

Let’s be a little more precise about ‘-logy’, or rather, logos. Traced back to its original Greek it means word, saying, thought, discourse, etc. We can see logos’s distinct ties to language in its meaning. Viktor Frankl took a slightly different approach with his Logotherapy. According to Frankl, the driving motivation for people is the will to meaning. That is, our actions are guided by the quest to find meaning. I like this particular use of logos because it encompasses the word not just as a noun but also as a verb, as a process. With this in mind, I would update the meaning of ‘-logy’ to be finding the meaning of (or in, or both even).

Where does this leave us, then? I often tell people that as a psychologist (or student of psychology) that I have to know everything about everything. I say this in a joking manner, but if it weren’t realistically impossible it would be pretty close to the mark. What I mean is that any subject that you can possibly think of involves human beings in some way, shape, or form, even if that involvement is on the level of ‘why would a person be interested in this subject?’ Therefore, I feel that we have to expand the definition of psychology to be finding the meaning of all aspects of living beings. An easier way to say that might be finding the meaning in existence. It seems that it is psychology’s lot to not have a finite definition. Then again, it’s probably for the best considering the infinite nature of subjective human experience and existence.


Practice in it involves the same amount of scientific method as any other field. The fact that it deals in the abstract labyrinthine workings of the brain shouldn't change that. Personally, I don't see any difference between psychology and any other field.

Perhaps you're not aware of the dualistic split that's inherent in psychology. Moreso than in any other field I'm aware of, there's a great deal of conflict between academics/researchers and therapists/field workers. This isn't just an applied vs. theoretical thing, its a disconnect that has so far remained unsolved. Imagine what kind of dilemma it is for a therapist who has to railroad a client into a diagnosis that doesn't fit just so he can get paid by the client's insurance.


Psychology is seen as less scientific because it is less definite. It attempts to understand the input and output of an extensive and extremely complex system, whereas a lot of sciences operate on a more base level. Basically, because the brain isn't fully understood, there is no 'right' answer in psychology a lot of the time, making it, in some views, less 'scientific'.

It's probably got as much in common with philosophy as science, actually

This was more the point I was getting at. Psychology should occupy the niche (or bridge the gap, if you prefer) between philosophy and science. It doesn't because it tries too hard to be a science.


That wasn't what I asked, I asked in what way the question "why" is more important than "what" or "how." I didn't ask why asking "why" is more important than not asking "why."

I misunderstood you there.


So you strenuously consider the methods, reasons, and implications of your actions every time you go to the bathroom? And you think this is widely practiced? Significant moral choices are simply not present in most of the things we do.


I don't, and no, I don't think very many people do. I did have a professor who brought it up as a point in a lecture once, though. Just because not very many people are introspective doesn't mean its not valuable to be introspective.


Fine. Everything that philosophy examines (i.e. everything) is drawn from philosophy. Philosophy is now a practically meaningless word because it refers to everything.

Isn't that kind of the point of philosophy, that it examine everything? I think you're taking me too literally here. I shouldn't really have to make the distinction between a thing and its philosophical backing.

[GoC]

*snip*
As a good philosopher shouldn't you start by defining your terms? Such as this unusual use of the word "being"? Make all your definitions clear before you start your argument.

Science can use both reductionism and holism. It's just that reductionism is more useful and holism is rarely needed. A sufficiently advanced brain can understand a system just from the pieces but some theorize that our brain is not advanced enough to understand how (for example) our brain works.

Can you give an example of a useful non-empirical inquiry?

What do you think of this definition: Psychology is the study of the mind.
It's the one I use.


Fine. Everything that philosophy examines (i.e. everything) is drawn from philosophy. Philosophy is now a practically meaningless word because it refers to everything.
Wow. You're right. I never realized that...:smallconfused:

[Verruckt]

I have some articles to reference: The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology by Edmund Husserl. Humanistic Psychology: A New Breakthrough by J.F.T. Bugental. Phenomenology and the Foundation of Psychology by Amedeo Georgi. I'd also recommend the books: The Discovery of Being by Rollo May. Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity by Stephen Toulmin.



I have some articles to reference: The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology by Edmund Husserl.


Edmund Husserl

Ever read something so utterly incomprehensibly complex that your brain locks up when you start to think about thinking about it? That's Husserl:smallfrown:.

*quivers*

[averagejoe]

Ervine:

I'm unsure how to respond. A lot of what you say seems to be grounded in assumptions that aren't true. For example, reductionism isn't valued more. It tends to be more useful, but neither one is preferred on a philosophical basis. Most of the time physicists (I can't speak for other scientists) know that they have to do such and such to get this information, so they do it. I guess I'd need an example of a case where people are studying something reductionistically and it would benefit them to study it holistically. (That's present tense, by the way. I'm sure it has happened in the past, but you are calling on people to modify their behaviors now.)

I think you might be confusing "reductionism" with the idea that "to find out what one thing does, we change that thing and leave everything else the same." Which still requires you to look at the whole thing and see how the different elements interact with one another.

I dunno, I really don't understand where you're coming from on this. I'm just trying to think of things that might answer you.

I mean, it's statements like this:


They may be useful, but they're valued at the expense of others things, and they're valued based on assumption and rarely questioned.

Which, besides being very vague, is unsupported and, without further evidence or clarification, it seems to be wrong. I really don't know what to say.


My question had nothing to do with whether they were effective or not, but rather questioned the assumption that the scientific method is the only method of gaining valid knowledge. I'd say that lived experience is a pretty good way of gaining knowledge, but since the abstract is regarded as more real than the concrete, I don't think that means much to most people.

I wasn't saying what your question was, I was answering it with another question. (Also, I kind of wanted to know if you did know of something as effective. I mean, your assumption, that a pursuit is seen as less valuable if it's not scientific, is wrong. I would argue that it is probably less likely to work well if it isn't scientific, but you've been very nonspecific, and I have no idea what ends they're working toward or anything like that. For example, writing poetry is one area where the scientific method would be all but useless, if not detrimental, and I don't think anyone really claim otherwise. Then again, it arguably isn't "knowledge" as much as it is intuition and experience.

What do you mean by "lived experience?" I didn't think experience was incompatible with the scientific method, and it has been my experience that being scientific about my experiences enhances my ability to understand them and gain knowledge from them.

[hamishspence]

I wonder if this quote from The Magic Furnace- The search for the origin of atoms qualifies:

In the words of Piet Hein:

Nature, it seems, is the popular name
for millards and millards and millards
of particle playing their infinite game
of billards and billards and billards.

[GoC]

For example, writing poetry is one area where the scientific method would be all but useless, if not detrimental, and I don't think anyone really claim otherwise.

*raises hand*
Most poetry is rubish anyway. What are needed are controled studies to determine what kind of things resonate with people.:smallbiggrin:

[Elminster1]

Well, as a philosophy major, it doesn't mean "everything". It means, love of wisdom, literally. Aside from that, it's a personal search for understanding, enlightenment,as well as the pursuit of "truth".

These days, I think that perception is the fulcrum on which everything hinges, so to speak. Perception is the key to how we interpret "what's out there" (indeed, if there is an out there) with the "I". Kantian in nature, I know.

When it boils down to it, I find perception and personal experience the current and milestone by which we judge and weigh every experience of our lives. Every experience we undergo, every paradigm we adopt or abandon, colors it all, layer after layer.

That's why it's integral that every human being, try and remain open minded. Not to let thought systems, patterns, and paradigms dominate our minds to the point of ruling out any possibility. The more we let others, or any influence control us to the point that it or they define our realities for us, the more limited we become, to the point of becoming stagnant and obstinate. Hard, I know.

Anyway, that's my point of view.

[Eldan]

I dunno... wouldn't that, with the present level of understanding of the human brain just lead to dividing humans into classes based upon which poetry they like? :smallwink:

Anyway, as for reductionism: my Master's degree in ecology starts in august. And I can tell you that it is very much concerned with understanding entire systems.

[GoC]

I shall now - in my insufferable arrogance - classify different branches of philosophy in accordance with their utility:
Metaphysics-Useless. I used to think this was what philosophy meant
Epistemology-Useless currently, though it created science
Ethics-Very useful, probably what Serpentine thinks guides science
Political philosophy-Sociology
Aesthetics-Media studies:smallbiggrin:
Logic-All logic should be mathematical logic. Modified for incomplete/imperfect information (if it isn't already).
Philosophy of mind-Useless or psychology/neuroscience depending on the part
Philosophy of language-Linguistics