Is Science Non-sense?

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 843
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by -1- » August 27th, 2017, 12:02 am

Ranvier, there are some things that are senseless to ask why.

Why does the sun go down in the west? Can be answered.

But why is gravity? does not make sense.

Your confusion, it seems to me, and i mean this will all respect, stems from the fact that you are seeking a quality in things that are simply not there. It is a perception problem. Some of us know that that quality is simply not inherent in that body or system or function; some of us come from the belief that EVERYTHING happens for a reason, which can be pointed at when answered if you ask "why". Then when they encounter things that can't be answered, they are baffled just like you.

For your sake, I wish there were a reason that would answer why car engines work. They certainly don't work to make humans' life easier, or to make the inventor happy, or for for more pay. They just do work, without an underlying reason. I wouldn't even call it spiritual reason; just a reason that would give meaning to their existence, if car engines were sentient.

I suspect your romantic sense in searching for the why in everything is due to your background. I used to know a feller from some Arabic country, a brilliant man, very highly educated, but he was lost in the cruel morality of the western world, because to him the "oughts" had much more punch than to us, his western friends. He was a direct hit with the ladies, or would have been, but he, unlike you, was impertinently forceful and overbearing, and women don't like that, although some would.

I met another feller in that bunch of circle of friends, he was also from the east, form India, and he could talk magic, so to speak, women loved to listen to his flowery thoughts. It's not that his language was flowery, and his thoughts normal or mundane; it was his very thoughts that were flowery. Women fell over him all over the place, and our suspicion was, in the circle, that he was gay, living in the closet. But those women who acknowledged this suspicion, still thought he was a gift from the heavens to womankind.

I had terrible bouts with him. Not because he was rude or overbearing or something, but because I was in a different phase at the time, and I really fought to have my weltanschauung accepted by everybody. Each time he proposed something which I found impossible or against human nature, I would voice my opinion without hesitation. Now that I'm older, I am calmer, and more accepting -- but it came at a price. The price was to have grown old, and have my testosterone production cut down tremendously.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 538
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by Ranvier » August 27th, 2017, 4:29 am

-1-

I meant to give the floor back to Synthesis but I can't stay silent and not respond to your post -1-, which is colorful and kind of you to share from your personal life experience. Since we are sharing let me say that for some reason I feel very comfortable in our thoughts exchange, even when you say that "I'm confused" or "baffled". Perhaps it's because, even though we differ in our perspectives, I can feel that you are a good person at "heart" who in spite of sarcastic outbursts at times, is respectful and without malice.

As to the question at hand, namely application of "why" to Gravity, perhaps it would help to rephrase the question to:
"Why is there Gravity"?

Similarly with the engine example, it would be worth while to "explain":
"Why is there entropy within our Universe that allows for the car engine to work in principle"?

I belie I said in this thread somewhere, that we are all rational people (presumably) and when people say something, it should be taken as something I may not understand at the moment but there must be a valid conceptual "reason" (double entendre) for them to express a certain view. There are rarely things that I can't comprehend that would leave my mind "baffled", except for only the things that don't make sense other than a personal agenda. Of course there are questions that are provocative and enticing to my mind, that require much deeper contemplation to appreciate, which may appear as confusing to other minds in their consideration. I often observe that people use "words" reflective of their own state of mind ;)

Is that too much... does this make me a megalomaniac?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 843
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by -1- » August 27th, 2017, 9:19 am

I read you, and I had understood exactly that this is how you were even before you wrote this last post.

Sadly, there is no Santa Claus. That means, that these two questions: "Why is there Gravity"? and "Why is there entropy within our Universe that allows for the car engine to work in principle"? are both unanswerable, even venture to say, wrong questions. They are NOT wrong questions if you decide or can't free your mind that everything happens for a reason. THEN they are the right questions. It is just wrong logic to assume that everything happens for a reason.

It is normally easy to find the reason for those things that happen for a reason. But there are questions or things that you can't find a reason for. Mankind has looked for a reason for them for thousands and tens of thousands of years, and was unable to find a reason.

Then they invented God in the interim, and some attached the answer to "why" to him. They figured the reason why there is entropy and why there is gravity, is God.

But now we're going away from a god-worship, and again, we must face the ultimate reasonlessness in the randomness in the universe.

There is no tooth fairy, either.

Of course if you want to believe in the "reason", be my guest, but please resign to the fact that you will never find it. Nobody ever has. If you are capable of faith, then fine, at least you have a faith that there is a reason -- even if you can never find it. Those of us who are different from you in this aspect, do not look for the "reason" because we have ab ovo intuited that there is no "reason".
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

User avatar
Socrateaze
Posts: 132
Joined: July 25th, 2017, 8:07 am
Favorite Philosopher: George Carlin

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by Socrateaze » August 27th, 2017, 9:33 am

Synthesis wrote:Although science might be considered many things, it is certainly does not preform any task other than putting forth the currently accepted view of how the perception of our physical space is constructed. And, at that, it does a pretty weak job. But, people buy into it, just the same, especially the highly educated variety [and particularly those with serious science backgrounds].

It has always amazed me that within my own profession [medicine] just how incredibly narrow the conversation remains. When you think about it, is there any other way it could be and still have the depth of dys-function that defines the American health care system?

Any system of thought has [at its core] the same dilemma, complete and utter delusion. The human intellect is simply incapable of accessing Reality in any accurate way, so instead of taking what Nature gives us [the ability to see with clarity], we attempt to "figure it out," and what a mess we make of these attempts. At the head of the class are the scientists who promulgate their religion to the masses without as much an apology for the absurd methods by which they declare the existence of facts.

I don't know about you folks, but I am tired of hearing from these scientists whose non-sense is almost as ridiculous as the religionists from whom they took the baton. Reality suggests that things are the way they are for reasons we will never know [and thank God for that!]. Imagine what a mess people would make of the world if we really knew what was going on!!
Some people know what really is going on, or at least in good measure. I guess that's why people like me are agnostic. I think it is a good step and also one of humility to admit something is going on, but that we have no idea. Wasn't it Steven Hawking that said the dangerous people are those who claim to know? I don't think there ever were any scientists that achieved something note-worthy without admitting their ignorance.

I am also tired of a scientific community that can tell me how the universe began, but can't tell me why I have an appendix.
418


- If you can paint the wind, I will tell you the secrets of the soul.

Steve3007
Posts: 4675
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by Steve3007 » August 27th, 2017, 9:39 am

I am also tired of a scientific community that can tell me how the universe began, but can't tell me why I have an appendix.
Actually I think the correct form of this particular cliche is: "Pah! They can put a man on the moon but they can't X" where X = the particular small scale problem that the speaker is currently dealing with. "fix a toaster" or "get the trains to run on time". That kind of thing.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea." - Eric Cantona.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 843
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by -1- » August 27th, 2017, 9:59 am

Socrateaze wrote: I am also tired of a scientific community that can tell me how the universe began, but can't tell me why I have an appendix.
You have brain... you keep your notes in it. You think of something you'll need to do later, and you make a mental note of it. You keep it in your brain.

Well... you have a foot or two, too, don't you... so your appendix is where you keep your footnotes.

And I am not even a scientist.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

User avatar
Socrateaze
Posts: 132
Joined: July 25th, 2017, 8:07 am
Favorite Philosopher: George Carlin

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by Socrateaze » August 27th, 2017, 10:06 am

Steve3007 wrote:
I am also tired of a scientific community that can tell me how the universe began, but can't tell me why I have an appendix.
Actually I think the correct form of this particular cliche is: "Pah! They can put a man on the moon but they can't X" where X = the particular small scale problem that the speaker is currently dealing with. "fix a toaster" or "get the trains to run on time". That kind of thing.
Don't even get me started on that. Their smart phones are dumber than a telegraph. There are more bugs in these phones - I think they should call them an ant farm. I think science should stick to what is practical. Hopefully before my breasts reach my navel they will work out the bugs in most of these things. I hope they will forgive us if we're skeptical when they start talking about the universe and still have phones that have wretched voice-dictation.
418


- If you can paint the wind, I will tell you the secrets of the soul.

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 2970
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by Fooloso4 » August 27th, 2017, 11:45 am

-1-:
You have brain... you keep your notes in it.
I wondered where you were going with that. Funny!

Synthesis
Posts: 189
Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by Synthesis » August 27th, 2017, 12:05 pm

Fooloso4 wrote:Synthesis:
A bird knows what to do, an ant knows what to do, a cat knows what to do, a human being knows what to do…
Is the knowledge of the bird and ant and cat intellectual or non-intellectual? Is their knowledge delusion? If the answer to the latter is yes and the answer to the former is non-intellectual then the intellect cannot be the source of delusion.

It just is.
I am not saying that the intellect does not provide, just that it has serious limitations.
And no one is disputing that. The problem is that you call knowledge delusion. The question then is how delusion does not simply provide but can provide correctly and accurately.

You have to accept the imperfection of knowledge like you do everything else.
I am. You are not understanding.
Or perhaps in your delusion you mistakenly think you are providing something understandable.

It is not understandable, but it is realizable.
All Zen talk is very confusing. How could it be any other way? You desire to know something that is unknowable. How's that going to happen?
Well, you have certainly demonstrated not only that it is very confusing but that you are confused by it. I do not desire to know something that is unknowable, I simply asked a question you have avoided answering.

You want to know where there is nothing to know.
Yes, we use our intelligence in a rudimentary way, but there is very little [actually zero] real understanding.

The problem here is that you ignore the ordinary meaning of the term understanding and impose an impossible standard. Understanding how an engine works is "real" understanding. The proof is in the ability to fix it. There is no point at which our understanding of engines reaches a limit where the engine cannot be fixed or made to run.

What you understand is cause and effect. Beyond that there is no understanding.

Let’s not forget the title claim that science is “non-sense”. Now if you said that our scientific understanding is limited no one would disagree, but some of us might wonder why you are bothering stating the obvious. The fact of the matter is that science is able to make sense of a great many things even if it does not meet the impossible non-human standard you impose.

It makes sense if you choose to accept the current dogma. The best and brightest are so because they can spew-out the doctrine flawlessly. It doesn't mean they are correct [they are not!].
Does the squirrel understand storing up food for the winter?
Good question. Wittgenstein uses this same example to show that thinking is an extension or mode of acting. There is an ambiguity to the term understand. If you mean the squirrel stores nuts as the result of a process of ratiocination, then no, the squirrel does not understand. But the squirrel’s actions, not some process of reason, is what is primary. Our being in the world is not completely removed from this. As Goethe said, and Wittgenstein quotes:
In the beginning was the deed.
Does the squirrel store up food because it is delusional?

Squirrels store-up food so they have something to eat in the winter.
Your understanding is base. You think you understand because you follow cause and effect, but when you break it down, there is no real understanding.
I would say it is basic. Simple machines are the rudiments. The ability to make and fix engines rests on this base. The base stands under it. It is the basis of our understanding of the engine. Once again, you may impose an impossible standard you call “real understanding”, but that itself is delusion. It is an imaginary standard, completely removed from what we human beings are capable of, completely removed from your own experience. Or, are you claiming that "real understanding" is possible and you know this because you have achieved it?

Real understanding is impossible for everybody. Clarity is what is possible [seeing things as close to what they actually are].
(Nested quote removed.)


Yep.
So, your example of realization is an example of delusion. Realization too is delusion? If all is delusion, the distinction between delusion and something else is non-existent. The distinction is meaningless.

In your example, it was delusion. In mine, it was realization. The former was an intellectual process, the later non-intellectual.
At the moment you saw your first child born, were you not completely present?
The term completely present is too nebulous. As I said I experienced many different emotions and thoughts. There was no “moment” I saw my first child born. It was a process. It did not occur instantaneously. Surely as a physician you know this. Was worrying that my wife and child would be okay, that there would be no complications, that the child would be healthy, being completely present? These concerns after all, included things that were not present "in the moment" but what will be.

Many people who see their first child being born are "speechless." Time and space disappear and only baby is present.

This is like saying that you have to have an advanced degree to read and understand [fill in the blank]. Remember, the brightest people in the world have always been self-taught. People reaching "higher states" had been going on long before the Buddha discovered his path.

Well, I did not need an advanced degree to understand that I have no idea of what enlightenment is. If, however, you are, as you claim to be, of the Soto lineage then as part of that lineage there is certification. If you are one of the brightest people in the world and self-taught then you are not part of the Soto lineage. I have asked whether you have reached or experienced “higher states” but you deflect and claim that I am asking for a description of higher states.

I have been a student in the Soto Zen tradition for over 25 years and will be for the rest of my life. There are as many ways to pursue this path as there are individuals. I can not share this experience with you [other than the particulars of the practice itself] because it is experiential. Nobody can do this. Read all the great masters. There is nothing there other than the encouragement to find your true nature. Nobody can do this for you.
You seem to be very concerned about certification.
It is simply a way of getting at the distinction between the conception and experience of enlightenment. If I am correct, then according to your school the experience of enlightenment is confirmed by one who is enlightened. Time and again I have come across people who talk a great deal about such things as “Real understanding” but who have not attained it. People who either imagine that they are enlightened or imagine what it is like, when all they have really done is hear or read something and created their own conceptual constructs.

Who cares what anybody else thinks? Job one is to believe in yourself 100%!!
There are many people who are simple lay students who live their lives moment to moment, without the need for anything else.
That’s fine, but this is quite different than making claims about what is “real” beyond the moment to moment which you said is unreal.

You are doing what most people do which is confusing the relative and the Absolute. Don't listen to what I am saying, instead, listen to your own heart. You will know if you are on the correct path if you are open enough to be aware of the constant feedback you are receiving from your own actions.

User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 538
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by Ranvier » August 27th, 2017, 1:00 pm

I will jump in for a moment because I don't want Socrateaze to be in the "dark" about her appendix...
Socrateaze wrote: I am also tired of a scientific community that can tell me how the universe began, but can't tell me why I have an appendix.
Actually the first part isn't true, we don't know how the Universe began. We have the Big Bang theory but it doesn't explain what was the "cause" or the exact moment of the emergence of the Universe.
https://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html

As for the appendix it was believed to be a vestigial "organ" but it was never clear from what structure.
We now understand that it's an important part of the cecum that holds immune properties (WBCs) protecting lower GI from infections of opportunistic bacteria that cause Pseudomembranous colitis. Appendix also provides reservoir for "good" innate anaerobic bacteria that protect the colon and assist the large intestine in absorbing Vitamin K and B12.

User avatar
Socrateaze
Posts: 132
Joined: July 25th, 2017, 8:07 am
Favorite Philosopher: George Carlin

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by Socrateaze » August 27th, 2017, 1:45 pm

Ranvier wrote:I will jump in for a moment because I don't want Socrateaze to be in the "dark" about her appendix...
Socrateaze wrote: I am also tired of a scientific community that can tell me how the universe began, but can't tell me why I have an appendix.
Actually the first part isn't true, we don't know how the Universe began. We have the Big Bang theory but it doesn't explain what was the "cause" or the exact moment of the emergence of the Universe.
https://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html

As for the appendix it was believed to be a vestigial "organ" but it was never clear from what structure.
We now understand that it's an important part of the cecum that holds immune properties (WBCs) protecting lower GI from infections of opportunistic bacteria that cause Pseudomembranous colitis. Appendix also provides reservoir for "good" innate anaerobic bacteria that protect the colon and assist the large intestine in absorbing Vitamin K and B12.
Ah, finally. My work here is done, now I can retire to my chamber comforted in the thought that my appendix has a reason. If religion is an appendix, could we discover the use of it one day? If science is the big bang, then we have a big wait on our hands in understanding it. To me, I'd rather have my "appendix" removed and launch it into space in the hope to dazzle a primitive alien. Perhaps they will revere it as a sacred object until they discover science and keep it in a museum of comedy. I think a lot of talk about science and religion is a bad redundancy that has spoiled and needs to be removed.
418


- If you can paint the wind, I will tell you the secrets of the soul.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 843
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by -1- » August 27th, 2017, 1:53 pm

Ranvier wrote: As for the appendix it was believed to be a vestigial "organ" but it was never clear from what structure.
We now understand that it's an important part of the cecum that holds immune properties (WBCs) protecting lower GI from infections of opportunistic bacteria that cause Pseudomembranous colitis. Appendix also provides reservoir for "good" innate anaerobic bacteria that protect the colon and assist the large intestine in absorbing Vitamin K and B12.
appendix: a kennel for reservoir dogs, K9s, and K12s, and B-52 bombers. The Colonel must be protected at all times, and opportunistic bacteria parasail over the site of the invasion in groups of two, as parasites. Beware: the Large Intestine is Gross. General Infantry is also protected by the Appendix.

So, nobody should say that the Appendix is there for nothing, and it is a good-for-nothing bum, a total loser living off the backs (or intestines) of others.

(Boy i sure am getting a lot of mileage out of my appendix today. Maybe that's the proverbial "funny bone" of a human. And don't tell me it is not a bone, it is soft tissue. Common decency prevents me from pointing out the phallusy in that argument.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

User avatar
Socrateaze
Posts: 132
Joined: July 25th, 2017, 8:07 am
Favorite Philosopher: George Carlin

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by Socrateaze » August 27th, 2017, 1:59 pm

-1- wrote:
Ranvier wrote: As for the appendix it was believed to be a vestigial "organ" but it was never clear from what structure.
We now understand that it's an important part of the cecum that holds immune properties (WBCs) protecting lower GI from infections of opportunistic bacteria that cause Pseudomembranous colitis. Appendix also provides reservoir for "good" innate anaerobic bacteria that protect the colon and assist the large intestine in absorbing Vitamin K and B12.
appendix: a kennel for reservoir dogs, K9s, and K12s, and B-52 bombers. The Colonel must be protected at all times, and opportunistic bacteria parasail over the site of the invasion in groups of two, as parasites. Beware: the Large Intestine is Gross. General Infantry is also protected by the Appendix.

So, nobody should say that the Appendix is there for nothing, and it is a good-for-nothing bum, a total loser living off the backs (or intestines) of others.

(Boy i sure am getting a lot of mileage out of my appendix today. Maybe that's the proverbial "funny bone" of a human. And don't tell me it is not a bone, it is soft tissue. Common decency prevents me from pointing out the phallusy in that argument.
You're on the roll today with your puns and jabs. I think much of our writing here belongs in a different kind of appendix, but perhaps with the same definitions we seek here. What we're doing isn't pondering, but may hold the meaning of life. A question: if we search our whole life for the meaning of life, have we missed out on the meaning of life?
418


- If you can paint the wind, I will tell you the secrets of the soul.

User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 538
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by Ranvier » August 27th, 2017, 2:05 pm

Science is good... mKay
Geek lives matter!

...meaning of life is to make babies, lots of babies.

Meditate on that.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 843
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by -1- » August 27th, 2017, 2:12 pm

Socrateaze wrote:A question: if we search our whole life for the meaning of life, have we missed out on the meaning of life?
Meaning what?
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

Post Reply