Re: You say that science is not about truth, meaning, knowledge, or faith
From: AllYou! (idaman_at_conversent.net)
Date: 03/04/05
- Next message: reany_at_asu.edu: "Re: The free invention of ontologies we put into our theories"
- Previous message: reany_at_asu.edu: "Re: You say that science is not about truth, meaning, knowledge, or faith"
- In reply to: reany_at_asu.edu: "Re: You say that science is not about truth, meaning, knowledge, or faith"
- Next in thread: reany_at_asu.edu: "Re: You say that science is not about truth, meaning, knowledge, or faith"
- Reply: reany_at_asu.edu: "Re: You say that science is not about truth, meaning, knowledge, or faith"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 13:50:15 -0500
<reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:1109961523.955367.147850@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> AllYou! wrote:
> > <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:1109952473.951304.113220@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > AllYou! wrote:
> > > > <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
> > > > news:1109942582.169264.37990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > That's because you're horribly confused.
> > > >
> > > > > I
> > > > > wasn't there. But in our own lives, I will try to say. Theories
> are
> > > > > about explaining. Explaining is about meaning. And meaning goes
> > > back to
> > > > > archephors.
> > > >
> > > > Theories are predictions. Meaning has no relevance in science.
> > > That's a philosophical
> > > > issue. How many times must I tell you that physics isn't
> > > metaphysics?
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry, that statement looks interesting - maybe even profound --
> but it
> > > has no meaning to me because you say that meaning has no relevance
> in
> > > science. ;-)
> >
> > I'm sure you feel that way.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > As for your other logical error:
> > > > >
> > > > > If I say that A is not B, you cannot imply that A and B have
> empty
> > > > > intersection, like when I say that physics is not metaphysics.
> > > > > Metaphysics deals with all questions related to existence.
> Physics
> > > is a
> > > > > science that attempts to explain phenomena. To accomplish this,
> > > physics
> > > > > needs to assume the existence of at least people who make
> > > measurements
> > > > > and the measuring instruments themselves.
> > > >
> > > > People and measuring instruments are no different to any other
> > > objects. All we do is make
> > > > observations of them.
> > >
> > > Wrong. People who make measurements have a special and unique role
> in
> > > science. The buck always stops at some human, not some machine or
> > > something else. Vetting experiments and peer-reviewed theories is a
> > > uniquely human responsibility in science.
> >
> > You're changing the subject.
>
> I didn't change the subject! You said that all objects are the same to
> science; they aren't.
>
> > According to you, the existence of anything is a free
> > invention of the human mind, and people consist of matter, as do
> measuring instruments.
>
> That is totally wrong!!! I define my "internal world" as the set of my
> mental concepts and all my thoughts. I define the "external world" as
> all else. I believe, contrary to what Weston constantly lies about me,
> that there exists an external world independent of my thoughts (my
> internal world). However, the internal world of concepts, which I use
> to model or describe what may or may not be in the external world
> (which is unknowable), are freely invented: that is, my internal world
> is NOT forced on me by the external world, even though I admit that
> there seems to be strong natural tendencies on how this "mapping"
> between them occurs. That is, I believe, a little part of what Einstein
> meant by "persistent illusion."
You're starting to come around, but you're not quite there yet. Your internal world has
sub-categories as well. While you are free to develop any concept you wish, you are not
free to associate any stimuli with any concept. IOW, whatever concept you've developed
for the notion of red was developed in your mind. How freely this was invented by you is
debatable, but not by me at this time. Anyway, whenever your eyes are stimulated by the
light frequency which you've always associated with the concept of red, you will associate
it with that concept again if all else remains the same. You have no choice in the
matter. In that regard, you are not free and you are forced to make that association.
That whole process is an observation.
> > > You say that science is not about truth, meaning, knowledge, or
> faith!
> > > What the hell, then, is it about?
> >
> > It's about building an increasingly more reliable model of an
> increasing broader realm of
> > all that which we observe. You should keep an open mind about this.
>
> Then you don't deny my claim? The purpose of this 'model' of yours is
> what?
You've made lots of claims, some with which I agree, and others not so much. To which one
do you now refer? As to the purpose, primarily it's survival, secondarily, a more
comfortable experience, thirdly, curiosity.
- Next message: reany_at_asu.edu: "Re: The free invention of ontologies we put into our theories"
- Previous message: reany_at_asu.edu: "Re: You say that science is not about truth, meaning, knowledge, or faith"
- In reply to: reany_at_asu.edu: "Re: You say that science is not about truth, meaning, knowledge, or faith"
- Next in thread: reany_at_asu.edu: "Re: You say that science is not about truth, meaning, knowledge, or faith"
- Reply: reany_at_asu.edu: "Re: You say that science is not about truth, meaning, knowledge, or faith"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
