tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post7948308768745407451..comments2024-03-27T19:47:13.475-07:00Comments on Dark Buzz: Argument that science, like religion, requires faithRogerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-78250115817934833302018-04-03T14:25:09.240-07:002018-04-03T14:25:09.240-07:00Motion is relative. Whether you prefer to say &quo...Motion is relative. Whether you prefer to say "the Earth goes around the Sun" or "the Sun goes around the Earth" is a matter of taste.<br /><br />There is no observation that resolves the matter, as our best theories say that either view is acceptable.Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-67827069093599764062018-03-30T01:35:53.785-07:002018-03-30T01:35:53.785-07:00Just a counterpoint of linguistic analysis here si...Just a counterpoint of linguistic analysis here since I'm not a historian of science, merely a guy who once read Kuhn.<br /><br />"Kepler admitted that he could not prove that the Earth goes around the Sun." That says nothing to me about Kepler's observations, except that he observed something which he decided he could not prove via other observations. Moreover, to say that it render's Coyne's statement "only partially true" seems a bit off. Ex ante, that sounds waffley because "partially" might by definition indeed be "mostly". I'm not sure how you get from the fact that Kepler saw one thing he couldn't explain, to a judgment that Kepler did not [largely; for the most part] develop heliocentrism from other observations which he presumably did understand. <br /><br />>> Kepler and Galileo “converted” heliocentrism to a good explanation because of OBSERVATIONS [...] <br /><br />If I missed something easily explained, thanks in advance.Jon Burdickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02548776058585897717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-43917465061497988882018-03-26T17:28:51.471-07:002018-03-26T17:28:51.471-07:00But what defines intelligibility? What I find some...But what defines intelligibility? What I find somewhat bizarre is how a great deal of evidence is simply ignored, such as we see with Rupert Sheldrake or Jacques Vallée. Science has to be defined, and, unfortunately, the most rigorous version requires controls. The problem is that most of the world cannot be approached in such a manner. Sometimes you get lucky, such as with twins, but science by this definition doesn't explain most things. Furthermore, there is a Platonic and inductive assumption behind so-called "laws" and they may not be laws at all, given time or scale. Science and invention were quite separate disciplines and the more the have merged, the slower the rate of innovation. Coincidence?<br /><br />"If you were to put an Italian peasant from 1300 in a time machine and drop him in 1870s Tuscany he wouldn’t notice much of a difference. Historians estimate that the average annual income in Italy around the year 1300 was roughly $1,600. Some 600 years later – after Columbus, Galileo, Newton, the scientific revolution, the Reformation and the Enlightenment, the invention of gunpowder, printing, and the steam engine – it was… still $1,600. Six hundred years of civilization, and the average Italian was pretty much where he’d always been. It was not until about 1880, right around the time Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, Thomas Edison patented his lightbulb, Carl Benz was tinkering with his first car, and Josephine Cochrane was ruminating on what may just be the most brilliant idea ever – the dishwasher – that our Italian peasant got swept up in the march of progress."<br /><br />See the figures presented by the historians Angus Maddison, J. Bolt, and J.L. van Zanden, “The First Update of the Maddison Project; Re-Estimating Growth Before 1820,” Maddison Project Working Paper 4 (2013)MD Coryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05342743632013663077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-15749536319508235602018-03-26T14:04:31.138-07:002018-03-26T14:04:31.138-07:00Roger,
In either your case or mine, we still have ...Roger,<br />In either your case or mine, we still have to believe people have the capacity to understand the world and make up their own damn minds about what to think. Once you close the door on that capacity, science becomes just another esoteric dogma used for control by those who seek power.CFTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-49324259162847663302018-03-26T11:25:04.777-07:002018-03-26T11:25:04.777-07:00I would say that you only have to believe that the...I would say that you only have to believe that the universe is partially intelligible. Then you can pursue a scientific analysis of the part that is intelligible.Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-62301409675428494842018-03-26T09:06:00.544-07:002018-03-26T09:06:00.544-07:00Science is based upon the required precondition th...Science is based upon the required precondition that you believe the universe is intelligible...to humans. <br /><br />If you do not BELIEVE this, nothing else follows, as it is this axiomatic 'belief' or starting point of faith from which all else follows in scientific discovery.<br /><br />If you do not believe the universe is intelligible to humanity, you are a nihilist, and should remain silent, as it is meaningless for you to speculate, much less say or do anything to convince others of your position, other than to inflict pointless toxic existential pain on others like a cancer.<br /><br /> Nihilism is the true self-consuming death of all intelligent reason and thought, the death of all understanding. Handle it carefully, and always with diligent disgust.CFTnoreply@blogger.com