The fundamental errors in the scientific worldview

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by NickK3

 

Naturally, I disagree. For me, physical reality is all of reality. The complex aspect it presents to human experience and assembles in human conception is--as far as humans are concerned--just the way it is.

It almost certainly assembles itself differently for a bat, differently yet again for a sperm whale and in still another aspect for a plasma being living among the gas-clouds and nascent stars of Eta Carinae. All these aspects, too, are just the way it is.

Reality is always the same, yet appears different depending on how it is observed and interpreted.

I couldn't agree more Asty. It's all about the perception of the individual.

Natures laws are what they are. The interpratations of these laws and natural events are what distinguish one person from the next. It is also the cause of some of the most hotly debated aspects of science.

Different perspectives have given us Evolution, Quantum Physics, Relativity and much more. Different perspectives of these have given us such fascinating debate fodder as super position, uncertainty, transpermia, the ever pressing "observer" issue ( ).

The best thing to do philisophicaly is to not discount an idea without ingesting both it's merit and flaws.

In the scientific community of publish or perish, however, it doesn't pay the bills or advance your career to buck traditional thinking.

That's why I'm thankful for ATS. It gives me an avenue to discuss the fringe here without being berated by colleagues.


[edit on 11-3-2010 by constantwonder]

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by NickK3

 

Reality is always the same, yet appears different depending on how it is observed and interpreted. Hence there is no need to go beyond the physical into some hypothetical nonphysical reality, such as Plato's world of forms or the 'higher theoric world' proposed by Neal Stephenson in Anathem. We can, as you say, trust what seems real to be real--most of the time, at least.

No. There is no rational proof of "physical reality" same as there is no rational proof of God's existence. Former can be handled by pragmatic argument and I'm happy with it - but it is no proof at all. Quantum mechanics is here for 80+ years and it describe non-reality. Reality in human terms have many meanings - full stomach, something to drink, something to f... with! Is number 1 real? Have you ever encountered any "number" in nature? No! It is just human construct. It is way how to look at "reality". If equation sticks with phenomena: BINGO! We found one possible description of phenomena. Did we grasp base of the phenomena - NO.
Other way of thinking. We percieve reality as 3d + time. Many natural systems are easier to describe in non-euclidic/cartesian systems. Quantum mechanics now operate with 11/12 axis of space, many biologic systems can be described by irationall number systems (i.e. no 2 dimensions, no 3 dimensions, but 2.93874598347... dimensions geometry).
This is in fact very old dispute and nobody solved it yet.
One hint: mathematical infinity and philosophical God ...

Argument for not exact science - philosophy: It will be always pleasure to read Plato/Aristotle. Also Euclid and Descartes are still actual. But will you read early (modern) works on chemistry, biology, medicine? No, unless you are historian. This works are outdated. Is Plato outdated?

[edit on 11-3-2010 by zeddissad]

reply to post by zeddissad

There is no rational proof of "physical reality" same as there is no rational proof of God's existence. Former can be handled by pragmatic argument and I'm happy with it - but it is no proof at all.

Precisely, zeddissad.

I wasn't talking about 'rational proof'. Here's what I said:

Originally posted by Astyanax
We can, as you say, trust what seems real to be real--most of the time, at least.

I'm not saying we can prove our intuitive feelings and inductive conclusions about reality. I said we can trust them. That's enough to be going on with--and, indeed, we could hardly do otherwise.

Quantum mechanics is here for 80+ years and it describe non-reality.

I disagree. It describes the way reality looks from a certain perspective, one that is very different from our usual view of it. This difference causes cognitive distortions in human observers that manifest themselves as phenomenal paradoxes. For all that, the quantum perspective is valid; that is why it checks out experimentally, and why devices that exploit quantum principles in their operation can be built. The quantum world is real.

Argument for not exact science - philosophy: It will be always pleasure to read Plato/Aristotle. Also Euclid and Descartes are still actual.

So are Hobbes, Locke, Hume and Spinoza. And the pleasure of reading Plato (Aristotle is not nearly so much fun) does not speak to its truth in any way.

But will you read early (modern) works on chemistry, biology, medicine? No, unless you are historian. This works are outdated.

Oh, I think you're quite wrong there. Many people, myself included, find the contents of this site fascinating.

Welcome to Trailblazing, an interactive timeline for everybody with an interest in science. Compiled by scientists, science communicators and historians – and co-ordinated by Professor Michael Thompson FRS – it celebrates three and a half centuries of scientific endeavour and has been launched to commemorate the Royal Society’s 350th anniversary in 2010.

Trailblazing is a user-friendly, ‘explore-at-your-own-pace’, virtual journey through science. It showcases sixty fascinating and inspiring articles selected from an archive of more than 60,000 published by the Royal Society between 1665 and 2010.

Fundamental research, my friend, is never outdated unless it is falsified.

Is Plato outdated?

I would say so, yes.

[edit on 11/3/10 by Astyanax]

1- I agree that I cannot prove that I not am being decieved by a demon. That is true. That really has no effect on science since it cannot be tested. Cool idea but its implications are not unique to science and there are few, in any, meaning decisions in life that can be made based off of this. We pretty much assume that everything is real with each decision we make.


2.- Science will postulate based upon measurable observations but will never claim that anything is truly factual beyond "We recorded these observations of this specific event." Real science, not lay science. Vague, non-commital lay science makes for poor reading. Everyone who really does science is aware of what is really known, that which has been observed, and what is assumed to be true, inductions drawn from these observations. While some things are very strongly "assumed" there is usually, not always, a good reason for it. The experiments are repeatable. If any scientest can do the same experiment and get the same results then we should probably just say "OK, this works." move on to something else.

The idea I am seeing is that since "Who can say whats real and whats not? The sun could rise in the west tomorrow and we could all grow wings? You can't prove a it won't" that science is inherently flawed. Well its true, you can't prove a negative but science only states what our observations are as facts and everything else as assumptions. Although I will add that if you are going to argue with those assumptions you better have a better, more complete assumption that can be tested.

What I disagree with is that these are anything other than constraints on every human being doing just about anything at all. I don't see how they are specific to science. If I bake a cake every week and I bake it the same way I just have to assume that its going to come out the same and I have to assume that its a real cake and not an illusion presented to me by a computer/demon. Granted a science oriented mind is aware that it truly only knows what the other cakes turned out like, unless the cakes suddenly start coming out differently it has to assume that the results would be consistant with what has already been observed or else why follow the recipe?

In conclusion science is a lot like making cakes.

Wait...sorry. I get confused.

Anyway, about number three. Its an interesting idea and science is definitely adapting its world view to accommodate it. The fact that its an accepted area of study shows that locality is not unquestioned. I mean sure "Anything can happen. Who knows what is real and what is not?" but there is always going to be a degree of uncertainty in life, science included and these phenomenon so far seem to affect quantum level measurements only and do not affect the validity of the third assumption for the vast majority of sciences.



My arguement is that those three assumptions should not be disregarded and that science is not inherently flawed because there is uncertainty. They are "assumed" because their uncertainty is aknowledged. Scientest know what the word 'assumption' means.

P.S. Plato never made claims that can be tested. Not much you can really do to prove or disprove it, you know? "I like chocolate." will never be outdated either. Just because something cannot be "outdated" does not make it superior to scientific ideas that change when new observations are made.

[edit on 12-3-2010 by garritynet]

reply to post by garritynet


I agree that these assumptions should not be disregarded, because no sensible alternative exists. Science is the best way of understanding the world. That was my preface to the whole thread. Also, I agree that scientists aren't the only people who make these assumptions, but they are the ones that are interesting to me in this discussion.

The point is that the starting point for science is that we have to believe these things, without them being demonstrably true, even in the scientific sense of true, which includes the caveat that all knowledge is at some level uncertain.

I'm not proposing that we drop everything and start over, or that these assumptions are unique to science. I just think that it is important to realize that the entire scientific enterpize is propped up by fundamental assumptions which cannot - even in principal - be shown to be true within the relevant framework, and perhaps within any framwork. I also think that most people who subscribe to the scientific worldview are of the opinion that the picture of reality painted by the physical sciences with mathematics as their basis is a complete picture, or at least that they are using the right kinds of paints for such a picture. I think that they are the best that humans have to offer right now, but that completeness cannot even be suggested until we can justify the foundational assumptions. Right now that justification comes in the form as asking, "what other choice to do we have?" That's not the right kind of justification.

Science is tremedously valuable, and is the best approach. But, its true scope relative to the entirety of reality cannot even be addressed at present. It may never be able to be addressed, but it's at least valuable to discuss the relevant issues.

Oops -- my response got erased --

www.hiddenmysteries.org...

This is my masters thesis on philosophy of science. You can start there.

I also recommend Professor H.M. Collins:

www.amazon.com...

And then peterkingsley.com... -- his Ph.D. Mystery, Magic and Philosophy or his "In the Dark Places of Wisdom" book which is a later more popular analysis.