The Fundamental Flaws of Modern Rationality

What I still don't get is this notion that because there are still some problems within science we should just toss it out or go overboard on the amount of skepticism we apply to it. Sure we should always be open for any corrections to be made when something is found to be incorrect. We should also understand that some questions maybe found outside of science. But so far Science has proven to be the most practical method we have.

When some theory reaches a point of proof within science it can be said to have ample amounts of evidence to support it's claim, satisfies the prediction made by it's proof and is repeatable. That is better than any other method we have so far so unless someone can offer up something which works better what's the point of attacking the entire field of science???

If there is a flaw somewhere, fine, attack the problem and prove it incorrect, but just an overall "Science is Wrong" attitude makes no sense, especially when there is proof that it does work everywhere around us.

a reply to: mOjOm
HYPERBOLE MUCH?

neither the OP nor myself, fellow shamanist bluemule, or most people pointing these things
out are attempting to abolish science.

we seek merely to put it in it's place,
and strip it of any and all religio-economic based authoritarianism
or claims of infallibility

a reply to: AdamuBureido

Ok. All I'm trying to figure out is exactly what is being said, that's all. By reading the op it wasn't clear to what extent Science was being considered to be a failure. Now I have your opinion so I know now what context to read your posts with.

However when I read something like this:

The most popular religion in the modern Western world- the most fervently defended, the most universally accepted, and the most fundamentally flawed.

To me it reads as a little more than trying to simply remove errors within Science. The fact that he keeps refering to science as a Religion seems kind of over the top as well.

I also never made any reference to you or Bluemule either and didn't ever intend any comments I've made to be about you or to you just so you know. I also don't know why you think anyone is claiming Science to be Infallible. As far as I know only Religion makes the claim of infallibility.

a reply to: mOjOm

Thanks and agree.
Also i'd like to add, so far both sides aren't doing very well in this discussion, we had one pro-science demanding proof by a god-sentence, with the ricin and on the other hand it seems like those demanding from science absolute truth are applying a double standard. If you're so spiritual, you should know always is everything flowing, moving, changing, so how could our approach to understand that be static and absolute?
All we got is the status quo. And will all respect to both sides, who ever yells he has the answers to everything is probably lying. That is realistic, empirically proven and usefull to know.

a reply to: Peeple

What exactly is being claimed in this thread anyway???

I understand that the op is saying that Science has flaws. But so does every other method we use to try and explain reality and at least out of them all science has produced the best results so far even with it's flaws.

Is anyone suggesting some better method???
Nobody is claiming Religion as the better method are they???
How about philosophy or something else???
Or is this thread just about pointing out some flaws within science to try and clean it up a bit???

I'm just trying to get a clear idea on exactly what's being said.

a reply to: mOjOm

Well as far as i understood he was trying to point out the similarities in what people accuse religion to do, while they're projecting their religious approaches on science.
Which was funny, because he then wanted to use maths to prove what god is. Or in other words, wanted to project his scientific reason on his religious feelings.
Which shows it doesn't work. Two seperated things. What is a religiouis feeling? Faith in god should be more than a set of rules. Science should be pure reason in progress, so kind of nothing but rules and or laws.
It's kind of like when you're watching someone trying to eat while he's having sex, followed by a break down because both is unsatisfactory.

a reply to: Connell

After some quick reading about Roger Bacon, I think that you are mistaken.

Interesting that someone making an allegedly informed epistemological argument should (1) need to look up Roger Bacon and (2) believe that 'some quick reading' would suffice. What did you read?

I'm not sure that you even understand what my basic premise is.

Your basic premise is that the dominant philosophical paradigm of the moment, scientific materialism (or, more generally, Hobbesian empiricism), is itself based on a set of axioms (or, as you would have it, unexamined assumptions) and is therefore, in your view, nothing more than another belief system. In support of this you offer the somewhat banal proposition that fundamental reality, whatever it is, cannot be anything at all like it appears to our senses; therefore we are operating with a set of convenient illusions, etc. All very old hat, I'm afraid, and well understood by those who operate within the paradigm. As well as irrelevant to your actual argument.

How Roger Bacon saw the world of categories — 'species' in his Aristotelian terminology — is of no importance to us. It is clear that you did not understand what is meant by the phrase 'the universe has a metrical frame'. Go and look it up. Then come back and we can, perhaps, have a discussion.

From the Euclidean perspective the universe is infinite, and this is the orthodox of your vaunted “science” (as of now anyway, but that can always change).

This amusing little howler exemplifies just how little you know about my 'vaunted "science"'.

Originally posted by Peeple
That's a disappointment. I overestimated you apparently.

Seconded.

originally posted by: Connell
Rationality can be accurately summed up as dogmatic naturalism, something that attempts to apply human perceptual standards to the universe at large, and attempts to explain our existence through extrapolation of observable telluric phenomena.

Well of course we attempt to apply human perceptual standards to the universe. We are Humans who are perceiving it and attempting to explain it to ourselves so what other standards would we apply if not human ones???

There is a distinct trend of anthropocentrism among the more ignorant and simple-minded adherents to rationalism, believing "humanity" is somehow the pinnacle of existence, the human mind a sacred entity. This is also the basis of secular humanism, the elevation of “humanity” to the point that it occupies a spiritual, abstract significance to the humanist. There is also a marked trend of quantity and matter as opposed to metaphysical quality and virtue. Everything is relativised to fit human perceptions. .....

So are you suggesting that metaphysics be reintroduced back into science???
Wasn't the reason we divided material/natural science from metaphysics in the first place because separating the two makes a distinct division between the things we can measure and quantify from those we can only theorize about???

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: Connell

Rationality can be accurately summed up as dogmatic naturalism, something that attempts to apply human perceptual standards to the universe at large, and attempts to explain our existence through extrapolation of observable telluric phenomena.

Except for the fact that logic and the scientific method are the only tools that humans have ever used that have resulted in a system that provides accurate predictions.

The validity of any system of thought can be measured by the accuracy of the predictions it makes.

I can flip a coin 20 times and make an 100% accurate prediction every time, my guess being right 20 out of 20 times. I suppose I would be making very accurate predictions.

Math is totally correct and infallible, but only within itself. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. That works perfectly in math, but as soon as you try to apply it to something else, like objects in the physical world for example, it doesn't work.

All complex logical systems will contain assumptions that can't be proven either true or false, and you have to go outside that system to devise new axioms. It creates a system that continually grows more complex and contains more and more assumptions that can't be proven. The goal of science is to come up with a set of axioms that can explain everything in the outside world, but because of what I just said, science will never achieve that goal.

Similar to how a human can never fully understand itself, because it can only be certain by relying on the knowledge it has of itself.

There is objective knowledge- the knowledge of forms. But you can never know of something with total permanence and certainty.

As for the risin, I will drink it after I finish with your mother.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Connell

After some quick reading about Roger Bacon, I think that you are mistaken.

Interesting that someone making an allegedly informed epistemological argument should (1) need to look up Roger Bacon and (2) believe that 'some quick reading' would suffice. What did you read?

I'm not sure that you even understand what my basic premise is.

Your basic premise is that the dominant philosophical paradigm of the moment, scientific materialism (or, more generally, Hobbesian empiricism), is itself based on a set of axioms (or, as you would have it, unexamined assumptions) and is therefore, in your view, nothing more than another belief system. In support of this you offer the somewhat banal proposition that fundamental reality, whatever it is, cannot be anything at all like it appears to our senses; therefore we are operating with a set of convenient illusions, etc. All very old hat, I'm afraid, and well understood by those who operate within the paradigm. As well as irrelevant to your actual argument.

How Roger Bacon saw the world of categories — 'species' in his Aristotelian terminology — is of no importance to us. It is clear that you did not understand what is meant by the phrase 'the universe has a metrical frame'. Go and look it up. Then come back and we can, perhaps, have a discussion.

From the Euclidean perspective the universe is infinite, and this is the orthodox of your vaunted “science” (as of now anyway, but that can always change).

This amusing little howler exemplifies just how little you know about my 'vaunted "science"'.


Seconded.

You seem very upset, I can just imagine your hands trembling in frustration as you typed that. Expecting me to know of every philosopher/thinker/whatever is very pedantic and totally irrelevant to what we are talking about here. What I read doesn't matter, it was reliable and I feel that I understood it fairly well. Surely what Roger Bacon said was right.... as it pertains to the observable universe. And I see you have nothing to say about the fact that his philosophy assumed the existence of the divine. Why not? If you are going to discuss a thinker of the past you should have some reverence for his actual beliefs.

The rest of your post is you trying to tell me what I think, and putting words into my mouth. When did I ever say that reality "cannot be anything at all like it appears to our senses"? No, I think that our senses reflect very accurately certain aspects of it.


You need to take a breather, you seem to have exasperated yourself writing a post that has little substance and answers nothing.

Math is totally correct and infallible, but only within itself. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. That works perfectly in math, but as soon as you try to apply it to something else, like objects in the physical world for example, it doesn't work.

I haven't read the whole thread, but this here is plenty enough to point out that your arguments are riddled with holes. By "math is correct within itself", you probably meant "it's correct within certain axiomatic systems". I recommend you study math a bit more if you want to play Godel, my friend

originally posted by: combinatorics
Math is totally correct and infallible, but only within itself. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. That works perfectly in math, but as soon as you try to apply it to something else, like objects in the physical world for example, it doesn't work.

I haven't read the whole thread, but this here is plenty enough to point out that your arguments are riddled with holes. By "math is correct within itself", you probably meant "it's correct within certain axiomatic systems". I recommend you study math a bit more if you want to play Godel, my friend

Sure, sure. So you tell me that my argument is riddled with holes and then proceed to play with semantics in a 2 sentence long post? I have to say, you people are quite disappointing. I have been told I am wrong many times in this thread already, and perhaps only one person has actually bothered to explain themselves.

Have a nice day.

a reply to: Connell

I am not playing semantics. If you start with different set of axioms, you'll derive different structures. These structures won't be consistent in every axiomatic system. By the way, in math one single counterexample is enough to disprove a false statement.

a reply to: combinatorics

Right, so I should have said "within certain axiomatic systems". Ok, so we have established that now. How about the rest of my post, is it wrong? I feel that it's pretty solid.

I don't have any particularly strong knowledge of math, but I think I understand it just as well as any layman who has been through school. I have a feeling that many people on this site have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. In this thread we have someone throwing out random statements by philosophers without trying to expound anything or even read about their entire philosophy taken as a whole. Like someone showing you a painted rock and saying "you're wrong".

a reply to: Connell

I went back and read your OP. For example, you seem to be arguing that so called rationalists are hell bent against the existence of certain imperceptible phenomena. That's not true. Some say these imperceptible phenomena exist, some argue against that. Up until either side proves the non/existence of such phenomena, all both sides have is unsubstantiated opinion. If the "non-rationalists'' prove that fairies, heavens and souls exist, everyone will have to accept that, rationalist or not. What you call "rationalists" are just trying to move forward from established facts otherwise you'll end up building a house of cards.

originally posted by: combinatorics
Math is totally correct and infallible, but only within itself. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. That works perfectly in math, but as soon as you try to apply it to something else, like objects in the physical world for example, it doesn't work.

I haven't read the whole thread, but this here is plenty enough to point out that your arguments are riddled with holes. By "math is correct within itself", you probably meant "it's correct within certain axiomatic systems". I recommend you study math a bit more if you want to play Godel, my friend

for someone arguing mathematics
your lack of knowledge of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem which states that for every consistent mathematical system, there are statements which are true within that system, which can't be proven within the system itself is troubling, especially since the OP's post, while not naming it, shows he at least familiar with it...

originally posted by: AdamuBureido

originally posted by: combinatorics
Math is totally correct and infallible, but only within itself. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. That works perfectly in math, but as soon as you try to apply it to something else, like objects in the physical world for example, it doesn't work.

I haven't read the whole thread, but this here is plenty enough to point out that your arguments are riddled with holes. By "math is correct within itself", you probably meant "it's correct within certain axiomatic systems". I recommend you study math a bit more if you want to play Godel, my friend

for someone arguing mathematics
your lack of knowledge of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem which states that for every consistent mathematical system, there are statements which are true within that system, which can't be proven within the system itself is troubling, especially since the OP's post, while not naming it, shows he at least familiar with it...

Yup, that's Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. How did you deduce "I don't understand Godel's Incompleteness Theorem", though?

originally posted by: Connell

All complex logical systems will contain assumptions that can't be proven either true or false, and you have to go outside that system to devise new axioms. It creates a system that continually grows more complex and contains more and more assumptions that can't be proven. The goal of science is to come up with a set of axioms that can explain everything in the outside world, but because of what I just said, science will never achieve that goal.

So we can never get a completely accurate measurement or an absolute perfect set of answers or whatever, but so what, just because we can't reach a perfect degree of precision doesn't mean that what we can do isn't still useful. We aren't able to reach the end of transcendental numbers like pi either but using it to just a hand full of decimal places still proves useful. As we progress we then reach newer degrees of accuracy as well. Maybe we'll never reach absolute perfection within everything but it's not always needed to complete the task at hand.

Unless of course you've come up with a perfect method for us to answer all our assumptions with 100% accuracy in which case let's hear it. Until then science is the best we've come up with so far and we are always striving for more efficient methods. After all we are not perfect creatures so it's unlikely we will ever be able to accomplish such perfect methods ourselves.

originally posted by: combinatorics

originally posted by: AdamuBureido

originally posted by: combinatorics
Math is totally correct and infallible, but only within itself. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. That works perfectly in math, but as soon as you try to apply it to something else, like objects in the physical world for example, it doesn't work.

I haven't read the whole thread, but this here is plenty enough to point out that your arguments are riddled with holes. By "math is correct within itself", you probably meant "it's correct within certain axiomatic systems". I recommend you study math a bit more if you want to play Godel, my friend

for someone arguing mathematics
your lack of knowledge of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem which states that for every consistent mathematical system, there are statements which are true within that system, which can't be proven within the system itself is troubling, especially since the OP's post, while not naming it, shows he at least familiar with it...

Yup, that's Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. How did you deduce "I don't understand Godel's Incompleteness Theorem", though?

your claim OP's argument is full of holes
is no more than argumentum ad lapidem with a dash of divine fallacy perhaps?

originally posted by: AdamuBureido

originally posted by: combinatorics

originally posted by: AdamuBureido

originally posted by: combinatorics
Math is totally correct and infallible, but only within itself. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. That works perfectly in math, but as soon as you try to apply it to something else, like objects in the physical world for example, it doesn't work.



I haven't read the whole thread, but this here is plenty enough to point out that your arguments are riddled with holes. By "math is correct within itself", you probably meant "it's correct within certain axiomatic systems". I recommend you study math a bit more if you want to play Godel, my friend

for someone arguing mathematics
your lack of knowledge of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem which states that for every consistent mathematical system, there are statements which are true within that system, which can't be proven within the system itself is troubling, especially since the OP's post, while not naming it, shows he at least familiar with it...

Yup, that's Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. How did you deduce "I don't understand Godel's Incompleteness Theorem", though?

your claim OP's argument is full of holes
is no more than argumentum ad lapidem with a dash of divine fallacy perhaps?

your claim OP's argument is full of holes

I explained OP what his problem was. If you don't agree with that, you're welcome to post the part you find problematic here and deconstruct it bit by bit. Aside from that, you still didn't explain how "I don't understand GIT". While at that, I'd like you to substantiate your claim that OP understands GIT. Just a single post of OPs would do.