Philosophy: books and discussion

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by mike_bike_kite

PS2 I just noted my "user description" suddenly went to zealot while posting this - it amused me anyway.

...and "you don't litter"....

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by mike_bike_kite

Misrepresentation - in what way? if we're discussing the philosophy of science then you must try to offer a proof because just preferring a given explanation isn't any different to religious belief. And proving that something is correct is impossible, so proving that something is wrong is what science is all about

There's much to be said for that point of view. Scientists are constantly putting their most cherished sacred cows up to scrutiny. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is one of the most successful theories in science, yet not a year goes by when some team of scientists aren't following a promising lead that may topple one of its basic tenets. The big bucks and accolades go to the person who can overturn accepted wisdom, not to those who continue to solidify what is already known.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Not truly arbitrary. There are those who think certain fundamental constants could possibly be different and some computer simulations that explore them, but the thing about laws of physics is that they are the same everywhere.

Evolution has likely proceeded completely differently in other parts of the universe but the process is not arbitrary, it is well defined.

I just read an essay by Loren Eiseley - Little Men and Flying Saucers. He is somewhat philosophical in his view of the universe. I posted a link to it somewhere (in the What we're reading thread? ah, here it is: http://www.american-buddha.com/little.men.htm ) I wouldn't say it's his best essay but I love the ending:

"Lights come and go in the night sky. Men, troubled at last by the things they build, may toss in their sleep and dream bad dreams, or lie awake while the meteors whisper greenly overhead. But nowhere in all space or on a thousand worlds will there be men to share our loneliness. There may be wisdom; there may be power; somewhere across space great instruments, handled by strange, manipulative organs, may stare vainly at our floating cloud wrack, their owners yearning as we yearn. Nevertheless, in the nature of life and in the principles of evolution we have had our answer. Of men elsewhere, and beyond, there will be none forever. "

Thanks, Kenny. It's been imported into the Kindle for later reading.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yes. They are completely different things. It is in fact quite important to keep in mind the difference.

Science is the body of knowledge built up since the beginning of humanity based on the scientific method (including falsifiability as mentioned).

Religion is based on belief without proof.

That seems to be a rather narrow definition of religion.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I think NASA made use of Newton's gravitational theories in planning missions into space - but Newton was wrong (e.g. the orbit of Mercury contradicts his theory's predictions).

For NASA, Newtonian physics was good enough - even though it was known to be untrue.

It's my understanding that Newton's Theory of Gravity is so accurate in it's predictions that it's still used for spaceflight. If we ever become an interstellar species, the greater accuracy of Einstein's Theory will prove invaluable, but for playing around in our own backyard, Newton's the guy. That isn't to say that Relativity never comes into play. GPS systems, for example, would quickly get out of whack if it's effects weren't taken into account.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

It's my understanding that Newton's Theory of Gravity is so accurate in it's predictions that it's still used for spaceflight. If we ever become an interstellar species, the greater accuracy of Einstein's Theory will prove invaluable, but for playing around in our own backyard, Newton's the guy. That isn't to say that Relativity never comes into play. GPS systems, for example, would quickly get out of whack if it's effects weren't taken into account.

Well I am talking about apples falling. To predict exacty where they will fall you need to know at least:

a) detailed knowledge of mass distribution underground
b) detailed and actual state of air between end points
c) complete and accurate description of shape and surface properties of the said apple
d) detailed and accurate description of the detachment of said apple from branch of tree.

Are you Mandrake, my friend?

or you can do assumptions ...

[GeoffC]

e) probabilty of interception of apple at any stage in its progress

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

That seems to be a rather narrow definition of religion.

Wasn't intended to be all-encompassing. But to compare and contrast with science. Science requires proof and falsifiability, religion does not and is not falsifiable.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

e) probabilty of interception of apple at any stage in its progress

Ah Geoff! you are letting chaos in this
lets rather require the short term trajectories of all flying creatures in the surrounding environment.

accurate parametrization of the atmosphere. Inclusive of dust. Imagine.

And if the apple contains a little John, that decides to perturb the inertia of the apple during its flight? Whow. Study this, I'll give you a 10 million contract. Karma points of course.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Wasn't intended to be all-encompassing. But to compare and contrast with science. Science requires proof and falsifiability, religion does not and is not falsifiable.

It is often false though. Since the Golden Veal.

[GeoffC]

But Beppe, one cannot ignore chaos, without it the universe would be so boring !

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by beppe

It is often false though. Since the Golden Veal.

Well being a non-believer I agree.

But even being a non-believer, I think there are evolutionary and other reasons belief in gods (religion) exists.

I was going to say we are getting far off topic and maybe we are, but maybe this is relevant philosophy as well.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Well being a non-believer I agree.

But even being a non-believer, I think there are evolutionary and other reasons belief in gods (religion) exists.

I was going to say we are getting far off topic and maybe we are, but maybe this is relevant philosophy as well.

Surely anything that investigates by asking questions about life in all its grandeur is "Philosophy?"

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Surely anything that investigates by asking questions about life in all its grandeur is "Philosophy?"

Well, supposedly "Philosophy" gave birth to all of science but sometimes I wonder.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Well, supposedly "Philosophy" gave birth to all of science but sometimes I wonder.

according to what I've managed to glean and understand, that may be true, but there must have been science before the philosophers were on the scene, and that's even before the sophists ....

would not science have started once man / woman started to use fire / projectiles ? conception ?