Science

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

The world is but a wooly dream....

[GrandmasterP]

I am not a scientist. I am a Tzujanist.

 

Science attempts to define facts. Tzujan is the natural processes of the universe.

 

Most "facts" I will never know. I do try to understand the natural processes of the universe.

 

I look at science as a learning game. We start off with a hypothesis (a thought), gather support to further our hypothesis until we are able to state a theory. Once we have a theory we try to find data in an unbiased manner that proves our theory without over-looking any data that disproves or theory. If we find only supporting data we can then state that our theory is fact until it is disproven. Through the eons many "facts" have been disproven but many others still hold water.

 

From my Taoist point of view, observing the natural processes in the universe requires some attention to "cause and effect".

.............

Would that be....

Orthodox

Reformed

Liberal

First Church of

Or the

Whirling

Tzu-Janists MH?

 

;-)

[Marblehead]

.............

Would that be....

...

Or the

Whirling

Tzu-Janists MH?

 

;-)

Hehehe, Yeah, we all are whirling. I forget the speed right now but something like 10,000 MPH. Luckily everything else on this planet and the planet itself is whirling at the same speed so it appears that we are not whirling at all.

 

Isn't relativity a wonderous thing?

[GrandmasterP]

Well if you had seen me this morning sweeping up leaves you would have seen some fine and dandy whirling brother.

Japanese Maple has been glorious this back end with its red leaves, until last night when it decided to drop every last leaf, all at once.

Woke up to a red front lawn. Tip run tomorrow with bags of leaves. We used to keep them to compost for leaf mould but the piles attracted rats.

Dogs enjoyed chasing the rats but Mrs GrandmasterP was less enthusiastic so now all leaves must go to the tip.

[Marblehead]

,,, but Mrs GrandmasterP was less enthusiastic so now all leaves must go to the tip.

Well, I can fully understand that.

[Brian]

 

Hehehe, Yeah, we all are whirling. I forget the speed right now but something like 10,000 MPH. Luckily everything else on this planet and the planet itself is whirling at the same speed so it appears that we are not whirling at all.

 

Isn't relativity a wonderous thing?

 

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/earth/Speeds.shtml

 

Edited November 18, 2012 by A Seeker

[Marblehead]

Great link! Thanks.

[Brian]

Yes yes!

OK!

 

Sorry it took until Wednesday…

 

First, a brief word about the whole Marxist angle -- I mentioned it because you had already mentioned it! And, of course, the fact that it is the defining characteristic of the site you linked... I think it is of value to be cognizant of the lens through which a religious devotee (of any creed) is looking in order to construct the appropriate filter through which to attempt to interpret the interaction. Marxist theory is so logically bankrupt and so manipulative in formulation that it should, in my evaluation, be viewed as the canon of a religious cult, and fair warning should be heeded when attempting to interact with or take meaning from a follower (whether professed or otherwise). But that’s a topic for a completely different thread!

 

 

Popper's chapter was interesting and I agreed with much of it, but not all of it -- and my Marxist comb caught a few nits. No need for any nit-picking though, I think.

 

I like the suggestion that knowledge has a cumulative aspect but would place a stronger caveat on the idea because change is often disruptive and because loops often seem superfluous in the rear-view (sort of like ox-bows along the periphery of a dry river bed). This generally diminishes the future value of current work and lessens the significance of the "value to the hive" analogy. As a specific case in point, Edison joked about having discovered 999 ways to not make a light bulb. Some of those failures may have contributed in some other fashion to science (or more likely, engineering) -- probably more in the short-term than the long-term -- but most collapse into a single final problem/resolution pair. Had the project taken ten times as long and taken 10,000 tries, it would likely not have been 10 times as rewarding to society.

 

I also question the premise that man's "knowledge edifice" (my words, I think) will have the sort of impact in isolation of plant life or plate tectonics -- history suggests that the collapse of a civilization can happen in a generation or two. Imagine, for instance that all the TaoBums entered cryogenic suspension for a thousand years (heck! even a hundred) and then, on Day One, everyone else on Earth was abducted by aliens. When we awoke, what traces would remain? We'd have the knowledge in our heads but our glorious machines and libraries of "stuff" would largely be like smoke in the breeze. Would we, for instance, be able to make cloth or find food or find a suitable replacement for toilet paper? How long would it take before knowledge of gene-splicing became relevant again?

 

 

Anyhow, about "science..."

 

First, I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding (including within "the scientific community") about the nature of science itself. In part, this is an anticipated result of the institutionalization of “science” -- including bureaucratization, formalizing by rote, syndicalism, an odd form of irredentism, and an emphasis on accessibility rather than usability, among other influences. Science is not unique in being so impacted. The core of this particular effect on science is a shift in focus from philosophy to “fact.”

 

Anyone with a set of water colors is an artist but some artists are better than others. Part of the difference stems from innate ability and part is the result of hard work. The mix is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion and it should be noted that this concept doesn’t just apply to painting. For any quality I can think of, an individual has a potential range and kung fu is a prime determinant of the extent to which that potential is realized.

 

In this same vein, let’s say a “good scientist” brings to the table a strong analytical capacity, a love of discovery, and a desire to understand. These characteristics (just to use them as examples) help to define the “envelope” of that scientist’s potential. Of them, the first is far easier to formalize and dogmatize so it is understandably the one the establishment (education establishment, regulatory establishment, funding establishment, policy-making establishment, etc.) focuses on despite the fact that the creativity and intuition of our historical “scientific giants” are crucial among the unifying characteristics for that group of individuals. That and lots of kung fu to learn the tools of the trade. But how do you “make” strong minds? Well, you force them into narrow chutes and feed them fully baked concepts and protein-rich facts. How do you assess their success? With standardized tests, of course! 

 

As a consequence of the convergence of several of these influencing factors, however, we are transforming science into a technical field in support of society rather than a philosophical field in pursuit of “learning what there is to learn and then learning how to learn some more.” In the short-term, this sort of focusing may bring an intensification but it is my suspicion that the long-term result would be a burning-out – IF that approach were to continue in isolation. One approach says “we have to focus on the details because we only have a limited amount of time/energy/options and the urgency is mounting” while the other says “dream and you may dream new dreams.” There is a continuing drunkard’s walk between these two approaches, and both always exist (just as yin & yang coexist).

 

Aside -- I am reminded suddenly of the transformation of the old saying “God is in the details” into “the devil is in the details” – I think this is philosophical in nature and I think perhaps it is reflective of the transformation we see in society’s view of science.

 

So, we’ve got a culture in which “everyone knows about science” (a shallow understanding which is largely façade and that diminishes the accomplished scientist much like “I know Taoism because we covered it in a ‘religions of the world’ class in high school” no doubt causes sighs or groans among some TaoBums) and in which governmental-type agencies lead the charting-out of goals, objectives, metrics, motivations, cultivation, methodologies, documentation and economics of “science” (and of much of academia, for that matter). In my mind, this is a recipe for stagnation, but it isn’t the only negative happening.

 

For most of mankind’s recorded history, intellectual exploration and spiritual development have been inexorably linked – two sides of the same coin. Often, this has had unfortunate religious flavoring (by which I suggest that “religion” is a man-made corruption of spirituality) but by & large the thinkers have not been too tightly constrained by dogma (and numerous examples to the contrary (think Galileo, for instance) highlight the constant struggle). Now, however, society as a whole tends to view spirituality in a negative light while simultaneously embracing superficial aspects of spiritual practices. Ask, for instance, a random member of a neighborhood yoga class and a random member of a Presbyterian congregation on some of the philosophical concepts surrounding their practice and they are likely to just look at you funny. Same goes for the scientist.

 

This has been happening (again, more of a drunkard’s walk than a pendulum-swing) at an increasing rate during my lifetime. When I was in school, a scientist (both those I interacted with and those I learned about) seemed more likely than not to have an attitude open to “there seems to still be more out there” agnosticism and most seemed to have gently loosened the edges of the religious framework their culture had formed around them. Now, however, it seems that the prevailing attitude is decidedly “anti-“: antitheist, antideist, anticreationist, anti-“more things in heaven & earth.” The disturbing part is that this attitude is often unrecognized. In my experience, most people tend to over-emphasize their commitment to what they say they believe to be “correct” (“proper,”, “good,” something along those lines). So the “Christian” overstates his fidelity in trying to follow in those sandal-tracks, thereby diluting the “value” of his religion, and the “rationalist” overstates his impartiality, thereby masking what is often a well-developed belief system of his own.

 

When science and religion mix, bad things tend to happen. This is still true when one of the religion’s tenets is a firm antireligious belief – doubly-bad, I think, because “I believe that I don’t believe” is a tough nut to crack (see also: Gregory Bateman’s framework for learning levels…)

 

Add to all this an environment that increasingly punishes creative risk-taking and rewards letting someone else fence the yard, give it a shot of Tobasco, mix well, and you have an unappetizing recipe.

 

All this may sound rather dire and gloomy but I don’t really think that it is – too much, anyhow. There is the possibility of complete societal collapse around the next bend, of course. And there is the much more realistic possibility of an Orwellian nightmare looming on the horizon. Thing about an Orwellian nightmare, as opposed to a Wellsian one, is that –while it may be unpleasant or devastating for those who suffer through it – the balance shifts back towards the middle in the fullness of time, perhaps over years, decades or centuries. (The Wellsian type, on the other hand, devolves into Eloi & Morlocks…) The result in its present state, though, is a situation in which many are left with a bad taste in their mouths.

 

So, just two cents' worth of idle rambling... Ask me tomorrow and I’ll probably tell you something completely different!



 

As to the questions of the observer’s effect on reality or of quantum theory making it possible to walk through walls or whatever, most humans will live their entire lives without encountering a situation in which the infinitesimal possibility overwhelms statistical reality. As a sophomore, I realized that while it may be deep to pontificate over a beer on whether one’s barstool exists when one leaves to go to the restroom, it is wise to have sufficient faith in its reality to sit on it and have one more…

Edited November 21, 2012 by A Seeker