Tim Daneluk

Page 13 of 13  

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

No. At best, that is only true for those scientists who believe (as a matter of Faith) in the sufficiency of Science itself.
The sufficiency of Reason, with respect to Science follows directly from the definition of Science. An understanding that is beyond Reason, is beyond Scinece. Certainly one may define a discipline that includes Science and considerations outside of Reason, but to avoid confusion that other dscipline should be called by a name other than 'Science'. Or, if one insists on thus redefining 'Science' then one should assign a new name to the old discipline.
Personally, I think that to combine science with metaphysics is less useful than to combine woodworking with politics.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

I think perhaps we are talking past each other here. I only meant that the *efficacy* of Reason is presumed by Science. That is, Science presumes Reason to be efficacious and thus sufficient to do _everything Science wants to do_ (not that Reason is sufficient for everything in general). If this were not so, Science would be looking to add other mechanisms for knowledge acquisition like the IDers suggest should be done. But Science clearly is *not* looking for other such mechanism - it presumes Reason to be sufficient to its task.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

I understood. That is why I disagree.
Science does not presume Reason to be sufficient. Science is defined such that reason is sufficient

I do not agree that Science wants. Perhpas this is the crux of our disagreement.

Science is a specific method. If you change that method, you no longer have Science _by definition_. You may have a meta- method that includes science. The practice of medicine is an example of a meta-method that includs science. The practice of medicine is not, itself, science.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:
<SNIP>

'Just curious - do you believe that the definition of Science is immutable and that Science cannot exist with any definition other than the current one (To your claim: Science and Reason are isomorphic). I believe that the definition of Science can change and we'll potentially can still have Science. I rather think that's more the point where we differ than anything...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

I believe the meanings of words can change so that someday the word 'science' may mean something different than it does today. The discipline itself, as presently defined, will still exist, at least
as an intellectual construct, even if there are no longer any practitioners. Certainly today the word itself mans different things to different people. I suspect you understand the esotheric definion presumed by my remarks.
A century ago, 'computer' was a job title for a human being. Now the same word is the name of a machine.
If we expand the definition of computer science to include musical composition we would have something quite different from what we call computer science today. Would it then it be appropriate to call a person with a degree in musical composition a computer scientist?
A couple of centuries ago "Natural Philosophy" was the name of the discipline we now call physics. My guess would be that if someone were to use the term "Natural Philosophy" for a current intellectual pursuit it would not be in any way an outgrowth of the Natural Philosophy of the 18th century.
If religious philisophy is incorporated into science, or vice versa is it not preferable to use a new word for the new construct, for example Christian Science or Scientology? (e.g. ditto for 'science fiction')
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

I take your point, but that wasn't quite what I was asking. I realize that the meaning of words change. But my question had more to do with the *discipline* called "Science" today. You say that discipline will likely exist in the at least as an intellectual contruct. I agree. But do you think that this discipline's essential starting points (whatever it ends up being called in the future) are immutable? In short, can "Science" as a construct ever evolve its starting axioms or does doing so inevitably make it "not Science" in your view?
This question is at the heart of the ID v. Science debate today. The orthodox Science community insists that you cannot change the predicates of Science and still have Science. The IDers claim that without their additions, Science is incomplete. This is an argument of axioms and thus neither side can "prove" their positions, merely show consqences for taking or not taking a particular axiom as true. Without respect to the IDers particular proposals (about which I do not yet have a fully formed view) I am sympathetic to their basic notion. I find it had to believe that the philosophy of Science is so well-formed that there can be no improvement therein while still maintaining the essential discipline we call "Science". I also acknowledge that I may well be wrong...
<SNIP>

A little perjorative, don't you think. "Christian Science" pretty much has nothing to do with Christianity or Science. Scientology has nothing to do with Science. Both are Orwellian uses of words. To me the essential issue is not the name we give things (though I certainly object to the concious obfuscation of meaning a' la Orwell). The essential question is one of foundational axioms of a system, whether they are mutable, and, if so, whether the mutation of these axioms materially changes the discipline in question. Christianity embraced Science (however grudgingly and slowly) as a legitimate source of knowledge but managed to still remain, well, Christianity. One wonders if the inverse situtation is possible ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Doing so inevitable makes it nonScience because those starting points are precisely what differentiates Science from nonScience.
Were it not so, there would be not even a pretense of an objective basis with which to differentiate Science from nonScience.

Hence my 'ditto'.
Quite a bit of successful Science fiction is written simply by taking a traditional story and presenting it in a futuristic scenario. E.g. the movie _Forbidden Planet_ based on Shakespeare's _The Tempest_ or one of the all-time favorite Star Trek episodes _Balance of Terror_ based on the movie _The Enemy Below_.
Hubbard simply took tradional religious concepts like demonic posession, restated them in the parlance of Science Fiction but then made the result into a Religion instead of a literary work.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mon, Jan 30, 2006, 8:58pm (EST-3) snipped-for-privacy@fastmail.fm (LarryBlanchard) giggles and tells us: I've got too much time on my hands :-).<snip>
You don't know how to spend it either.
As long as you've got so much time to waste, go count all the plans posts I've made, make a site with all the links, each with a title, then e-mail the site link to everyone here. Except me. Then you can killfile me. I would have said you could "plonk" me, but I was afraid you might have mis-understood what I meant.
Gods above, if that's all you have to occupy your time, I'm so very glad I don't have your life. That'd be at least as bad as being banished to the Pluperfect Purple Hell.
JOAT Shhh... that's the sound of nobody caring what you think.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.