Philosophy Now Forum

Skip wrote: Not that medical science doesn't have its set menus,

I was a biochemist in a previous life, Skip, so I hear you loud and clear. However none of the biological sciences are anywhere near as rigid in their eternal verities as is physics. Even Jean-Baptiste Lamarck is finally getting a more considered hearing which is giving the cell biologists some reason for hope.

In fairness, though, the biologists have more scope, 'cose they started so much later. There is still an awful lot of small stuff to explore - in our heads, ponds and stomach lining - no need to dig immense tunnels under mountains or fly out into space to find it.
On the other hand, we're taking some of the religious heat again, so you can relax for a minute.

The biologists have assigned themselves an immensely more complex task than the physicists have so they can't afford to lock themselves into fixed positions from which there is no escape, Skip. They often have to flush the entire story down the toilet and start all over again. The physicists would do well to learn from this precedent.

Sure, but baby black holes don't get loose in the sewers of New York and inspire Dustin Hoffman movies.

Obvious Leo wrote:The biologists have assigned themselves an immensely more complex task than the physicists have so they can't afford to lock themselves into fixed positions from which there is no escape, Skip. They often have to flush the entire story down the toilet and start all over again. The physicists would do well to learn from this precedent.

Physics is probably more loose than we think. I remember a Horizon program, not so long ago, in which a range of possible cosmologies were discussed. Although many stuck to their pet theories, most of the scientists and mathematicians were happy with the idea that cosmological theories have changed, are changing, and shall change. One of two went as far as to suggest that the more data we get the larger the range of theories are available to save the appearances.
So rather than sticking "religiously" to one, most are willing to keep juggling.

When you get so low as the level of an Internet forum, you find people who think, for example, that "many universes" theory is a standardly accepted part of scientific dogma, when in fact, it is just another in a set of ideas that is used to explain the evidence.

The next thing you know is that several internet warriors are discussing the application of "many universes" in re-incarnation, parallel universes which occasionally break through (leaving crop circles?), time travel, Tesla's magical machines. ad nauseam.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:The next thing you know is that several internet warriors are discussing the application of "many universes" in re-incarnation, parallel universes which occasionally break through (leaving crop circles?), time travel, Tesla's magical machines. ad nauseam.

As a philosopher of science I feel your pain. In fact when you scratch beneath the surface of most modern theorists you'll find that very few of them actually buy the multiverse theory for the simple reason that it's blatantly unscientific. As you say it's just one amongst a host of theories which they've been clutching at for the past century. Most of them know perfectly well that they're trapped in a theoretical cul-de-sac because physics has made no progress in a century.

Train up more atheists!

Skip wrote:Train up more atheists!

The odd thing about physics is that almost all physicists would describe themselves as atheists and yet they adhere to a canonical doctrine which defines the universe as a created entity of Intelligent Design which was brought into being at a fixed moment in time by an external causal agent. Such is the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance which this produces in the mind of the geek that he then stands willing to completely ignore the fact that the models derived from this creationist doctrine make no fucking sense. What does your sensitive new-age geek do to resolve this conceptual difficulty? He simply redefines what "making sense" means.

We biologists tend to approach our science with a little more humility, Skip, and deny ourselves such hubristic liberties. We tend to assume that if something in our models doesn't make sense then the likelihood is that we've got something WRONG.

This video of Noam Chomsky speaking on the topic of "The Machine, the Ghost, and the Limits of Understanding" you-all may find interesting. His 'conclusions', such as they are, are quite interesting.

Is there a way to embed videos on the phbBB board? I could not find the code that would work ...

Obvious Leo wrote:

Skip wrote:Train up more atheists!

The odd thing about physics is that almost all physicists would describe themselves as atheists and yet they adhere to a canonical doctrine which defines the universe as a created entity of Intelligent Design which was brought into being at a fixed moment in time by an external causal agent. Such is the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance which this produces in the mind of the geek that he then stands willing to completely ignore the fact that the models derived from this creationist doctrine make no fucking sense. What does your sensitive new-age geek do to resolve this conceptual difficulty? He simply redefines what "making sense" means.

I should have said free-thinkers. Else they'll also have to redefine atheist - and they better not, because I sure don't want Spiral Out to have the last word on any subject. Really, all I meant was that, according to the OP topic, you need young radicals who will bring new insight, being more creative 'n' all.

We biologists tend to approach our science with a little more humility, Skip, and deny ourselves such hubristic liberties. We tend to assume that if something in our models doesn't make sense then the likelihood is that we've got something WRONG.

True. Could be guided, though, by the constraints of the medium, as much as by innate humility. I mean, when you're dealing with the Stuff Out There, nobody else can check your work - or even understand it. If you're wrong about Ebola, the results are obvious to the dumbest layman. I was only a little bit facetious about flushing the baby black holes.

Skip wrote:you need young radicals who will bring new insight,

This is usually true in the case of thinkers operating under the constraints of academia but it doesn't apply to the renegade contrarians who prefer to go it alone. Even the old farts like me can continue to be nay-sayers until their dying breath.

Skip wrote:I sure don't want Spiral Out to have the last word on any subject.

Somebody just walked over my grave and a great Void opened beneath me.

Obvious Leo wrote: I was a biochemist in a previous life, Skip, so I hear you loud and clear.

You believe that you had a previous life? That explains a lot.

thedoc wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote: I was a biochemist in a previous life, Skip, so I hear you loud and clear.

You believe that you had a previous life? That explains a lot.

Doc. Are you familiar with the term, "a figure of speech"? Perhaps it's a cultural misunderstanding but this term is often used in my country when referring to previous career or lifestyle choices.

I'm actually one of those who reckons that life is something we only get one crack at so we're well advised to make the most of it.

thedoc wrote: You believe that you had a previous life? That explains a lot.

Everyone over 20 with a still-intact memory has previous lives. I can count a dozen without taxing the diminished brain-cell population beyond endurance.

I wonder what that explains - or, indeed, what required an explanation.

Now it's quiet here, i'll have another shot at the Chomsky lecture. The sound on it is terrible.