The Limits of Science

[henry quirk]

"What do you make out of it?'

Not much....not really my bailiwick.

#

"Do you believe science (which builts prediction models) has anything to do with what we call "the truth"?"

I believe science can lead to fact...truth is only 'true' insofar as it conforms to what is 'real' (factual)...so: yeah, science can have sumthin' to do with 'truth'.

[Blaggard]

Did you know originally the quarks the fundamental units of all matter according to the standard model of physics were called up and down, charm and strange, truth and beauty, but it became a little philosophically confusing so they changed the last pair to top and bottom over time.

What I find interesting though as an atheist is there are 3 fundamental forces weak, strong, electromagnetism: which have 3 counterparts each summing to gravity, 3 "fundamental" atomic particles that also have antimatter counterparts electron, neutron and proton, and three subsets of elementary particles which also have antimatter counterparts.

Which means 6,6,6 damn it Bob was right!

And Lucifer lit. the light bringer was responsible for most of the stars in the universe...

It's a good thing love is the 7th wave.

[surreptitious57]

Is not gravity itself though one of the fundamental forces ? I understand too that
the strong and weak nuclear forces no longer have distinction so which would then
leave three fundamental ones : gravity : electromagnetic : nuclear. And the number
of the beast is supposed to be six one six not six six six as is more commonly assumed
Though this point is a rather academic one as he does not actually exist but just saying

[SpheresOfBalance]

Did you know originally the quarks the fundamental units of all matter according to the standard model of physics were called up and down, charm and strange, truth and beauty, but it became a little philosophically confusing so they changed the last pair to top and bottom over time.

What I find interesting though as an atheist is there are 3 fundamental forces weak, strong, electromagnetism: which have 3 counterparts each summing to gravity, 3 "fundamental" atomic particles that also have antimatter counterparts electron, neutron and proton, and three subsets of elementary particles which also have antimatter counterparts.

Which means 6,6,6 damn it Bob was right!

And Lucifer lit. the light bringer was responsible for most of the stars in the universe...

It's a good thing love is the 7th wave.

I never knew that a third of the police, knew anything about physics.

[Blaggard]

Is not gravity itself though one of the fundamental forces ? I understand too that
the strong and weak nuclear forces no longer have distinction so which would then
leave three fundamental ones : gravity : electromagnetic : nuclear. And the number
of the beast is supposed to be six one six not six six six as is more commonly assumed
Though this point is a rather academic one as he does not actually exist but just saying

All the forces are the same force under different energy concerns, so in fact it is 616!

Bob is once again proved right!

[Blaggard]

I never knew that a third of the police, knew anything about physics.

Now you know Sting aka Gordon Sumner knows a great deal about love, he's into tantric sex, and he quite obviously is better at sex than you or I will ever be, God bless Sting, he cares.

OK all joking aside though Ten Sumner's tales is pretty well written you have to admit...

I like the punning I suppose Ten Summoner's Tales, and Ten Sumner's Tales, each song is very well written and very poetic, Sting certainly has an accomplished lyrical adroitness. It's a pity The Police split up IMHO one of the most talented bands of the 80s by a long way.

"It's Probably Me"

If the night turned cold and the stars looked down
And you hug yourself on the cold cold ground
You wake the morning in a stranger's coat
No one would you see
You ask yourself, who's watched for me
My only friend, who could it be
It's hard to say it
I hate to say it, but it's probably me

When your belly's empty and the hunger's so real
And you're too proud to beg and too dumb to steal
You search the city for your only friend
No one would you see
You ask yourself, who could it be
A solitary voice to speak out and set me free
I hard to say it
I hate to say it, but it's probably me

You're not the easiest person I ever got to know
And it's hard for us both to let our feelings show
Some would say I should let you go your way
You'll only make me cry
If there's one guy, just one guy
Who'd lay down his life for you and die
It's hard to say it
It's hate to say it, but it's probably me

When the world's gone crazy and it makes no sense
There's only one voice that comes to your defense
The jury's out and your eyes search the room
And one friendly face is all you need to see
If there's one guy, just one guy
Who'd lay down his life for you and die
It's hard to say it
I hate to say it, but it's probably me
I hate to say it
I hate to say it, but it's probably me

Clever verbosity I think...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUYI7kIR0S4]

Apparently Eric Clapton on guitar, how does he get all those artists on board? I mean don't get me wrong Eric Clapton is not the best guitarist that ever lived, but he's got to be in the top ten...

[skakos]

"What do you make out of it?'

Not much....not really my bailiwick.

#

"Do you believe science (which builts prediction models) has anything to do with what we call "the truth"?"

I believe science can lead to fact...truth is only 'true' insofar as it conforms to what is 'real' (factual)...so: yeah, science can have sumthin' to do with 'truth'.

How can you know any fact OBJECTIVELY? Can you?

[Ginkgo]

"What do you make out of it?'

Not much....not really my bailiwick.

#

"Do you believe science (which builts prediction models) has anything to do with what we call "the truth"?"

I believe science can lead to fact...truth is only 'true' insofar as it conforms to what is 'real' (factual)...so: yeah, science can have sumthin' to do with 'truth'.

How can you know any fact OBJECTIVELY? Can you?

You probably can if you make an ontological commitment. For example, scientific realism.

[SpheresOfBalance]

"What do you make out of it?'

Not much....not really my bailiwick.

#

"Do you believe science (which builts prediction models) has anything to do with what we call "the truth"?"

I believe science can lead to fact...truth is only 'true' insofar as it conforms to what is 'real' (factual)...so: yeah, science can have sumthin' to do with 'truth'.

How can you know any fact OBJECTIVELY? Can you?

First some clarification:

objectively ob·jec·tive [uhb-jek-tiv]
adjective:
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).
8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

And:

fact [fakt]
noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

Now, the question was "any fact, objectively," in 'fact' my name is: "SpheresOfBalance," I know this both subjectively and objectively, I find my name as I search my mind, yet I did not name myself, someone external to be did so, and many still call me that to gain my attention, in fact my name is "spheresOfBalance" both subjectively and objectively. As anyone speaks to me I experience their objectification. Anyone here treat women as objects? I hope not!

Often we only think of objects external to us when considering this, but how about when we are perceived as the object, things external to us treat us as an object, as surely to them we are, by some measure, then is it not true that at some point their objectification meets our subjective experience, then how distinct is that point? And could our subjective experience ever exist without their objectification meeting it/creating it at that point. One's objectification yields subjective experience, so that they are tied together, bonded, one cannot exist without the other, a solid dichotomy.

Too thin for you to accept?

[henry quirk]

"How can you know any fact OBJECTIVELY?"

There's a great deal I don't know, can't know, but there are a few things I do know.

For example: I know that fire will burn my naked flesh. I know this because I've experienced it on multiple occasions. I know this because I've observed other folks gettin' burned on multiple occasions. I know this because scientific descriptions match my personal experiences and observation.

Entirely possible the world is not as it appears and I am not what I think I am. Since, however, I have no way to invalidate the world or myself, I go with what I've apparently got (imperfect senses, fragmented information, imperfect assessing) which seems to be accurate enough for me to navigate successfully in whatever it is I call 'world'.

[Ginkgo]

"How can you know any fact OBJECTIVELY?"

There's a great deal I don't know, can't know, but there are a few things I do know.

For example: I know that fire will burn my naked flesh. I know this because I've experienced it on multiple occasions. I know this because I've observed other folks gettin' burned on multiple occasions. I know this because scientific descriptions match my personal experiences and observation.

Entirely possible the world is not as it appears and I am not what I think I am. Since, however, I have no way to invalidate the world or myself, I go with what I've apparently got (imperfect senses, fragmented information, imperfect assessing) which seems to be accurate enough for me to navigate successfully in whatever it is I call 'world'.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_of_fact

I like your explanation better.

[uwot]

How can you know any fact OBJECTIVELY? Can you?

No. You can't know beyond any possible doubt that there is an objective world. You can't even know there is a 'you'. Implausible though it is, it is logically possible that, at any given moment, all that exists is the sensation of that moment. The most parsimonious explanation for the sensations of you experiencing things, including memories, is that you exist and that at least some of the events you remember actually happened. That is the assumption that science works on, but science being science, it is subject to revision. Philosophy, in part, is keeping the alternatives fresh.

[SpheresOfBalance]

One that does not experience the object/subject of an experiment, as it actually unfolds, simply having read about it in a book, often accompanied with heralded resounding revelry, is inclined to believe it, have faith in it, much like that in a deity, or their favorite superhero, they almost always, "can never know it." Yet they swear by it, with much fervor; fools? I call them parrots, because that's in fact what they are, they simply mimic what it is that they've read, relying on the mob of fellow 'believers,' to back them up, sounds like a 'god' fearing people to me!

In truth ones findings can easily be meshed with countless ambiguities, that the reader could never account for, lending to potential ignorance, of the actuality of the event, universally speaking of course. Everything from: money, selfishness, want of tenure, even language, but most importantly is the possibility that all possible controls weren't met, that the Scientific Method wasn't followed, to the maximum degree, where all possible influence was accounted for, and eliminated, and yet on the cutting edge of science the scientists are ignorant of things that could sway their findings, let's not forget that science is in fact revisionist in nature, to account for such potential things. Yet the parrots swear by it, with much fervor; fools?

Which is not a testament to the inability of humans being capable of eventually knowing the object, a true objective view, rather the current state of the humans learning curve. Some would argue against our five senses allowing us to do so, yet we humans have created far more than five sensors, and somewhere some humans use them everyday, to sense far beyond humans natural sensing capabilities, which 'could' also inherently contain ambiguity. But then..., maybe not!

I think the funniest thing though, is that we are in fact born of those objects, made of those objects, so in essence we are those objects, and yet the clueless say that we are incapable of knowing those objects, objectively. How many trillions of constituents is it, that we are made of? We are in fact backwards engineering ourselves, everyday, such that one day, mark my words, but then we'll all be dead by then, if the species doesn't wipe itself out, we'll know of all that the universe is, objectively!

[henry quirk]

"I like your explanation better."

[skakos]

Science has everything to do with prediction models but NOTHING to do with the "truth".
Philosophy tries to find the truth but the only thing is actually HAS found is that there is NO truth whatsoever!
Religion is a mix of science and philosophy but for the Self.
What you experience (empirical data - "science"), what you understand (your logic - "science"), make up your metaphysical philosophy - your religion.

I have written an extensive article at http://harmoniaphilosophica.wordpress.c ... lazj6wq-2/ concerning religion and science unification.

I would really enjoy having comments on it.

The "One" cannot be felt with the dogmatism engulfing modern scientism - a.k.a. materialism...