"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist"

[axon]

In short I think science is ultimately doomed to failure: it can never awnser all the questions. Forever keeping a sense of awe and wonder is better than blinkering yourself in the smugness of the awnsers of science.

Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!
Because obviously any one that knows anything about science will claim that science has all the answers and is the source of ultimate truth.
Do you know, sometimes I think I'm just banging my head against a board.

 

[phildwyer]

I agree, but im pointing out a tendency: religion and science fulfill the same needs in people. Reverence is a key to both, when it is lost both science and religion turn into dogma.

Absolutely right. But the central problem of our culture, in my view, is the failure of science and religion to engage each other on a shared terrain. I believe that such an engagement would deflate the dogmatic claims of both discourses, which would be of immense benefit to us all. But just look where that gets me.

 

[ska invita]

Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!
Because obviously any one that knows anything about science will claim that science has all the answers and is the source of ultimate truth.
Do you know, sometimes I think I'm just banging my head against a board.

-I dont understand your reaction. Perhaps I haven't been clear.

Science would love to achieve a theory of everything - it would love to nail all the biggest questions, what was before the Big Bang, whats beyond the universe, it would even like to nail down some more simple ones that are still being disputed.

My point is simple - if Darwin has given Atheists peace of mind, as Dawkin says, then it is only because Evolution is an awnser to there being "no God". If you start replacing God with science you are liable to fall into the same traps as delusionsal religious types. Not a given, but a tendency nonetheless.

Dawkins suggests that this replacing of God with evolution brings "satisfaction" to the Atheist - I suggest that we should all never get too satisfied with any particular solution or theory: better to revel in the mysteries that will always evade humans.

This is not an anti-science position, just a spiritual point, which is what is of concern to Dawkins in the original statement.

 

[ska invita]

Absolutely right. But the central problem of our culture, in my view, is the failure of science and religion to engage each other on a shared terrain.

There are scientific writers out there who are interested in the synthesis of Science and "Mysticism" - particularly in the way modern understanding of physics correlates with accounts by Indian mystics, leading to (in some cases) radical propositions about the role of consciousness in relation to the fabric of space-time.

I know of a few writers you might be into:
David Bohm http://twm.co.nz/Bohm.html,
Panda ("Vibrating Universe") http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/8120812913/qid=1124852434/t/026-1792336-3478014
Bhattacharya,
FD Peat. http://www.fdavidpeat.com/
Karl Pribram http://twm.co.nz/pribram.htm

The shared terrain of science and religion is a terrain where science is not yet able to tread with conviction - religion can walk there freely, as it is often based on imagination. At least the meditative and ecstatic branches of religion have some empirical evidence to go on...

 

[kyser_soze]

radical propositions about the role of consciousness in relation to the fabric of space-time.

...I ever tell you about my idea concerning quantum entanglement and moments of artistic and intellectual inspiration?

 

[axon]

My point is simple - if Darwin has given Atheists peace of mind, as Dawkin says, then it is only because Evolution is an awnser to there being "no God". If you start replacing God with science you are liable to fall into the same traps as delusionsal religious types. Not a given, but a tendency nonetheless.

Dawkins suggests that this replacing of God with evolution brings "satisfaction" to the Atheist -

I agree that if you replace God with science you can fall into delusional traps, but the difference is you can logically argue and dispute, and revise science which you cannot do with God (except maybe branching off and forming another religion).

As for the replacement of God with evolution bringing satisfaction to the atheist, you could apply to same arguments to things other than evolution. For example, the sunrising ever morning is a magnificent gift from God. This is intellectually unsatisfying. However once you explain the gravity forces the Earth to spin then this explains why we see the sun rise very morning, there is no need to invoke a God to explain the event, voila, one satisfied atheist.

I suggest that we should all never get too satisfied with any particular solution or theory: better to revel in the mysteries that will always evade humans.

I don't think people are too satisified, science is always open to new ideas (especially if they come along with evidence and predictions).
You say better to revel in the mysteries that always evade humans. Is this any different from "ignorance is bliss" ?

 

[belboid]

science is always open to new ideas (especially if they come along with evidence and predictions).

hmmm, actually science usually resists new idea's incredibly strongly, and needs to be virtually battered into acceptance of them, it is not an example of any kind of 'perfect rationalism' but is a product of the society it works in, and is often bound by material interests in maintaining a scientific status quo. (see Thomas Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions)

 

[Fruitloop]

There's no example of a scientific theory that's continued to hold currency permanently once it's been disproved or the evidence for it has been shown to be definitely faulty is there?

 

[gurrier]

hmmm, actually science usually resists new idea's incredibly strongly, and needs to be virtually battered into acceptance of them, it is not an example of any kind of 'perfect rationalism' but is a product of the society it works in, and is often bound by material interests in maintaining a scientific status quo. (see Thomas Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions)

I think you are confusing two slightly different things. The abstract notion of science as a methodology for systematically acquiring and evaluating information about why the world works the way that it does is quite different from the labyrinthine machinations within scientific academia in search of status. I don't think that you'll find anybody who thinks that the institutions and individuals who make up 'science' in the second sense are a perfect expression of 'science' in the first sense.

Really it all boils down to the simple observation that people are often selfish and egotistical and will behave consistently with that and it makes little difference if they do it in the name of science or anything else.

 

[belboid]

There's no example of a scientific theory that's continued to hold currency permanently once it's been disproved or the evidence for it has been shown to be definitely faulty is there?

well obviously something that has been 'disproived' will not hold currency permanently, the q. arises over what is accepted as 'proof' or 'faultiness'. A single 'disproof' will probably be dismissed as erroneous for some reason or other.

 

[Fruitloop]

Because it operates on weight of evidence, and single studies have been faulty in the past? It's not a perfect and unerring machine, but it gets there in the end.

 

[belboid]

I think you are confusing two slightly different things. The abstract notion of science as a methodology for systematically acquiring and evaluating information about why the world works the way that it does is quite different from the labyrinthine machinations within scientific academia in search of status.

but that abstract notion is just that, solely abstract. And it is not simply academic machinations that lead to individuals 'blocking' (for want of a better word) change, that happens due to the nature of scientific endeavours, to an extent at least. To ditch an entire theory on the basis of one observation would obviously be daft, for instance.

 

[belboid]

Because it operates on weight of evidence, and single studies have been faulty in the past? It's not a perfect and unerring machine, but it gets there in the end.

yes, but not by a simple unidirectional, always improving and getting closer to 'the truth', manner.

 

[Fruitloop]

Quid est veritas? Still, I think it would be fair to say that if you took 50-year slices of the synchronic state of knowledge back to the rennaisance then you would be able to see that the body of knowledge about the world has been consistently improving.

 

[belboid]

hmm, i wouldnt. how long was 'phlogiston' (sp?) around for?

 

[Fruitloop]

No-one's denying that it can take a path up a blind alley from time to time. However, from my limited understanding Phlogiston was a more accurate representation of the world than the pure four-elements theory that preceded it, and came about partly in response to the experimental observation that things burned for a much shorter duration in an enclosed space than they would otherwise have done.

 

[gurrier]

but that abstract notion is just that, solely abstract. And it is not simply academic machinations that lead to individuals 'blocking' (for want of a better word) change, that happens due to the nature of scientific endeavours, to an extent at least. To ditch an entire theory on the basis of one observation would obviously be daft, for instance.

Abstract notions provide ideals to aim towards. Even if they are never embodied, the fact of the existance of the abstract ideal is extremely useful.

I don't really follow your argument on science either as it would not be good scientific practice to do anything on the basis of a single observation. Reproducibility is one of the "sine qua non"s of scientific theory. I assumed that you were talking about the illegitimate 'blocking' of certain scientific theories. I think that, in the main, this is down to academic machinations of one sort or another.

In general there is a very good safeguard against conservatism within science - that is the fact that if there is a theory that is more useful than the competition (and repeatable, falsifiable etc), people will use it to help them explain other things. When enough people do this without finding contradictions within it, it will become mainstream. Of course if you're in the realm of pure speculation or working in areas that are of little practical use (string theory springs to mind) it doesn't really matter which theory prevails and you can argue endlessly without it affecting anything at all.

 

[phildwyer]

In general there is a very good safeguard against conservatism within science - that is the fact that if there is a theory that is more useful than the competition (and repeatable, falsifiable etc), people will use it to help them explain other things.

Science explains nothing. Rather, it allows us to *do* things--its instrumental. The real question is whether it allows us to do things that are, as Gurrier puts it, "useful." In my view, a balanced consideration of the effects of science would judge it very harshly indeed--the nuclear bomb, the destruction of the environment and so on. Many people will say that these effects are functions of the uses to which science has been put, rather than of scientific methodology itself. Many others, including myself, will disagree, and argue that the urge to domination--of nature and of human beings--is inherent in the Baconian model itself. But whatever one's opinion, this is how science must be judged: by its *effects,* and not by its manifestly spurious claims to reveal some objective "truth" about the world.

 

[Fruitloop]

That was wrong at the start, in the middle and at the end.

 

[alco]

Science explains nothing. Rather, it allows us to *do* things--its instrumental. The real question is whether it allows us to do things that are, as Gurrier puts it, "useful." In my view, a balanced consideration of the effects of science would judge it very harshly indeed--the nuclear bomb, the destruction of the environment and so on. Many people will say that these effects are functions of the uses to which science has been put, rather than of scientific methodology itself. Many others, including myself, will disagree, and argue that the urge to domination--of nature and of human beings--is inherent in the Baconian model itself. But whatever one's opinion, this is how science must be judged: by its *effects,* and not by its manifestly spurious claims to reveal some objective "truth" about the world.

Utter drivel.

For a man who can't help ridiculing the intellect and education of others, you certainly come out with some seriously smelly horse shit.

Science explains, say, gravity. This allows us to do precisely nothing.
Engineering, on the other hand, allows us to build planes and rockets.
Science (scientific theory) is judged by its accuracy, not its effects.

You really did get that all wrong, didn't you Phillip.

 

[axon]

I don't think the nuclear bomb was purely a result of science. I have a suspicion that there may have been other factors contributing to it's development and use, I dunno, maybe things like the WW2, politics, human conditions of fear, aggression, stupidity.

 

[gurrier]

Science explains, say, gravity. This allows us to do precisely nothing.
Engineering, on the other hand, allows us to build planes and rockets.
Science (scientific theory) is judged by its accuracy, not its effects.

I prefer to use the division of science / technology than science / engineering but it's pretty much the same.

Science is people looking at the universe and asking themselves "why the fuck does that happen?"

Technology is people using the answers to the above question to answer the related question of "How the fuck can I make x happen?"

I think it's really silly to blame the people who come up with convincing answers to the first question for the fact that the x in the second question is often something very nasty indeed ('kill more people' 'control more minds' etc). The logical consequence of attributing blame in such a way would be to make it an ideal that we cherish ignorace, because any knowledge that we produce could be used by somebody to do something nasty.

The real problem is that only a tiny number of very nasty people every get to decide what x is.

 

[alco]

I don't think the nuclear bomb was purely a result of science. I have a suspicion that there may have been other factors contributing to it's development and use, I dunno, maybe things like the WW2, politics, human conditions of fear, aggression, stupidity.

Fission bombs aren't a "result of science" at all. They're a result of Engineering, i.e. of humans. Science (nuclear physics, splitting the atom etc) has nothing to do with nuclear bombs. The person who discovered that atoms aren't literally atomic and could be split resulting in lots of energy probably had a vision of cheap, free energy for all, not of radioactive waste and WMDs.

 

[phildwyer]

Science is people looking at the universe and asking themselves "why the fuck does that happen?"

Wrong. Again. What you refer to here is known as "philosophy."

 

[phildwyer]

The person who discovered that atoms aren't literally atomic and could be split resulting in lots of energy probably had a vision of cheap, free energy for all, not of radioactive waste and WMDs.

That worked out well, didn't it?

 

[Fruitloop]

Wrong. Again. What you refer to here is known as "philosophy."

Balls.

 

[alco]

That worked out well, didn't it?

Obviously not, but to blame science rather than people is daft.

 

[phildwyer]

Obviously not, but to blame science rather than people is daft.

Well, this is where we disagree. I think that Baconian science involves an inherently exploitative conception of the environment as Other, as alien to the human subjective observer. This is one of many points of connection that have been made between Baconian science and alienated labor, aka Capital.

 

[Fruitloop]

As justified by that unsupported tosh about it being entirely instrumental? Or have you though better of that?

How is string theory conceivably instrumental? And why is conceiving of something as Other inherently exploitative? I don't see that you could have a meaningful understanding of the world without a self/other distinction - something that all children attain by the age of two.

 

[belboid]

Wrong. Again. What you refer to here is known as "philosophy."

and science is/was often referred to as 'natural philosophy'.

(I'll come back to your comments in a bit fruitloop/gurrier, better do some actual work stuff first tho)