Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[River Jordan]

Um ... I think it's obvious to me that scientists haven't managed to figure out the nature and origins of the moon yet.

Else there wouldn't be five or six theories about the origin of the moon, would there?

I don't think this is a matter of humility.

I'd say it's more a matter of obvious uncertainty.

In other words, you don't even have to look into it.

Five theories about anything should tell you they haven't concluded anything yet.

Ok, so it's currently an unanswered question. Unanswered questions are why we came up with science in the first place.

 

[Fervent]

I mean, it is basically thinking for the sake of thinking. It has its place and purpose for sure, but when talking about science, it really is just a distraction.

Depends on the field of philosophy, analytic philosophy is about clarifying concepts and examining how the words we use relate to our understanding. It's not just speculating about what might or might not be but about critically assessing our ideas about what is and isn't so.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, so it's currently an unanswered question. Unanswered questions are why we came up with science in the first place.

Fair enough.

That's all I'm saying.

The moon is an exception to your point.

 

[Fervent]

Ontological statements made by science are basically working assumptions. In the end, all science can demonstrate is instrumentality. So what? fail to see the point you are trying to make.

They're not exactly 'working assumptions", they're definitions. The point is, if those assumed definitions aren't true then the whole tower built on those definitions takes us further from the truth rather than bringing us closer to it.

 

[River Jordan]

I prefer not to cast my pearls before swine. Either people play the game with me, and I facilitate walking them down the rabbit hole to discover their own foundations, or the discussion remains at an impasse.

Since you've decided to engage in personal insults, I'll just take my leave.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They're not exactly 'working assumptions", they're definitions. The point is, if those assumed definitions aren't true then the whole tower built on those definitions takes us further from the truth rather than bringing us closer to it.

But truth isn't something science deals with. Truth is for the courts of law and justice. Science deals with facts, which may be overturned tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, next century. Science is provisional information and facts.

 

[River Jordan]

Fair enough.

That's all I'm saying.

The moon is an exception to your point.

Well there are lots of exceptions, which is why we still have science. If there were no unanswered questions, science would be done.

And BTW, I never said science has an explanation for everything.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well there are lots of exceptions, which is why we still have science. If there were no unanswered questions, science would be done.

And BTW, I never said science has an explanation for everything.

Phew!

Why is it like pulling teeth around here to get people to admit that science is myopic?

 

[BCP1928]

They're not exactly 'working assumptions", they're definitions. The point is, if those assumed definitions aren't true then the whole tower built on those definitions takes us further from the truth rather than bringing us closer to it.

The assumption is that the definition describes something with ontological status. If the instrumentality of the definition leads to the instrumentality of the theory, then it is satisfactory. But I still don't see your point.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Phew!

Why is it like pulling teeth around here to get people to admit that science is myopic?

Because your view of myopic is itself a form of myopia to begin with.

 

[River Jordan]

Phew!

Why is it like pulling teeth around here to get people to admit that science is myopic?

You're gonna have to expand on that, because I don't know what you mean by admitting that science is myopic.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're gonna have to expand on that, because I don't know what you mean by admitting that science is myopic.

Science is either blind, myopic, or omniscient.

Of the three, which do you choose?

 

[Fervent]

Since you've decided to engage in personal insults, I'll just take my leave.

That wasn't directed at anyone, it was simply a Biblical reference.

But truth isn't something science deals with. Truth is for the courts of law and justice. Science deals with facts, which may be overturned tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, next century. Science is provisional information and facts.

So science deals with facts that aren't true? How can it be a fact if it can change? Seems to me that facts shouldn't be subject to change, and saying that science deals with "facts" is tantamount to saying it deals with true statements. Kind of a have your cake and eat it too sort of situation.

 

[River Jordan]

Science is either blind, myopic, or omniscient.

Of the three, which do you choose?

None. Those are really odd choices IMO.

 

[Fervent]

The assumption is that the definition describes something with ontological status. If the instrumentality of the definition leads to the instrumentality of the theory, then it is satisfactory. But I still don't see your point.

The point is simply that there's nothing to bridge the gap between the ontological definitions and the phenomenal theories. We talk about science in terms of ontology, but those ontological terms are either so wide that they can encompass all possible phenomenon and thus are meaningless, or we have no clue what sorts of limitations to place on such ontological ideas. There is often an acknowledgement that science doesn't deal with the truth, but then it is assumed that there is truth within the confines of science. But at the end of the day, it's nothing more than a fictional model that operates on principles that allow for quality research into hypothetical mechanical operations.

 

[AV1611VET]

None. Those are really odd choices IMO.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So science deals with facts that aren't true? How can it be a fact if it can change? Seems to me that facts shouldn't be subject to change, and saying that science deals with "facts" is tantamount to saying it deals with true statements. Kind of a have your cake and eat it too sort of situation.

It was a fact in history that human moods and many diseases were down to the 'four humours' - phlegm, blood, yellow bile and black bile. This was considered a fact for nearly 2000 years before it was superseded and replaced with germ theory and a better understanding of biology.

That's one example.

 

[River Jordan]

Science is a method (and it can also refer to the body of results stemming from application of that method). Trying to apply adjectives like "myopic" or "omniscient" to it doesn't make sense.

 

[Fervent]

It was a fact in history that human moods and many diseases were down to the 'four humours' - phlegm, blood, yellow bile and black bile. This was considered a fact for nearly 2000 years before it was superseded and replaced with germ theory and a better understanding of biology.

That's one example.

That's a strange way to speak of "facts"...and it really stretches the definition to the point of breaking IMO. Most people associate facts with truth on a fundamental level, so to distinguish between the two appears deceptive to me.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's a strange way to speak of "facts"...and it really stretches the definition to the point of breaking IMO. Most people associate facts with truth on a fundamental level, so to distinguish between the two appears deceptive to me.

Then you've obviously not spent enough time looking through history at the things that were historically considered facts and then shown to be incorrect.

As I said: truth is for the courts of law and justice. Facts are for science, but facts are also provisional. What might be factual today will be shown to be wrong the next.