Conflating Fact and Philosophy*

[Glass*Soul]

How do you feel about the tendency of some writers to wax philosophical in their discussions of science, or to cite science in their philosophical discussions? Is it a weakness or a strength? Does it help or hinder the layperson's understanding of either science or philosophy? Do you tend to do the same? Do science and philosophy inform one another?

I'll give a few examples:

The mind is creeping closer and closer to the soul, which sits on the edge of God's world, at the event horizon. The gap of separation is wide when there is no perception of spirit; it grows smaller as the mind figures out what is happening. Eventually the two will get so close that mind and soul have no choice but to merge. When that happens, the resemblance to a black hole is striking. To the mind, it will be as if falling into God's world lasts forever, an eternity in bliss consciousness. From God's side, the merging takes place in a split second; indeed, if we stand completely in God's world, where time has no meaning, the whole process never even occurred. The mind was part of the soul all along, only without knowing it. ~ Chopra, Deepak. How to Know God.

The closer you look, the more you find the proton is dissolving into lots of particles, each of which is carrying very, very little energy. . . And the elements of reality that triggered the whole thing, the quarks, are these tiny little things in the middle of the cloud. In fact, if you follow the evolution to infinitely short distances, the triggering charge goes to zero. If you really study the equation, it gets almost mystical. ~ Discover, May 2000, p. 69.

Although this book is not about physics and Buddhism specifically, the similarities between the two, especially in the field of particle physics, are so striking and plentiful that a student of one necessarily must find value in the other. ~ Zukav, Gary The Dancing Wu Li Masters

[Physicist John] Wheeler conjectures we are part of a universe that is a work in progress; we are tiny patches of the universe looking at itself--and building itself. It's not only the futures that is still undetermined but the past as well. And by peering back into time, even all the way back to the Big Bang, our present observations select one out of many possible quantum histories for the universe. ~ Discover, June 2002, p. 47

It would be interesting to start this same topic in Philosophy and Morality, to see if we might get different answers from those who favor that forum, but I understand that's not allowed.



*I've borrowed the phrase in my title from Karen Wright, a writer for Discover magazine.

 

[Yamialpha]

How do you feel about the tendency of some writers to wax philosophical in their discussions of science, or to cite science in their philosophical discussions? Is it a weakness or a strength? Does it help or hinder the layperson's understanding of either science or philosophy? Do you tend to do the same? Do science and philosophy inform one another?

I'll give a few examples:









It would be interesting to start this same topic in Philosophy and Morality, to see if we might get different answers from those who favor that forum, but I understand that's not allowed.



*I've borrowed the phrase in my title from Karen Wright, a writer for Discover magazine.

Personally I feel as though they should be kept separate in the sense of enforcing or refuting one another. There may be patterns between the two, but that doesn't necessarily mean they go hand-in-hand. If a philosopher wants to explain an idea better and use an analogus from science, then I suppose that is fine since the philosopher is trying to communicate their idea better. Using analogus situations within science and philosophy may assist the layperson since it gives them something with, although the person will need to be familiar with one of the ideas. However, as far as using philosophy to support science or visa versa, I feel as though the two subjects are too fundamentally different to be used with or against one another.

 

[Locrian]

I find most science written for the public to be poor at best, misleading at worst. Those that spend lengthy amounts of time "waxing philosophical" tend to be nothing better but dimwitted trash.

I'd put Sagan on the good end...Greene on the misleading end... and you can just close your eyes and grab a book out of the Books-A-Million science section to get a taste of the trashy end.

Overall I find this inhibits the layperson's understanding of physics.

 

[Yamialpha]

Often times books written for the public are more for propaganda. Brian Greene is pretty bad at portraying superstring theory as a theory as concrete as the theory of relativity. He also uses wacky analogus situations that overall give you a bad portrayal of his point. Sagan wasn't as bad although he had a tendency to only reveal one side of the story.

 

[Glass*Soul]

Ack!! I'm 2/3 of the way through The Elegant Universe even as we speak. Is there another book that you guys would recommend for a layperson wanting to learn about superstring theory? Please keep in mind that I'm struggling with this.

 

[billwald]

Agree on the seperation. Two problems. First, if a job description can be labled "science" it commands more respect and pay. Second, many non scientific fields use technical instrumentation and thus morph into "science." For example, history including evolutionary history and archeology.

The solution it to adopt Popper's criteria of falsifyability and predictibility.

 

[Glass*Soul]

The solution it to adopt Popper's criteria of falsifyability and predictibility.

Can you say a little more about that?

 

[Yamialpha]

Ack!! I'm 2/3 of the way through The Elegant Universe even as we speak. Is there another book that you guys would recommend for a layperson wanting to learn about superstring theory? Please keep in mind that I'm struggling with this.

What in particular are you struggling with?