Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Please make your case - no reasonable poster will take your word for this. Likewise, no reasonable poster should take my word for the pro big-bang position.The Big Bang = total fabrication based on a large number of inferences.
I know the definition of a professional. I'm asking which disciplines.Professionals - those trained in the methods of a particular discipline who then make that discipline their life's work.
The first is a criticism lodged by Postmodernists. Who could possibly think that's even worth addressing? They'll argue with 2 + 2 = 4.The battles come in many forms. There have been societal battles about science (e.g. Science Wars), national battles about science (e.g. Soviet Biology), inter-disciplinary battles about science (e.g. Elastic Constant Controversy), and personal battles about science (e.g. Newton vs. Hooke).
The first is a criticism lodged by Postmodernists. Who could possibly think that's even worth addressing? They'll argue with 2 + 2 = 4.
The second doesn't seem worth arguing either. Is anyone really willing to argue that truth should be what we want to be true? I mean, besides a Marxist?
The third (which I'm only gleaning from a couple of paragraphs of the linked excerpt) sounds like a matter of interpretation similar to the problem of QM interpretation. I don't see any battle about science there, but just disagreement about speculating on what science doesn't yet know.
The fourth is, as you note, a personal battle. The history of science is full of those, and they can get quite nasty.
I'm sorry, but I don't really know what your OP is about.
In one thread of this forum @2PhiloVoid and I discussed the value of a thread on historical method. As I thought about it, I decided such a thread would quickly become untenable because most of the unbelievers in this forum exclusively argue a superiority of science (or what they think is science) regardless of the topic, and, as a result, tend to argue that history is scientific.
Therefore, science is the elephant in the room, and probably the better place to start.
As it happens, when I was an undergrad in history my advisor's specialty was the history of science. Given I already had an M.S. in engineering, she encouraged me to focus on the history of science as well. Though, in the end, I didn't go that direction, I did do considerable reading in the area. A major work I would recommend is Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, by Curd & Cover. I intend to roughly follow the format of their book - as much as the fractal nature of Internet discussion will allow.
To that end, the first question tackled in that book is: What is science?
Science is not the end all some make it out to be. IOW "If science says something is a fact, it's a fact" is not necessarily a fact.
Science is no more than the opinion drawn by people from their study of the natural. Or in it's most basic form, or at least it boils down to, Science is opinion.
No, I agree that that they're dangerous. And on the whole, I don't think nonsense tends to collapse under its incoherence. Individual pockets collapse but it always seems to pop up in a new formulation in another time and place. As far as addressing them, I guess what you meant by "professionals" is philosophers, academics, intellectuals? I mean I hope engineers aren't debating this stuff. I don't want to travel across a bridge designed by a postmodernist engineer.I think all of these go deeper than you're acknowledging. Though they may seem silly to you, leaving them unaddressed is dangerous. Though they may eventually collapse due to their own incoherence, they leave a vast swath of suffering in their wake. The Soviet Union, etc. was not an idle threat. It becomes an Edmund Burke sort of thing.
I agree. I think for some there's just zero tolerance of any idea that smacks of a previously known religious idea, unless they can couch it in their own non-religious terms.It is similar to QM interpretation as well as the Parallel Postulate controversy, but this one is near and dear to my heart since it impinges on engineering, and strikes at one of the key assumptions of science - that numbers are descriptive of our world, thereby allowing science to be predictive. If you don't live through something like this, or don't fully understand the historical context, it is easy to miss the shock wave this incident sent through the scientific world.
This predated QM; material scientists had simply been following the math to its logical conclusion. Then they hit a fork in the road - there was more than one answer. How can that be? How can the numbers describe more than one possible world - more than one reality? In our post Star Trek world, this doesn't seem shocking, but at the time it was huge.
What I find sad about it is the casual way people bring up alternate realities now, as if it's no big deal. Then they'll turn on a dime and call Christianity incoherent. Oy. It's an intellectual laziness that too many think is acceptable.
I didn't know their disagreement was also philosophical.Again, there was a crucial philosophical battle at the heart of Newton and Hooke's disagreement that seems to get lost in the bitterness that developed from their ego driven, chest-thumping arguments. Further, there was a 3rd entry in the argument (Jean Buridan), who is all but forgotten.
The argument centered on what would be the fundamental assumption of physics. What is the first cause, and thereby the primary foundation of reality? This is far and away my favorite philosophical issue of science, and a debate that continues on through Einstein and Mach into even my own work.
Okay. Well I'd like to still stick with my original description, except I might make it a bit more accurate by saying science is for figuring out stuff we can perceive with the five senses (and with instruments which extend the senses). So yes, I see no rational reason to assume that all of ultimate reality has to be apprehended by our senses. That would seem to be an arrogant, human-centric assumption based on nothing, really.Most of the above is just things I find interesting about science - I said it because you asked. But if you want to know what the OP is about, it's post #11.
No, I agree that that they're dangerous. And on the whole, I don't think nonsense tends to collapse under its incoherence. Individual pockets collapse but it always seems to pop up in a new formulation in another time and place. As far as addressing them, I guess what you meant by "professionals" is philosophers, academics, intellectuals? I mean I hope engineers aren't debating this stuff. I don't want to travel across a bridge designed by a postmodernist engineer.
Yes of course but I think the person I responded to is an engineer, and it sounded as if he's saying he deals in such debates, which is why I asked what professionals he's talking about. I may have misunderstood him though.Philosophy and sciences like physics or chemistry don't even deal with the same subject matter. That they have different methods is understandable, as a result.
Yes of course but I think the person I responded to is an engineer, and it sounded as if he's saying he deals in such debates, which is why I asked what professionals he's talking about. I may have misunderstood him though.
Do they??
I would love to see, say, five quotes of those many that make that exact statement. OK, three will do.Yes. I didn't say all, and I don't know your position, but many of the unbelievers I've encountered make that exact statement.
I would love to see, say, five quotes of those many that make that exact statement. OK, three will do.
CF has a search function.
...so your claim remains unsubstatiated.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?