Foundation of scientific and technical thought

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by lightgigantic, Sep 23, 2007.

Page 1 of 3
  1. lightgigantic

    lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Higher knowledge needs not at all to be mysterious. But our problem is that we confuse knowledge with speculation. For example, it is sheer speculation that mankind is destined to conquer the laws of nature; yet this is a guiding tenet of scientific progress. Old age, disease and death remain as problematic now as they were 2500 years ago when the Greeks began laying the foundations of Western science. So it is certainly mysterious how these problems will be one day solved by Western science.

    The notion that the human mind can figure out a way to overcome the laws of nature is founded upon a notion that the mind is independent of the laws of nature. This is the so-called Cartesian assumption (named after Rene Descartes, "the father of modern philosophy," who believed the mind to be spirit, not matter; he argued that rational thought, when perfected, can make man master and possessor of material nature). This assumption is at the foundation of modern scientific and technical thought.
     
    lightgigantic, Sep 23, 2007
    #1

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    No. Science aims to find out how nature works so as to best know how to work within its laws - not to "conquer" them.

    The average life expectancy in the developed world has almost tripled since then.

    What a strange view of science. In fact, science is concerned only with the material world, and not with Cartesian dualism.

    It is religions that seem to be fond of positing dualistic things like souls and ghosts and spirits and gods.
     
    James R, Sep 23, 2007
    #2

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. lightgigantic

    lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    JamesR
    A statement by astronomer and mathematician Pierre-Simon de Laplace should make clear the agenda of the scientific knowledge


    A mind that in a given instance knew all the forces
    by which nature is animated and the position of all
    the bodies of which it is composed, if it were vast
    enough to include all these data within his analysis,
    could embrace in one single formula the movements of
    the largest bodies of the universe and of the smallest
    atoms; nothing would be uncertain for him; the future
    and the past would be equally before his eyes.

    IOW its not clear why you think "knowledge" and "control" are somehow separate issues, since the later follows the former like a shadow

    regardless, these three things still have an unblemished track record of 100% success
    correction - it is concerned in delineating the material world through the mind (something like threading an elephant through the eye of a needle) - and the foundation for laying such a wager is attributed to Rene Descartes


    I don't know why you bring this up - but since you do, its not clear how any field of knowledge or inquiry can exist without dualistic notions ...
     
    lightgigantic, Sep 23, 2007
    #3

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. store

    store Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    When I first read this I thought of a comparison to God or a God like force that knows everything that is happening in the Universe in the same instant that it happens, Would that then be our final destination after which we would have no other reason for our existence,unless we could travel beyond our universe to others that may exist.but as an energy force that have disregarded their human form.I find that an interesting prospect although somewhat far fetched

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    store, Sep 23, 2007
    #4
  8. lightgigantic

    lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    call it what you will, it is the foundation of scientific and technical thought

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    lightgigantic, Sep 23, 2007
    #5
  9. Crunchy Cat

    Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    What do you mean by 'conquer the laws of nature'?

    Disease is far less of a problem for humans now thanks to science so it is certainly not as problematic now as 2500 years ago. How are old age and death a problem? It's entropy.

    Thats odd. Last time I checked, science doesn't consider 'mind' to be independent of the laws of nature... let alone some nebulous 'spirit'.
     
    Crunchy Cat, Sep 23, 2007
    #6
  10. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    lightgigantic:

    Not at all. I may understand how a star such as the Sun "works", but that doesn't mean I can control it to any extent. And there's no guarantee that human beings will ever gain that degree of control.

    But many disagree with Descartes that "mind" is anything other than the physical activity of the brain. If that is true, there's no need for dualism.

    See previous paragraph.
     
    James R, Sep 23, 2007
    #7
  11. lightgigantic

    lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Crunchy cat
    A statement by astronomer and mathematician Pierre-Simon de Laplace should make clear the agenda of the scientific knowledge


    A mind that in a given instance knew all the forces
    by which nature is animated and the position of all
    the bodies of which it is composed, if it were vast
    enough to include all these data within his analysis,
    could embrace in one single formula the movements of
    the largest bodies of the universe and of the smallest
    atoms; nothing would be uncertain for him; the future
    and the past would be equally before his eyes.
    disease is still a problem - just ask the WHO
    old age and death is also still a problem - just visit a local nursing home
    perhaps the terms are not used but the qualities are the same - the foundation is that the mind (aka logic/deduction/etc) is sufficient to demystify the workings of the universe - in other words the human mind on one side of the scales weighs more than the universe - or so we are led to believe .....
     
    lightgigantic, Sep 23, 2007
    #8
  12. store

    store Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    Evolution maybe?
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2007
    store, Sep 23, 2007
    #9
  13. Crunchy Cat

    Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    I don't get how an astronomer stating that uncertainty could be removed if all variables were known is stating that science has an agenda to conquer nature.

    I never said it wasn't a problem. I said its less of a problem than 2500 years ago (you asserted its not).

    The local nursing homes in my area take excellent care of their occupants; however, some are abusive. Is the issue old age or is the issue the people taking care of them? Again, why are old age and death problems?

    I see. In this assertion of "human mind" are you including tools that gain us visibility, analysis, computation, and pattern recognition? Are you including processes that gain us validation of hypothesis / prediction from reality?
     
    Crunchy Cat, Sep 23, 2007
    #10
  14. lightgigantic

    lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    JamesR
    obviously because you don't "know" enough about it

    then that must mean the guarantee holds that human knowledge is constitutionally limited
    its not clear how your proposal, even if its true, is somehow an alternative from Descartes wager that the brain/mind is capable of delineating the substance of reality (which BTW contradicts your earlier proposal about humans having no “guarantee of control”)
     
    lightgigantic, Sep 23, 2007
    #11
  15. lightgigantic

    lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Crunchy cat
    Is it possible to conquer without removing uncertainty?
    Is it possible to remove all uncertainty without conquering?
    I asserted that disease has, is and forever will remain a problem for the material world
    ethics of care aside, given your current state of health (which I assume to be quite vital), do you find the prospect of breaking 2 ribs after sneezing violently a progressive proposal for your future?
    I am asserting that the mind (with the assistance of the senses) is wagered as sufficient to demystify the universe, independent of any other authority
     
    lightgigantic, Sep 23, 2007
    #12
  16. Crunchy Cat

    Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    What definition of conquer are you using?

    Incorrect. You asserted:

    Either way, I have no idea if disease will always be a problem. We might get to a point where we can remove any disease from people.

    I find entropy natural and necessary. It will impact the quality of my life as it will yours.

    If we're excluding products of the mind (ex. microsocopes, telescopes, the scientific process, etc.) and we're excluding reality being the authority then I would agree.
     
    Crunchy Cat, Sep 23, 2007
    #13
  17. Tnerb

    Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    Gee. So much bs why don't you give it all a big clarification post!
    I'm all for epistemology, maybe. Just, if this is so foundational, ... you see what I mean ? :/
     
    Tnerb, Sep 23, 2007
    #14
  18. Fraggle Rocker

    Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    I'm not sure what you mean by "conquering" the laws of nature. Science studies the laws of nature so we understand how the universe works. Mankind learns to utilize the laws of nature to our advantage, starting with the discovery of how fire can be started so we could cook our food, stay warm and check for predators after dark. Then working up to the discovery of how plants grow from seeds so we could cultivate crops and live in permanent villages. Ultimately discovering how electrons are shunted through crystals with various voltages applied to them, so you and I can communicate via computer. We haven't conquered anything, we've simply learned how to use what we've found.
    I don't know who told you that but no scientist I've ever met would speak with such hubris. The purpose of science is to accurately predict how the universe will behave in the future, based upon empirical observations of how it has behaved in the past, using theories derived by logical reasoning. The only thing scientists want to conquer is ignorance.
    Duh? Where did you learn your history? I don't have an accurate figure for the Greek empire, but in the Roman Empire, the life expectancy of an adult who had already survived childhood was only age 23. Today in the Western countries the life expectancy of a newborn baby is close to 80 years. So many diseases have been controlled that causes of death like murder, suicide and auto accidents are in the top five in many places--very rare deaths compared to the death rate from disease 1,000 years ago. We're even conquering old age. I'm 64 and I'm as strong and healthy as my father was at half that age.
    Not much of a mystery if you'd just step away from your computer, walk outside, and count the number of healthy 70-year-old people walking around without help. Or visit a neonatal ICU and see the number of babies who are routinely saved from illnesses that were invariably fatal a mere hundred years ago.
    The notion that humans can overcome the laws of nature exists only in science fiction, where people routinely travel faster than the speed of light, read each other's minds, and have not only sexual intercourse but healthy hybrid children with beings from other solar systems. You are misrepresenting science in order to create a false premise and then denigrate science for being something that it is not.

    This is a violation of SciForums' rule against "trolling": the posting of off-topic or inappropriate (e.g. anti-scientific) material. Even in the Philosophy Subforum we are obliged to respect the scientific method, or at the very least not flout it.

    If you truly believe what you are saying and your intention is to stimulate a discussion rather than fool around and cause trouble, then please comport yourself like a scientist. You have made a claim that contradicts the fundamental principle of science: the claim that science and scientists intend and expect to "conquer" the laws of nature. Your claim has been peer-reviewed and its validity has been challenged. You are required to provide substantiation for your claim before moving forward with your argument. Since a claim that runs counter to the basis of science itself is extraordinary, you are bound by the principle that "extaordinary assertions require extraordinary substantiation." So you will need to provide very strong evidence to support your theory that science is not what we have been calling it for about 500 years.

    Your entire argument is weakened by your false example of disease. Contrary to what you say it has abated drastically. Furthermore this does not represent a conquest of nature, but rather an understanding of it. We have used chemistry and biology--the understanding of the natural behavior of atoms, molecules and lifeforms--to reduce the opportunities for disease-causing microorganisms to proliferate inside our bodies.
    Descartes was a great mathematician, but he was not a great scientist. (Mathematics is not a science, which a learned person like yourself surely knows.) This assumption may be at the core of Cartesian philosophy but it is not the foundation for science. Since the very notion of the spirit is about the supernatural, by definition it is outside the bounds of science, which deals only with nature. Any statement using the concept of the spirit is likely to be unscientific, as is the case with your example.
     
    Fraggle Rocker, Sep 24, 2007
    #15
  19. store

    store Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    Because something is not understood by science today does not in my opinion mean that it
    is not part of the Natural Laws of the Universe or outside the bounds of science,Just outside our "Understanding" of such Laws
    Many things in the past were perceived as Supernatural before they were understood
     
    store, Sep 24, 2007
    #16
  20. lightgigantic

    lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Fragglerocker
    con•quer / Ñ 'kQNkJ(r); NAmE Ñ 'kA;N-/ verb [vn] - to succeed in dealing with or controlling sth:

    What most commands the attention of a society seeking lordship?
    Power or truth?
    if you think that control is not a natural consequence of knowledge, it tends to indicate that you have never really thought about the implications of knowledge
    and would this or would this not result in control?
    Actually your words are quite in line with a statement by astronomer and mathematician Pierre-Simon de Laplace


    A mind that in a given instance knew all the forces
    by which nature is animated and the position of all
    the bodies of which it is composed, if it were vast
    enough to include all these data within his analysis,
    could embrace in one single formula the movements of
    the largest bodies of the universe and of the smallest
    atoms; nothing would be uncertain for him; the future
    and the past would be equally before his eyes.

    nothing will be uncertain for him; the future and the past would be equally before his eyes

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    disease still inhibits health, up to the point of death
    same with old age
    seems like they are still problematic
    lol - I'm impressed
    bold words - still old age is headed your way (and my way too) and along the way expect a visit from disease before you arrive at death - practically the same scenario 2500 years ago
    I don't mean to be a downer - I mean its good that there are elderly active people and all that, and no doubt a positive outlook is a healthy companion to a healthy lifestyle - but the facts still stand - old age is there, disease is there and death is there - I have had a bit of experience with hospice care and no matter how you want to hedge your bets, death is a certainty, with a strong likelihood of encountering disease (more than likely, no less than a dozen, all of which will be fighting for supremacy as one progresses in age) on the way
    people join all sorts of clubs - jazz club, vegetarian club etc - but the fact is that we are all members of the death club, either now or 2500 years ago - quite simply, death has an unblemished track record of 100%
    as for disease, its no secret that new one's pop up all the time, so that also makes us members of the disease club, no matter how many vaccinations we develop
    and time is a one way street - so provided our memberships in the other two clubs are not brought to the lime light prematurely, we can also sport our membership in the old age club with 100% confidence.

    Once again, its not just you - its everyone - and its not just 2500 years ago - its now too - of course one of the downsides of contemporary western culture is that it downplays the reality of death, old age and disease (to be old or sick in the west is a "crime") , so they tend to hide it or pretend its not happening when ever it arises, but its the nature of these things to come hell or high water
    its a premise behind the philosophy of science - of course science is very different now than what it used to be.
    Professor Lewis Wolpert, biologist at London's University College, writes that most scientists today are ignorant of philosophical issues. Though at the beginning of the twentieth century a professional scientist normally had a background in philosophy,

    Today things are quite different, and the stars of modern science are more likely to have been brought up on science fiction ... the physicist who is a quantum mechanic has no more knowledge of philosophy than the average car mechanic.
    If you think science is somehow so brilliant that it overrides the established norms of philosophy it tends to indicate that you are not familiar with the foundations of science - a common trend in the past 50 or 100 years of "professional" science
    can you provide an example of attaining knowledge that does no result in the exhibition of control?
    (NB - its not sufficient to indicate something that is partially known and thus not capable of being controlled because of insufficient knowledge)
    control is the natural consequence of knowledge - even a child can understand that
    pardon?
    control as a natural consequence of knowledge is the basis of science.
    Why is so much time and money put into knowing about diseases unless the fruit of such labor is the control of them?
    Frankly I can't see the logic behind your call
    First you suggest that philosophy doesn't or no longer has a role to play in the formulation of science (gee I guess we can throw out all questions of true/false, accurate/inaccurate then)
    Next you suggest that control is not a natural consequence of knowledge (gee I guess there is no need for a person employed in cancer research to come up with a cure for cancer)

    Obviously these are absurdities - I suggest you get off your cherry picking cart and desist from trying to derail the thread with such foolishness
    yes some diseases have abated - some have even been cured - and lo and behold some new ones have popped up - at the end of the day disease was a worry 2500 years ago and it remains a worry today

    so when an understanding of a disease is reached, do they control it?
    divide and conquer, eh?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    “
    This is the so-called Cartesian assumption (named after Rene Descartes, "the father of modern philosophy," who believed the mind to be spirit, not matter; he argued that rational thought, when perfected, can make man master and possessor of material nature). This assumption is at the foundation of modern scientific and technical thought.
    ”
    erm - I did mention that he made a contribution to the foundation (aka philosophy of science) - as already indicated, scientific learning these days doesn't necessary encompass such things

    if the foundation of science is empiricism with the odd adventure in rationalism when things get difficult, I am afraid you are wrong
    Descartes notion was the mind is spirit (aka the absolute medium of knowledge)
    The notion of science is that the mind is sufficient to unravel the mysteries of the universe
    Do you want me to join the dots or can you see the picture already?
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2007
    lightgigantic, Sep 24, 2007
    #17
  21. lightgigantic

    lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Crunchy cat
    the standard one

    con•quer / Ñ 'kQNkJ(r); NAmE Ñ 'kA;N-/ verb [vn] - to succeed in dealing with or controlling sth:
    and the difference is?

    ”
    given the track record for the past 2500 years, we would certainly have a lot work ahead of us

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    so treating disease and accommodating old age impacts the quality of life in a negative way?
    microscopes, etc are all developments of the mind and while increasing the power of the senses, it still makes the senses limited.
    If the mind and senses are inherently imperfect, anything that develops from them also carries the same traits
     
    lightgigantic, Sep 24, 2007
    #18
  22. lightgigantic

    lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Store

    the question posed is whether because some things that were outside the purview of our mind which were later made knowable indicates that all things outside the purview of our mind can also become knowable.

    In other words, the foundation of science, laid down by Descartes, is that the (human) mind is a sufficient entity to uncover anything that is knowable in the universe.
     
    lightgigantic, Sep 24, 2007
    #19
  23. store

    store Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    But knowable to one mind,may be doubted in another so who can say that one persons truths,are indeed universal.As one persons instant in time differs from another persons.

    I do believe however that knowledge will in time uncover things that are at this moment unknown .
    Even the creation of the universe will I believe in time be solved.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    store, Sep 24, 2007
    #20
Page 1 of 3

Share This Page