Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Xelasnave.1947, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:24 PM.
How so ? You felt ? What are the limitations of science ? From Popper's point of view ?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Such bull shit
It would best if you took the time to read, if only, wiki, so you can have the experience of realisation of what science does and does not do.
You may find it hard to attack science after you read up on the matter.
So you think I attack science ? Wrong, I don't attack mainstream science , I question mainstream science .
The only science is main stream really River.
The rest is generally unsupported and although they may use science words and make usually unsupported claims that does not remotely qualify as science.
But if you read Popper you may see things differently.
And remember you are talking to a nutter here who believes probably more radical ideas than you.
I don't like the big bang, inflation, GR black holes etc but where we presumably differ is that I realise that if one is to become more than a mere angry critic one needs to follow certain sensible rules.
I still like my idea of push type force to explain gravity but not once have I ever called it a theory..not once..be cause it is not a theory it is a mere unsupported idea which is speculation best discussed at the pub or over a coffee.
And in my past I have been outspoken but mostly treated what I did not know about with respect.
Now you have a choice to read about Popper or not, if you do it may change your approach to science, by which I mean main stream science, and realise the alternatives presented are not science but mere ideas.
The benefit of showing respect for main stream is folk who know what they are talking about will help you understand things that you do not understand rather than just treating you with a casual dismissal.
I see , so reading what Popper has to say is important to mainstream science .
River name something not main stream you would call science and then see how it fits using Poppers approach.
Mainstream doesn't care if you read it or not but I think you would find it helpful and promote your understanding of science.
You pick on of my favorite things to think about.
I spend s great deal of time thinking about nothing or rather the implications of nothing.
I conclude that there can be no such animal as nothing for if there is nothing there can only be something.
If the universe had an edge we could visit and stand by the rail to keep us in and looked to see nothing do you think we could see nothing?
If there is nothing then something must be there in its place.
The two worlds, Islam and Christianity, also differed in their regulation of literacy and the spread of printed text.
And they differed in their treatment of women.
And they differed in their primary modes of agriculture - irrigation being more important in the Islamic world.
The other often referenced example of scientific stagnation following a period of flourishing is China - and China resembled the Islamic world more than the Christian world in those three factors: printing and literacy, women's status and education, irrigation farming.
Aha, that is interesting. The influence of the printing press, and thus the elimination of the clerical stranglehold on disseminating written words, I can easily see being a crucial difference.
I find it less easy to follow the logic in the case of the other two factors. First, do we know that the status of women and their level of education was different in the Christian and Muslim worlds at that time? And if so, what do we know of the influence of women on the development of science in Christendom at that time? As for irrigation, why would we expect that to inhibit scientific enquiry?
And lastly, don't forget we seek an explanation not of why Christendom advanced more rapidly, but why the muslim world apparently ceased to advance, as if the previous rate of contribution was positively inhibited by some factor. It does not seem clear that any of the above would account for that.
It imposes the necessity of a State, whose power rests partly with a Religion specifying physical nature, which will be threatened by further scientific progress along the lines of that necessary to set up the irrigation. So you have the flourish (necessary for the infrastructure) - and then the end of the leash, in a situation without easy escape (surrounded by barren, unirrigated expanses). It creates a hierarchy both capable and motivated to sequester a limited learning.
That's not to say that Christendom wasn't doing the same type of thing but just to a lesser degree. The Catholic Church (if I recall correctly) had Newtons book on the ban list for 200 years after it was written. Weren't Copernicus and Galileo fearful of the church. Copernicus waiting to publish until just before his death. Galileo had nothing but problems with the church.
Why do you question it without knowing it? Everyone questions. That's the scientific method. Questioning something that you don't understand in the first place is quite another matter.
We should be looking to the economies involved in the spice--etc... trade.
As the Europeans made an end run around the silk road middlemen, the wealth of those nations dried up, and along with the wealth, the cosmopolitan multicultural nature of their business faded, and then there were the mongols who conquered, but couldn't maintain the trade routes.
And then, we have religions. Established clergy invariably look to the past for stability and avoid multicultural and new influences.
I suspect that there ain't no one answer.
Regarding Copernicus, the situation seems a lot more nuanced. According to the Wiki article on him, Pope Clement VII was very pleased to have the heliocentric system explained to him, by Widmannstetter, who was the pope's secretary and seems to have been a kind of sponsor or advocate of Copernicus's ideas in Rome. According to the article it was in fact Lutherans who were the first to poke fun at his heliocentric system.
It does say he was nervous about publication, as he feared ridicule, but it seem unclear whether this was fear of theological objections or simply more general disbelief. The pope's attitude seems to suggest Copernicus may have had more to worry about from Protestant reaction. But it was the time of the Reformation, at which accusations of heresy got bandied around a lot and provoked hysterical reactions, so he may simply have thought it best to keep quiet. When he did publish, he dedicated it to the pope at the time, Paul III. There is nothing in the article to say what he thought of it!
My impression is that Galileo was of a more combative disposition and it may have been a lack of subtlety and diplomacy that got him into trouble as much as the ideas themselves, which obviously were already known to the Papacy via Copernicus and Widmannstetter.
This is why I qualify the attitude of the church towards these new ideas. It seems to me that this was not by any means uniformly hostile, though it was obviously considered potential dynamite and needed careful handing, given the religious politics of the time.
P.S. Regarding Newton's Principia, the Wiki article on the papal Index reads as follows:
"Some of the scientific theories in works that were on early editions of the Index have long been routinely taught at Catholic universities worldwide; for example, the general prohibition of books advocating heliocentrism was only removed from the Index in 1758, but already in 1742 two Minims mathematicians had published an edition of Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica (1687) with commentaries and a preface stating that the work assumed heliocentrism and could not be explained without it. The burning at the stake of Giordano Bruno, whose entire works were placed on the Index in 1603, was because of teaching the heresy of pantheism, not for heliocentrism or other scientific views.Antonio Rosmini-Serbati, one of whose works was on the Index, was beatified in 2007."
Hmm, yes it sounds like an elaborate chain of speculation, that I would not personally care to rely on.
Separate names with a comma.