Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]
Absolute Truth vs. Science
    #2238217 -

http://web.mit.edu/lking/www/writing/tech-94.html


...
The scientific method insists upon questioning not only the objects and events that we find in the world, but also our basic beliefs and assumptions about the way the world is, and the way we come to know things about it. Science works because no fact or belief is ever taken as being final; all knowledge is provisional, and postulates, methods, and conclusions are at all times open to the critical scrutiny not only of the researchers conducting the work, but also of the scientific community at large.

This is why science is so successful, and such an appealing method of rational inquiry: people are always asking questions, and never taking anything for granted. Controversy and discussion of competing ideas are a sure sign of good science in progress; when people start getting complacent, when they claim that all the important problems are solved, or that the final word has been spoken about a particular phenomena, we should be wary.
...

The insistence that we can know Absolutes, moral or otherwise, is a denial of the dynamic character of the world around us, and it arises from the same sort of dogmatic appeal to absolute knowledge that in the present day condemns Salman Rushdie to a life of terror, and in earlier times twice put Galileo before the Inquisition. On this latter point we would do well to remember the response of a scholastic thinker when Galileo asked him to look through his telescope and observe the moons of Jupiter: the man replied that he needn't look through the device, as he would certainly not see anything that Aristotle had not written about more than a millennia before.

This is not a scientific outlook, and those who claim insight into moral Absolutes often find themselves in a similar position as the scholastic here described. They cannot account for new information, new insights, new ideas, precisely because they are trapped into asserting what seemed beforehand to be indubitable truth. New ideas, new interpretations are stifled because they are taken to be wrong a priori.

Thus for the knower of Absolute Truth there is no need to look through the telescope
...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth vs. Science [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2238248 -

Quote:
Thus for the knower of Absolute Truth there is no need to look through the telescope



That is why you must Empty Your Cup


--------------------
"Plus one upvote +1..."
--- //
-- :meff:
  /l_l\/
--\-/----

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth vs. Science [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2238267 -

excellent :thumbup:

/empties cup

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth vs. Science [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2238275 -

I drilled a hole in the bottom of my cup. That way nothing stays for long. I have invented the wheel 234 times.


--------------------
"Plus one upvote +1..."
--- //
-- :meff:
  /l_l\/
--\-/----

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth vs. Science [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2238281 -

Yes, and the article is a frightening look at what happens when a "scientist" tries to philosophize. They are, quite simply, out of their province.

Here's a quote you can take to heart:

"Any expert out of their particular field is no more than an amateur."

I don't go to scientists to hear about philosophy anymore than I go to preachers to hear about science. And anyone who does is a fool.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth vs. Science [Re: ]
    #2238293 -

1. Scientist
2. Philosopher


Are the two mutually exclusvie? Can a person be experts at both?

I am guessing that you mean to say the two fields are incompatible?


--------------------
"Plus one upvote +1..."
--- //
-- :meff:
  /l_l\/
--\-/----

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth vs. Science [Re: ]
    #2238306 -

"I don't go to scientists to hear about philosophy anymore than I go to preachers to hear about science. And anyone who does is a fool."

now that's really general of you.  my physics teacher is REALLY philisophical.  he loved star wars and how they described the "force"  he spoke philosophy on many occaisions to us, because he said he loved the whole spectrum of ideas.  hehe he even used plato's allegory of the cave in a physics problem.  neat huh??? :laugh:


--------------------
Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth vs. Science [Re: ]
    #2238313 -

ah. preconceptions can be a bitch... that article had nothing to do with philosophy - it was a description of the scientific method and how it conflicts with the notion of absolute truth.

here are the first two paragraphs:

"In a recent guest column ["Student-Endorsed Relativism Inconsistent with Morality," Feb. 12], Marc Carlin bemoans the prevalence of what he calls "moral relativism" among the students here at MIT. He argues that a group of students so familiar with the natural sciences should instead embrace a doctrine which he attributes to these disciplines: that absolute, timeless truths exist, and that human reason, properly applied, can discover and apply these lofty principles.

I think Carlin misunderstands the character of science, and of morality. Unlike him, I am pleased to find that MIT students shy away from the notion that Absolute Truths exist and can be discovered. To me, this indicates that science is being taught and done well, and that students here are not indoctrinated with the misconceptions about science and moral judgment which Carlin exhibits."

the author is refuting the argument presented here by Mr. Carlin. nothing more. your personal inferences are irrelevent.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth vs. Science [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2238346 -

Ah, ignorance can be a bitch too, can't it?

Any mention of the term 'absolute truth' immediately puts the argument into the field of axiology, specifically ethics, which is a branch of philosophy.

And your omission of the relevant portions of the article to suit your own needs, God knows what they were, is the fallacy of exclusion.

If Loren King is writing in The Tech I would assume that he is probably a scientist and not a philosopher. Which means that my comment was appropriate in more than one way.

While it is true that all of us to some degree, and yes, that would include scientists, philosophize, only those who are educated in philosophy should try to espouse their views on things like ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, etc in professional journals.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth vs. Science [Re: ]
    #2238449 -

yes, the questions posed may be philosophical in nature, but I'm simply saying that that article is not a scientist "trying to philosophize", regardless of what you may think. it's not about axiology, it's nothing so convoluted, it's simple logic. simply stated: the scientific method is not compatible with the concept of Absolute Truth. logical isn't it? we don't need a degree in philosophy to understand this.

and this isn't about philosophy vs. science. that's the way you see it, but really it's about absolute truth vs. science. not all philosophers believe in absolute truth do they?

and furthermore, that article was specifically aimed at refuting an argument by this Mr. Carlin that students of the natural sciences at MIT should embrace absolute truths. the main point of the article was that such an attitude conflicts with the scientific method, and has no place in a place of learning. all the other stuff he goes into is tangential, which is why I left it out.

say, did you happen to read the title to that article?

Absolute Truth, Dogmatism Antithetical to Science

it's one of those well duh! headlines, you know, nothing revolutionary. just common sense.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth vs. Science [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2238469 -

1. Scientist
2. Philosopher


Are the two mutually exclusvie? Can a person be experts at both?

I am guessing that you mean to say the two fields are incompatible?

like I said, it's not about science vs. philosophy. the two are not mutually exclusive.
the article doesn't mention philosophers, we got sidetracked. the article deals specifically with those who believe in absolute truth. it simply says that such views are in conflict with the scientific method.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth vs. Science [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2238612 -

Obviously you don't know what you are talking about. But that's nothing new, is it?

No one could have guessed what the article was about unless they looked at it. Your quotes from the article omitted its true intention. But that kind of deception doesn't seem to bother you if your clips and snips give evidence for your own personal agenda.

To some degree the article has validity but most of that can be summed up in a simple understanding of the difference between doxa and episteme. The author goes wrong when they extend their premise into ethics. There are no absolute truths that are not subject to revision with the inclusion of new data. But that is not to say that there are no absolute truths in the light of what we currently know. Big difference.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth vs. Science [Re: ]
    #2239578 -

getting a bit edgy?
let me ask you - why do you care if scientists discuss truth or stray into philosophy? how does it affect you? do you or your beliefs feel threatened by this? you seem to see this as some kind of territorial dispute, which would explain some of the hostility

No one could have guessed what the article was about unless they looked at it. Your quotes from the article omitted its true intention. But that kind of deception doesn't seem to bother you if your clips and snips give evidence for your own personal agenda.

I already exaplained what it was about. it just might be much too simple and straightforward for you to grasp, but people can read for themselves. you accuse me of omitting the article's "true intention" :rolleyes:. well, can you please tell me what the intention of that article was? it was pretty specific, but you seemed to have projected an entirely different meaning onto it. (if you want a little hint about the "true intention" of that article, read the title. it says it all right there)

To some degree the article has validity but most of that can be summed up in a simple understanding of the difference between doxa and episteme. The author goes wrong when they extend their premise into ethics. There are no absolute truths that are not subject to revision with the inclusion of new data. But that is not to say that there are no absolute truths in the light of what we currently know. Big difference.

there's another contradiction or two in there. but.. you already knew that. you seem to know the difference between doxa and episteme. question: to which catagory does absolute truth belong? see the contradiction yet? if you don't know the answer, please check out the "philosophy links" at the top of this forum.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth vs. Science [Re: ]
    #2239640 -

Absolute Truth, Dogmatism Antithetical to Science

how much simpler can it get?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth vs. Science [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2240976 -

I'm not "edgy" at all.  I have no reason to be.  There is a territorial dispute between science and philosophy and much has been written about it within philosophy itself.  But I'll leave it up to you to educate yourself on it since you want to see everything I say in terms of contradiction.

You're in for a bumpy ride but that isn't my responsibility.

Have fun. :smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth vs. Science [Re: ]
    #2241329 -

There is a territorial dispute between science and philosophy and much has been written about it within philosophy itself

really? not much has been written about this within science. I wonder why that is...

and for the third time: that article was NOT about science vs. philosophy. that was the preconceived meaning you projected onto it, but it was actually about absolute truth vs. the scientific method, which, as I'm sure you're well aware, are fundamentally at odds with each other. specfically, the article disputes the ridiculous notion that students of the natural sciences should embrace absolute truth. makes sense doesn't it?

one more thing. I just have to know what you meant by this: "Your quotes from the article omitted its true intention. But that kind of deception..."

what deception? and what was the "true intention" of that article?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth vs. Science [Re: ]
    #2241368 -

Yes, and the article is a frightening look at what happens when a "scientist" tries to philosophize. They are, quite simply, out of their province.

The article may be tripe, but it's easy to see where you're coming from. Science doesn't support your worldview, rather the opposite. You do like philosophy however, therefore the two must be mutually exclusive. No scientist could ever be a "good" philosopher in your eyes. Dissonance of ideas.

Open minded indeed.


--------------------
"To make this mundane world sublime
Take half a gram of phanerothyme."
Aldous Huxley

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth vs. Science [Re: muhurgle]
    #2241488 -

Actually without philosophy there couldn't be any "science" because science is contained within philosophy. Any college freshman would know that. There are things that are specifically the domain or purview of science. There are other things that are specifically the domain or purview of philosophy. And then there are things that are the the domain or purview of science and philosophy.

Precise language is needed to discuss every aspect of this.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth vs. Science [Re: ]
    #2241542 -

There is no need for your condescending lecture, I didn't make any statements of my own on the nature of science or philosophy.

I merely stated that your extremely arrogant remarks about philosophizing scientists are probably rooted in the dissonance between your (appearant) dislike of science and like of philosophy. As opposed to being rooted in careful analysis of any (or all as you generalize) philosophy by "scientists".

If you can't even consider an idea that you dislike, you're certainly not as open minded as you want us to believe (ref. Phlucks Skepticism thread).


--------------------
"To make this mundane world sublime
Take half a gram of phanerothyme."
Aldous Huxley

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth vs. Science [Re: muhurgle]
    #2241665 -

Woah Buddy. Your opinion of me, even if held by consensus, is highly subjective and has zero to do with the argument.

I do not dislike science. I am a scientist. But I understand where science leaves off and where philosophy begins. And I also understand where they overlap.

I was offering an explanation. That is all.

Arrogant? Piss off. That little pearl is getting extraordinarily old.

Please come back when you have something intelligent to say.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* absolute truth
( 1 2 all )		 fearfect 2,324 22 09/01/17 10:46 AM
by Philosite
* There is no Universal, Absolute Truth
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Sclorch 5,918 61 07/09/02 05:03 PM
by llib
* The 'ABSOLUTE TRUTH' is unnattainable.... nubious 1,194 8 10/21/02 06:02 PM
by Metasyn
* Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD...
( 1 2 3 all )		 BleedingSickness 6,175 42 10/07/02 02:00 PM
by Zahid
* Mysticism - The Ultimate Science Source 1,585 18 04/09/04 11:44 PM
by Swami
* The Limitations of Science
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Anonymous 7,313 85 01/22/04 12:17 AM
by trippy
* Truth?
( 1 2 3 4 ... 10 11 all )		 Anonymous 17,212 205 10/21/02 02:08 PM
by Anonymous
* Why science is stupid
( 1 2 all )		 Mixomatosis 2,229 36 11/13/03 05:45 PM
by Strumpling

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,538 topic views. 3 members, 0 guests and 11 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 16 queries.