Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Natural Order and Science
March 5, 2016 at 5:07 am
Those who care about reality use the scientific method.
Those who only care about exploring their imagination use philosophy without evidence.
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Natural Order and Science
March 5, 2016 at 7:51 am
(March 5, 2016 at 5:07 am)robvalue Wrote: Those who care about reality use the scientific method.
Those who only care about exploring their imagination use philosophy without evidence.
I think you go too far. Whether science ultimately represents reality (whatever that even is) is debatable. However, in scope, we can say that science represents the context in which humans find themselves much better than religious ideas do. If you want to define "reality" as "the context in which humans find themselves," then fine. 
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Natural Order and Science
March 5, 2016 at 7:53 am
(This post was last modified: March 5, 2016 at 7:58 am by robvalue.)
Sure, reality as in what appears to be an objective "something". Of course we first have the problem of solipsism. But so do the people exploring their imaginations, they just end up back in unreality anyway.
I'm not claiming science can solve solipsism! Just talking in shorthand.
And you're right, more accurately it tells us about our experiences of the "something", not the something itself. (Sorry Einstein.)
Did he ever change his position on that?
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: Natural Order and Science
March 5, 2016 at 8:42 am
(March 5, 2016 at 7:53 am)robvalue Wrote: Sure, reality as in what appears to be an objective "something". Of course we first have the problem of solipsism. But so do the people exploring their imaginations, they just end up back in unreality anyway.
I'm not claiming science can solve solipsism! Just talking in shorthand.
And you're right, more accurately it tells us about our experiences of the "something", not the something itself. (Sorry Einstein.)
Did he ever change his position on that?
Can you give some context what you are refering to? An Einstein quote?
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Natural Order and Science
March 5, 2016 at 9:40 am
Bollocks, I can't find a reference now.
I remember hearing that Einstein felt we could measure and test reality itself, whereas this other guy came along and said that all we can really do is examine the observations themselves, and that we can't directly measure reality.
Something like that.
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: Natural Order and Science
March 5, 2016 at 9:53 am
(This post was last modified: March 5, 2016 at 10:00 am by IATIA.)
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Natural Order and Science
March 5, 2016 at 11:01 am
(This post was last modified: March 5, 2016 at 11:01 am by robvalue.)
Maybe that's it, yeah. I think I saw it in a video, it was ages ago. I can't remember the name of the philosopher who came along and claimed we can't model reality directly. I think he was smoking in the picture...
It was interesting to me, because at the start of the video I agreed with Einstein and thought this new nobbo was talking crap; then after reflecting, I agreed with the new guy.
What is this, fucking guess who for philosophers? Haha.
Posts: 815
Threads: 66
Joined: October 8, 2010
Reputation:
11
RE: Natural Order and Science
March 5, 2016 at 11:30 am
(March 5, 2016 at 9:53 am)IATIA Wrote: How about this?
Einstein and reality
Or better;
Einstein's new point of view, according to which the physically real consists exclusively in that which can be constructed on the basis of spacetime coincidences, spacetime points, for example, being regarded as intersections of world lines, is now known as the “point-coincidence argument.” Spacetime coincidences play this privileged ontic role because they are invariant and, thus, univocally determined. Spacetime coordinates lack such invariance, a circumstance that Einstein thereafter repeatedly formulated as the claim that space and time “thereby lose the last vestige of physical reality” I get a laugh when non physicists think what Einstein thought on a subject. Heck, even physicist don't know most of the times what Einstein was thinking. And I'll bet that even Einstein often didn't know what he was thinking as the record show he often changed his mind. But carry on.
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: Natural Order and Science
March 5, 2016 at 12:17 pm
(March 5, 2016 at 11:30 am)little_monkey Wrote: (March 5, 2016 at 9:53 am)IATIA Wrote: How about this?
Einstein and reality
Or better;
Einstein's new point of view, according to which the physically real consists exclusively in that which can be constructed on the basis of spacetime coincidences, spacetime points, for example, being regarded as intersections of world lines, is now known as the “point-coincidence argument.” Spacetime coincidences play this privileged ontic role because they are invariant and, thus, univocally determined. Spacetime coordinates lack such invariance, a circumstance that Einstein thereafter repeatedly formulated as the claim that space and time “thereby lose the last vestige of physical reality” I get a laugh when non physicists think what Einstein thought on a subject. Heck, even physicist don't know most of the times what Einstein was thinking. And I'll bet that even Einstein often didn't know what he was thinking as the record show he often changed his mind. But carry on.
The second link has dozens of sources, including Einstein. Changing of one's mind is always necessary when confronted with new information or challenges to old.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: Natural Order and Science
March 5, 2016 at 3:21 pm
(This post was last modified: March 5, 2016 at 3:21 pm by Alex K.)
It's really not very important what Einstein thought about things. Interesting for sure, but not very important.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
|
