 |
||||||||
|
Philosophy
What bearing does philosophy have in an entirely scientific
debate?
It has to do with how we interpret the evidence that we find.
Experimentation is useless without interpretation and philosophy guides
interpretation. This is also known as the "experimenter effect" a bias
that an experimenter isn't cognizant of but exists nonetheless. This
concept is very central to fully understanding why we believe what we do
as a group and outlines the tremendous difficulty faced in changing a
deeply ingrained belief regardless of evidence.
Though it is a somewhat tenuous link, I'll also lump in sociology
in this section. Understanding what drives an experimenter can give
insight into their interpretation. The following article on the
Sociology of Scientific Knowledge gives some fabulous insights. A must
read for those interested in this topic and regardless of the topic you'll
see that the author is very unbiased:
Additionally I'll put some of my own short philosophies into this section
so that you can understand my bent on things as well. Scientific Pursuit Should Be Agnostic: Personally, I credit
Galileo Galilei with being the first well known figure to start to
understand this concept and adhere to it somewhat. Though he was a very
devout Christian, he was able to separate his logic from his belief system
and understand which was which. He is often quoted as saying, "I do
not feel obliged to believe that the same god who has endowed us with
sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their
use."
And in this spirit, I implore those of you with religious/spiritual
conviction to disengage that belief system and examine evidence alone
without preconceived notions as Galileo did. If you wish to
afterward try to resolve inequities, then do so, but attack one problem at
a time.
Science is the study and acceptance of whatever
is provable in the universe. It is the pursuit of understanding
how the universe works without faith. That includes faith in spirituality
OR faith in the lack of spirituality.
Those who believe the study should be only conducted in an
Atheistic or Theistic mindset, I believe are ignorant, arrogant or more than
likely both. We have not even been out of our own solar system yet we
deign to say we know about a possibly infinite universe?
This being said, some faith and belief must be entertained to be
able to reason and function as a normal human being. Otherwise you will
forever be asking yourself about a tree falling in the woods and
butterflies dreaming etc.
Words like "implausible" and "improbable" are actually faith-based. It
is a faith that the world functions in a certain way. This deeper faith in
what we believe to be "reality" must also be regularly examined and reduced
as much as possible. The existence of this faith in every person must
be taken into account lest things that don't belong in the "necessary" section
sneak into it.
The
poem "IF" by Rudyard Kipling is the most concise guide to
life ever written that will produce a better person. If morality can be
defined by that which promotes mankind, then altruism is the better model. If
you doubt the truth of this then you should read up on games theory
and the "Prisoner's Dilemma". In wolves VS sheep (self-centric VS altruistic)
the sheep produce a net gain in their system, wolves do not. Here
is one link on the
subject but this is a subject that warrants more research.
"Why" is the most important word
in our language and is not used nearly enough.
The truth
comes out in a non-emotional argument
. Emotion is the tool by which we convert chaos into
order and vice-versa. Emotion always interferes with logic.
The human
psyche gravitates toward extremes.
Extreme cases are remembered while mundane ones are ignored. "All or
nothing" seems written in our genes. Perhaps from a programming standpoint
it's because border conditions are where problems arise in any plan.
Whatever the reason, this bent is one of
the primary problems humanity faces because the truth is
always more likely to be in the middle 80% than the top
and bottom 10%. I believe it has something to do with
our initial learning mechanism needing absolutes of black and white, truth and
falsehood to be able to take the next steps of reason. Shades of grey
are only for adult human intellect IMHO.
Conspiracy: With regard to the notion that people
are prone to extremes I will say to those who believe there are no
conspiracies anywhere, "I envy your naiveté
". Ignorance truly is bliss is it not?
I have no interest in educating you in every topic so
for those who know of events even in fairly recent American history of
people being given diseases etc just to see the results you see my
point. Unfortunately there is also the group who see boogey men
around every corner. I believe the answer to be somewhere in the
middle.
Here is a question to ask yourself: If you were a military leader
in a world where escalating technology continues to threaten the very
existence of mankind. If you came in possession of advanced physics
knowledge would you feel compelled to disseminate this information or
would you instead guard it by whatever means possible even including
perpetuating misleading information?
On this particular topic I'll continue to use Hanlon's Razor
though. "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained
by stupidity"
True
Genius and Insanity seem to be linked.
By evidence, look at the reclusive and erratic behavior
of Newton who died a virgin. Nikola Tesla, one of the greatest inventors
of the previous century was thoroughly schizophrenic. He had an entire
other world in his head. Edward Morley of the MMX was well known for his
erratic behavior and social ineptness as was Einstein himself. Perhaps it is the
ability to throw away all concepts of reality and build anew that allows
genius to flourish. The point is that if a madman is the only
witness to a crime the realness of the event is not diminished and
just because a madman is able to recount some sane facts he has
witnessed, it does not mean that all he says is sane.
Defining factors of Intelligence: (Each requires all the
previous)
1)Knowledge
2)The ability and inclination to recognize conflicting or
paradoxical data and resolve precedence. (logic) 3)The ability and inclination to recognize analogies in every
situation and to construct new ones.(understanding)
4)The ability and inclination to predict a wide variety of
future events with depth.(wisdom)
Logic, Reason,
and Analytical ability exists completely apart from learned
Mathematical Knowledge.
|
|||||||
