A case against ignorance

[SWIMfriend]

I'm not the one who stated the sole function of the mind is to generate fantasy. If one wishes to be consistent, then one must acknowledge that the scientific method is also a work of fantasy. So are you saying that we should fancy one mode of fantasy instead of other modes of fantasy? That one mode of fantasy is superior to other modes of fantasy?

The process of science is to "kill off" fantasy, and leave remaining that which "aligns" with external reality. The origin of filtered "science" may be fantasy, but the outcome is less fantasy.

You seem to be happy to play a word game. Jets are reality, flying saucers (as they have been reported) are fantasy. If you see no difference then I can't help you. But it did take a good one hundreds years to take jets from fantasy to reality. If you wish, when they crash, you might say that demonstrates they were a "fantasy."

 

[gibran2]

The process of science is to "kill off" fantasy, and leave remaining that which "aligns" with external reality. The origin of filtered "science" may be fantasy, but the outcome is less fantasy.

The process of science is not to “kill off fantasy”. Rather, it is to find the “rules of the game”. Science is silent regarding what is fantasy and what is reality. Science ultimately cannot answer such questions. (Perhaps all of your reality is a dream. If so, the best that science can do is tell you what is “real” relative to the dream, or what are the rules of the dream.)

Here’s a very nice Richard Feynman excerpt from a longer talk where he discusses the “rules of the game”.

edit: Here's a nice Feynman quote --

People say to me, "Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?" No, I'm not... If it turns out there is a simple ultimate law which explains everything, so be it — that would be very nice to discover. If it turns out it's like an onion with millions of layers... then that's the way it is. But either way there's Nature and she's going to come out the way She is. So therefore when we go to investigate we shouldn't predecide what it is we're looking for only to find out more about it. Now you ask: "Why do you try to find out more about it?" If you began your investigation to get an answer to some deep philosophical question, you may be wrong. It may be that you can't get an answer to that particular question just by finding out more about the character of Nature. But that's not my interest in science; my interest in science is to simply find out about the world and the more I find out the better it is…

 

[deedle-doo]

However, why would I begrudge someone their received knowledge when it does not impinge on the realm of scientific knowledge?

What I "begrudge" are those who would try to claim knowledge as being "universal" when in fact it's only stuff in their heads. The only sort of "knowledge" that is interesting in COMMUNICATION is knowledge that reflects on things that are IN COMMON between the communicators. And what is common between communicators is the universe.

Sure, I think I see your point. Everybody has their own things that are interesting to them. I'm very interested in having new scientific knowledge communicated to me.

I'm a poor positivist though, despite my materialist leanings. I also love to learn peoples strange ideas about the grand meaning-of-it-all. I wouldn't use any of these kinds of stories to build a house or plan a medical treatment but these stories sure can fire the imagination and enrich my experience of life. There's not really much at stake IMO. whether the universe is a projection of the mind of god or an unconscious material thing will not affect the results we get in the lab.

The only thing really at stake is whether an individual communicator is interested in more esoteric metaphysics or not. Just entertaining esoteric metaphysical ideas does science no harm.

 

[SWIMfriend]

The process of science is not to “kill off fantasy”. Rather, it is to find the “rules of the game”. Science is silent regarding what is fantasy and what is reality.

Sorry, wrong. Hypotheses are "fantasies." Science tests and "kills off" the ones that can be shown to be bad fantasies (because they don't work), and keeps the ones that apparently useful fantasies (because they work). Really PROPER use of the scientific method is to design experiments that will DISPROVE your hypothesis: there is no such thing as "proving" a hypothesis (experiments can serve only to SUPPORT hypotheses when results don't negate it), but experiments can absolutely DESTROY an hypothesis (i.e., show that it is a fantasy).

Thus, proper scientific method DESTROYS that which can be shown to be a fantasy, and leaves things which are less likely to be fantasy.

EDIT: And just to be clear, my use of "fantasy" is meant to show that it is something "dreamed up" in the brain. A fantasy may turn out to be "true" or "false." One discovers which upon testing--i.e., science.

 

[deedle-doo]

I have a slightly different philosophy of science.

I would say that science does not deal in terms of 'true'.

Instead, science aims to generate models that are both predictive and explanatory. I think this is an important distinction. Having an awesomely predictive and explanatory model does not necessarily mean that that model is 'true,' it just means that that model works.

IMO this conception of science is better at freeing minds to be more creative. We mustn't get locked into old models because they work so well. Just because they work so well does not make them 'true.' There may be deeper models that explain more that show our cherished older models to be insufficient. This is also just the kind of science that's gonna land someone a paper in Nature or Science so it really pays to be as expansive in your thought as you can stand.

 

[SWIMfriend]

I have a slightly different philosophy of science.

I would say that science does not deal in terms of 'true'.

Instead, science aims to generate models that are both predictive and explanatory. I think this is an important distinction. Having an awesomely predictive and explanatory model does not necessarily mean that that model is 'true,' it just means that that model works.

IMO this conception of science is better at freeing minds to be more creative. We mustn't get locked into old models because they work so well. Just because they work so well does not make them 'true.' There may be deeper models that explain more that show our cherished older models to be insufficient. This is also just the kind of science that's gonna land someone a paper in Nature or Science so it really pays to be as expansive in your thought as you can stand.

If a prediction works, the prediction is "true," and if it fails, it's "false."

If I use my knowledge of chemistry to predict that much of the DMT from a vinegar extraction of MHRB will turn to freebase in a strong basic solution, and I test that, I have shown that it is TRUE that most DMT will convert to freebase under those conditions. Now...I might make another hypothesis that ALL alkaloids will convert to freebase under those conditions...and such a statement WOULD be (practically) impossible to demonstrate as "true." However, one experiment of failure could demonstrate it as "false."

Science provides many true and false results, and many "facts." What it can't do is provide absolutely true GENERALIZATIONS.

 

[gibran2]

The process of science is not to “kill off fantasy”. Rather, it is to find the “rules of the game”. Science is silent regarding what is fantasy and what is reality.

Sorry, wrong. Hypotheses are "fantasies." Science tests and "kills off" the ones that can be shown to be bad fantasies (because they don't work), and keeps the ones that apparently useful fantasies (because they work). Really PROPER use of the scientific method is to design experiments that will DISPROVE your hypothesis: there is no such thing as "proving" a hypothesis (experiments can serve only to SUPPORT hypotheses when results don't negate it), but experiments can absolutely DESTROY an hypothesis (i.e., show that it is a fantasy).

Thus, proper scientific method DESTROYS that which can be shown to be a fantasy, and leaves things which are less likely to be fantasy.

EDIT: And just to be clear, my use of "fantasy" is meant to show that it is something "dreamed up" in the brain. A fantasy may turn out to be "true" or "false." One discovers which upon testing--i.e., science.

First, if you bothered to watch the Feynman video, you’d see that it was he, and not I, who described science in terms of discovering the “rules of the game”. If I must choose between SWIMfriend’s idea of what science is or Richard Feynman’s, I’ll go with Feynman’s.

Second, if we are going to use the term “fantasy” as broadly as you are using it, then, as others have already pointed out, everything is fantasy, including science and the scientific method. Since this is the case, it’s hard to see exactly what point you’re trying to make.

 

[endlessness]

I have a slightly different philosophy of science.

I would say that science does not deal in terms of 'true'.

Instead, science aims to generate models that are both predictive and explanatory. I think this is an important distinction. Having an awesomely predictive and explanatory model does not necessarily mean that that model is 'true,' it just means that that model works.

IMO this conception of science is better at freeing minds to be more creative. We mustn't get locked into old models because they work so well. Just because they work so well does not make them 'true.' There may be deeper models that explain more that show our cherished older models to be insufficient. This is also just the kind of science that's gonna land someone a paper in Nature or Science so it really pays to be as expansive in your thought as you can stand.

If a prediction works, the prediction is "true," and if it fails, it's "false."

If I use my knowledge of chemistry to predict that much of the DMT from a vinegar extraction of MHRB will turn to freebase in a strong basic solution, and I test that, I have shown that it is TRUE that most DMT will convert to freebase under those conditions. Now...I might make another hypothesis that ALL alkaloids will convert to freebase under those conditions...and such a statement WOULD be (practically) impossible to demonstrate as "true." However, one experiment of failure could demonstrate it as "false."

Science provides many true and false results, and many "facts." What it can't do is provide absolutely true GENERALIZATIONS.

I agreed more when you talked about science serving for falsifying. Now you say that science can show true if prediction works, but obviously the flat earth or the newtonian universe are examples that show one could make predictions based on a model that fit the results and yet now we know they arent "true".

 

[deedle-doo]

If a prediction works, the prediction is "true," and if it fails, it's "false."

If I use my knowledge of chemistry to predict that much of the DMT from a vinegar extraction of MHRB will turn to freebase in a strong basic solution, and I test that, I have shown that it is TRUE that most DMT will convert to freebase under those conditions. Now...I might make another hypothesis that ALL alkaloids will convert to freebase under those conditions...and such a statement WOULD be (practically) impossible to demonstrate as "true." However, one experiment of failure could demonstrate it as "false."

Science provides many true and false results, and many "facts." What it can't do is provide absolutely true GENERALIZATIONS.

I'm afraid might have not communicated my distinction well.

Sure the prediction can be true. This is basically saying: If I do exactly the same thing twice I'll get the same result both times.

This is trivial. These experiments do not allow you to make a deeper explanatory model of how matter interacts.

We have a deeper model that fits the bill: The Bronstead-Lowry theory of acids and bases.

However. Even though this model is very useful in kitchen chemistry it is not really 'true.'

Quantum chemistry models are much more broadly explanatory and much more broadly predictive then Bronstead-Lowry. Note that this does not make Bronstead-Lowry 'false.'

This was the distinction between 'true' and 'predictive' I was attempting to make.

 

[Jin]

interesting post:d
well the way i see it ..........

Science is the human endevour to understand nature
because man is ignorant of nature and its detailed workings
nature has no problem with science and science has no problem with nature
its only man that suffers from problems as he is ignorant

science is only trying to help man out of his ignorance as man has found it difficult to learn from nature on his own as he is terribly ignorant
the truth can be learnt by seeing into the sky , psychadelics can also help man out with truth , so can spirituality , science is a the modern method of trying to know the truth as man has found it difficult to learn from nature on his own

and science makes great toys , i love these toys science can make ,
thank you science for making it easy for us to understand nature considering that we are so foolish :d

 

[SWIMfriend]

I agreed more when you talked about science serving for falsifying. Now you say that science can show true if prediction works, but obviously the flat earth or the newtonian universe are examples that show one could make predictions based on a model that fit the results and yet now we know they arent "true".

It's not the model that was made true by the prediction. It was the prediction that was true. This is the distinction that deedle-doo is drawing as well. And that's why (as you imply) hypotheses are properly tested by attempts to FALSIFY them. Still, the "logical values" of true/false are used to describe outcomes in science all the time.

You are both correct about science (even the practical kind we use in an everyday sense): it's goal is to create models that allow for accurate predictions. Experience and good sense inform us that a million correct predictions in a row don't guarantee a million and one.

Still, THAT IS THE BEST WE CAN DO, and it's worth pointing out (as I have multiple times) that NO OTHER PROCESS WE KNOW CAN DO EVEN THAT. THAT is the point of the thread, and of most of my earlier posts. We have NO PROCESS other than science (in the broadest sense) for reliably building predictive models that consistently work. We simply have no other method, nor has anyone even seriously PROPOSED one. So, when people say there are "other ways to know things" besides science (and, of course, science includes direct observation), then I'd very much like to know what those ways are, and I'd like to know about their record of consistency of prediction.

 

[Virola78]

We know and understand through perception and interpretation, no?
A baby does not know of any scientific method, yet he knows who is mommy.

As we we cannot perceive 'all at once' our knowledge always fails. Without proper context there is no absolute truth.
From this perspective science is not much different from poetry (or 'fantasy' if you like).

Ignorant by default?

Science is indeed an efficient tool for doing predictions (so to plot directions). No more, no less.
Im on that side, if there would be any sides lol.

Science is very valuable to me though. Usefull predictions and i like the poem.

 

[Citta]

Yes, this could all be the dream of a bacteria within the nose of a cow. And yes, science "only" tells us the rules of the game and has nothing to say about metaphysical problems akin to those gibran2 brings up, but that does not legitimize ignorance in scientific matters, that does not legitimize coming with extraordinarly claims (NOTE: not saying anyone's been making that in this thread!), and that does not legitimize some of the attitude that science receives. This seems to be the type of arguments that people use to give some form of semantic nurture to their own personal convictions.

I have to argue gibran2, that science does indeed "kill off fantasy". This is the strength of science, and is exactly what it does. It rules out things that are extremely unlikely. We try to make our theories converge towards external reality, or our experience of whatever this is, if you will. You may come to me and claim that Elvis comes to visit you every night to sing for you, and we can use science to check out this claim - and most likely we'll find that Elvis doesn't visit your place and sing for you, but that this is your fantasy of Elvis coming to sing for you. Now our careful investigation of this spesific situation has killed off the fantasy, hasn't it? Your hypothesis, or claim, has been ruled out as extremely unlikely, and the claim that it is a fantasy is becoming extremely likely. Would it bring us anywhere to say "but science cannot say anything about what reality is, so we can't know and therefore we must, despite the evidence, say that Elvis may have actually visited gibran! Perhaps in some other dimension!"?

Now this situation applies, in principle, to everything within our experience here as long as the claim or the hypothesis is formed in a falsifiable manner, and we certainly know for a fact that people have hallucinations, fantasies, thoughts and feelings that doesn't converge towards some kind of objective reality that we share in common. Or do I totally miss your point?

Anyway, sweet discussion, but does this really answer the questions I raised in the opening post? If so, how?

 

[gibran2]

I have to argue gibran2, that science does indeed "kill off fantasy". This is the strength of science, and is exactly what it does. It rules out things that are extremely unlikely. We try to make our theories converge towards external reality, or our experience of whatever this is, if you will.

My disagreement with the “killing of fantasy” phrase is mainly a semantic one: I don’t think science is really concerned with fantasy, at least not if we’re defining fantasy in a colloquial manner.

Science is concerned with developing hypotheses concerning the nature of the physical world, and then using observation and experimentation to either support or refute those hypotheses. If you equate “refuting scientific hypotheses” with “killing off fantasy”, then I would agree, but I think scientists are more concerned with developing hypotheses that closely model observations than they are with “killing off fantasies”.

It seems scientists are motivated more by discovery and "truth" rather than “killing off” what is false.

 

[Citta]

My disagreement with the “killing of fantasy” phrase is mainly a semantic one: I don’t think science is really concerned with fantasy, at least not if we’re defining fantasy in a colloquial manner.

Science is concerned with developing hypotheses concerning the nature of the physical world, and then using observation and experimentation to either support or refute those hypotheses. If you equate “refuting scientific hypotheses” with “killing off fantasy”, then I would agree, but I think scientists are more concerned with developing hypotheses that closely model observations than they are with “killing off fantasies”.

It seems scientists are motivated more by discovery and "truth" rather than “killing off” what is false.

Yes, this I can agree with. But in this process "killing off" what is false comes naturally, or at least makes certain things extremely unlikely. This is how progress is made (and hampered, for that matter).

 

[cactophage]

Cactophage has long held that people antagonistic towards science should be denied its fruits. As in:

Go ahead, bitch. Pretend the Earth is 6,000 years old. But don't expect to pass the time with a TV or a computer, and don't you DARE turn around when something goes wrong with your body and expect modern medicine to make it better for you.

 

[BlackSun]

Cactophage has long held that people antagonistic towards science should be denied its fruits. As in:

Go ahead, bitch. Pretend the Earth is 6,000 years old. But don't expect to pass the time with a TV or a computer, and don't you DARE turn around when something goes wrong with your body and expect modern medicine to make it better for you.

I actually agree with this. As sadistic as it may sound, if someone is going to reject not just the knowledge of science (which can be/is flawed), but the very scientific process (which is as objective as possible), then they do not deserve any of the fruits it has offered us.

Although, an over-reliance on science and technology is just as bad as having no science or technology. Eventually, the world becomes uninhabitable, and our quest for knowledge is destroyed as humanity (and all life) reels from the effects of global warming and pollution.

 

[Citta]

Although, an over-reliance on science and technology is just as bad as having no science or technology. Eventually, the world becomes uninhabitable, and our quest for knowledge is destroyed as humanity (and all life) reels from the effects of global warming and pollution.

Yet science and technology is the way to go to find better and more efficient energy sources, better and less dangerous materials and other things that may help clean up the mess (for example bacteria using our pollution as an energy resource).

 

[benzyme]

exactly.

science doesn't create the problems, greed and excessive consumption do.

 

[BlackSun]

Although, an over-reliance on science and technology is just as bad as having no science or technology. Eventually, the world becomes uninhabitable, and our quest for knowledge is destroyed as humanity (and all life) reels from the effects of global warming and pollution.

Yet science and technology is the way to go to find better and more efficient energy sources, better and less dangerous materials and other things that may help clean up the mess (for example bacteria using our pollution as an energy resource).

So a complete over-reliance on technology is the answer?

I simply can't imagine a technocratic society that *isn't* similar to 1984. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely appreciate the ability of science to increase standards of living and allow us to not have to worry about freezing to death or dehydrating, but technology isn't inherently beneficial to humanity. Remember that science created agent orange, the atomic bomb and makes it easier for governments and others with generally malevolent intentions to spy on us. Not to mention the price of our comfort and easy life style; take a look at the rest of the world. We've built our science-based lives upon the shoulders of child labor, slave labor, murder, rape and all sorts of terrible things. Sure, it's possible for science to make those places better as well, but that's just not how the world works.