After continued debate on the TDS site I have been forced to conclude that science does aim to establish "truths" about the world. The understanding of fundamental truths about the universe does seem to be the goal as demonstrated by the theory of relativity.
It seems then that I was clinging to the idea that science was only interested in observation, and not in truth, and was thus able to claim that science was somehow neutral. Neutral and different that atheism. I believed that atheism believed that science could provide truth and religion could not therefore atheism was flawed. My view of science was that it was merely interested in observations about the natural world within the context of other observations about the natural world.
I have had to adjust my view. Science does believe that certain truths can be arrived at regarding the universe. The difference between science and atheism then is that science has not yet passed judgment on the existence of God, while atheism has.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
Day 5 (On Atheisism)
As a scientist I have read and encountered many others of many different denominations. Those that I clash the most with are the Atheists.
Those that I have met in real life (and online) may not be representative but they do seem to believe that science is able to provide "proof" and "truth" about the world in a way that religion cannot. The irony escapes them completely.
I define science as the act of interpreting observations about the natural world in the context of other observations about the natural world ... but I am not trying to convince anybody ... and I would prefer it if others did not try and convince me.
I've met artists who say that through art human beings are observing and interpreting the world, the human mind included, they don't always use words to convey these interpretations however. Anyone who says that only science can provide the sole interpretation of the true world is dangerous ... or probably selling something. They are dangerous because like all fundamentalists once you believe that your way is the only way that all other ways become either targets for destruction or objects of ridicule.
Those that I have met in real life (and online) may not be representative but they do seem to believe that science is able to provide "proof" and "truth" about the world in a way that religion cannot. The irony escapes them completely.
I define science as the act of interpreting observations about the natural world in the context of other observations about the natural world ... but I am not trying to convince anybody ... and I would prefer it if others did not try and convince me.
I've met artists who say that through art human beings are observing and interpreting the world, the human mind included, they don't always use words to convey these interpretations however. Anyone who says that only science can provide the sole interpretation of the true world is dangerous ... or probably selling something. They are dangerous because like all fundamentalists once you believe that your way is the only way that all other ways become either targets for destruction or objects of ridicule.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Day 3
I'm enjoying the freedom to post on this blog that I felt was lacking in my other blog because I put myself under such pressure to uphold some sort of higher standard.
Today I posted this comment on The Daily Show website. It is here for archival purposes.
As a scientist I find it ironic that the words "proof" and "truth" and "objectification of reality" are being bandied about by those who are attacking this interview. If a single data set is presented to numerous researchers it is quite likely that a number of different methods and conclusions will be met.
This interview has promoted conversation, if for no other reason, this interview has merit. In fact she said that both religion and science are pushing the boundaries of our vocabulary. A remarkable statement which I agree with as any one who is trying to communicate the curvature of the universe will understand.
I invite everyone to read "The universe and Dr. Einstein" by Lincoln Barnett. StewBeef, if you are reading, I will send you my copy of this book even though it is the most precious thing I own.
Today I posted this comment on The Daily Show website. It is here for archival purposes.
As a scientist I find it ironic that the words "proof" and "truth" and "objectification of reality" are being bandied about by those who are attacking this interview. If a single data set is presented to numerous researchers it is quite likely that a number of different methods and conclusions will be met.
This interview has promoted conversation, if for no other reason, this interview has merit. In fact she said that both religion and science are pushing the boundaries of our vocabulary. A remarkable statement which I agree with as any one who is trying to communicate the curvature of the universe will understand.
I invite everyone to read "The universe and Dr. Einstein" by Lincoln Barnett. StewBeef, if you are reading, I will send you my copy of this book even though it is the most precious thing I own.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Day 1 (of memorade)
Memorade is an aid to my memory. As I age it seems harder and harder to remember something I read, even if it was only five minutes ago. It seems even harder if it is something that I am particularly interested in remembering.
Like all the other journals I've ever kept in my life this one has a life expectancy of 30 days. The only difference is that this one is electronic. See you on August 6th ... maybe.
This started because I was just reading some Isaac Asimov. No, wait, let me go back further. When I was 25 and chatting with J and K we pondered the trend we saw in those around us. Upon arriving in their thirties these "others" would abandon their politically active ways and raise families, thus becoming "sell-outs". I am now one such sell out, but not because I have raised a family, but because I have moved away from those rebellious activist days that is for sure.
Yet this is not because I am raising a family, indeed I seem to be more and more selfish. Far to selfish for a family at any rate. Instead I have come to see political debates as completely superficial. Likewise with justice ... and injustice. In fact I am often amazed that I even exist. I even find the contemplation of my existence so fundamental that ultimately I don't care about politics as much because if none of us existed we wouldn't care to begin with.
Now back to the Asimov. In discussing the evolution of philosophy Asimov points out that there eventually began a trend to state "Aristotle says ... " and "Euclid says ..." in any discussion. I have found myself doing similar things. And then forgetting about them, hence Memorade. It seems like a lost art now to deduce things about our surroundings for ourselves. A practical example involves a grassland sparrow project I worked on. We were trapping birds and tagging them (and then re-releasing them of course). There was this one branch in the way of our set up and one fellow technician lamented to me "what if the bird lands on this branch" thus upsetting out set-up. I reached out and snapped that branch in half. Problem solved.
In a separate conversation with J and K we were discussing artificial intelligence, robots, and zombies ... of course. We even got voodoo in there and I eventually proclaimed "maybe that is what a human being is, neither master nor slave". As the masters are always intent on keeping themselves the masters and the slaves are always intent on becoming 'not-slaves'. K responded by saying that this is what Plato's definition of a human being was, and we had stumbled upon during the course of our own conversation.
You see, if Plato had Memorade then we wouldn't have had to rediscover this observation. At least I have Memorade, and now I won't forget what I said that day. Thanks again to Memorade, I won't forget what I said today: Day 1.
Like all the other journals I've ever kept in my life this one has a life expectancy of 30 days. The only difference is that this one is electronic. See you on August 6th ... maybe.
This started because I was just reading some Isaac Asimov. No, wait, let me go back further. When I was 25 and chatting with J and K we pondered the trend we saw in those around us. Upon arriving in their thirties these "others" would abandon their politically active ways and raise families, thus becoming "sell-outs". I am now one such sell out, but not because I have raised a family, but because I have moved away from those rebellious activist days that is for sure.
Yet this is not because I am raising a family, indeed I seem to be more and more selfish. Far to selfish for a family at any rate. Instead I have come to see political debates as completely superficial. Likewise with justice ... and injustice. In fact I am often amazed that I even exist. I even find the contemplation of my existence so fundamental that ultimately I don't care about politics as much because if none of us existed we wouldn't care to begin with.
Now back to the Asimov. In discussing the evolution of philosophy Asimov points out that there eventually began a trend to state "Aristotle says ... " and "Euclid says ..." in any discussion. I have found myself doing similar things. And then forgetting about them, hence Memorade. It seems like a lost art now to deduce things about our surroundings for ourselves. A practical example involves a grassland sparrow project I worked on. We were trapping birds and tagging them (and then re-releasing them of course). There was this one branch in the way of our set up and one fellow technician lamented to me "what if the bird lands on this branch" thus upsetting out set-up. I reached out and snapped that branch in half. Problem solved.
In a separate conversation with J and K we were discussing artificial intelligence, robots, and zombies ... of course. We even got voodoo in there and I eventually proclaimed "maybe that is what a human being is, neither master nor slave". As the masters are always intent on keeping themselves the masters and the slaves are always intent on becoming 'not-slaves'. K responded by saying that this is what Plato's definition of a human being was, and we had stumbled upon during the course of our own conversation.
You see, if Plato had Memorade then we wouldn't have had to rediscover this observation. At least I have Memorade, and now I won't forget what I said that day. Thanks again to Memorade, I won't forget what I said today: Day 1.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)