My pet peeve, Science is everything

What is anti-science?...

Quote from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience:

"Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his Discourse on the Arts and Sciences, claimed that science leads to immorality. "Rousseau argues that the progression of the sciences and arts has caused the corruption of virtue and morality" and his "critique of science has much to teach us about the dangers involved in our political commitment to scientific progress, and about the ways in which the future happiness of mankind might be secured".[5]

Nevertheless, while potentially confusing, Rousseau does not state in his Discourses that sciences are necessarily bad, as he states how high in regard figures like René Descartes, Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton should be held. As stated in the very end of the discourse, Rousseau says that there are those (aforementioned) who can cultivate sciences to great benefit, and those that, cultivating science (mostly because of society's bad influence), lead to morality's corruption."

Anti-science is also anti-art... and anti-art is also anti-science.

So no,... I'm not anti-science... or maybe I am? Nothing is absolute.

On scientism from the same:

"The term 'scientism' derives from science studies and is a term spawned and used by sociologists and philosophers of science to describe the views, beliefs and behavior of many strong science devotees. It is sometimes also used in a pejorative sense, for individuals who seem to be 'fetishizing' science, or treating science in a similar way to a religion."
 
Last edited:
There was a time when science knew freedom, and there was a time when art knew freedom. I doubt that this freedom lasted very long as culture developed, a few exceptional individuals followed their dreams, but when it comes to written history and what we can learn from the stone age peer pressure seems evident, still some examples of freedom come us from the past and hopefully will continue in the future.

Today as in the past science can be bought by those with deep pockets, and art dictated by the few who claim "special knowledge".

It all begins with purpose of the individual.
 
There's no duality, between art and science, but a balance must be maintained. Tai, I was wondering, you said there were absolutely no absolutes? :)
 
I think there may be absolutes, but I'm not absolutely sure. Just trying to keep an opened mind.
 
Luke: Why must a balance be maintained? One waits for the other or for a consensus to understand?
 
Definitions of Science:

- "Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."

- "knowledge attained through study or practice,"

- The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

- A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.


Nothing about absolutes.
 
Ed Fowler said:
Luke: Why must a balance be maintained? One waits for the other or for a consensus to understand?
Click to expand...

Sorry, what I meant was that one shouldn't be held to be all important, while the other is mitigated to uselessness. They each have value. Not necessarily equal value, in fact, science probably has the priority, but that doesn't mean that art is worthless. Depending on your definition of art, life is pretty boring without it (art). Science really relies on creativity and seeing connections where no one else does; to me, that can count art. I love science. Its beautiful and very interesting, but I hate, is what Tai is talking about, scientism. "scientism-ists" are generally arrogant, un-scientific, dogmatic, insulting, disrespectful, and wont tolerate any form of attack on "science". Real scientists should be open minded, not just because they say so, but because they actually are. They can take a question regarding science's validity, or anything else, and have a genuine answer to it, not insults, and if they dont, they actually change their mind. Which is admittedly hard to do...
 
Good post Luke.

Attacking science is one thing, but I think when even simply questioning science, the absolute authority of science, or the absolute correctness of a purely scientific approach to knife making or any art/craft, is met with nothing but insults and personal attacks, that’s a good way to identify scientism and scientismists, and no it’s not a scientific reaction...

This is a good way we can tell the difference between true science and scientism.
 
Last edited:
Tai Goo said:
Just trying to keep an opened mind.
Click to expand...

If you are truly trying to keep an open mind, I respectfully urge you to keep an open mind about the supernatural.

"Science" seeks to poo poo the supernatural. Yet ask a "scientist" from where did the universe derive. He will say "the big bang, of course". And I agree. Then ask what caused the big bang, and he will say "a singularity: an infinitely small, infinitely dense point of space-time".

Well, that sounds swell. So I might ask, "Do not all of the laws of physics collapse at this point? I mean, there is no evidence of such a thing is there, and even if there were, it would not obey the laws of science, right"?

The scientist says yes.

So the scientist, who purports to reject the supernatural as ignorant, has embraced a "singularity" which by its own terms is outside the laws of nature and therefore "supernatural".

My point is that those who limit their understanding of the universe to so-called "science" are driving into a dead end. Because seeking to understand the origin of the universe necessarily leads one to the supernatural, whether I call it God or someone else calls it a singularity. When asking what caused the big bang, and then what caused the thing that caused the big bang, and then what caused that, ad infinitum, you end up with an infinite regression of finite causes. The only means of ending that regression is with the supernatural. An uncaused first cause.

My thesis is that the physical world declares the glory of God with such volume that men are without excuse to conclude otherwise. "Since the beginning of creation, God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being shown from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." - The Apostle Paul, to the believers in Rome.

This is by no means a rejection of science. Just the opposite. The physical world, including its laws of science, simply point us to something far greater.

Thanks for reading.
 
Powernoodle, I don't have a problem with the supernatural or the possible existence of a supreme being, but don't consider myself a "religious" person in that I don't belong to any single organized religion or church. I am a student of religion in general, but not religious. I have had experiences in my life that I believe were/are supernatural and believe wholeheartedly in a spiritual dimension of reality...
 
Last edited:
There was a time when science had a problem acknowledging anything that could not be proven through the scientific method. I think it's pretty safe to say we are beyond that point now. So much of what science is focused on these days defies physical experimentation that it's pointless to suggest that the boundaries of science are the things we can test and prove.

That said, there remains a bright line that should be acknowledged between science and the supernatural. Supernatural thinking jumps to conclusions based upon "magical methods". Science will follow a trail of evidence and look for new evidence in the direction that the trail has led them.

Personally, I think science and the supernatural can coexist peacefully. The reason it doesn't is because each side has zealots, and by definition zealots are not interested in peaceful coexistence.

Art draws inspiration and methodologies from both sides, and from other areas too. Art doesn't rely on JUST one thing or the other. Art can act as a bridge helping people to understand philosophy, science, religion or insanity.

As applied to knives, art can do many things. Careful attention to details does more than make a knife pretty, it can also make it more functional and easier to maintain. Art can also make the knife more intuitive for users, guiding them to use it more correctly and safely. You might not think of the curves you put in a handle as art, but they are, in addition to their functional role in correctly positioning the hand. Putting a guard on a knife makes it more attractive, AND it makes it safer to use. If the guard is embellished, it leans more heavily on art, but retains its functional importance.

Those who assert that they are ONLY interested in functionality and don't care about art are deluding themselves. If they strive to grind straight lines, they care about art. If they look for tight fit of the parts, they care about art. If they do anything at all to shape the handle beyond its basic form, they care about art.

So is it ALL about the heat treatment/science of making a knife? Of course not... no more than it is ALL about the beauty of the lines and curves and colors. A good knife is a fusion of the functional and the aesthetic.
 
Luke: Thanks, I was hoping that was what you meant and I agree fully.

Science is not a single discipline, but includes many individual realms, each requiring very specific knowledge. when an individual steps outside of his realm, claiming the PhD after his name makes him special in all matters (the halo effect) dissension is sure to follow and none benefit. It was a general high school physics text and great teacher that encuraged me to tolerate the boredom of formal education and opened my mind to much more.
 
Ed, in the old days a general “well rounded” education was emphasized. Now days it's all about specialization. I think in essence that the volume of “knowledge” and information has increased so much, that no one person can be an expert on everything. The problem with specialization, take medicine for example, is it often only treats one part of the body, without any regard to the overall "person".

I still believe that the more well rounded and fully integrated a person, as a person can be, the better in any field.
 
Last edited:
An absolute may exist under certain conditions and within certain parameters,… but change the conditions and parameters and it may no longer apply…
 
Early on in this thread, someone said that one thing that we have seen of late is science that can only be proven observationally by use of advanced equipment. What we have actually had over the last 100 or so years is science and mathematics that by their nature, cannot be completely proven by any form of observation. They can only be theorized or in some cases, the effects of these theories can be observed in some indirect way. Hell, doesn't quantum theory essentially say that the act of observation actually changes the behavior of what you are observing? Ultimately, we can use some of this science even of we don't totally understand ti or have to invent illogical ways of explaining like imaginary numbers, but it is a fair way from what the layman would call an "absolute truth". As for science being the arbiter of such absolute truths, how can that be? Science changes constantly and as such, the "truth" that it reveals is rarely if ever absolute. It is more like the arbiter of the "letest and best information." Even them, scientists have show a tendency to cling to generally accepted theories for too long at times. IMO, sometimes a LOT of "scientific curiosity" goes towards trying to rehash what is allegedly already known at the expense of new things. I'm not even going to talk about the times when "scientists" allow their egos to move them into areas outside of their field of expertise where they seem bound and determined to tell other inferior beings how flawed or downright false their "truths' actually are. As for all of the wonderful modern gadgets that people have pointed out that science has given us, remember that these are the products of "applied" science and engineering, field which some "pure scientists" look upon with a certain degree of disdain.;)
 
A book that came my way purely be accident, "Dictionary of Theories" written by Jennifer Bothamy has proved to be a valuable reference for me. The author has provided a wealth of information concerning the origin and description of theories from many realms in easy to understand language.

One of the earmarks of any science is to develop a complex language that in practice is usually only understood by the chosen few. Those who do not understand an aspect of that language, as used by the chosen few, tend to not their heads in agreement rather than expose their lack of specific knowledge, thus understanding and debate of the topic will be lacking.

The problem is that the science will not receive the benefit of knowledge of the average individual, the short comings of the theory will not be debated and the full potential of the theory may never be realized.

In order to be able to describe a hypothetical construct in simple easy to understand language, the greater the individuals understanding and the more who understand, the greater the potential contribution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top