How Do We Think?

[DDPP]

I could simply argue that art was the world's greatest invention by far, by virtue of how it liberates human creativity, and how could you refute it in an absolute way?

I was talking about contributing knowledge. As far as I know, art hasn't contributed to knowledge at all. Art doesn't answer any questions.

The "problem" I meant was not a bad problem, like having cancer, but a good problem, like solving a puzzle. The problem to solve is, matter to what? That is the key question, so that's where the problem centers.

How can there be "bad" and "good" problems in that sense? I meant "problem" as in "question". It's a "bad" (meaningless, unanswerable question) because you haven't defined what you mean by it. Without knowing what the question means, you cannot find the answer.

But we are communicating with symbols, not with reality.

What I meant is that once we start debating and get lost in WORDS, not ideas, we become slaves of the words. That's because the sole purpose of words is to reflect real ideas. Words themselves have no meaning, and I feel we are treating words as if they were the meaning itself and not simply a symbol for a meaning. The word "matter" for example (as in "does this matter"?). When you ask that question without specifying what you mean, you lose perspective and become the slave of the word.

We may never truly know why we are here, but for me, part of the journey of life is understanding more about it.

Same as above. What exactly do you mean "why"? I can tell you exactly why, and you've already heard it before, but I highly doubt that's what you meant. You are the "slave" of the word why, because I don't think even you know what you mean when you say why.

Why are we here? We're here because long ago a chemical reaction produced an imperfect self-replicating molecule, which proceeded to do what it did, and ultimately evolved into humans, allowed you to be born. That's why we're here.

Again, however, I doubt that's the answer you wanted. The only reason why you say we don't know the answer is because you don't LIKE the answer we have. You are INSIST there is another answer. Unless you find that answer, you will keep insisting nobody has found the answer, and you will never find it because you don't even know what answer you really want.

Or tell me, what exactly do you mean when you ask why we are here? What kind of answer is it that you want? you want some big man in the sky to come down and tell you you are there to serve him? or do you want the answer to be that you reincarnate to become better (whatever that means)?

That's what faith is for. But faith doesn't provide you answers. Faith provides comfort, and appeals to people's ego.

Face it- reality doesn't work that way. It's not reality's job to satisfy our egos- the universe doesn't owe us any meaning. Science has provided the answers, you just refuse to accept them because you want some fuzzy comforting answer.

Maybe it's not a problem with the question itself, just with the questioner.



PS. I don't mean to offend anyone, and what I said wasn't directed at anyone in particular... just at everyone who thinks those kinds of questions are still unanswered or that science is incapable of answering them.

[Vermonter]

Same as above. What exactly do you mean "why"? I can tell you exactly why, and you've already heard it before, but I highly doubt that's what you meant. You are the "slave" of the word why, because I don't think even you know what you mean when you say why.

By "why" I mean "why does this work the way it does?"

Why are we here? We're here because long ago a chemical reaction produced an imperfect self-replicating molecule, which proceeded to do what it did, and ultimately evolved into humans, allowed you to be born. That's why we're here.

And that's a fine answer. I fully support that.

Again, however, I doubt that's the answer you wanted. The only reason why you say we don't know the answer is because you don't LIKE the answer we have. You are INSIST there is another answer. Unless you find that answer, you will keep insisting nobody has found the answer, and you will never find it because you don't even know what answer you really want.

Unfortunately, you're wrong. You wrongly assume that I believe there is another answer, and that I don't like the answers given to me. And no, I wouldn't keep insisting that nobody had the answer. I had said that "we may never truly know". That does not imply absolute certainty.

Or tell me, what exactly do you mean when you ask why we are here? What kind of answer is it that you want? you want some big man in the sky to come down and tell you you are there to serve him? or do you want the answer to be that you reincarnate to become better (whatever that means)?

The kind of answer I want is open-ended. From a scientific point of view, we know (given your previous statement). From a philosophical point of view, it becomes more open and individual. For someone it could be "to get the most out of life", or "to help others". You can be impartial and be compassionate at the same time.

That's what faith is for. But faith doesn't provide you answers. Faith provides comfort, and appeals to people's ego.

Not necessarily true. For some people faith provides all of the answers if you believe in it. And it can provide comfort, and definately appeal to a person's ego, but it depends on the individual.

Face it- reality doesn't work that way. It's not reality's job to satisfy our egos- the universe doesn't owe us any meaning. Science has provided the answers, you just refuse to accept them because you want some fuzzy comforting answer.

You're correct. The universe doesn't owe us anything. But what's so say we can't be nice about the answers that we find? Again, you are assuming wrongly about my nature. I don't refuse a correct answer because it isn't warm and fuzzy. I often prefer a blunt, direct answer (or even question) to one that is not so.

Maybe it's not a problem with the question itself, just with the questioner.

PS. I don't mean to offend anyone, and what I said wasn't directed at anyone in particular... just at everyone who thinks those kinds of questions are still unanswered or that science is incapable of answering them.

The thing is though...to some people, they truly do believe that there is yet to be an answer, just because they didn't know it had been answered. That doesn't make them a bad person for simply not knowing.

[Ken G]

I suspect the first problem is the meaning of the word "Religion" is not the same.

Yeah, it's such a loaded term that it is probably best to avoid it altogether, and just consider things from Vermonter's viewpoint, of probing the advantages and limitations of the scientific "toolbox".

[DDPP]

And that's a fine answer. I fully support that.

You wrongly assume that I believe there is another answer, and that I don't like the answers given to me. And no, I wouldn't keep insisting that nobody had the answer. I had said that "we may never truly know".

But you agree we already know why we're here, no? You said it's a fine answer and you fully support it. So then how can you say "we may never truly know" the answer?

If you mean that in some philosophical sense (that we can never be sure of anything 100%) I'd agree.

From a philosophical point of view, it becomes more open and individual.

Oh, so you're not talking about KNOWLEDGE. Well, I'd agree. I'm saying science can pretty much provide all the answers, at least to "good" questions. One thing is knowing "why" we are here (a question science can answer), and another thing is an individual deciding what they value about life now that they ARE here, and what they will do. I guess the question can mean both things. That is why I said the question is unanswerable, at least until you clarify exactly what you mean.

[Ken G]

The kind of answer I want is open-ended. From a scientific point of view, we know (given your previous statement). From a philosophical point of view, it becomes more open and individual. For someone it could be "to get the most out of life", or "to help others".

Kudos Vermonter, you are the first person I've seen to successfully navigate the truly skeptical stance. It is the unassailable intellectual high ground. The rest of us are choosing to have a belief, some are just being more honest about our own participation in that process.

For example, what DDPP does not appear to recognize is that science is much more like building a car to drive to work, than it is like a path to universal truth. This is simply true to scientific thinking. Science is like putting together the pieces of a car, each individually tested and modifed, and then the car itself is tested and modified, and finally we drive to work. When we get there, we do not say, "aha, I have found the true path to work!", and we do not wrinkle up our noses in disgust at people who are taking a stroll in the nearby park because they have not seen the true path. Instead, we, as scientists, simply say, "that's great, I got to work, just as I hoped I might. I must share this knowledge so that others may get to work as easily, if that is their goal." Period. Anyone who does anything else is a zealot, pure and simple-- and the worst part is, it simply doesn't occur to them that you can have science zealots as easily as religious ones.

[Ken G]

I'm saying science can pretty much provide all the answers, at least to "good" questions.

And this is precisely what I am saying as well, only, I have thought about what it means to be a "good" question! So here is my challenge to you and those who think like you:

Can you give me a useful definition of a "good" question that does not boil down to nothing other than a question that is specifically tailored and interpreted for science to work on it?

You see, I claim that your entire stance, whether you recognize it or not, is that you first define what science is, then you go out and look for questions that science works on, then you define those as "good" questions, and then you make the entirely circular claim that science is the path to all truth because it works on all the questions that are "good"!

One thing is knowing "why" we are here (a question science can answer), and another thing is an individual deciding what they value about life now that they ARE here, and what they will do. I guess the question can mean both things. That is why I said the question is unanswerable, at least until you clarify exactly what you mean.

All questions are unanswerable until one knows exactly what one means-- there is nothing special about this one. This merely adds another element to what you mean by a "good" question-- the words must be interpreted in a way that science gives meaning to. But that is merely a definition of the scientific interpretation of what a question means. If I ask, "why am I here", I am free to interpret that scientifically, and come up with your answer. Or, I am free to interpret it a hundred different ways, and come up with a hundred different answers (including, I have no idea), and they are all just as valid as your answer, as long as they are consistent to their own interpretation. This is what I have been saying so many times in so many different ways, and the point has never been logically refuted because it arises from pure logic.

[DDPP]

When we get there, we do not say, "aha, I have found the true path to work!", and we do not wrinkle up our noses in disgust at people who are taking a stroll in the nearby park because they have not seen the true path. Instead, we, as scientists, simply say, "that's great, I got to work, just as I hoped I might. I must share this knowledge so that others may get to work as easily, if that is their goal." Period.

no no no. Ok, tell me of ONE other discipline who has EVER gotten to "work"?

To take your analogy further, it's as if other disciplines are blind. If they ever get to work, it's just because they stumbled there and it was a complete and total accident. They aren't purposefully and willingly traveling towards the truth. In fact, it is science who often has to tell them "wait stop! you're traveling the wrong way"

Science IS the only way you should attempt to "go to work", because it is the only one who has ever even gotten us to the gas station on the way. All the rest of the diciplines are simply wondering right next to the door of the house, lost. A few may be a few yards closer to work, but it's nothing compared to science.

Mind you, I'm talking about knowledge here. If you disagree, give me ONE contribution that pure philosophy, art, faith, or whatever has ever given us (again, in regards to knowledge). And of course, it had to have been as a direct result of that philosophy. Stumbling on a new species of tree on the way to church doesn't count.

And this is precisely what I am saying as well, only, I have thought about what it means to be a "good" question!

Can you give me a useful definition of a "good" question that does not boil down to nothing other than a question that is specifically tailored and interpreted for science to work on it?

I never "interpreted" any question so that science can work for it. I "interpreted" it so that it is a semi-logical, specific question. You're still not getting what I'm saying. A good question has to be well defined, the questioner must be able to accept an answer (not refusing it because s/he didn't like the answer), etc.

Look. Maybe you'll understand better with examples. This is a bad question- "Ken, have you stopped beating your wife?"

Or is it a good question? maybe it's a perfectly fine question, it's just that science can't answer it?
It assumes too much. The question "why are we here?" (in the sense that many people ask it) is similar in that it assumes there HAS to be a purpose.

another example- Ken, why do gleminchis fly so erratically?
C'mon, answer it. Don't "interpret" it in a way so that you CAN answer it! I'm asking a perfectly "good" question (if I were to follow your logic), but maybe you just CAN'T answer it because you're Ken, so you can't.

Obviously you HAVE to specify EXACTLY what you mean when you ask a question. The question IS a bad question because nobody knows what the hell a bloody gleminchis is. If you knew what a gleminchis is, the question would be a perfectly good question. And asking someone to define what a gleminchis is is not "interpreting" anything.

All questions are unanswerable until one knows exactly what one means-- there is nothing special about this one. This merely adds another element to what you mean by a "good" question-- the words must be interpreted in a way that science gives meaning to.

How is knowing what one means "interpreting" anything? it's merely ... well... knowing what is talking about!

Or, I am free to interpret it a hundred different ways, and come up with a hundred different answers (including, I have no idea), and they are all just as valid as your answer

"I have no idea" is not an answer. It is a statement of your ignorance. You're not giving the answer to the question, you're just replying to it. Give me an example that really does give an answer to the question, that is just as valid as my answer, and one that we should bother taking seriously. (and this is all I'm saying really. Science is the only VALID way of getting to the answers. Others can give their own answers, but history has shown that most of them were wrong. It keeps showing they are still wrong.)

[Ken G]

no no no. Ok, tell me of ONE other discipline who has EVER gotten to "work"?

You can't say "no" because you are not contradicting me-- it is the job of science to "get to work", in the sense that you and I are now meaning. Of course, if I adopt a different meaning for "what works" than what we are both using right now, listing another discipline is trivial. The scientific answer to that question is to look at what humans spend their time and energy doing, and you will get the fairest possible measure of "what works" and how.

To take your analogy further, it's as if other disciplines are blind. If they ever get to work, it's just because they stumbled there and it was a complete and total accident. They aren't purposefully and willingly traveling towards the truth.

This is precisely the "science zealot" perspective I am attempting to expose. Thank you for making it so easy! Are you listening, other science zealots? These words speak for themselves, I need not comment.

Science IS the only way you should attempt to "go to work", because it is the only one who has ever even gotten us to the gas station on the way.

If you look at my analogy, you can now see why I had the others "strolling in the park", rather than trying to get to work.

All the rest of the diciplines are simply wondering right next to the door of the house, lost. A few may be a few yards closer to work, but it's nothing compared to science.

Unadulterated scientific zealotry. You would never tolerate that from any other discipline, why should scientists tolerate it from themselves?

Mind you, I'm talking about knowledge here. If you disagree, give me ONE contribution that pure philosophy, art, faith, or whatever has ever given us (again, in regards to knowledge).

I presume that when you say "knowledge", you mean "knowledge as defined by science". Then you ask me, "show me something other than science that leads to knowledge as defined by science". That's like saying, "show me something other than geometry that can bisect and angle." You define your goal, and claim it is all that is.

[Ken G]

I never "interpreted" any question so that science can work for it. I "interpreted" it so that it is a semi-logical, specific question.

"Semi-logical" and "specific"? This is all you require for a question to be "good"? How about "what is the simultaneous momentum and position of this particle"? Sounds semi-logical and specific to me.

A good question has to be well defined, the questioner must be able to accept an answer (not refusing it because s/he didn't like the answer), etc.

Now we can add "well defined" (defined by what?). The willingness of the questioner to "accept" is easily mistaken for a simple failure of the answer to be responsive to the intent of the questioner.
You have done nothing to narrow down what you mean by a "good" question, as we we have so far is that it must be "semi-logical" (an oxymoron), "specific" (what about general questions), and "well-defined" (in terms of what, in terms of scientific terminology?). This is just not a very useful definition of "good". It doesn't count the majority of questions we encounter even in our daily lives. For one thing, a hugely important class of questions are "should" questions, which we tackle daily, and science has only a small contribution to that class of "very good" questions.

Look. Maybe you'll understand better with examples. This is a bad question- "Ken, have you stopped beating your wife? Or is it a good question? maybe it's a perfectly fine question, it's just that science can't answer it?

In fact, it is a perfectly fine question in some situations, and a meaningless one in others. As is true for all questions, you are saying nothing here, and certainly are not using the logic you tout.

It assumes too much. The question "why are we here?" (in the sense that many people ask it) is similar in that it assumes there HAS to be a purpose.

It makes no such assumption-- it merely avows the possibility that there is a purpose, and seeks it out. Even science does that. "Why do things fall" assumes there is a reason, that it is not pure happenstance that fails to be true on the whims of some powerful master. It is fine to assume that an answer is possible when one asks a question, indeed I think it would be rather absurd to require that the questioner know that the question has an answer before attempting to find it!

another example- Ken, why do gleminchis fly so erratically?

So let me see if I understand your logic. Since I cannot discern the meaning of a question until I have a meaning for the words that go into it, this means that science has the answer to all "good" questions? Sorry, had science used logic like that, we'd still be living in caves.

I'm asking a perfectly "good" question (if I were to follow your logic), but maybe you just CAN'T answer it because you're Ken, so you can't.

Pray tell, exactly what "logic" are you referring to? I will summarize my logic for you again, and you can tell me how your claim is relevant to it. To determine if a question is "good", you cannot use as a criterion that it has an answer, for then you can't get anywhere at all, you can't even do science. But what you do have to do is choose a means for evaluating questions. Science is a perfectly fine way to do that. So are many other ways, such as human emotion. "Do I love her" is a "good" question in some methodologies (including ones quite important to humans), and a "bad" question in others. Human emotion sees that as a good question, although often a difficult one, because it provides a (far from foolproof) methodology to address it. Mathematics sees that as a "bad" question, because it cannot be translated into the formal rules of mathematics. Science, on the other hand, can view that as a "good" question too, but only after projecting it onto the methods of science. In doing so, it may have a very different character. For example, you could look for objective physiological measures of what science defines as "love", though that would also be far from foolproof.

The point is, when you address a question, the first thing you must do is choose your methodology. In cut-and-dried examples, it is fairly obvious which methodology is appropriate, but in many other situations more relevant to what is interesting about human thought, it is not so clear. Then it is part of the thought process itself to choose the appropriate thought process, and it must be tailored to the intent of the questioner, not the answerer. In contrast, I see many examples of science zealots adopting the approach "I don't care what question you are really asking, I'm going to answer the question that you should have asked, and claim it is the answer to your question." And they do that on the grounds that they have turned it into a "good" question, just in the way you are doing here.

How is knowing what one means "interpreting" anything? it's merely ... well... knowing what is talking about!

But the issue here is not what you mean, it is what other people mean that you are interpreting as "right or wrong". No one is telling you how to think, you are doing that to others. With one exception-- I am indeed telling you how to think, if you want to claim your are thinking scientifically. Big difference.

"I have no idea" is not an answer. It is a statement of your ignorance.

Actually, it is quite obviously both, when applied to a subjective question like "why am I here".

You're not giving the answer to the question, you're just replying to it.

What do you mean by "the answer"? Do you actually think it is scientifically valid to imagine that questions have one true answer? None of science is built that way, none of it. Just look at what science is.

Give me an example that really does give an answer to the question, that is just as valid as my answer, and one that we should bother taking seriously. (and this is all I'm saying really. Science is the only VALID way of getting to the answers. Others can give their own answers, but history has shown that most of them were wrong. It keeps showing they are still wrong.)

I'm not clear, do you want me to give you an answer to "why am I here" that you will find valid? I'm afraid you'll have to do that for yourself.

[DDPP]

The scientific answer to that question is to look at what humans spend their time and energy doing, and you will get the fairest possible measure of "what works" and how.

Oh, so basically you're saying that science is logical, so if you stop looking through science's eyes, everything works too? Well, I can't argue with that :P

If you look at my analogy, you can now see why I had the others "strolling in the park", rather than trying to get to work.

I'm talking about truth, answers, and knowledge. That's what "work" symbolizes, and that's where every philosophy I'm talking about is trying to go. What are you talking about?

I presume that when you say "knowledge", you mean "knowledge as defined by science". Then you ask me, "show me something other than science that leads to knowledge as defined by science". That's like saying, "show me something other than geometry that can bisect and angle."

I'm referring to knowledge we both agree is knowledge. If the only thing we can agree is knowledge is scientific knowledge, then that just supports my point even further. Or how can you claim something is KNOWLEDGE if nobody agrees it is? that's just being irrational, and that knowledge (of reality) is worthless. And again, that's all I'm saying. Science is the only VALID way of getting to knowledge. Others can redefine "work" as being where they are, but that's stupid.

How about "what is the simultaneous momentum and position of this particle"? Sounds semi-logical and specific to me.

Ok, science can't tell you that. Neither can anything else. Science CAN tell you the probability of where it is, and without science we wouldn't even KNOW of subatomic particles.

Now we can add "well defined" (defined by what?).

Defined by the questioner.

For one thing, a hugely important class of questions are "should" questions, which we tackle daily, and science has only a small contribution to that class of "very good" questions.

Science can answer should questions, as long as the question is a good question (I think it boils down to being specific, and well defined). For example, me asking "should I start studying now?" is a bad question, because we (or at least you) don't know enough to answer the question... yet. A better question would be "Given that my Astronomy exam is in two hours, I have a B in the class, I haven't studied at all, I have nothing else to do, and I would like to get an A, should I start studying now?". THAT is a good question. The essence of the question has not changed one iota, I haven't "interpreted" anything, I have just defined my question well, and I have managed to be specific. The answer would probably yes (actually you would probably need even more information, but you get the point- science can answer the question, it just needs to be specific and well defined).

The same can be said about abortion, gay marriage, etc. You'll probably say that science can't answer the "should I want to get an A", "should I value life" or something, but science could still answer that. It just needs to look at what the big picture, something which isn't out of the grasp of science.

In fact, it is a perfectly fine question in some situations, and a meaningless one in others. As is true for all questions, you are saying nothing here, and certainly are not using the logic you tout.

Of couse it's a fine question, if someone was a wife beater and the questioner knew that. That's why *I* specifically asked YOU if you had stopped beating your wife. I don't know if you have a wife, or if you have ever beaten her. That's why it's a bad question.

"Why do things fall" assumes there is a reason, that it is not pure happenstance that fails to be true on the whims of some powerful master.

Well of COURSE science only works within the bounds of logic. If logic didn't exist, science would be... well... illogical... but anyway, the whims of some powerful master would be a reason itself. It is perfectly LOGICAL to assume there is a reason for something, because every experience in our lives points to that conclusion.

You might want to say that asking what the purpose of your life is falls into the same category, but we have never encountered that kind of purpose (the mystical "meaning" people talk about, whatever that means...), therefore asking the loaded question is a logical fallacy. (again, in the sense that most people mean it. Not the chemical/evolution/cause-and-effect kind of "why")

Since I cannot discern the meaning of a question until I have a meaning for the words that go into it, this means that science has the answer to all "good" questions? Sorry, had science used logic like that, we'd still be living in caves.

I have no clue what you're talking about, so I won't say anything.

... to be continued...

[DDPP]

rats. the posts just keep getting longer and longer X_X

To determine if a question is "good", you cannot use as a criterion that it has an answer, for then you can't get anywhere at all, you can't even do science.

You CAN use as a criterion that it has an answer. What you can't use is whether or not you can answer it. Your Heisenberg's principle question is a perfect example of that. It has an answer, but humans cannot answer it (I think... It's kind of confusing really. some people say that the universe works in probability, others say that it's just that it is impossible for us humans to figure out the position/momentum at the same time).

So are many other ways, such as human emotion. "Do I love her" is a "good" question in some methodologies (including ones quite important to humans), and a "bad" question in others.

First off, I don't know how anyone can ask that. Love is a feeling, you either love someone or not. (you can also hate them at the same time IMO). ... but anyway that's not really relevant. Assuming you can ask that question, I argue that science could theoretically answer that question. By defining the question better ("Do I love her at this moment" or "Generally, do I love her more than I hate her?", even "SHOULD I love her?"), you could (for question one) look at the levels of oxytocin and other neurotransmitters, look at neural activity, etc. and determine whether that person is experiencing love towards that other person. For question two, you could do the same over specified period of time and average out the levels of the hormones when he was thinking of her. For the third one, you could evaluate the probability of different consequences arising from loving/not loving her, and the values of that person, and figure out whether he should love her or not.

Obviously that's not ALL there is to it, and I never said it would be EASY (it would be a HUGE pain in the ***, requiring a lot of time and resources), but it is theoretically possible to answer all three questions.

Science, on the other hand, can view that as a "good" question too, but only after projecting it onto the methods of science.

You accuse me of "interpreting" the question (a vague question which is meaningless without more information. It could mean a variety of things, at least three of which I mentioned already) so that science can answer it, and then you come out and say THAT? How can you say that? I don't know how to express this very well, so I'll just do this:
Emotions, on the other hand, can view that as a "good" question too, but only after projecting it onto the methods of emotion.

There you go. NOTHING can answer anything, because if it tries to, it has to project it onto its own methods. Want to join me jump off a cliff now?. (lol... oh right, you can't answer that, because it's impossible to answer anything)

But the issue here is not what you mean, it is what other people mean that you are interpreting as "right or wrong". No one is telling you how to think, you are doing that to others. With one exception-- I am indeed telling you how to think, if you want to claim your are thinking scientifically. Big difference.

Ok sure. It depends on what that other person meant. That's why the first thing I asked Vermonter was what he meant. To quote myself: "What exactly do you mean "why"? I can tell you exactly why, and you've already heard it before, but I highly doubt that's what you meant."

I'm just saying that the question can be answered by science, you just need to clearly state exactly what it is you are asking!

Actually, it is quite obviously both, when applied to a subjective question like "why am I here".

Well, if you are talking about subjective REPLIES to questions, it's theoretically possible for science to answer those too. Ask someone a question, and even before they answer you can see whether that information is stored in the brain (or, given the neural networks and how each responds to stimuli and stuff), and you could answer "he doesn't know". Maybe you'd have to dissect whoever you were asking the question in order to examine their brain, but it's theoretically possible that you could do that.

What do you mean by "the answer"? Do you actually think it is scientifically valid to imagine that questions have one true answer? None of science is built that way, none of it. Just look at what science is.

It depends on what you're talking about! grr. You HAVE to be specific about questions. What exactly are you referring to when you ask that? for example, it IS scientifically valid to say that there is only one answer to the question question: "will this ball drop when I let go of it, given it is more dense than air, there is no wind, and nothing else holding it in place?"

However, you're also talking about things like love and stuff. It would be stupid to say there is only one answer a human, randomly chosen, would give you in response to the question "do you love peanuts?" (or "will this ball fall to the ground?" and you don't know anything about the ball or anything else). However, there IS only one answer If you are specific and define everything. Say you have an individual person and know everything you can know about that person (the levels of hormones, the paths of neural networks from the memory of peanuts to the emotion center, etc), then there WOULD be just one answer.

Oh, and before you say that I'm talking science fiction and I'm in some fantasy land and that we can't look at brains that way yet, I'm not arguing that the present state of scientific abilities/knowedge would allow us to answer those questions. I'm arguing that the scientific method CAN answer those questions, given they are specific and well defined. I'm also not arguing that it can answer EVERY question, the Heisenberg principle is an excellent example of that. I'm arguing that of the questions that are answerable by humans (and their answers valid), I think science can answer most of them. And I'm just saying most in order to be cautious, I can't think of a question right now that would fit the bill.

[Ken G]

Oh, so basically you're saying that science is logical, so if you stop looking through science's eyes, everything works too? Well, I can't argue with that :P

On the contrary, I am saying that I'm the one looking through science's eyes-- you are looking through the eyes of your own prejudices about science, and I've pointed them out in detail.

I'm talking about truth, answers, and knowledge.

On more time: none of those words have the general meaning you believe them to. They do have specific meaning within science, though. I have said that so many ways, if you can't see it, then I do not have the power to explain it to you. It is pure logic-- how can I explain that?

I'm referring to knowledge we both agree is knowledge.

No, you aren't. You are referring to what we both agree is scientific knowledge. I understand both why this is different from "knowledge" in general, and also why it is only an ideal even in science.

Or how can you claim something is KNOWLEDGE if nobody agrees it is?

So now knowledge is what people agree on? News flash: more people agree on religion than science (they are ignorant of the latter).

Science is the only VALID way of getting to knowledge. Others can redefine "work" as being where they are, but that's stupid.

Your first statement is simply preposterous, and nothing you've said supports it as a logical proposition-- nothing. You are not even using the logic you tout. The second statement is a value judgement and is also nonscientific-- I would maintain that it is far from "stupid" to define "works" to mean "gives me the value I am seeking". This, by the way, is also the definition science uses, just open a science book to any random page for an example. Indeed, it is any other definition that is "stupid."

Science CAN tell you the probability of where it is, and without science we wouldn't even KNOW of subatomic particles.

So you think "subatomic particles" are somethign we can "know"? Your knowledge of physics is indeed naive. Subatomic particles are models that are effective. You can't "know" them, you can only know how to use the model to achieve the end you desire. If you think science ever was, or is now, anything different from that, I suggest you look at the history of science.

[DDPP]

On the contrary, I am saying that I'm the one looking through science's eyes

That's not what I meant.

none of those words have the general meaning you believe them to. They do have specific meaning within science, though.

And again, how can you say something is true if no two people can agree it's true? Are you saying that religions can know the truth/answers? How can you say that something no two people agree with is true? You can easily draw a map of the world's religions. You can't draw a map of scientific beliefs. People in north america don't believe a the chromosomal theory of inheritance while the people in africa believe some other theory of inheritance. Even religious people (people from other disciplines) agree that scientific knowledge IS knowledge (unless of course you're talking about say, the big bang, but even that is just in some sects of people)

If it's subjective, it's not objective. Reality is not objective.

So now knowledge is what people agree on? News flash: more people agree on religion than science (they are ignorant of the latter).

See above. And of course I meant INFORMED people. What use are ignorant people when discussing the truth? of COURSE people disagree with what the truth is if they don't have information.

Look. I'll say it again. I'm talking about real life. I'm not talking about some vague, fantasy land in which science is an entity in itself and can tell people what to believe or NOT tell them what to believe, or anything like that. I'm talking strictly about down-to-earth, real, day to day life.

But anyway, what other disciplines are you talking about? religion? philosophy? what else?

Your first statement is simply preposterous, and nothing you've said supports it as a logical proposition-- nothing.

Nothing you've said supports what you have said as a logical proposition-- nothing.

he second statement is a value judgement and is also nonscientific-- I would maintain that it is far from "stupid" to define "works" to mean "gives me the value I am seeking".

I didn't define what I said well and wasn't specific enough. Although first off, it was an analogy. I'm not sure what to say... you're getting confused with words again.

This, by the way, is also the definition science uses, just open a science book to any random page for an example.

Huh? any random page in a science book will say that it's far from stupid to redefine "works" to mean "gives me the value I am seeking"??? I'm lost.

So you think "subatomic particles" are somethign we can "know"? Your knowledge of physics is indeed naive.

You're driving me nuts. You keep missing the point of what I'm saying, you keep nitpicking at completely irrelevant things (red herring), and then claiming your position is the only logical and self-consistent position. Now you're even getting into ad-hominem arguments. What does my knowledge of physics have to do with this? I bet I know some fields of science better than you do. So what?

Besides, I know of the particle-wave duality of light and other subatomic "particles", and I know they're just models, etc. That fact has NOTHING, I repeat N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with my argument.

Besides, I said know OF them. Not "know them", whatever that means (sounds dirty, LOL).

[Ken G]

And again, how can you say something is true if no two people can agree it's true?

How could I not? If I lived alone on a desert island, you are saying I could have no concept of truth? Truth is defined by value, and it is in individual thing. There certainly are shared truths, and they stem from shared values, but there is no sharing is a required part of truth.

How can you say that something no two people agree with is true?

By having a sophisticated understanding of that word. You assume there is only one truth, one answer for every question, but we've already covered that fallacy.

You can easily draw a map of the world's religions.

That statement is both false and irrelevant. Religions are highly mixed, but what difference does it make-- they do not seek objectivity the way science does.

Even religious people (people from other disciplines) agree that scientific knowledge IS knowledge (unless of course you're talking about say, the big bang, but even that is just in some sects of people)

Of course scientific knowledge is a type of knowledge-- the word is right in there. But an individual can certainly speak of "religious knowledge" too, it's all part of how we think. The main difference as that the former aims for objectivity and the latter does not, that's the part you seem to keep missing.

If it's subjective, it's not objective. Reality is not objective.

I have no idea if reality is objective or not, but I'm pretty sure it depends on what you mean by reality. No casual definition will tell you that answer.

And of course I meant INFORMED people. What use are ignorant people when discussing the truth? of COURSE people disagree with what the truth is if they don't have information.

And how shall we define "informed"? Informed about what? I'm completely uninformed about virtually all religions, most of art, a ton of poetry, and a good chunk of history. Apparently, that makes me unable to have an opinion on almost anything, since those certainly span a vast amount of human endeavor. However, I do know science, and that is precisely all I am talking about here.

Look. I'll say it again. I'm talking about real life. I'm not talking about some vague, fantasy land in which science is an entity in itself and can tell people what to believe or NOT tell them what to believe, or anything like that.

Excellent, then we agree science cannot tell people what to believe. That's progress.

Nothing you've said supports what you have said as a logical proposition-- nothing.

Everything I've said traces to a simple logical proposition: truth does not exist independently of the means used to arrive at it, and all such means are judged by their value. If you understand that simple statement, all else follows immediately. This thread is about "how we think", so what relates to that is, how we analyze how we think-- there are many approaches.

[DDPP]

If I lived alone on a desert island, you are saying I could have no concept of truth? Truth is defined by value, and it is in individual thing. There certainly are shared truths, and they stem from shared values, but there is no sharing is a required part of truth.

That's different. If something is true, any two people, with the same information, should be able to agree on what is most likely to be true.

Religions are highly mixed, but what difference does it make-- they do not seek objectivity the way science does.

The point is that religions are illogical, and not valid. Most people only believe whatever religion they believe because they randomly happened to be born in a certain family. The best predictor of someone's religion is their family's religion. They can't ALL be true. They make claims about reality, some of which are testable, and they contradict each other. Again, religious "answers" are not valid answers. They are utterly meaningless in describing reality.

But an individual can certainly speak of "religious knowledge" too

and that "religious knowledge" is utterly worthless.

The main difference as that the former aims for objectivity and the latter does not, that's the part you seem to keep missing.

That's an huge generalization. As I said, religions make claims about reality. The vast majority claim that it IS the one true way. If that's not claiming objectivity, I don't know what is.

And how shall we define "informed"? Informed about what?

You answered your own question. Informed about the subject.

Excellent, then we agree science cannot tell people what to believe. That's progress.

Well, science can't talk. So no, it can't tell anyone ANYTHING.

Everything I've said traces to a simple logical proposition: truth does not exist independently of the means used to arrive at it, and all such means are judged by their value. If you understand that simple statement, all else follows immediately.

How is that logical? How did you arrive at that conclusion? That's asking for a huge leap of faith, one which I am not willing to take.


PS. I might not be replying for a while. I'm WAY behind in my studying, and if I don't get moving I'm going to regret it.

[Len Moran]

How about "what is the simultaneous momentum and position of this particle"? Sounds semi-logical and specific to me.

Ok, science can't tell you that. Neither can anything else.

I'm not addressing anything here that has not been addressed by Ken G, but I was waiting for this to come into focus. People who seem so sure that science is an all embracing authority just don't seem to think this standpoint through. So we firstly get this kind of statement (above) that admits to the limitations of scientific methodology, but then goes on to claim that:

and without science we wouldn't even KNOW of subatomic particles.

But upon scrutiny from Ken, it turns to this:

Besides, I know of the particle-wave duality of light and other subatomic "particles", and I know they're just models, etc. That fact has NOTHING, I repeat N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with my argument.

Well I think it does have a lot do do with the argument. If we accept that our notion of Reality as it actually is cannot be accessed directly, then what are we left with? What we are left with is a scientific framework built upon models that work. Which allows us to do physics, and allows us to do it very well. But the assumption of science as an all embracing authority is removed at a stroke, and if you refute this, then you have to acknowledge that what you see as this authority is nothing more than a system based on a framework of very successful model building that should not be confused with a methodology that would allow nature as it Really is to be exposed. Which leaves a big empty space outside of your ultimate authority.

[DDPP]

People who seem so sure that science is an all embracing authority just don't seem to think this standpoint through.

I'll say it again: "Science is the only VALID way of getting to the answers."

Give me one other discipline that consistently gives us the right answers about reality. (by right I mean answers we can work with and that are agreed by everyone else, and of course unique to that dicipline. No, this isn't circular arguing. Science for example- it is generally agreed, by informed experts, that core scientific answers are "right". Most of those answers are "unique" to that discipline means that it was that discipline responsible for those "answers". Faith didn't come up with the concept of electrons, yet any informed pastor would agree electrons exist. ... and don't nitpick! see my reply below)

Well I think it does have a lot do do with the argument.

I said we wouldn't even know of subatomic particles. What I meant by that is that without science, we would have no idea quarks, electrons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos, and all the other subatomic phenomena with names which are colloquially known as "subatomic particles" exist.

What we are left with is a scientific framework built upon models that work. Which allows us to do physics, and allows us to do it very well.

Yeah I agree.

But the assumption of science as an all embracing authority is removed at a stroke, and if you refute this

Can you please tell me when I said science was perfect, therefore never wrong? I don't remember ever saying anything of the kind.

Maybe I should state my position yet again, but all in two sentences: Science, while not perfect, is the one and only discipline of human thought that is a logical/valid way to go about acquiring knowledge. It can answer most of the questions humans want answers to, as long as the question is a specific question and everything is well defined.

then you have to acknowledge that what you see as this authority is nothing more than a system based on a framework of very successful model building that should not be confused with a methodology that would allow nature as it Really is to be exposed.

Sure, that's right. That's what I've always thought. The question is whether there are other valid methods of trying to look at reality, to which I answer no (at least none that exist right now).

[DDPP]

This debate may just arise from different definitions of valid and answers. Obviously you think there can be more than one valid answer to a question regarding reality.

What exactly do you mean by valid? I've already told you I mean that reasonable, informed people agree on what the answer is.

Is the answer "goddidit" to the question of "how did life come to be" just as valid as the answer "chemical reactions produced a nonperfect self-replicating molecule which then went about doing what it did and over millions of years produced life, which over billions of years resulted in Homo sapiens having evolved in Africa"?

If you think that both questions are equally valid, then let's end this debate. There is no point in further discussion.

[Ken G]

This debate may just arise from different definitions of valid and answers. Obviously you think there can be more than one valid answer to a question regarding reality.

Now we are making real progress. Except this statement is not just "what I think", it is the only one supportable by logic and scientific thinking. It is the one that follows from the meaning of words, the meaning of reason, and the meaning of thought. Any other claim is just a personal belief.

What exactly do you mean by valid? I've already told you I mean that reasonable, informed people agree on what the answer is.

No, you told us that you mean what you mean. You cannot, and do not, speak for "informed people". Informed people understand what science is, and what it isn't, but uninformed people believe it is the only valid way to access answers to any question that may be deemed "good".

Is the answer "goddidit" to the question of "how did life come to be" just as valid as the answer "chemical reactions produced a nonperfect self-replicating molecule which then went about doing what it did and over millions of years produced life, which over billions of years resulted in Homo sapiens having evolved in Africa"?

I am telling you that no one can evaluate the "validity" of either answer in any kind of absolute way. That's just the truth.

[DDPP]

I am telling you that no one can evaluate the "validity" of either answer in any kind of absolute way. That's just the truth.

Ok then, I'm out of the debate (at least with you). As I've said multiple times already, I'm talking about down to earth, day to day stuff. If you believe it is absolutely impossible to evaluate the validity of "goddidit" as an answer for that question, there really isn't any point in further discussion.

[Ken G]

Ok then, I'm out of the debate (at least with you). As I've said multiple times already, I'm talking about down to earth, day to day stuff. If you believe it is absolutely impossible to evaluate the validity of "goddidit" as an answer for that question, there really isn't any point in further discussion.

I admit that this is a thread on how we think, not philosophy, but my point is that even the question "how do we think" requires selecting a methodology for analyzing the question, and with it a procedure for examining evidence. This whole business came up because you claimed that thought had to emerge from the action of the physical entities that go into our brains, and I pointed out that this is probably an overly limiting view of what thought is. It is a choice of a particular way of looking at thought, and it is far from guaranteed that it is the "only meaningful way" to do it. Indeed, I personally doubt it will be a very insightful approach, except as a way of looking at some examples of how thought can occur-- kind of like proving a mathematical theorem by looking at some examples to guide the real thought process that matters. The reason I think this is important is that the OP asked a very general question, and one that we have very little knowledge about. We know more about "how the brain acts" than "how we think", and the latter may even be impossible to use thought to decipher, but we can certainly try. We cannot close our minds to the kind of thinking that may be required, however, by relying on our physical models of reality to lead us to the answer. It may help to know how nails and screws work if you want to be an architect, but it's hardly the key issue.

[Cougar]

Truth is defined by value, and it is an individual thing.

This is postmodernistic baloney. Some Creationists believe the earth and all life as it is was "created" around 6,000 years ago. This is not true just because they believe it to be true. It is simply false no matter what anyone believes. The age of the earth is closer to 5 billion years. This is true, not because science has figured it out, but simply because it is.

"...if all truths are indeed epistemologically relative and have no universal application, then the proposition that all truths are epistemologically relative is itself relative and has no universal application, and we have no reason to accept it." - Robin Fox

* * *

"A visitor to Niels Bohr's country cottage asked him about a horseshoe nailed above the front door. 'Surely, Professor Bohr, you do not really believe that a horseshoe over the entrance to a home brings good luck?' 'No,' answered Bohr, 'I certainly do not believe in this supersition. But you know,' he added, 'they say it brings luck even if you don't believe in it.'"

"Quantum theory is like Bohr's horseshoe: it works no matter what a person believes."

[Len Moran]

This is postmodernistic baloney. Some Creationists believe the earth and all life as it is was "created" around 6,000 years ago. This is not true just because they believe it to be true. It is simply false no matter what anyone believes. The age of the earth is closer to 5 billion years. This is true, not because science has figured it out, but simply because it is.

Well I would prefer to follow science in one way or another to arrive at some kind of age. If science had not looked at the question at all or at anything relating to it, such as the age of the solar system etc. etc., then I could not come to any objective conclusion. In fact if I did come to a conclusion in such a manner, I would call it an entirely subjective one, since it would be based on some (dare I say) sort of "faith". In fact perhaps not too dissimilar to how creationists arrive at their age of 6000 years

The age of the Earth as given by science is based upon a scientific methodology, the two go hand in hand, you can hardly separate them. The age of the Earth decided upon by creationism goes hand in hand with whatever methods they use. In terms of what works in an objective way, I consider the scientific answer to be the only valid answer. But that answer is totally dependent on an objective methodology being in place, it cannot exist without it.

[DDPP]

Both answers can't be right at the same time. You have to pick one (or some other one... like the creation myth about a dung beetle creating the earth or something). The only logical choice is science.

[Cougar]

Well I would prefer to follow science in one way or another to arrive at some kind of age.

Yes, of course. That is the best way for us to get some idea about what is going on, what is "true." But if humans had remained as hunter-gatherers and never come up with the scientific process, it would still be true that the earth is closer to 5 billion years old than to 6,000 years old. To think that "truth" or "what is" depends on humans one iota is horribly anthropocentric.

[Ken G]

This is postmodernistic baloney. Some Creationists believe the earth and all life as it is was "created" around 6,000 years ago. This is not true just because they believe it to be true.

My point has nothing at all to do with creationism, which purports to be science yet does not follow scientific methodology (i.e., it is either not science, or bad science, depending on your viewpoint.) Your blanket claim, as extended beyond the straw man of creationism, is extremely unsophisticated and of little general value. Because I think you know logic pretty well, I will simply point out to you that your argument presupposes a limited meaning for the word "truth", and mine does not. My statement is not "baloney", it is in fact an investigation of what is the most meaningful way to define truth. I say that we first choose the value we are looking for, and then what "truth is" follows from that. There is simply no absolute way to define truth, you are more than welcome to try. But if you do, please be sure you can argue why your definition either includes, or should not be asked to apply to, Michelangelo seeking some artistic truth as he sculpts, or Picasso trying to establish some truth about forms as he paints, or Bach trying to establish some truth about the power of music as he composes. Do all that, and I will buy that your agument has the teensiest bit of merit. Otherwise, I will conclude it is just the same circular argument I've now seen from a dozen casual thinkers: that truth is defined by what is objectively and repeatably demonstrable, that science is the art of drawing conclusions about what is objectively and repeatably demonstrable, and "therefore" science is the sole and absolute route to truth. Now, let's see how good your logic really is.

It is simply false no matter what anyone believes.

I await your definition of "false", and remember you must not refer to any particular methodology for establishing falseness-- I already know that methodologies may be chosen to do this, indeed that is my entire point.

"...if all truths are indeed epistemologically relative and have no universal application, then the proposition that all truths are epistemologically relative is itself relative and has no universal application, and we have no reason to accept it." - Robin Fox

I am well aware of the obvious self-contradiction of postmodernism, which is why I do not ascribe to it in the least. Let me summarize for you instead the point I've made so many times already:

There is simply no way to separate a truth from the means that was used to arrive at it. We choose our means, and then we infer our truths.

This is not where postmodernism goes wrong, it goes wrong in failing to recognize the value in truths that are established by certain methodologies. Postmodernism uses the weak thinking that if there is no absolute truth, then the whole concept is useless, when in fact the concept is staggeringly useful-- within the context of the value associated with the methodology with which that truth is inextricably connected. This is precisely what my "baloney" was saying, perhaps you just heard it wrong. Indeed, I really cannot find any way to even imagine how we can talk about truth independently from choosing a method for establishing it, and I find it simply bad logic to think that a method can be so sublime that it establishes truth in a way that transcends that very method. To think that it could-- now that's epistemogical baloney!
* * *

"A visitor to Niels Bohr's country cottage asked him about a horseshoe nailed above the front door. 'Surely, Professor Bohr, you do not really believe that a horseshoe over the entrance to a home brings good luck?' 'No,' answered Bohr, 'I certainly do not believe in this supersition. But you know,' he added, 'they say it brings luck even if you don't believe in it.'"

"Quantum theory is like Bohr's horseshoe: it works no matter what a person believes."

Now, surely you are a deep enough thinker to recognize that this entire tale hinges on the meaning of the word "works", are you not? When a scientists says quantum theory "works", what she means is that quantum theory can be used to understand the results of experiment. If she goes on to conclude that this is what is "really happening" in some absolute sense of "truth", then she is a pretty poor student of both scientific history and scientific epistemology.