does life have meaning? does science have meaning?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-07-2013, 07:40 AM
RE: does life have meaning? does science have meaning?
(27-07-2013 02:33 AM)I and I Wrote:  You have to be stupid to see me counter a claim, then try to act like I support a claim.

Elegant atheist claimed that we are just molecules. I did not make that claim.

Nope, try again. YOU did not personally make that claim. I did not say that you, personally, espoused it.

You raised that claim - you said that "science" makes it. This was in your OP, which I quoted.

(07-07-2013 02:04 AM)I and I Wrote:  Science today ... says that life is just a collection of molecules

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2013, 09:10 AM (This post was last modified: 27-07-2013 09:18 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: does life have meaning? does science have meaning?
(25-07-2013 05:06 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(24-07-2013 07:55 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Let me read that back to you:
1. Science is engaged in a search for facts/truths/valid hypotheses that are not currently known
2. Ultimate truth, if it in any sense exists is a fact/truth/valid hypothesis not currently known
Therefore
3. Science is engaged in a search for ultimate truth

and
1. Anyone engaged in a search for ultimate truth is shit
2. Science is engaged in a search for ultimate truth
Therefore
3. All scientists are shit

Is that a valid synthesis of your reasoning?... I think you'll find a few flaws as I have synthesised it above... for example:
* Searching for new valid hypotheses is a valid search independent of any search for "ultimate truth". For example, searching for knowledge about how to cure diseases would be considered by most to be a valid cause.
* Whatever your "ultimate truth" might be, I don't understand the equivalence between a search for your truth and being a piece of shit. You'll have to explain that one to me.

You questioned my phrase as to what I mean by ultimate truth, cool, semantics is fun. Hey you used the word "valid" what do you mean by valid?
[1] Do you want to play semantics or discuss things? Yes or no.
You don't like the word "truth". Cool I will call it a tampon instead of truth, whatever word you want to use, feel free to use it.
[2] Scientists look for tampons and discover better tampons than the previous tampons. Yes or no
[3] If a person is looking for better tampons than the tampons before then this act is based on the idea that there is a better tampon out there to be discovered.
Yes or no
[4] The act of science is based on the idea that there are better tampons than the currently known tampons, hence the curiosity for and search for better tampons. Yes or no
[5] Yet science in theory is about empirical evidence, while at the same time basing its empirical research on non empirical idealistic notions of a better tampon.
Yes or no
Unless you believe scientist look for better tampons and don't believe there are better tampons out there?

The definition of what you are talking about here seems deeply important to the point you are making here. It seems important to be clear, because the way I read your argument is this:
* A person engaging in the act of finding out what is actually true (ie is developing a model of the universe that corresponds to the actual universe) using the best method known for doing so is automatically a piece of shit.
Usually a person who engages in such a search is treated as at least a normal human being, if not an exceptional human being. It seems valid to encourage this activity based on our experience that every year the method has continued to be successfully applied to developing models that not only correspond to the actual universe, but in doing so allow us to engineer solutions to pressing (and sometimes not so pressing) problems of our species. You seem to be saying that making the fundamental discoveries that allow us to alleviate suffering makes a person a piece of shit. That's an incongruous idea. I'm struggling to put your argument supporting this assertion in a coherent way.

Let's address your questionnaire and see if this helps to clarify:
[1] Yes. I would like to see coherent arguments and counter-arguments being made. That is why when an argument is being made that isn't coherent I'm keen to see that argument clarified so that it be clearly understood and argued for or against reasonably without misunderstanding.
[2] Yes. Scientists propose new hypotheses to test, and propose new tests for existing hypotheses. They do this with the intent of finding flaws in current scientific knowledge and resolving those flaws, ultimately to add to the body of scientific knowledge by clarifying existing knowledge with additional detail or replacing false information with true information. These activities have a demonstrated track record in establishing and correcting the body of knowledge which itself has an excellent track record for enabling engineering activities to take place to resolve various human problems.
[3] Yes. Scientists are always looking for that new piece of information to add to the jigsaw puzzle. There is a core body of knowledge that doesn't get overturned very often, and when it does it makes the people involved famous... but most scientists are working in their particular branches, filling out new information, asking new questions, and recording new answers.
[4] Yes. New small tampons are certainly out there, and maybe once in a generation or once in a century a really big tampon will be discovered... which is to say has been discovered and we can reasonably extrapolate will continue to be discovered.
[5] No, there's a disconnect here so I'll expand below.

Ok, so extracting from your questionnaire the key logical step that we're not on the same page with is [5]. Let me expand it as a syllogism:
1. Science is the process of improving the existing body of knowledge by improving coherence between the existing body of knowledge and the actual universe and by expanding the coverage of the existing body of knowledge to more aspects of the actual universe.
2. There is no empirical reason to expect that the existing body of knowledge is either incoherent with the actual universe or is incomplete with respect to the actual universe
Therefore
3. There is no empirical reason to continue to do science.

This leads I think to your conclusion, as follows:
1. There is no empirical reason to continue to do science.
2. People continue to do science
Therefore
3. Those people are not acting rationally, and are pieces of shit.

The fact is that scientific knowledge has continued to be expanded and improved every year for as long as science has been a coherent identifiable process. We can empirically assess the science that is being done and its impact on the scientific body of knowledge. Further, we can track this progress over time and we can extrapolate into the future. Extrapolation is a standard empirical method, therefore the continuation of science has an empirical basis. Your conclusion would appear to be falsified.

Moreover, people act irrationally all the time. Someone acting irrationally does not justify labelling them as a piece of shit. That would only make sense if you are sure both that the body of scientific knowledge is already perfect and complete and all scientists know this, therefore are acting not irrationally but unethically. Is that what you are actually proposing here?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Hafnof's post
27-07-2013, 09:28 AM
RE: does life have meaning? does science have meaning?
No, science does not 'give meaning to life', just like it doesn't define morality. That is up to the individual, the culture, and the way the current society is.

Bury me with my guns on, so when I reach the other side - I can show him what it feels like to die.
Bury me with my guns on, so when I'm cast out of the sky, I can shoot the devil right between the eyes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2013, 09:44 PM
RE: does life have meaning? does science have meaning?
Steven Hawking once asked, “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”

This is what science can work to find out if possible and along with this discovery process by science lifes meaning may just be found as a byproduct of the main research conducted.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2013, 09:13 AM
RE: does life have meaning? does science have meaning?
So is this where we leave it I&I? Do you want to revise your argument at all, challenge my response, or concede your point?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
06-08-2013, 08:59 AM
RE: does life have meaning? does science have meaning?
I rather have meaning based on reality than on some makebelieve skydaddy who uses us as playthings. Reality offers real provable answers. Religion offers a lie to make little children feel better. You may as well do drugs, its the samething.

Sent From My NEO x5....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Use of the word "science" undergroundp 16 218 05-07-2014 10:53 AM
Last Post: Revenant77x
  Is science in the United States getting worst? Metazoa Zeke 7 148 04-07-2014 08:51 PM
Last Post: Rinpoche
  What Science Course(s) Should I Go Into? Cyvas 27 395 03-07-2014 06:52 PM
Last Post: natachan
  Youtube and Science vs. Creationism cre8ivmind 5 125 17-06-2014 01:59 PM
Last Post: dancefortwo
  Do we sometimes go too far in Science? JDog554 51 518 04-06-2014 07:26 PM
Last Post: Shadow Fox
  The elegant nature of science TheBeardedDude 569 32,698 31-05-2014 10:36 PM
Last Post: CindysRain
  Feline Science - by Full Circle Full Circle 23 1,025 14-05-2014 04:49 PM
Last Post: Bows and Arrows
Forum Jump: