Religion & Spirituality - What...
ChatterBank1 min ago
Is There Something Beyond?
I am a vet. Yesterday I had the horrible duty of putting down my own pet. Over the deacades of my workI have searched for the answer to my question by reading many scientific texts beyond my own specialisation. Most of them affirm the positive steps we humans have made in our understanding of the (at the quantum level) somewhat shaky understanding of reality.
It seems to come down to spacetime and the new discoveries of cosmic inflation after the big bang.
When I dug her grave and planted a rose tree over her corpse I asked myself what do we really know, except perhaps an ever-expanding awareness of our ignorance.
It seems to come down to spacetime and the new discoveries of cosmic inflation after the big bang.
When I dug her grave and planted a rose tree over her corpse I asked myself what do we really know, except perhaps an ever-expanding awareness of our ignorance.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Colmc54. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
^that was to Divebuddy.
Jim, scientists don’t necessarily sneer at other people, but you appear to. Because you are keen to publicise your achievements people gain the mistaken impression that you speak with some authority on every subject relating to any area of science, but you don’t – and in this instance you most certainly don’t. You are no more expert in this area than anyone else, and I really think that if you are intent on joining in these ‘wonder if’ discussions you need to take a good look at what you’re saying and acknowledge that.
Jim, scientists don’t necessarily sneer at other people, but you appear to. Because you are keen to publicise your achievements people gain the mistaken impression that you speak with some authority on every subject relating to any area of science, but you don’t – and in this instance you most certainly don’t. You are no more expert in this area than anyone else, and I really think that if you are intent on joining in these ‘wonder if’ discussions you need to take a good look at what you’re saying and acknowledge that.
As I asked the question can I also ask that we don't make things so personal.
I have cleared away the meconium from a dead puppy I delivered by c section and stuck it's mouth in mine and breathed my oxygen gently into it's collapsed lungs. I have seen the life come into it's little body just as I, years later, was the one who saw, when it was a sad necessity to perform euthanasia, watch that life I gave him leave his body.
As I am an expert on life sadly I also, due to the oath we all swear to prevent unnecessary suffering in animals, am an expert on death too.
If the great scientists can indulge their whimsy in their 'popular science' cash cows then let me indulge myself also.
Sometimes it seemed to me that the vertebrate brain seems to be reaching out to grasp something when it comes to life and loses that grip at the time of death. Yes there are perfectly good and irrefutable reasons to explain the phenomena I have witnessed but the only scientific explanation for consciousness is that it is an emergent phenomenon that somehow arises from the complexity of the brain's structure and function.
Research into the workings of the brain is ongoing. You should all know about the 'brainbow' research by now I'm sure. But yet there is still a part of me that wonders if the brain might be a receptacle for consciousness rather than it's generator.
We'll probably never know, as per the constraints of the uncertainty principle. Maybe human existence is just an over-elaborate branch of the carbon cycle my cat has now sadly rejoined.
Let's just enjoy these mysteries as friends and fellow travellers while we can. There are many ways to die but I strongly suggest that believing something that others do not should not be one of them. I'm sure we can all agree about that.
I have cleared away the meconium from a dead puppy I delivered by c section and stuck it's mouth in mine and breathed my oxygen gently into it's collapsed lungs. I have seen the life come into it's little body just as I, years later, was the one who saw, when it was a sad necessity to perform euthanasia, watch that life I gave him leave his body.
As I am an expert on life sadly I also, due to the oath we all swear to prevent unnecessary suffering in animals, am an expert on death too.
If the great scientists can indulge their whimsy in their 'popular science' cash cows then let me indulge myself also.
Sometimes it seemed to me that the vertebrate brain seems to be reaching out to grasp something when it comes to life and loses that grip at the time of death. Yes there are perfectly good and irrefutable reasons to explain the phenomena I have witnessed but the only scientific explanation for consciousness is that it is an emergent phenomenon that somehow arises from the complexity of the brain's structure and function.
Research into the workings of the brain is ongoing. You should all know about the 'brainbow' research by now I'm sure. But yet there is still a part of me that wonders if the brain might be a receptacle for consciousness rather than it's generator.
We'll probably never know, as per the constraints of the uncertainty principle. Maybe human existence is just an over-elaborate branch of the carbon cycle my cat has now sadly rejoined.
Let's just enjoy these mysteries as friends and fellow travellers while we can. There are many ways to die but I strongly suggest that believing something that others do not should not be one of them. I'm sure we can all agree about that.
naomi; If, as I posted yesterday (13:25), there could be another universe one millimetre away (a serious proposal), and if all the atomic solid matter taken from every human being on the planet could fit into a match-box (a fact), then we inhabit a very strange world. As Colmc said above, in each century we have believed we have got most things sorted out only to find we haven't at all. Maybe we've barely started!
Incidentally, nothing thrown up by science contradicts two and a half thousand years of Buddhist thought. :0)
Incidentally, nothing thrown up by science contradicts two and a half thousand years of Buddhist thought. :0)
I really don't sneer at other people, whether I appear to or not. As to my authority, or otherwise, does it matter? I am right, or not. Let people judge what I say, not who is saying it. And while we're at it, it seems presumptuous of you to state that I "most certainly don't" have any authority on this subject, let alone irrelevant -- I could indeed have no authority at all, but still be right (or have loads that you don't know about, but be wrong anyway).
It was a mistake to "publicise my achievements", granted. I only did so initially after it seemed like you'd done the same -- I forget the thread that it emerged, but you did make some point about having had "five years of education in a good school", but I can't remember the context exactly, so maybe I've misremembered. Regardless, I'll try not to mention it again because I shouldn't have in the first place and I do so hate appeals to education or authority in an argument. They're utterly irrelevant: when Lord Kelvin said "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible", who at the time had more authority or education than he? Probably no-one, really -- but he was still wrong.
It comes down in the end to probability. In my assessment, and most other people's, the probability that in the future such ideas as this will turn out to be "real" after all is low. That is an honest assessment, one I honestly think to be the case. I won't say it's no chance at all. I don't think you can say it's a 100% chance either (which was implied by "no doubt whatsoever"). While we have surely lots still to learn about the Universe -- it would be amazing if we were "almost finished" and I'd never think that -- equally there are some things we have learned that are going to stay as knowledge for all time (perhaps not as much as I think, perhaps more!).
It would be a boring debate if we all stuck to saying "I don't know" (which is to some extent true, yes) without adding to that. There are shades of not knowing, and it's worth distinguishing between them.
It was a mistake to "publicise my achievements", granted. I only did so initially after it seemed like you'd done the same -- I forget the thread that it emerged, but you did make some point about having had "five years of education in a good school", but I can't remember the context exactly, so maybe I've misremembered. Regardless, I'll try not to mention it again because I shouldn't have in the first place and I do so hate appeals to education or authority in an argument. They're utterly irrelevant: when Lord Kelvin said "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible", who at the time had more authority or education than he? Probably no-one, really -- but he was still wrong.
It comes down in the end to probability. In my assessment, and most other people's, the probability that in the future such ideas as this will turn out to be "real" after all is low. That is an honest assessment, one I honestly think to be the case. I won't say it's no chance at all. I don't think you can say it's a 100% chance either (which was implied by "no doubt whatsoever"). While we have surely lots still to learn about the Universe -- it would be amazing if we were "almost finished" and I'd never think that -- equally there are some things we have learned that are going to stay as knowledge for all time (perhaps not as much as I think, perhaps more!).
It would be a boring debate if we all stuck to saying "I don't know" (which is to some extent true, yes) without adding to that. There are shades of not knowing, and it's worth distinguishing between them.
Jim; two quotes from your posts:
It comes down in the end to probability. In my assessment, and most other people's, the probability that in the future such ideas as this will turn out to be "real" after all is low.
when Lord Kelvin said "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible", who at the time had more authority or education than he? Probably no-one, really -- but he was still wrong.
Going back to a previous thread and your comment (excuse me if I paraphrase) that you would be unlikely to work on projects which you consider would not have a positive outcome, one has to extrapolate therefore, that you would have supported Lord Kelvin's argument and not, had the opportunity arisen, been involved as a scientist in any such experiments?
You would have been proved very wrong. And may be in the case of the OP.
Or, to take Khandros argument, there is a parallel universe where Kelvin was correct and were all talking rubbish because every eventuality is played out.
It comes down in the end to probability. In my assessment, and most other people's, the probability that in the future such ideas as this will turn out to be "real" after all is low.
when Lord Kelvin said "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible", who at the time had more authority or education than he? Probably no-one, really -- but he was still wrong.
Going back to a previous thread and your comment (excuse me if I paraphrase) that you would be unlikely to work on projects which you consider would not have a positive outcome, one has to extrapolate therefore, that you would have supported Lord Kelvin's argument and not, had the opportunity arisen, been involved as a scientist in any such experiments?
You would have been proved very wrong. And may be in the case of the OP.
Or, to take Khandros argument, there is a parallel universe where Kelvin was correct and were all talking rubbish because every eventuality is played out.
Khandro, it’s a mystery. ;o)
Jim, //It was a mistake to "publicise my achievements", granted. I only did so initially after it seemed like you'd done the same//
That really isn’t true – and you know it. You had a whole thread here of people congratulating you on your newly acquired qualification long before the discussion you’re talking about. You have ‘misremembered’ – and this is the second time you’ve ‘misremembered’ and the second time I’ve been obliged to correct you, which leads me to gain the impression that you don’t actually listen to anything that anyone else says. I’ve never talked about my ‘achievements’ – and I didn’t say I’d had 5 years at a good school. All I’ve ever said is that I attended an excellent grammar school and abandoned the sciences - chemistry, physics, and biology - before A-level - which I did.
This from your post at 23:38 Thu 26th Jun //One or two people have said to me, or to my friends, something along the lines of "oh you must think I'm stupid all the time"……//
There’s a pattern forming here. I rest my case.
Jim, //It was a mistake to "publicise my achievements", granted. I only did so initially after it seemed like you'd done the same//
That really isn’t true – and you know it. You had a whole thread here of people congratulating you on your newly acquired qualification long before the discussion you’re talking about. You have ‘misremembered’ – and this is the second time you’ve ‘misremembered’ and the second time I’ve been obliged to correct you, which leads me to gain the impression that you don’t actually listen to anything that anyone else says. I’ve never talked about my ‘achievements’ – and I didn’t say I’d had 5 years at a good school. All I’ve ever said is that I attended an excellent grammar school and abandoned the sciences - chemistry, physics, and biology - before A-level - which I did.
This from your post at 23:38 Thu 26th Jun //One or two people have said to me, or to my friends, something along the lines of "oh you must think I'm stupid all the time"……//
There’s a pattern forming here. I rest my case.
Hmm. I'd say that was "celebrating" rather than "publicising". Why shouldn't I be at least a little proud?
No pattern, by the way, since when it does happen it's almost before I've uttered a word beyond "so what do you do?" "Oh, I'm a physicist." "Where'd you study?" "Cambridge." "Wow you must think I'm thick then" (this is the actual conversation... if you think that I've been judged fairly based on those two answers then I'd be frankly amazed. People have strange prejudices sometimes...)
Let me just make a couple of points: firstly, you do misrepresent what I say, mean, and think quite a few times yourself, so it's a bit rich of you to complain about it yourself. You said I [appear to] sneer at others -- I don't, so you've grabbed hold of the wrong end of the stick. You keep going on about how I (or in general scientists) think of others as deluded or lying -- they (and I) don't.
Secondly, in another thread you said "this isn't about you [jim360]." So why does it always seem that you (and, to some extent, ZM) seem so keen to talk only about me? How I would have acted, how I think, how I present my views? I don't see how you can really deny this -- you've even managed (twice) to get into arguments about my character -- the character of someone you've never met -- with other people you've most likely never met (and, even if you might have, it's not exactly impressive).
Stop criticising me personally -- whatever your intentions are, just stop. After all, it's not about me... and Colm's even asked us not to make it personal. I apologise then for this post but I hope he can appreciate that I'm trying to address accusations about my character that are laid at my door by others.
* * * * *
ZM, in answer to your question, I don't know what I'd have done, but I don't expect that it would have mattered all that much. Even at the time, more was going on than just the development of aeroplanes, so maybe I'd have missed that boat but managed to catch another one? Or perhaps I would have missed the opportunity. It's entirely hypothetical and rather beside the point.
I did think that it raised something interesting and that's partly why I've come back to the thread since I've been thinking about it all day.
// 'when Lord Kelvin said "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible", who at the time had more authority or education than he? Probably no-one, really -- but he was still wrong.'
... [would you] have supported Lord Kelvin's argument and not, had the opportunity arisen, been involved as a scientist in any such experiments?
You would have been proved very wrong. //
In the first place let me say that I think that Kelvin was being a berk and just utterly wrong. On the other hand I think this is down to the word "impossible". in his quote. Supposing he'd said "unlikely" instead -- would he still have been proved wrong then? I'm not so sure he would have been.
I said earlier that this came down to probability and that it is, I think, unlikely that there is "something beyond", at least in the particular sense of a place where the once-dead still live on somehow. This statement is, I think, still correct even if such a beyond was eventually discovered, because I don't think it's all that different from saying "I don't expect anyone to get 100 straight heads in a row from a fair coin toss", and then watching someone manage it in amazement. Whenever something like that happens, against the odds, and you said that it was against the odds, people have a tendency to say "you were wrong!" with a smug expression on their faces (those jammy tinkers...), but you weren't wrong, really, were you? It was unlikely. Sometimes even the unlikely can happen, though. On the other hand, more often than not it doesn't, which is why it was unlikely.
For this case, the argument ought to be over whether it really is unlikely or not.
I've run out of space now, sadly... might continue in a second post.
No pattern, by the way, since when it does happen it's almost before I've uttered a word beyond "so what do you do?" "Oh, I'm a physicist." "Where'd you study?" "Cambridge." "Wow you must think I'm thick then" (this is the actual conversation... if you think that I've been judged fairly based on those two answers then I'd be frankly amazed. People have strange prejudices sometimes...)
Let me just make a couple of points: firstly, you do misrepresent what I say, mean, and think quite a few times yourself, so it's a bit rich of you to complain about it yourself. You said I [appear to] sneer at others -- I don't, so you've grabbed hold of the wrong end of the stick. You keep going on about how I (or in general scientists) think of others as deluded or lying -- they (and I) don't.
Secondly, in another thread you said "this isn't about you [jim360]." So why does it always seem that you (and, to some extent, ZM) seem so keen to talk only about me? How I would have acted, how I think, how I present my views? I don't see how you can really deny this -- you've even managed (twice) to get into arguments about my character -- the character of someone you've never met -- with other people you've most likely never met (and, even if you might have, it's not exactly impressive).
Stop criticising me personally -- whatever your intentions are, just stop. After all, it's not about me... and Colm's even asked us not to make it personal. I apologise then for this post but I hope he can appreciate that I'm trying to address accusations about my character that are laid at my door by others.
* * * * *
ZM, in answer to your question, I don't know what I'd have done, but I don't expect that it would have mattered all that much. Even at the time, more was going on than just the development of aeroplanes, so maybe I'd have missed that boat but managed to catch another one? Or perhaps I would have missed the opportunity. It's entirely hypothetical and rather beside the point.
I did think that it raised something interesting and that's partly why I've come back to the thread since I've been thinking about it all day.
// 'when Lord Kelvin said "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible", who at the time had more authority or education than he? Probably no-one, really -- but he was still wrong.'
... [would you] have supported Lord Kelvin's argument and not, had the opportunity arisen, been involved as a scientist in any such experiments?
You would have been proved very wrong. //
In the first place let me say that I think that Kelvin was being a berk and just utterly wrong. On the other hand I think this is down to the word "impossible". in his quote. Supposing he'd said "unlikely" instead -- would he still have been proved wrong then? I'm not so sure he would have been.
I said earlier that this came down to probability and that it is, I think, unlikely that there is "something beyond", at least in the particular sense of a place where the once-dead still live on somehow. This statement is, I think, still correct even if such a beyond was eventually discovered, because I don't think it's all that different from saying "I don't expect anyone to get 100 straight heads in a row from a fair coin toss", and then watching someone manage it in amazement. Whenever something like that happens, against the odds, and you said that it was against the odds, people have a tendency to say "you were wrong!" with a smug expression on their faces (those jammy tinkers...), but you weren't wrong, really, were you? It was unlikely. Sometimes even the unlikely can happen, though. On the other hand, more often than not it doesn't, which is why it was unlikely.
For this case, the argument ought to be over whether it really is unlikely or not.
I've run out of space now, sadly... might continue in a second post.
So, is it unlikely? Yes, I think so (No, I don't know so). In the first place, I've had no personal experience of this sort of thing myself. Well, if personal experience is a powerful sway for some, the lack of it ought to be as well. I don't think this is my "fault" somehow, for being close-minded -- from what I hear about these sorts of experiences, most of the time you weren't expecting them, they just seemed to happen. That's about right, isn't it?
Secondly, I've said before that I don't take personal experience that seriously anyway, although by this what I mean isn't that I think "oh you're just lying" but that the sceptical position means that you can't take it as enough to change your views. I don't ignore these strange stories, I do think about them, I don't dismiss them. If I have the time or the chance I might try to read more into the topic. So these personal experiences are thought-provoking. But I don't think it's unreasonable that I don't usually change my opinions based on them. If I related a personal experience on this site you might not be able to tell if it was indeed fictional or not, so it's doubly the case over the internet that you shouldn't take what's said at face value.
Once or twice I've asked questions about experiences on this site but -- and I'm not alone in being on the receiving end of this -- sometimes those questions are taken as an attack rather than curiosity. I think people trust what they have seen to the extent that anyone questioning it can be taken in the wrong way, which is perhaps where the "lying or deluded" idea comes from. This is a shame, as it does stop the discussion far more than asking the questions (and, yes, pointing out the risks in trusting what our senses tell us).
So with no personal experiences of my own, and the personal experiences of others being not enough to change my views by themselves, what's left is the evidence gathered from years of searching. Mainstream scientists perhaps have dismissed some of these a bit too easily, and there is always the risk of bias against the discovery anyway, and for that reason I can't really quantify how unlikely I think this is beyond "very". The key that sways it most for me is that there are several research institutes dedicated to the search for these sort of phenomena. That these people are biased towards such discoveries, but have still found little or nothing, is surely compelling evidence for the assessment of "[very] unlikely".
What does the future hold? I don't know, beyond thinking that it will still be unlikely for the current position to be overturned. But there are certain holes in my argument. Most obviously I can't claim to be aware of all the evidence for and against -- if you are aware of a relevant study (or studies) that exists today that ought to be taken seriously, I'd like to see it. Or perhaps at some point I too have a personal experience that no amount of attempts to rationalise it as a trick of the mind or the like will be able to explain away. If, for example, the socks on the airer nearby spontaneously tidied themselves away I'd very probably abandon this train of argument right now.
There are anyway very tight limits to what we can say about the future. Because of that, it seems odd to have an argument based on that. I "can't know", I am told, that we won't develop the ability to detect this after all. This should work the other way, surely? Others "can't know" that this will definitely happen. Perhaps even if it could have happened and there was a beyond but we killed ourselves before that could have happened -- or indeed perhaps we are right about it now and it is not only unlikely but impossible. Arguments about the future can swing both ways. So we can only go on the present -- or, failing that, not have the argument at all.
Running out of space again...
Secondly, I've said before that I don't take personal experience that seriously anyway, although by this what I mean isn't that I think "oh you're just lying" but that the sceptical position means that you can't take it as enough to change your views. I don't ignore these strange stories, I do think about them, I don't dismiss them. If I have the time or the chance I might try to read more into the topic. So these personal experiences are thought-provoking. But I don't think it's unreasonable that I don't usually change my opinions based on them. If I related a personal experience on this site you might not be able to tell if it was indeed fictional or not, so it's doubly the case over the internet that you shouldn't take what's said at face value.
Once or twice I've asked questions about experiences on this site but -- and I'm not alone in being on the receiving end of this -- sometimes those questions are taken as an attack rather than curiosity. I think people trust what they have seen to the extent that anyone questioning it can be taken in the wrong way, which is perhaps where the "lying or deluded" idea comes from. This is a shame, as it does stop the discussion far more than asking the questions (and, yes, pointing out the risks in trusting what our senses tell us).
So with no personal experiences of my own, and the personal experiences of others being not enough to change my views by themselves, what's left is the evidence gathered from years of searching. Mainstream scientists perhaps have dismissed some of these a bit too easily, and there is always the risk of bias against the discovery anyway, and for that reason I can't really quantify how unlikely I think this is beyond "very". The key that sways it most for me is that there are several research institutes dedicated to the search for these sort of phenomena. That these people are biased towards such discoveries, but have still found little or nothing, is surely compelling evidence for the assessment of "[very] unlikely".
What does the future hold? I don't know, beyond thinking that it will still be unlikely for the current position to be overturned. But there are certain holes in my argument. Most obviously I can't claim to be aware of all the evidence for and against -- if you are aware of a relevant study (or studies) that exists today that ought to be taken seriously, I'd like to see it. Or perhaps at some point I too have a personal experience that no amount of attempts to rationalise it as a trick of the mind or the like will be able to explain away. If, for example, the socks on the airer nearby spontaneously tidied themselves away I'd very probably abandon this train of argument right now.
There are anyway very tight limits to what we can say about the future. Because of that, it seems odd to have an argument based on that. I "can't know", I am told, that we won't develop the ability to detect this after all. This should work the other way, surely? Others "can't know" that this will definitely happen. Perhaps even if it could have happened and there was a beyond but we killed ourselves before that could have happened -- or indeed perhaps we are right about it now and it is not only unlikely but impossible. Arguments about the future can swing both ways. So we can only go on the present -- or, failing that, not have the argument at all.
Running out of space again...
Why is arguing based on the present so unreasonable, apparently, anyway? Historically Scientists have been shown to be wrong -- and even arrogant, blind, misguided, foolish (human, in other words) -- and so based on that blind acceptance of what they say at any given moment is exactly that, blind. (I hope that I'm not being blind myself. I try not to be. When it matters to me I try to read into it more deeply than just the odd snappy headline. At any rate the point is that I am aware of the risk.)
But even while Scientists are wrong sometimes, it seems a mistake to assume that present knowledge isn't worth taking seriously in the expectation that future knowledge will emerge that shows the old knowledge to be utterly wrong. And I was talking about probabilities anyway rather than certainties in this case. Expecting things to change in the future might be like backing the clear 3000-1 outsider. Sometimes that bet will work, often it won't.
Sometimes Science gets it wrong, anyway, but then sometimes it's got it right, at least for the moment. These cases seem to receive rather less attention, but are just as important because that's why the field still exists -- and will continue to evolve by improving on the old ideas, replacing them as needed, etc. etc. I've said this bit before so I won't dwell on it. In general, modern Science is the "safer bet" usually.
Something I don't think I have said before, but seems worth mentioning. If you were to think that our current views will change -- to, say, the realisation that there is a beyond -- is there not also a possibility that it will change back after that? There's a precedent for that in Science too, although it's rarer. The most obvious that springs to mind would be the view of the natural history of the World that alternated between two wildly opposing views (Neptunism and Plutonism), which then both evolved into or were superseded by two other schools of thought (Uniformitarianism and Catastrophism), before one finally won over. And then after all the modern view is a sort of fusion of the two. At any rate, the point is that even making the discovery of ghosts of some sort, or of a beyond, might not be the end of the story either!
What that boils down to is that I can't ever see how anyone can take an "appeal to the Future" seriously as an argument. At best it's a double-edged sword, and I'm not even sure it's that sharp. Nor does it even refute the argument in this case, since saying that this idea is unlikely already implicitly contains the idea that future discoveries/ technologies/ learning might emerge to show that it was not impossible after all. This goes against the notion that "Scientists don't take into account the idea that etc. etc." -- they do, but it's just not always thought likely.
Just as a side note: some things really are impossible and will never change. Those things are mathematical truths that transcend the real world. We can debate the nature of mathematical proof elsewhere, but if something is excluded by mathematical truth then it is excluded for all time. One instant consequence of this mathematical truth, by the way, is that we can't know everything and never ever will be able to (for example, due to the three-body problem that has no general solution so we can't describe completely any system involving more than two things -- so reality is inherently unknowable). This is why I'm so reluctant to "admit" I "don't know". In most cases it goes without saying. What is interesting is how badly we don't know. Science is far more about quantifying the uncertainty than anything else.
I think that I've said all I want to say, other than to reiterate a request: Naomi, whatever you think about me personally, and about how I express myself, please keep it to yourself from now on. Criticisms of what I say: "I think you are overlooking this" are natural debate and I don't want to stifle that; personal comments aren't. Thank you.
But even while Scientists are wrong sometimes, it seems a mistake to assume that present knowledge isn't worth taking seriously in the expectation that future knowledge will emerge that shows the old knowledge to be utterly wrong. And I was talking about probabilities anyway rather than certainties in this case. Expecting things to change in the future might be like backing the clear 3000-1 outsider. Sometimes that bet will work, often it won't.
Sometimes Science gets it wrong, anyway, but then sometimes it's got it right, at least for the moment. These cases seem to receive rather less attention, but are just as important because that's why the field still exists -- and will continue to evolve by improving on the old ideas, replacing them as needed, etc. etc. I've said this bit before so I won't dwell on it. In general, modern Science is the "safer bet" usually.
Something I don't think I have said before, but seems worth mentioning. If you were to think that our current views will change -- to, say, the realisation that there is a beyond -- is there not also a possibility that it will change back after that? There's a precedent for that in Science too, although it's rarer. The most obvious that springs to mind would be the view of the natural history of the World that alternated between two wildly opposing views (Neptunism and Plutonism), which then both evolved into or were superseded by two other schools of thought (Uniformitarianism and Catastrophism), before one finally won over. And then after all the modern view is a sort of fusion of the two. At any rate, the point is that even making the discovery of ghosts of some sort, or of a beyond, might not be the end of the story either!
What that boils down to is that I can't ever see how anyone can take an "appeal to the Future" seriously as an argument. At best it's a double-edged sword, and I'm not even sure it's that sharp. Nor does it even refute the argument in this case, since saying that this idea is unlikely already implicitly contains the idea that future discoveries/ technologies/ learning might emerge to show that it was not impossible after all. This goes against the notion that "Scientists don't take into account the idea that etc. etc." -- they do, but it's just not always thought likely.
Just as a side note: some things really are impossible and will never change. Those things are mathematical truths that transcend the real world. We can debate the nature of mathematical proof elsewhere, but if something is excluded by mathematical truth then it is excluded for all time. One instant consequence of this mathematical truth, by the way, is that we can't know everything and never ever will be able to (for example, due to the three-body problem that has no general solution so we can't describe completely any system involving more than two things -- so reality is inherently unknowable). This is why I'm so reluctant to "admit" I "don't know". In most cases it goes without saying. What is interesting is how badly we don't know. Science is far more about quantifying the uncertainty than anything else.
I think that I've said all I want to say, other than to reiterate a request: Naomi, whatever you think about me personally, and about how I express myself, please keep it to yourself from now on. Criticisms of what I say: "I think you are overlooking this" are natural debate and I don't want to stifle that; personal comments aren't. Thank you.
Actually there was one other thing I can add. Returning to Lord Kelvin's example again:
"Heavier-than-air-flying machines are impossible."
It turns out that this is actually a bit of a misquote, apparently. The full quote is:
"... I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of."
My italics. To really evaluate this we'd need to know what trials he was speaking of. If it turned out that they failed, even if other trials did not (obviously), then was he after all so wrong as we've been led to believe? I suppose the lesson here is that just quoting other people carries the risk that they have been misquoted, or that the quote has been misunderstood.
Mind you, he also said that Vectors (now the cornerstone of much of modern mathematical techniques in Science) are "usless... and have never been of the slightest use to any creature," so the picture of an arrogant man still holds true, and it is true that another Scientist at the turn of the nineteenth Century talked of "no more fundamental discoveries to be made [in Physics.]", so the overall point that some Scientists are arrogant morons is still fair. But I'd hope to encourage anyone to rely less on the quotes and more on what lay behind them. The experiments, the data, the analysis, the equations, the actual Scientific models. Even if these turn out to be [utterly] wrong, they're worth studying and understanding anyway, because it might be in knowing why they are wrong that someone discovers what is the actually right answer.
As usual I've sort of written this as I go along and haven't really checked back so I hope this and the preceding three posts make sense.
"Heavier-than-air-flying machines are impossible."
It turns out that this is actually a bit of a misquote, apparently. The full quote is:
"... I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of."
My italics. To really evaluate this we'd need to know what trials he was speaking of. If it turned out that they failed, even if other trials did not (obviously), then was he after all so wrong as we've been led to believe? I suppose the lesson here is that just quoting other people carries the risk that they have been misquoted, or that the quote has been misunderstood.
Mind you, he also said that Vectors (now the cornerstone of much of modern mathematical techniques in Science) are "usless... and have never been of the slightest use to any creature," so the picture of an arrogant man still holds true, and it is true that another Scientist at the turn of the nineteenth Century talked of "no more fundamental discoveries to be made [in Physics.]", so the overall point that some Scientists are arrogant morons is still fair. But I'd hope to encourage anyone to rely less on the quotes and more on what lay behind them. The experiments, the data, the analysis, the equations, the actual Scientific models. Even if these turn out to be [utterly] wrong, they're worth studying and understanding anyway, because it might be in knowing why they are wrong that someone discovers what is the actually right answer.
As usual I've sort of written this as I go along and haven't really checked back so I hope this and the preceding three posts make sense.
colmc; In Buddhism 'Rebirth' isn't quite the same as the western notion of reincarnation, it is said that there is no equivalent word for it in English. It's a vast subject and easily misunderstood, with differing degrees of emphasis throughout the Buddhist canon. You can find a simplified outline of it here;
http://
http://
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles24 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles27 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles35 mins ago
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|