Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
Morality is as subject to scientific scrutiny as anything else, given that it is an evolved trait. I find the partitioning of our experience into 'science' and 'other' strange. Science is a methodology that can be applied to anything. That it hasnt yet with regards to a given phenomenon doesnt support a prediction that its application is impossible.
Back to morality, though - there is a large body of research on its various aspects.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
I was doing field work in SW Kansas for a couple of months earlier this year. One of the nearby farmers was a well witcher. He would stand with me out in a sea of perfectly flat irrigated winter wheat fields, and point out where faults and "rivers of oil" were.
I was up there watching five wells in a row, and we had a fun back and forth. He would predict if an upcoming well would be good or not. He was totally off on the geology, but it was fun to listen to him.
There are a few famous oil fields that were found by witchers or psychics. It is just statistical luck, but it makes for some colorful stories.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
i dont get much outta NDTyson, either. Now Sagan or Attenborough? Thats rare talent.
Well, at least you're on-board with Sagan and Attenborough. Attenborough's Trials of Life (re: winning and losing battles, how life is a contest and how this is reflected in gene pools and phenotypes) and The Secret Life of Plants (re predation, predatory mechanisms shown through time-lapse photog) were classics.
If you haven't seen Tyson's interview with Moyers, PBS, you might see a different side to him.
All great communicators of science and science-based living, they are; something I think the early to mid 20th missed out on. Understandable, though. (Jacob Bronowski was an early pioneer though, a good one, who probably set the stage for Sagan.)
.....
I have to admit that as my life delved deeper into science, my young religious faith took a little hit
Why do you say it like that, though... that you have to admit... as though it's something to be ashamed of or that should be kept secret.
In contrast, because of science, my "young religious faith" took a big hit. HUGE. An existential one. Life and death.
My distance from religion protects me from that kind of thought, but Science has little to do with it.
In contrast, my distance from religion is due mostly if not entirely from science and nature exploration, discovery, investigation. Speaking of grateful, I am so grateful I was raised in science and so grateful that that experience prevented any Abrahamic supernaturalism from infecting me too deeply, so deeply I couldn't excise it.
We can readily see from our resident fundamentalists here - most notably Go-b and Blu - that once this extremely addicting narrative is in the blood (or perhaps better nowadays, in the DNA) for a variety of reasons it's impossible or nearly so to get out.
There but for the Grace of Science Education go I.
.....
Even in today's America, I bet only half the population or less can say they have taken / assimilated the modern triad of physics, chemistry and biology. (Here I mean at least a year's worth of each, not a day's worth off of Wiki.) Insofar as this is true it shows I think at once both the shortcoming and the potential area of improvement.
A science education. It's the source. Change your life. I swear. :)
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
I don't think you have to have a lot of science education to opt out of most religion. All you have to do is have a brain. The very few times in childhood that I went to church with a friend, I could pick holes in the sermons based on my own reading and thoughts. It could be I was only hearing low level sermons. I find that any time an educated religious person writes, they have something worthwhile to say. The Pope, Patriarch, Archbishop of Canterbury, Dalai Lama etc. are no dummies.They are in fact smart enough not to spend their time discussing science, but stick to the human condition which is their specialty.
The church I liked best in those days was Catholic as the service was in Latin and you could have your own thoughts while it was on plus you were surrounded by beautiful art and classical music. Of course I knew nothing about aesthetics or universal archetypes in those days.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
These guys sound exactly like evangelists, HFCS and Base104.
They're doing the exact same thing they are complaining about.
They also compartmentalize everyone into some kind of a box thru their own defect mental speculations and projections.
Extremely narrow minded .......
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
Concerning the teaching of science, the University of Colorado used to have a two semester sequence in the philosophy of science that could be used in place of some of the science requirements. I didn't take it but I had friends who did and it struck me that a course explaining the history of scientific discovery and the methodology and world view of science was more useful to most people in their future lives than memorizing formulas and experiments that were soon forgotten by a non major.
People on this thread have done a great job of explaining scientific method and I have often thought, it's too bad that none of my science teachers ever even tried. It was all straight memorization, even in college.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
They are in fact smart enough not to spend their time discussing science, but stick to the human condition which is their specialty.
That disconnect between science and the so-called "humanities." That's probably the #1 obstacle before us today. Just look at the recent ST thread, top ten book list something like that, look at the influence, how strong it is, from the humanities side of a liberal arts education and how little science is represented therein. It practically screams at you, I know it does to me, and points straight away to the problems - at least it does for this bird of a feather.
You can't squeeze blood from a turnup.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make her drink.
There's no 2nd, 3rd, and 4th planets to emigrate to. Just imagine the possibilities if there were. Damn.
.....
The challenge is this. An actionable, truly worthy science education isn't taught in just a year or two but over an entire childhood / adolescence. That's the crux of the biscuit. And such a decades-long or life-long experience in science and science education would cover it all - the hands-on experimentation and field work, the facts, the methods and reasoning, the history all together multiple times over.
True, it's probably an insurmountable challenge for the majority of most world cultures for the foreseeable future . Another sad fact of the seamy side of life. I wonder how it will turn out. But it won't be science's fault however it does, imo.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
In fairness, the average science major does know more about the humanities than the reverse, though poetry or philosophy are not scientists' favorite subjects either.So how to find a middle ground for the average person? It strikes me that knowing the history of science and being able to name the major scientists of a given era and their discoveries would be a start and yet that is seldom mentioned in history courses. Instead we get endless lists of political leaders and wars.
Likewise, a chemistry course would be much more interesting for a humanities person if we learned the history of chemistry for example, the controversies and how they were resolved, some of the major personalities involved, and future speculations including unanswered questions, why the periodic table is important, not just that it is, and how it relates to interesting questions of cosmology etc.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
A lot of it boils down to simple interest for the subject.
For whatever the subject. In this case it's science we're talking about. Or nature investigation. However one prefers to look at it.
I had a ton of it. Interest for how nature works. Interest for science. I'm glad I did. Though it certainly set me off as an extreme outlier. And not just the times I visited Grandma and Grandpa in the bible belt either.
a chemistry course would be much more interesting for a humanities person if we learned history...
Case in point. Maybe for a humanities person. But not for a person super keen on how nature works at the material and molecular level. A genuine "science type" that is. But it is understandable - if you don't feel the interest, it's hard if not impossible to communicate or to relate.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
If you read the comments correctly in Amazon you will see if you know this stuff he's a watered down mayvadi impersonalist.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
Beauty and knowledge are not two separate things. For example, engineering design and sculpture require, at the meta level, the same processes. The design criteria and objectives may vary, the design rules may differ, but each discipline informs the other. Attention to detail, craftsmanship, design standards, and knowledge of manufacturing processes are the same for both. Both, at some point, establish relationships with human beings - intended and unintended.
I often hear of this dichotomy between the scientific and arts/humanities worlds - usually put forth by those who shy away from one or the other. Many practice both, however (it's quite common for scientists to also be artists, philosophers, poets even!). People who play in 'both' worlds come to quickly realize that the boundary is quite fuzzy - if, in fact, it's there at all.
My Cosmology class in college would have been nonsense without an understanding the history of the discipline - the story of how each theory came out and how it was verified - or debunked, through measurement. An understanding of the history of ideas that led up to each 'breakthrough' opens up the mind to get full value from such events - from relatively to the current impasse with regards to the standard model (such as it is) and quantum theory. After all, cross pollination between 'disciplines' (beg, borrow, steal - reduce, recycle, reuse) is a great way to make breakthroughs and have fun doing it.
Otherwise, we're often left with a layman's misunderstanding and overly general interpretation of what we actually DO know - E = M(C*C) being a prime example here.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 9, 2014 - 09:55am PT
|
Our very own jester, Dingus himself, accused Matt Strassler of "laughable crap."
I'm thinking that poor Dingus wrote Strassler off simply because I suggested looking at his ideas, while poor Dingus dissed one of the leading scientists out there.
Here is the man's qualifications:
About Me
Hi! I’m Matt Strassler, theoretical physicist — currently a visiting scholar at Harvard University, and until recently a full professor at Rutgers University — with over 75 papers on string theory and on particle physics.
I believe deeply that science is one of the world’s great spectator sports, and should be a source of joy and excitement for the public — especially for kids and for kids at heart. But my field of particle physics can be especially hard to follow! And this is such an exciting time, with the Large Hadron Collider (or LHC) exploring all sorts of new territory and having recently discovered the long-sought Higgs particle!
So check out my website, follow me on Twitter or Facebook, and enjoy! Here you’ll find careful consideration of all the developments at the LHC — the real deal, without all the hype, and without all the confusion generated by the press and by scientists with axes to grind. You’ll also find an explanation (to be gradually assembled) of what the LHC is, how it works, and why it was built. And there will also be occasional posts on the nature of science, how it really works (as opposed to what you learn in science class or read in the press,) and its role in history and in modern culture.
Also, in case you’re curious, I went to college at Simon’s Rock (the first “early college.”) I also attended Princeton and got my Ph. D. at Stanford. I’ve worked at the Institute for Advanced Study and been a faculty member at Rutgers, the University of Washington and the University of Pennsylvania. I was also a visiting assistant professor at Harvard.
Dingus might have bitten off a larger chunk than he can handle on this one. But, if Dingus was willing to was willing to put into writing what precisely he finds to be laughable about the professor's work, I can probably get him to respond and get Dingus clean on the issue.
And Tavsh, one's capacity for a subject does IME depend in part on interest, but certain people have a knack and aptitude for math, art, music, spiritual techniques, mind adventures, etc.
JL
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
A history of science course is good for anybody in today's world.
I am a geoscientist, yet I love art. I'm flying to D.C. tomorrow to spend a week with my mother going to museums and visiting the sights. I've visited all of the modern art museums on the east coast.
I've been to the National Museum of Art before, and it doesn't hold a candle to MOMA or the Art Institute of Chicago (the best!), but I will get to see some nice paintings.
My favorite art is the abstract expressionists. The National Museum has one really nice Jackson Pollock. Lavender Mist:
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 9, 2014 - 10:17am PT
|
E=MC(C)
Matter is a thing. Energy is a thing. EveryTHING in the universe is a thing.
Dingus, Strassler is an interesting scientist to me, not a hero. Hero's always fall.
If the above is your assertion and belief, I will have Strassler respond to it. Just making sure before asking him to clear this up for you.
JL
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
The Mayavadi philosophy is "veiled Buddhism."
In other words, the voidist philosophy of Buddha is more or less repeated in the Mayavadi philosophy of impersonalism,
although the Mayavadi philosophy claims to be directed by the Vedic conclusions. Lord Siva, however,
admits that this philosophy is manufactured by him [in his incarnation as Sankaracarya in the age of Kali in order to mislead the atheists.
Sankaracarya rejected Buddha's philosophy, which gives no information concerning the spirit soul.
Buddha's philosophy deals only with the material elements and the dissolution of matter.
Generally they compare the living entities to the bubbles of the ocean, which merge into the ocean; thus the goal of Buddhism is to merge everything into the voidness.
For impersonalists this might be the highest perfection of spiritual existence attainable without individual personality,
but for a personalist to dissolve his individuality would amount to "spiritual suicide".
Impersonalists (mayavadis), who are frustrated by the struggle of material existence,
generally try to kill their identity by merging into the existence of impersonal Brahman.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
DMT: Matter is a thing. Energy is a thing. EveryTHING in the universe is a thing.
Scratch any "thing," and you will find a concept. Every concept is an abstraction. You don't grok a thing; you grok its concept. There are no things, just concepts.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
There are no things, just concepts.
Is this an example of what's assimilated at so-called "liberal arts schools" via "the humanities" when there's so little exposure to hands-on nature investigation via science? Sad.
Who's your hero, Leon Wieseltier?
You are one weird cat.
.....
He's a slippery one, dmt. You've got him on the ropes now, or just as well, he's got himself on the ropes now, don't let him escape, lol!
.....
For the record there was as much art and design appreciation and hands-on experience in my science and engineering background as anything else. That art doesn't accompany science of all types is such a canard, waste of time.
To criticize "liberal arts" schools (often for their dissing of science in numerous ways) is not in any way to attack arts or art forms.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
Or DMT could just read Strassler's link before playing tuggy toy with a common and gross oversimplification (ex: matter = energy).
The problem is that we're well invested in what our senses tell us about reality. The quantum world doesn't jibe with that - at all. It's...weird. Just weird. And it's kind of complicated. And unfinished. And, perhaps, largely wrong. So we try to stuff it back into a framework we're used to, and one that we can easily remember.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!