Short philosophy post
Jun. 26th, 2007 11:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cholten99I've had a rack of comments I've been meaning to post about for some time now - almost 3 weeks in the case of the oldest one. However, either there always seems to be something more important to do or I'm just too tired. Anyway - I'm going to do a short one today that may, hopefully, get the ball rolling...
Some time agododgyhoodoo said :
> Uncertainty principle. Uncertainty. Dear gods.
> Are you actually suggesting that if you can formulate the question in a meaningful manner, and the answer appears to be impossible to
> find, you shouldn't bother, and perhaps go off and have a cup of tea or something?
Yes - I don't think that is unreasonable. There is a finite amount of resources in the world (collective people's time to think and do things) and it makes sense to them to spend it on things that appear to be achievable. Yes, significant numbers of people don't follow this rule of thumb and we, as a civilised species, have learned a great deal from them but I still think, by and large, it is the best thing to do.
> I thought asking the hard questions and working towards an answer was what science was all about.
It appears that this is where we fundamentally disagree. Science asks no questions. Science is about observation of patterns leading to theories of cause and effect and behind that perhaps some fundamental "laws" (although I don't like that term personally). What science is very much not is coming in nebulous questions and then try to use observation to answer them. For nebulous questions see metaphysics - for attempts to use science to justify them see Intelligent Design.
> Deciding it's not worth investigating on that basis isn't rationalism, it's ostrichism.
No, it's practicality. There simple isn't time for every question to be pursued. Those that appear to be currently intractable naturally get pushed to the margins.
> (Same goes for when the investigator already believes they have the answer before investigating, but that's a different kettle of sea bass.)
Okay - ID obviously really falls in this camp but you get my idea...
Sleep now...
Some time ago
dodgyhoodoo said : > Uncertainty principle. Uncertainty. Dear gods.
> Are you actually suggesting that if you can formulate the question in a meaningful manner, and the answer appears to be impossible to
> find, you shouldn't bother, and perhaps go off and have a cup of tea or something?
Yes - I don't think that is unreasonable. There is a finite amount of resources in the world (collective people's time to think and do things) and it makes sense to them to spend it on things that appear to be achievable. Yes, significant numbers of people don't follow this rule of thumb and we, as a civilised species, have learned a great deal from them but I still think, by and large, it is the best thing to do.
> I thought asking the hard questions and working towards an answer was what science was all about.
It appears that this is where we fundamentally disagree. Science asks no questions. Science is about observation of patterns leading to theories of cause and effect and behind that perhaps some fundamental "laws" (although I don't like that term personally). What science is very much not is coming in nebulous questions and then try to use observation to answer them. For nebulous questions see metaphysics - for attempts to use science to justify them see Intelligent Design.
> Deciding it's not worth investigating on that basis isn't rationalism, it's ostrichism.
No, it's practicality. There simple isn't time for every question to be pursued. Those that appear to be currently intractable naturally get pushed to the margins.
> (Same goes for when the investigator already believes they have the answer before investigating, but that's a different kettle of sea bass.)
Okay - ID obviously really falls in this camp but you get my idea...
Sleep now...
