Science: Wonders, causality and the indeterminable

There are no ideas that are not commensense.

Really?

So relativity and QM can be explained using comon sense?

Flying airliners into the world trade centre was common sense?

A bearded sky daddy that demands to be worshipped, otherwise you are tormented for eternity, makes common sense?

What about the idea that a Norwegian man had a few weeks ago, where he thought it would be a good idea to plant a bomb and shoot 80 people. Was this common sense?
 
Common sense is built off of science, not the other way around. You can't have a 'common sense' explanation of how something works if you don't know how it works in the first place. Otherwise, you get volcanoes being the result of angry gods as opposed to byproducts of tectonic activity.
 
I would use the phrase "description we use" instead of "placeholder". But, otherwise, that is pretty much what science seems to be indicating.

Most people think of the mind as that portion (or, perhaps more accurately: portions) of the brain responsible for conscious awareness.

But, there is a mind there, to be empricially discovered. It is not a fiction, nor some separate realm of reality.

Psychologists can avoid using the term "mind" with all its immaterial baggage and deal with the measurable. My textbooks do not use the term, ever. I do not invoke in it any lectures, ever. Scientific psychologists all measure some sort of behavior as a dependent variable.
 
Not only are you advocating mind over matter, but you are supposing that the brain makes us do things.
I think, you need, to examine that.

Heh. "Mind over matter"? Dude, seriously, did you even read what I wrote there?

The whole POINT was that there is only matter, and "mind" is just a name we give to some physical phenomena in the brain. It's just matter and, umm, matter. That's it. That's all we could ever actually support. Just like Timekeeping is just a name we have for the very mundane physical phenomena in a clock, just like computing is just a name for some electrical phenomena in your computer, and just like Life is just a name for some chemical reactions in your cells.

Seeing it as "mind over matter" is as silly as trying to describe a clock as "timekeeping over matter" or your computer as "computing over matter." There is nothing over matter. It's just matter. Incidentally we give names to stuff that matter does, like "fire", or "computing", or "flow", or "timekeeping", or "mind". But it doesn't make it any more than an abstract concept describing what matter does. It's not mind over matter, and it's not matter over mind. It's just matter doing stuff, and the names we gave to the stuff it's doing.
 
Scientists are no more or less, right or wrong, in their judgement powers than anyone else.


The rest was funny. You are a little firebox!
Rest assured. A good old chinwag wasn't it though. I have a degree in Chemistry and LRIC biocemistry. I worked in the chemical industry creating new methods for making novel aromatic compounds. Oh, and the MA in analytic Philosophy. Hm! Should suffice, me thinks, what say you now o loon faced clown? (Shakespeare, Macbeth).

Was it a one year MA? That would explain why your ideas resemble those of a first year philosophy student.


I'd have thought a first year philosophy student would have been aware of the influence of Aristotle, and the many incorrect assertions that were accepted for centuries because people didn't check.
 
And this is what happens if people just do what they always did:

The Price of Ignorance

115 miles to the west of the Scottish mainland, there’s a tiny archipelago called St. Kilda. The main island, Hirta, is just 2.5 miles across. It is so wind-swept that nothing grows taller than a cabbage, and in a bad winter storm the waves break right over the island of Dun, which is 500 ft high. Hirta was inhabited until 1930, although the people were very poor. They scraped a living from sheep, fishing, and catching sea birds.

In the last century, the population varied between about 120 and 70, so there was never any question of having a trained doctor on the island. For most of the time, the nearest thing they had to a midwife was the knee-woman, or bean-ghluine, and outsiders were not welcome. Consequently it’s impossible to be sure exactly what the knee-woman did, but the educated guess is that when she cut the umbilical cord, she anointed it with ruby-red oil from fulmars—one of the sea birds. Certainly anointing would appeal to such a devout people.

The oil was stored in a dried goose stomach, frequently refilled and never cleaned out. 80% of the babies died of a disease they called, “the sickness of eight days,” because that’s how long the baby lived. Today it’s known as infant tetanus, and it’s agonizing.
 
It isn't as though nature's objects are neatly divided into 1) scientific wonders, and, 2) ordinary non-scientific tat. No one would say that exploding stars, black-hole galaxies, atomic particles, and anything else viewed through an instrument, are "scientific" objects.

Well, there is definitely a difference between a man-made object like my cell phone, or my computer and something that occurs naturally, without human intervention. FYI I'd personally classify both of the aforementioned items as "scientific wonders". ;)
 
Common sense is built off of science, not the other way around. You can't have a 'common sense' explanation of how something works if you don't know how it works in the first place. Otherwise, you get volcanoes being the result of angry gods as opposed to byproducts of tectonic activity.


Thats looks like a cult statement. It subordinates natural ways to hood and cloister. Not surprising though. Science is a cult. It has no method, technology or practices other than ribbing its misbegotten rivals like the creationists. Science has many believers, even though nothing goes on in science.
 
Thats looks like a cult statement. It subordinates natural ways to hood and cloister. Not surprising though. Science is a cult. It has no method, technology or practices other than ribbing its misbegotten rivals like the creationists. Science has many believers, even though nothing goes on in science.

Make a simple statement, get a babbling, incoherent response. :rolleyes:
 
Thats looks like a cult statement. It subordinates natural ways to hood and cloister. Not surprising though. Science is a cult. It has no method, technology or practices other than ribbing its misbegotten rivals like the creationists. Science has many believers, even though nothing goes on in science.

I'm sure that if you redefine words enough, you can manage to convince yourself that this a true statement. It won't be, but I'm sure you'll give it your best shot.
 
It's fascinating how people deny the principles of technology while using that same technology.
 
Science is a cult. It has no method, technology or practices other than ribbing its misbegotten rivals like the creationists.
You need to stop assuming that what you see on online message boards and on TV is the whole story. Most scientists DO NOT DEAL WITH the "misbegotten rivals like the creationists". Most of us simply ignore their existence, because Creationists, Flat Earthers, and the rest tell us precisely nothing about the world around us. What we DO do, however, is fairly specific and methodical--something you demonstrate no understanding about.

Leave science to those who care enough to actually look into it. Leave philosophy to those who care enough to actually look into it. In fact, until you've educated yourself on the basics of a subject it's best to not talk about it (not telling anyone how to post--this is a general rule of mine).
 
Thats looks like a cult statement. It subordinates natural ways to hood and cloister. Not surprising though. Science is a cult. It has no method, technology or practices other than ribbing its misbegotten rivals like the creationists. Science has many believers, even though nothing goes on in science.

So many words, so little meaning.
 
Thats looks like a cult statement. It subordinates natural ways to hood and cloister. Not surprising though. Science is a cult. It has no method, technology or practices other than ribbing its misbegotten rivals like the creationists. Science has many believers, even though nothing goes on in science.

Read any Hume yet?
 
Thats looks like a cult statement. It subordinates natural ways to hood and cloister. Not surprising though. Science is a cult. It has no method, technology or practices other than ribbing its misbegotten rivals like the creationists. Science has many believers, even though nothing goes on in science.

Please explain why you think science has no method.
 
Tell me, then, the answer to the following questions, using nothing but common sense: If you take a block of silicon, with one thousandth of a percent of phosphorus as an impurity on one side, and one thousandth of a percent of arsenic on the other, and connect two wires, a battery and an ammeter to it, so that one wire goes to each side, does it make a difference which way round you connect the battery? If you take an identical block of silicon except that the second side now contains one thousandth of a percent of boron instead of arsenic, does it make a difference which way you connect the battery this time?

Dave

How am I supposed to know if your canoe floats!
 
Please explain why you think science has no method.


Here is a chance for us to raise our heads above this suffocating, sycophantous gloop that we call Science. Reject the idea that wonders are shown by science. Wonders are no more shown by a science than they are by a ladder, or a door, or a bus ticket to see the elephants.
It is our natural commonsense, our methodical nature, our conceptions, that build a technical world. The rest is flag-waving.
 
In your analogy science is the ladder. It's the method by which we determine what is blocking the gutter.

Don't forget the shoes, or the cash that bought the ladder, or the van. or the hand you used to climb the ladder and clear out the block. I did all that. Not some holy science.
 

Back
Top Bottom