General Science Sociology and science 26 Apr 2008 I have an uncanny ability to offend those who I shouldn’t be offending, with bad jokes. In a recent post I put in a Tom Lehrer video where he mocks sociology. Having had philosophy mocked by my friends and contacts over the years (you study what? Your navel?), I guess… Read More
Epistemology Religion and truth revisited 7 Jul 2009 Chris Schoen, he of the u n d e r v e r s e, has a piece up on Coyne’s challenge to the religious as to why Scientology’s absurd etiology of Xenu and souls in volcanoes is any less stupid than the etiologies of the Catholic, Jewish and Islamic… Read More
History The forgotten Holocaust 15 Oct 2009 This is a disturbing essay by Timothy Snyder in the New York Review of Books, republished in Eurozine. It suggests that we do not remember the entirety of the Holocaust in German and Soviet hands. [H/T 3 Quarks Daily] Read More
Not a party pooper at all. Science defines the territory for the party. You can’t just have a party anywhere. Well, not outside of Las Vegas.
Not a party pooper at all. Science defines the territory for the party. You can’t just have a party anywhere. Well, not outside of Las Vegas.
Not a party pooper at all. Science defines the territory for the party. You can’t just have a party anywhere. Well, not outside of Las Vegas.
The cartoon’s right, science does take the mysticism and magic out of the world, but it replaces it with knowledge. I’m no less in awe of the world because it’s origin had nothing to do with the supernatural or hocus-pocus.
Since I’ve been offline (failure of my ISP for a day), I haven’t had a chance to reply til now, but thanks, Jeb. I often hear people say that science takes the mystery out of life. Almost always these are people who don’t know the science but regret the passing of their own personal mystique.
Since I’ve been offline (failure of my ISP for a day), I haven’t had a chance to reply til now, but thanks, Jeb. I often hear people say that science takes the mystery out of life. Almost always these are people who don’t know the science but regret the passing of their own personal mystique.
Since I’ve been offline (failure of my ISP for a day), I haven’t had a chance to reply til now, but thanks, Jeb. I often hear people say that science takes the mystery out of life. Almost always these are people who don’t know the science but regret the passing of their own personal mystique.
The cartoon’s right, science does take the mysticism and magic out of the world, but it replaces it with knowledge. I’m no less in awe of the world because it’s origin had nothing to do with the supernatural or hocus-pocus. Since “mysticism and magic” seems to mean “stuff you can’t possibly understand, ever” — an epistemological brick wall that stops all investigation before it even starts — then I say good riddance. Delving into something, understanding how it works — what Feynman called “the pleasure of finding things out — is the real source of awe and wonder. The other is a counterfeit promise that never delivers.
The cartoon’s right, science does take the mysticism and magic out of the world, but it replaces it with knowledge. I’m no less in awe of the world because it’s origin had nothing to do with the supernatural or hocus-pocus. Since “mysticism and magic” seems to mean “stuff you can’t possibly understand, ever” — an epistemological brick wall that stops all investigation before it even starts — then I say good riddance. Delving into something, understanding how it works — what Feynman called “the pleasure of finding things out — is the real source of awe and wonder. The other is a counterfeit promise that never delivers.
The cartoon’s right, science does take the mysticism and magic out of the world, but it replaces it with knowledge. I’m no less in awe of the world because it’s origin had nothing to do with the supernatural or hocus-pocus. Since “mysticism and magic” seems to mean “stuff you can’t possibly understand, ever” — an epistemological brick wall that stops all investigation before it even starts — then I say good riddance. Delving into something, understanding how it works — what Feynman called “the pleasure of finding things out — is the real source of awe and wonder. The other is a counterfeit promise that never delivers.
Well, youre blog has helped to improve my understanding of some aspects of science which impact on my own research in the arts; most notably youre views on species. So perhaps there is something to the subject after all! So it’s help me move forward in a sober fashion. Thanks
Well as a complete qualia-denier I haev no trouble with that solution, but that is not a scientific debate as such. However, this raises some interesting questions about what aspects of metaphysics science actually has managed to resolve. I think it has undercut the need for hylomorphic metaphysics, for example (although if one wishes to retain it, one can always redefine it, as the idealists and neo-Thomists did).
The cartoon sounds (ha!) great out of context, but in context it irritated me. Science does *not* answer the question of “when a tree falls in the wilderness and there’s no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?” because it’s not science that determines what “sound” is. The strip suggested that “sound” consists of the vibrations in the air, but “sound” could also (more plausibly, I would think) refer the *experience* that humans and many organisms have when exposed to those vibrations, given the structure of our ears, etc. And on the latter understanding of sound, the tree does not make a sound if there is no one (organism with the appropriate apparatus) there to hear it. Feh.
The strip suggested that “sound” consists of the vibrations in the air, but “sound” could also (more plausibly, I would think) refer the *experience* that humans and many organisms have when exposed to those vibrations, given the structure of our ears, etc. And on the latter understanding of sound, the tree does not make a sound if there is no one (organism with the appropriate apparatus) there to hear it. If I measure the volume level of a given ‘sound’ using a decibel meter whilst at the same time wearing noise-cancelling headphones to protect my hearing as the sound could be injurious to my health, what am I measuring? According to your definition it can’t be sound because I am, thanks to the headphones, not perceiving it with my ears. So what is it?
The strip suggested that “sound” consists of the vibrations in the air, but “sound” could also (more plausibly, I would think) refer the *experience* that humans and many organisms have when exposed to those vibrations, given the structure of our ears, etc. And on the latter understanding of sound, the tree does not make a sound if there is no one (organism with the appropriate apparatus) there to hear it. If I measure the volume level of a given ‘sound’ using a decibel meter whilst at the same time wearing noise-cancelling headphones to protect my hearing as the sound could be injurious to my health, what am I measuring? According to your definition it can’t be sound because I am, thanks to the headphones, not perceiving it with my ears. So what is it?
The strip suggested that “sound” consists of the vibrations in the air, but “sound” could also (more plausibly, I would think) refer the *experience* that humans and many organisms have when exposed to those vibrations, given the structure of our ears, etc. And on the latter understanding of sound, the tree does not make a sound if there is no one (organism with the appropriate apparatus) there to hear it. If I measure the volume level of a given ‘sound’ using a decibel meter whilst at the same time wearing noise-cancelling headphones to protect my hearing as the sound could be injurious to my health, what am I measuring? According to your definition it can’t be sound because I am, thanks to the headphones, not perceiving it with my ears. So what is it?