Isn't modern science overrated?

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Well, pardon me, I can only go by the generally known and accepted definitions. :bowdown:

Believe it or not, atomism is a generally known and accepted definition.

Well, that’s easy, no significant fraction of scientists believe that. For example, we know for a fact that there are fields and particles which are not atoms.

Of course we are aware of fields and subatomic particles, but that does not stop people from believing atomism. I am fairly certain that there have been threads on atomism in which some posters were supporting the notion.

Wrong - I am a scientist and met many others while doing my magistere, PhD, Postdoc and while working at Cambridge!

First, the phrase that you split is somewhat rhetorical and was not concluding anything about your career. Second, what field are you in? I am in high energy astrophysics.

Tell me, when you find that you are wrong, do you even consider revising your opinion?

Almost always.

Nope - you are confusing rejection of specific individual proofs with rejection of mathematical and logical proofs in general.

This is true, I was considering particular proofs. However, (a) it still shows that there are those who reject a particular idea because it rejects or contradicts their world-view and (b) rejecting one logical or mathematical proof is roughly equivalent to rejecting them all: you are still denying a real truth.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

As someone who both likes Aristotle and attended science classes, I’ve never really understood why average people are so enthralled with “science” that they have to build whole world-views out of it.

What is so great about modern science?

Some scientists are definitely overrated - when they step over the line of science into philosophy.

 

[jkiernan56]

As someone who both likes Aristotle and attended science classes, I’ve never really understood why average people are so enthralled with “science” that they have to build whole world-views out of it.

What is so great about modern science?

Absolutely NOT to answer your question. Every new understanding of the Universe is a new understanding into the reality of the Painter behind the Painting … it should just make you stop in AWE!!!

 

[carn]

That information itself is not blinding, what I think he is pointing to is the deterministic and atomistic point of view many scientists hold. Those two combined really blind one to reality, not science itself.

“deterministic” and “atomistic” is a strange pair, atoms do not excel at what normally is understood with deterministic behavior.

But otherwise we seem to agree, since i named the problem to assume that science will one day be able to explain ethics - to do so, science would first have to be able to simulate or more precisely calculate a human brain, since ethics is some output of such brains. Science therefore could only explain ethics if it can accurately model a human brain, which is only possible if a human brain and its output are nothing but a function of the particles making up the human brain.

The view is by the way quite contrary to science, since we still have problems to model 3 or 4 body problems on time scales of just a few decades, modelling a human brain with hundred thousands of neurons (and thats assuming quantum effects are irrelevant) is far beyond current science, therefore science cannot offer anything for or against any idea about what humans are. So even if humans are nothing but the matter they are made of, science is worlds away from providing any evidence in this regards.

 

[InJesusItrust]

But otherwise we seem to agree, since i named the problem to assume that science will one day be able to explain ethics - to do so, science would first have to be able to simulate or more precisely calculate a human brain, since ethics is some output of such brains. Science therefore could only explain ethics if it can accurately model a human brain, which is only possible if a human brain and its output are nothing but a function of the particles making up the human brain.

!!!

Precisely the problem with science and scientists.

I have a question. If someone somehow implanted a chip into everyone’s head that says rape and murder is good, does it cease to be wrong? I am not talking about what humans consensually decide to be right and wrong, I am talking about an objective truth of rightness or wrongness. Is there such a thing apart from what can be observed empirically through our senses or machines?

By narrowing our understanding of truth and reality, people can make us accept good as evil and evil as good. Ruling out non-scientific ideas as stupid or “mere opinion” does precisely that.

 

[CaptFun]

It is when it is made into a god. Or a “God disprover”.

Science is man discovering things God already set in motion and knew about.

If one made science a god … would “science” know about it?

Science is very good in helping us FIND the truth of things. If we use IT correctly.

But it never claimed to be " … the way, the truth and the life … " or " … the resurrection."

“Science” has been wrong. Or has it? Was it science teachers elevating theory to established fact or having an option du jour that was later proven dubious.

I had an illustrated science book as a kid that went on about the “canals on Mars” complete with a drawing of the Red planet with green canals, straight as an arrow (like man made canals rather than nature …) crisscrossing it from north to south. Now that satellites have been to Mars and have taken pictures … hey … where are those canals?

A humorous look at science “as overrated” was put forth in the 1973 movie “Sleeper” about a cryogenically frozen man who is revived 200 years into the future and interviewed by scientists. The first 40 seconds of this link is all I had in mind … but the Woody Allen character Miles’ “atheistic” take on science is worth recounting for fun.

** Luna:** But Miles, meaningful relationships between men and women don’t last, that was proven by science. You see, there’s a chemical in our bodies that makes it so that we all get on each others’ nerves sooner or later.

Miles: " Science? I don’t believe in science. It’s an intellectual dead end. It’s just a lot of guys in tweed suits cutting up frogs on foundation grants."

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

“deterministic” and “atomistic” is a strange pair, atoms do not excel at what normally is understood with deterministic behavior.

Please read my responses to Dr Taffy’s criticism/questioning of the words used.

But otherwise we seem to agree, since i named the problem to assume that science will one day be able to explain ethics - to do so, science would first have to be able to simulate or more precisely calculate a human brain, since ethics is some output of such brains. Science therefore could only explain ethics if it can accurately model a human brain, which is only possible if a human brain and its output are nothing but a function of the particles making up the human brain.

Very good insight. I may use this argument myself one day.

The view is by the way quite contrary to science, since we still have problems to model 3 or 4 body problems on time scales of just a few decades, modelling a human brain with hundred thousands of neurons (and thats assuming quantum effects are irrelevant) is far beyond current science, therefore science cannot offer anything for or against any idea about what humans are. So even if humans are nothing but the matter they are made of, science is worlds away from providing any evidence in this regards.

Define “problems” with regards to modeling the 3 or 4 body problem. Because I know some guys who do billion body problems quite well. There was recently a paper published that actually computed a trillion body problem–it required using the whole of Japan’s K-computer (roughly 0.75 million processing cores) for 2 months to finish computing.

 

[DrTaffy]

Believe it or not, atomism is a generally known and accepted definition.

Certainly in a modern scientific context, I would say that atomism would not be generally defined as excluding everything but atoms, it would just be the belief in atomic theory.

Sure, in philosophy, if you go back to the ancient greeks, you get a version that tried to describe everything in terms of ‘atoms’ and ‘void’ but those would not be the atoms we think of today. While that could be interpreted as excluding anything else (e.g. monistic, or physicalist) I don’t see that any reasonable interpretation that could be attributed to “a point of view many scientists hold” would be so exclusive.

As for the word you used, atomistic, as it can refer to something that consists of “many separate, often disparate elements” (a description that could well apply to dualistic worldviews) you would have a word that could equally describe atomistic (“everything is atoms”) monism or atomistic (“containing disparate elements”) dualism (or pluralism) which is confusing.

Second, what field are you in? I am in high energy astrophysics.

Physical chemistry, originally. Why?

However, (a) it still shows that there are those who reject a particular idea because it rejects or contradicts their world-view and (b) rejecting one logical or mathematical proof is roughly equivalent to rejecting them all: you are still denying a real truth.

Again, I would distinguish between rejecting a ‘proof’ that is, and that you consider to be, valid, merely because it contradicts your worldview, and rejecting one that is, or that you consider to be, invalid.

 

[carn]

Define “problems” with regards to modeling the 3 or 4 body problem. Because I know some guys who do billion body problems quite well. There was recently a paper published that actually computed a trillion body problem–it required using the whole of Japan’s K-computer (roughly 0.75 million processing cores) for 2 months to finish computing.

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1298285/Massive-asteroid-hit-Earth-2182-warn-scientists.html

Just 160 years, so for astronomic terms practically tomorrow, and uncertainty about its position at least 10000 km, probably a lot more.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem
"For n = 3, solutions exist for special cases. A general solution in terms of first integrals is known to be impossible. "

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_of_the_solar_system
“The planets’ orbits are chaotic over longer timescales, such that the whole Solar System possesses a Lyapunov time in the range of 2–230 million years.[3] In all cases this means that the position of a planet along its orbit ultimately becomes impossible to predict with any certainty”

If i understand correctly that means, that with out current knowledge taking the data of all larger objects between -2 and -1 billion years, the question of whether earth would likely be still orbiting around the sun at ±0(aka today) is impossible to answer. So i am confident that human brain is still a few years off.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1298285/Massive-asteroid-hit-Earth-2182-warn-scientists.html

Just 160 years, so for astronomic terms practically tomorrow, and uncertainty about its position at least 10000 km, probably a lot more.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem
"For n = 3, solutions exist for special cases. A general solution in terms of first integrals is known to be impossible. "

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_of_the_solar_system
“The planets’ orbits are chaotic over longer timescales, such that the whole Solar System possesses a Lyapunov time in the range of 2–230 million years.[3] In all cases this means that the position of a planet along its orbit ultimately becomes impossible to predict with any certainty”

If i understand correctly that means, that with out current knowledge taking the data of all larger objects between -2 and -1 billion years, the question of whether earth would likely be still orbiting around the sun at ±0(aka today) is impossible to answer. So i am confident that human brain is still a few years off.

So your “problem” is in the accuracy over long timescales, and not the capability to do the problem; that I can most certainly agree with.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Certainly in a modern scientific context, I would say that atomism would not be generally defined as excluding everything but atoms, it would just be the belief in atomic theory.

I clearly was not talking about the scientific context, but the philosophical one, as I stated “…the atomistic point of view…” Granted that this thread subject is on modern science, so someone new to the forum can easily make this type of mistake, be aware this is the Philosophy subforum.

Sure, in philosophy, if you go back to the ancient greeks, you get a version that tried to describe everything in terms of ‘atoms’ and ‘void’ but those would not be the atoms we think of today. While that could be interpreted as excluding anything else (e.g. monistic, or physicalist) I don’t see that any reasonable interpretation that could be attributed to “a point of view many scientists hold” would be so exclusive.

Perhaps in p-chem one would not find “many” to be the case, but certainly in physics and astronomy it is the case that many is the fitting modifier. I think the number of Chemistry PhD’s does exceed the number of Physics & Astronomy PhDs, so perhaps you are right in this case.

As for the word you used, atomistic, as it can refer to something that consists of “many separate, often disparate elements” (a description that could well apply to dualistic worldviews) you would have a word that could equally describe atomistic (“everything is atoms”) monism or atomistic (“containing disparate elements”) dualism (or pluralism) which is confusing.

Again, atomism and atomistic are well-known philosophic positions and you are posting in a Philosophy forum.

Physical chemistry, originally. Why?

Curiosity is why. Why do you say originally, have you changed subject areas?

Again, I would distinguish between rejecting a ‘proof’ that is, and that you consider to be, valid, merely because it contradicts your worldview, and rejecting one that is, or that you consider to be, invalid.

If it is a proof and it is valid, then it is a truth, whether it fits with your world view or not. If it is a proof and is invalid, then it is not a truth and it does not have to fit with your world view.

Thus, if you reject a valid proof, then you are rejecting truth. Rejecting any iota of truth is rejecting all truth because you saying that there is no such thing as truth, except what I want.

 

[carn]

So your “problem” is in the accuracy over long timescales, and not the capability to do the problem; that I can most certainly agree with.

What long timescales are is dependent on the interaction speed of the system and the number of variables.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_AI#Whole_brain_emulation
“This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates vary for an adult, ranging from 1014 to 5 x 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion).[35] An estimate of the brain’s processing power, based on a simple switch model for neuron activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) neuron updates per second.[36] Kurzweil looks at various estimates for the hardware required to equal the human brain and adopts a figure of 10^16 computations per second (cps).[37]”

With human brain long timescales could be in the order of seconds.

“He uses this figure to predict the necessary hardware will be available sometime between 2015 and 2025, if the current exponential growth in computer power continues.”

We have the necessary hardware for 3 or 4 body problems since 320 years (Newtons Mathematica, pencil, paper, cheap and willing phd students) and yet our precision for practical tasks is somewhat good but still far from very good. With hardware for human brain simulation still missing it could take a long time till science would be anywhere near simulating the material aspect of human brains (which in case it would yield a nearly perfect copy would be sort of evidence for a material worldview) .

 

[AugustSon]

Most certainly science is arrogant, assumptive, and limited as to its ability
to perceive. Scientists are paid via grants and organizations which promulgate
their own perpetuation. In a sense, they cannot admit they are wrong, or their
theories are only conjecture, because they would be out of a job.

Scientists are more than test-tube jugglers in Universities/colleges. They are the meteorologist on TV, the mathematician doing work on probabilities (used in banking/economics), the teacher showing a child how iron filings reveal a pattern around a magnet. Some scientists (like me) are astronomers, teaching college students the wonders of the Universe in best theory' form. Facts are rarely if ever used in the real’ exercise of science. I am paid like any other teacher at an elementary school or middle school. On day one, I tell my students I will be teaching them `best theory’ to date in astronomy.

Science is a process for the discovery of how the natural Universe works. Anything beyond that, and science deviates from its purpose. This is not to say that there aren’t atheist' scientists, and as well can be said there are no believer’ scientist’.

As in any human endeavor, human beliefs can come into play in how they interpret or misinterpret inquiry results. Science is by no means perfect. However, when done correctly, it has served man well in allowing not only discovery of the Universe and its workings, but benefits derived thereof.

 

[DrTaffy]

I clearly was not talking about the scientific context, but the philosophical one, as I stated “…the atomistic point of view…”

“… many scientists hold”

Selective quoting to change the context is not clever.

I’m not quite sure what you hope to get out of this. Your original post was unclear. You’ve clarified what you meant, and I’ve (I hope) clarified why I feel that what you wrote was not what you meant. I have no real expectation of convincing you that ‘atomism’ in a modern scientific context does not mean what you claim and you surely have no hope of convincing me that a significant number of scientists reject the existence of anything but atoms.

I’m equally sure that at this point you would rather swom naked through broken glass and vinegar than admit that you meant soemthing like ‘monist’ or ‘physicalist’ rather than ‘atomist.’

So what’s up?

Perhaps in p-chem one would not find “many” to be the case, but certainly in physics and astronomy it is the case that many is the fitting modifier.

Aah - so that’s the real reason you wanted to know my subject. Sorry, but no. Especially in physics and astronomy you won’t find a significant number of scientists who reject (for example) the existence of electromagnetic fields. Which, if I need to point this out, exist and are not atoms.

Curiosity is why. Why do you say originally, have you changed subject areas?

Oh yeah. Also ‘physical chemistry’ was a bit of a shorthand. My original Maitrise, for example, was pure physics.

If it is a proof and it is valid, then it is a truth, whether it fits with your world view or not. If it is a proof and is invalid, then it is not a truth and it does not have to fit with your world

Nonetheless, rejecting a proof because you think it is invalid is vastly different from rejecting one despite thinking it is valid, just because you don’t like it.

And for that matter, both are different from rejecting logical proofs alltogether.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

“… many scientists hold”

Selective quoting to change the context is not clever.

Actually, there was no change of context. If I were to have said, “…the atomistic point of view many artists hold…” or “…the atomistic point of view many mechanics hold…” then the context remains on the point of view and not who ascribes the point of view. Since the discussion was about perception of reality, it is clear that the emphasis must be on the philosophy and not the science, as you have incorrectly inferred.

I’m not quite sure what you hope to get out of this. Your original post was unclear. You’ve clarified what you meant, and I’ve (I hope) clarified why I feel that what you wrote was not what you meant. I have no real expectation of convincing you that ‘atomism’ in a modern scientific context does not mean what you claim and you surely have no hope of convincing me that a significant number of scientists reject the existence of anything but atoms.

The post was unclear to you because you inferred incorrectly by ignoring the context clues. And you remain adamant that atomism is not a philosophic position, despite my pointing it out to you, but a scientific position. And though my effort was weak, I still feel that if you actually read with an open mind what I have said, I might convince you that (a) you have no idea what I am talking about and (b) what I am saying is extremely different than what you are reading.

I’m equally sure that at this point you would rather swom naked through broken glass and vinegar than admit that you meant soemthing like ‘monist’ or ‘physicalist’ rather than ‘atomist.’

Nope, I very much meant and intended atomistic.

So what’s up?

The ceiling, and hopefully it stays that way. More seriously, what is up is your inferring incorrectly. Please recognize that this is a philosophy forum, not a science forum. If there is a term that seems to be causing confusion, you probably need to check your definitions. I have already told you that atomism is a philosophy of neglecting all non-physical realities, but you still maintain that I, preposterously, mean “only atoms.”

Aah - so that’s the real reason you wanted to know my subject. Sorry, but no. Especially in physics and astronomy you won’t find a significant number of scientists who reject (for example) the existence of electromagnetic fields. Which, if I need to point this out, exist and are not atoms.

As I said, I was curious to see your particular branch of science. We have many different scientists on this forum (biochemsists, chemists, astronomers, physicists, and now a p-chemist).
If I need to point out again, atomism is a philosophy term, not a science term. Please stop confusing the two. If you did not confuse the two, you would plainly see how absurd your middle sentence is.

Oh yeah. Also ‘physical chemistry’ was a bit of a shorthand. My original Maitrise, for example, was pure physics.

As opposed to impure physics?

Nonetheless, rejecting a proof because you think it is invalid is vastly different from rejecting one despite thinking it is valid, just because you don’t like it.

Proof: Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.. If something has been proven, it is a fact and thus true, regardless of ones opinion.
If you had replaced ‘proof’ with ‘hypothesis’ in the above, there is no qualm. It is solely because you choose ‘proof’ that I am pointing this out.

And for that matter, both are different from rejecting logical proofs alltogether.

Rejection of a proof (i.e., evidence of truth) because one does not like it means that there is no such thing as objective truth, only what we make of it. Rejection of all proofs is the same thing: truth is only what we make of it. They are very much the same.

 

[DrTaffy]

Actually, there was no change of context. If I were to have said, “…the atomistic point of view many artists hold…” or “…the atomistic point of view many mechanics hold…” then the context remains on the point of view and not who ascribes the point of view.

No - if you had been talking about the ‘point of view’ that ‘many’ artists or mechanics hold, we would naturally have assumed that you were talking about a point of view that many artists or mechanics hold. Or at least about one that you might, reasonably but wrongly, believe they held.

Since the discussion was about perception of reality, it is clear that the emphasis must be on the philosophy and not the science, as you have incorrectly inferred.

In a thread about science, where you were explicitly making claims about what many scientists believe? Nope.

And you remain adamant that atomism is not a philosophic position, despite my pointing it out to you, but a scientific position.

It is both. And also a psychological position, I find out.

at·om·ism
[at-uh-miz-uhm]
noun

1. Also called atomic theory. Philosophy. the theory that minute, discrete, finite, and indivisible elements are the ultimate constituents of all matter.
2. Psychology. a method or theory that reduces all psychological phenomena to simple elements.

Note that the assertion that all matter is made of ‘atoms’ in no way rules out supernatural or spiritual, non-material, things not made of atoms.

I have already told you that atomism is a philosophy of neglecting all non-physical realities,

No, that would be ‘physicalism’. So I was right!

but you still maintain that I, preposterously, mean “only atoms.”

Because that is what you said:

The atomistic philosophy is one in which the prevailing notion is that we are nothing more than a collection of atoms, that there is nothing beyond the atoms we can observe.

I also queried if that was what you meant and you apparently confirmed it. You certainly failed to deny it until now.

But I am glad that you see that it is preposterous.

As opposed to impure physics?

If you consider physical chemistry (or biophysics or geophysics etc…) to be ‘impure physics’, feel free.

Proof: Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.. If something has been proven, it is a fact and thus true, regardless of ones opinion.
If you had replaced ‘proof’ with ‘hypothesis’ in the above, there is no qualm. It is solely because you choose ‘proof’ that I am pointing this out.

So you think that there is no such thing as an invalid proof? Or that an invalid proof still establishes the fact it purports to establish? Or, to get back to the heart of the matter, that rejecting a purported ‘proof’ because you feel it to be invalid is no different from rejecting it because you just don’t like its conclusion?

Rejection of a proof (i.e., evidence of truth) because one does not like it means that there is no such thing as objective truth

Or that ‘one’ is being irrational. It happens.

 

[Studer]

As someone who both likes Aristotle and attended science classes, I’ve never really understood why average people are so enthralled with “science” that they have to build whole world-views out of it.

What is so great about modern science?

**Maybe because science is the only way of knowing objective truth?
**

:newidea:

 

[cheezey]

Maybe because science is the only way of knowing objective truth?

:newidea:

 

[lynnvinc]

As someone who both likes Aristotle and attended science classes, I’ve never really understood why average people are so enthralled with “science” that they have to build whole world-views out of it.

What is so great about modern science?

Seems to me science is underrated these days.

But actually the issue is a bit more complex:

1. “PRODUCTION SCIENCE,” which brings us all sorts of gadgets, conveniences, goodies, and pleasures of the modern world is perhaps OVERRATED. Our happiness doesn’t really last long after obtaining some material goody, and we are only left with a hollow feeling of wanting more, more, more. Which as St. Augustine told us can only be filled with God, to which we respond, yeh yeh, but first give us stuff. Hurray for the scientists and down with old foggy, archaic saints.
2. “IMPACT SCIENCE,” which tells us our gluttonous pursuits of materials goods and pleasures is in fact harming life on planet earth (including us) tends to be UNDERRATED. No one wants to believe it, and no one wants the party of wild materialistic debauchery, gluttony, and profligacy to be over. And they totally underrate any science which says anthropogenic climate change is real, with the implication that we have to rethink that party. So the chant goes, kill the scientists, kill the messengers; they are evil and bad.

 

[carn]

Maybe because science is the only way of knowing objective truth?

:newidea:

Please prodive scientific evidence, that grabing the next baby you see from her mothers arms and take it home to have “dinner” is objectively wrong.

(And please do not stop by providing evidence that a stable society needs to regard this as wrong, because that only shifts the question for scientific evidence, why a stable society is preferable, besides there have been somewhat stable societies in spite of cannibalism.Even if you argue that without stable society there would be no science, this doesnt help much, as then scientific evidence in favor for having science is necessary, which might be a bit cricular. And no, i am not suggesting you are amoral, i’m just suggesting you do not have scentific evidence in favor of being moral. Furthermore, a majority of people finding something disgusting isn’t scientific evidence either.)

In case you fail at providing scientific evidence that eating babies is wrong, you are left with two options:

-science is the only way of knowing objective truth and one cannot objectively say its wrong to eat babies

-its objectively wrong to eat babies, but science cannot show, therefore it must be possible to acquire obejective knowledge in some other way (which could be anything according to personal preference, most posters here would probably suggest Christianity)

(Note that i find neither conclusion in any way despicable, i just dislike people proclaiming that science is the only way for objective truth, but then skipping the issue that science offers at least no obvious evidence that eating babies might be wrong.)