zeusbheld Posted April 2, 2006 Report Share Posted April 2, 2006 but that is necessary as the social sciences aim to deal with the sabjective experience of the world....it's not that they choose to be unfalsifiable ...it's just that we have no accurate means to quantify human experience.... which makes much of the work in the social sciences a critical discipline like philosophy or comparative literature rather than science. that said, there are some human-science projects that have gotten more rigorous/scientific, like cognitive psychology. i think a lot of things are called science that aren't very scientific as a byproduct of the 19th and 20th centuries' infatuation with science. i am one of the biggest fanboys of science, but it can only do so much. there is so much we can't know scientifically about the human world especially that it's awfully tempting to overreach. that said, in principle the social sciences exist not because it is likely or even possible for them to enlighten us much, but because we're so damned interested in ourselves and our place in the world. crap paper though....utter utter crap , floozy , half baked SHITE love the way they quantify stuff by pulling numbers directly out of their dingleberry-encrusted ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0nmaster Posted April 2, 2006 Report Share Posted April 2, 2006 which makes much of the work in the social sciences a critical discipline like philosophy or comparative literature rather than science absolutely......before freud came allong ....the field now known as psychology was simply called "the philosophy of the mind" I don't see anything in this field (and I have some experience) to convince me otherwise.... thats not to say the social sciences have nothing to say...anthropology for example has taught me a great deal about looking at my culture from an objective point of view....and so many others things......everyone should go through some anthrological studies.... sociology is a bit of a joke ...I remember being forced through one gender studies course where the lecturer was telling me how "laura croft" and the tomb raider games were inherintly intended to oppress women... anyway...its all a load of bollocks .....science for all its validity is also exremely limited in what it can tell us about the world and our experiences in it ......look at the field of cosmology for example...all science is teaching us is how chaotic and random the world is...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttesta Posted April 2, 2006 Report Share Posted April 2, 2006 ......look at the field of cosmology for example...all science is teaching us is how chaotic and random the world is...... no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0nmaster Posted April 2, 2006 Report Share Posted April 2, 2006 no no ? well that a matter of opinion and discourse.....but i'm strongly of the opinion that the universe is more bizaar than we could ever imagine.....and there is not one acceptable view of the cosmos that is comfortable with any form of beautiful balance that scientists are so striving to find......the only acceptable propositions to try and counter and "fix" these theories (string theory etc) are getting increasingly bizaar and random.... I'm interested as to why you say no ....I'm ALWAYS keen to chat to anyone who knows a little about cosmology (especially if they know more than me..as I'm just something of an armchai enthusiast)....pvt me ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttesta Posted April 2, 2006 Report Share Posted April 2, 2006 To understand why the Universe is not chaotic is based on simple principals, it doesn't mean it is is easy to understand (no offence, it is really not that easy). Maybe it helps you when you realise that science is not about opinions or personal experiences. Science is about that what is universal, independent from the observer and therefore impersonal. Do not pay to much attention to things like String Theory. Nothing wrong with it, but on a more mondaine level, what is important is that one should understand that science is a product of the human mind, not the other way round ... As such, science (in the universal sense) makes the Universe understandable, accessible, predictable (to a certain extent), etc ... but it does not explain it. Do not expect answers from science about meaning, etc ... of life. Do not even expect an aswer about life itself. I know, a lot of scienctist belief that eventually science will answer all the questions, but that is nonsense. It is arrogance. There is no "theory of everything" because the theory might explain everything but not itself. Nothing can explain itself ... But nevertheless, science is a very important step in the development of the humen mind to understand the world and the position of the human being therein. But as I said, in the understanding is no room for the personal... You can have it in a more religious fashion: God is not interested in the particular, he enjoys his creation as a whole ... Every discussion about these things is always fruitful... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted April 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2006 absolutely......before freud came allong ....the field now known as psychology was simply called "the philosophy of the mind" which was a better name for it. i agree that one can get a lot out of studying such things, as with other such disciplines. i got a lot out of studying philosophy (analytical philosophy not continental bollocks) and critical theory (continental bollocks). i'd put the social sciences at the same status until hypotheses are truly testable by some other means than writing an eloquent paper. .....science for all its validity is also exremely limited in what it can tell us about the world and our experiences in it ......look at the field of cosmology for example...all science is teaching us is how chaotic and random the world is...... well what science describes is quite an orderly universe, but it's not the kind of order that is either useful or flattering to our species. and even if physicists achieve their holy grail of a unified field theory it won't answer the really important questions like who to date and how to live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ling_dtua_khaao Posted April 3, 2006 Report Share Posted April 3, 2006 I found anglo-american analytical philosophy to be equally bollocical in comparison with continental philosophy. (Let us not even mention Ayn Rand or Martin Heidegger.) Both were beneficial to read in and think about and absorb, and then to move on and sample other sets of ideas. If you want to know who to date and how to live Zeus, I, Ling, will provide all of the answers for you. If you wish, and you keep your payments up to date, I will think for you in these matters and simply instruct you how to act. No more effort for you. I followed the link to the Thai Character article, spotted the phrase "9 value clusters" on the first screen, my eyes glazed over and I promptly fell off my chair unconscious. I can't/won't read through stuff like that any more. I reserve my fading brain cells for something truly beautiful - math. Once upon a time I was an undergrad in political science at McGill University. (Think, before the invention of steam power.) I concentrated in political philosophy, but had to do my share of courses in other areas too. The department was deeply divided between empiricists, who controlled its administration, and those interested in political thought and "case-historical" studies. The two biggest names of the department were Charles Taylor and James Tully, both in political philosophy, Taylor especially well-known worldwide in his field. I had the great fortune of taking courses and seminars with both of them, and both their teaching and breadth of knowledge was impressive. They're the kinds of people who really encouraged your mind to open and improve in critical thinking - I felt I really grew through my time there. Not long after I graduated the tensions in the department drove Taylor and Tully out of the polisci department and eventually they both left the university. They've continued to be known, and McGill political science under the empiricists fell into obscurity. --Ling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0nmaster Posted April 3, 2006 Report Share Posted April 3, 2006 well what science describes is quite an orderly universe, but it's not the kind of order that is either useful or flattering to our species. and even if physicists achieve their holy grail of a unified field theory it won't answer the really important questions like who to date and how to live. I have to disagree with both of you....(zeus and saladin) ... science has proposed an orderly universe.......but even its most simple premises such as cause and effect can be seen as highly flawed ...(in my opinion) ... while observation of the percievable universe seem constant and preditable...there are phenomena such as black holes (and the second law of thermodynamics) for example ...that at his stage have put the skids on this type of thinking ...... (again...It's a matter of opinion and it really comes down to "imagination" ...if you are not a maths genious like ling ... at these levels of cosmology) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted April 3, 2006 Report Share Posted April 3, 2006 well what science describes is quite an orderly universe, but it's not the kind of order that is either useful or flattering to our species. and even if physicists achieve their holy grail of a unified field theory it won't answer the really important questions like who to date and how to live. I have to disagree with both of you....(zeus and saladin) ... science has proposed an orderly universe.......but even its most simple premises such as cause and effect can be seen as highly flawed ...(in my opinion) ... while observation of the percievable universe seem constant and preditable...there are phenomena such as black holes (and the second law of thermodynamics) for example ...that at his stage have put the skids on this type of thinking ...... (again...It's a matter of opinion and it really comes down to "imagination" ...if you are not a maths genious like ling ... at these levels of cosmology) So My imagination is as good as any off to the 5th dimension where the Hot alien babes hang out :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted April 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 I found anglo-american analytical philosophy to be equally bollocical in comparison with continental philosophy. really??? did you read any kristeva? or how about baudrillard???? i think bertrand russell or w.v.o. quine are significantly less bollocical. If you want to know who to date and how to live Zeus, I, Ling, will provide all of the answers for you. If you wish, and you keep your payments up to date, I will think for you in these matters and simply instruct you how to act. No more effort for you. oki. first question is how do i make enough money to make the payments? Not long after I graduated the tensions in the department drove Taylor and Tully out of the polisci department and eventually they both left the university. They've continued to be known, and McGill political science under the empiricists fell into obscurity. ah. therein lies the bollocism in anglo-american analytical philosophy... empiricist political 'science'... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted April 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 well what science describes is quite an orderly universe, but it's not the kind of order that is either useful or flattering to our species. and even if physicists achieve their holy grail of a unified field theory it won't answer the really important questions like who to date and how to live. I have to disagree with both of you....(zeus and saladin) ... science has proposed an orderly universe.......but even its most simple premises such as cause and effect can be seen as highly flawed ...(in my opinion) ... while observation of the percievable universe seem constant and preditable...there are phenomena such as black holes (and the second law of thermodynamics) for example ...that at his stage have put the skids on this type of thinking ...... (again...It's a matter of opinion and it really comes down to "imagination" ...if you are not a maths genious like ling ... at these levels of cosmology) ALL scientific knowledge and statements are IN ESSENCE provisional. i read those books and watch discovery channel too and have yet to see anything that indicates that black holes and thermodynamics are not orderly. as far as i know their behavior is even qute predictable. science comes down to falsifiable statements and predictions. the mere fact that we can make falsifiable statements that we humans have not been able to falsify through experiments and that predictions can be consistently accurate indicates an orderly universe. and even newton's quaint physics, rendered puny by relativity, quantum theory, strings, multiple dimensions, etc... are really super-solid as a special-case, and are all you need to predict the trajectory of that ball thrown at my head --- or to build a bridge. to my knowledge they don't teach quantum physics in engineering school (but maybe they do, i dropped out after a year and a half). you can imagine anything you want, but all there does seem to be evidence that even stuff like black holes are orderly, even if the order therein is utterly exotic and counter-intuitive to upright, hairless apes. where imagination comes in, is for people like us who can't (or wont') do all ling's pretty mathematics, people like stephen hawking tell stories based on the math. all they are is stories, and they are partial, provisional, incomplete. but the fact that they aren't comprehensive doesn't mean every statement is on an equal epistemological footing. SHORT VERSION: if the universe isn't orderly, why don't we see magic and miracles.... or do we? :twisted: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttesta Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 The concept of Chaos was introduced in physics to describe states of systems that do not allow clear and predicatable statements. It looks as if the system doesn't know what to do. It seems in a state of "Chaos". But that is not a correct interpretation. Choas only means that within the framework of physics, nothing an be said about the system. From a scientific point of view, there is very little what can be said. But it doesn NOT mean that chaos rules the universe. At no moment, there is anything going on in the universe that is out of control or chaotic. There might be chaos in the human mind (and in many minds it IS chaotic, I am sure), but also that is part of the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0nmaster Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 black holes and thermodynamics are not orderly. as far as i know their behavior is even qute predictable. what these indicate is ....even the laws of the universe itself will eventually break down on themselves...if that is not chaotic ....then what is ? I'm telling you ...science is terribly flawed in what it can tell us about the universe....... talk about falsifiable .......that exactly the point.....because we can not observe the majority of the universe ...or even percieve of it ...we just can't access the data.......there are huge gaping holes in every single scientificly proposed universal theory...... Choas only means that within the framework of physics, nothing an be said about the system. From a scientific point of view, there is very little what can be said. But it doesn NOT mean that chaos rules the universe. At no moment, there is anything going on in the universe that is out of control or chaotic. chaos doesn't rule the universe.........yet......I'm not talking about butterflies and hurricanes here....that type of "chaos effect" do not by any means threaten "physical" determinism ... the type of "chaos" i'm talking about is the type fundamental....in fact ...necessary to bring about the very birth of the universe.....the quantem leap from what went before to the big bang.........and just as the universe will expand and contract on itself ...heated and cooled......and that its likely that that we exist in what is probably just one part of the a multiverse...each "universe" having its own dimensions , rules of "physics"(or its equivelant) ...etc.... so with that in mind ...any ambitious attempt to understand the universe can not be answered by the mere rigid and deterministic nature of physics.....we have hit a wall with physics time and time again .....just like newtons laws may work.....it doesnt make them valid ......(coming back to falsifiable theories).....they are not...in fact relatively speaking.... such a far stretch from Frueds rants of is , ego and super ego , repression , projection ...etc etc... the mere fact that we can make falsifiable statements that we humans have not been able to falsify through experiments and that predictions can be consistently accurate indicates an orderly universe. indicates a small insignificant part of the universe whereby through human perception the state of things is predictable and deterministic .....and in fact ....even for cosmologists to hold onto this precious piece of lore is proving more and more difficult....... I don't see what the big deal is with doubting sciences usefullness in the grand scheme ......the only constant human truth is that every generation /discourse has contrdicted the last .....and i'm sure it will continue well beyond our life times..... once upon a time people believed in the four elements....earth wanted to be down to the ground....air wanted to be in the sjky...fire wanted to be higher than anything else and water wanted to be on earth ......and of course...the earth was the centre of the universe etc etc...capurnicus , gallileo ...had some interesting theories....altghough they were more correct....and closer to our current understanding....they were by no means relevant of valid in the grand scheme of things.....just as our grandchildren will laugh at our futile attempts//// Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 What does any of this have to do with the Thai character? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0nmaster Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 What does any of this have to do with the Thai character? he he he about as much as the original post had to do with the "thai character" ... ok,ok...slighly off topic I suppose..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 What does any of this have to do with the Thai character? I think they are comparing thai character to the universe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0nmaster Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 I think they are comparing thai character to the universe in that case the universe is without a doubt.."chaotic" ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0nmaster Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 SHORT VERSION: if the universe isn't orderly, why don't we see magic and miracles.... or do we? now thats a beautiful question.... of course the answer lies in that everything we see that we don't have some framework of understanding is "magic" ......in fact because we don't really understand anything (in any significant way) ...we can't really stand here and propose than anything ISN'T magic... the very fact that we are standing here as a carbon based substance that can percieve of its existance and seek to transcend it ....it surely "a miracle" ....even by the universes bizaar and twisted standards..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0nmaster Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 Guys, even though I don't understand a bit about the universe stuff you are talking about , nor do we........smoke and mirrors my friend....smoke and mirrors... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0nmaster Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 for zeusy.... http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46943 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie36 Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 I dont understand and have little interest in this cosmos stuff simply because I find humans so damn interesting. If humans were simply independent rational agents persuing their own selfish interests, they wouldnt be that interesting. But it is clear We are not. We can be controlled herded, manipulated and moulded into pretty much any form that takes our fancy. With toys like this to play with why look further? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttesta Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 With toys like this to play with why look further? yes, why should you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted April 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 The concept of Chaos was introduced in physics to describe states of systems that do not allow clear and predicatable statements. It looks as if the system doesn't know what to do. It seems in a state of "Chaos". But that is not a correct interpretation.Choas only means that within the framework of physics, nothing an be said about the system. From a scientific point of view, there is very little what can be said. But it doesn NOT mean that chaos rules the universe. At no moment, there is anything going on in the universe that is out of control or chaotic. There might be chaos in the human mind (and in many minds it IS chaotic, I am sure), but also that is part of the game. actually that is not correct. that which is described by 'chaos' as it is used in physics is VERY orderly and you CAN make TONS of predictions, just not the kind that would be at all useful to us. for instance you can predict the kind of pattern that will occur when you add millk to your tea, you just cannot predict when the blob will go that way and when this way. chaos is a kind of order. literally. as for the mind, the first question (and an important one) is whether "mind" and "brain" are the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttesta Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 chaos is a kind of order. literally. didn't I say that? Maybe I oversimplified a little bit ... as for the mind, the first question (and an important one) is whether "mind" and "brain" are the same thing Mind is content of consciousness. Brain is a concept and therefore in the mind. The brain is not the seat of consciousness. It's a manifestation of it. But I just started another thread I guess... hahaha... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted April 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 black holes and thermodynamics are not orderly. as far as i know their behavior is even qute predictable. what these indicate is ....even the laws of the universe itself will eventually break down on themselves...if that is not chaotic ....then what is ? if they break down in a predictable way, then the 'laws' of the universe are special cases of a different, broader set of laws, based on how it appears now. which isnt to say that if we know 'they'll always break down in this certain way' it helps us understand much about them. predictions don't necesarily mean predicting the future. for instance, see chaos theory comment. and predictions in evolutionary biiology have to do with if you find a fossil of x, it will have feature y--in other words, they look backwards. I'm telling you ...science is terribly flawed in what it can tell us about the universe.......talk about falsifiable .......that exactly the point.....because we can not observe the majority of the universe ...or even percieve of it ...we just can't access the data.......there are huge gaping holes in every single scientificly proposed universal theory...... ummm up to this point i dont see that we're necessarily disagreeing on much.... and even if miss hawking got his unified theory of everything, phsyics is still extremely limited in what it can describe in terms of how we as humans experience the universe. Choas only means that within the framework of physics, nothing an be said about the system. From a scientific point of view, there is very little what can be said. But it doesn NOT mean that chaos rules the universe. At no moment, there is anything going on in the universe that is out of control or chaotic. chaos doesn't rule the universe.........yet......I'm not talking about butterflies and hurricanes here....that type of "chaos effect" do not by any means threaten "physical" determinism ... the type of "chaos" i'm talking about is the type fundamental....in fact ...necessary to bring about the very birth of the universe.....the quantem leap from what went before to the big bang.........and just as the universe will expand and contract on itself ...heated and cooled......and that its likely that that we exist in what is probably just one part of the a multiverse...each "universe" having its own dimensions , rules of "physics"(or its equivelant) ...etc.... again, you insist we are disagreeing, but... that doesnt seem to contradict anything i said as far as i can tell. which doesnt rule out the possibility that i said it incredibly poorly. so with that in mind ...any ambitious attempt to understand the universe can not be answered by the mere rigid and deterministic nature of physics.....we have hit a wall with physics time and time again .....just like newtons laws may work.....it doesnt make them valid ......(coming back to falsifiable theories).....they are not...in fact relatively speaking.... such a far stretch from Frueds rants of is , ego and super ego , repression , projection ...etc etc... i think it is a big mistake to talk about physics as 'rigid and deterministic.' you keep using the word 'valid'--please define it because it does not seem to be how i would use the word, so i dont know what you mean. as for newton... newton's laws are quite accurate for the conditions under which they operate. also they are quite a stretch from freud's theories. they're a special case of a much larger and more complicated and imperfectly understood model, but unlike freud's model, they actually work fairly often, and fairly consistently. well i guess freud's does too, as long as everyone's white and a momma's boy. if you are saying that "because no truths can be absolute, all statements are equally true/untrue" then that seems overly simplistic at best. and i think overly simplistic is an extremely generous interpretation of that particular pomo dogma. the mere fact that we can make falsifiable statements that we humans have not been able to falsify through experiments and that predictions can be consistently accurate indicates an orderly universe. indicates a small insignificant part of the universe whereby through human perception the state of things is predictable and deterministic .....and in fact ....even for cosmologists to hold onto this precious piece of lore is proving more and more difficult....... no, our small and insignificant part of the universe is not deterministic. chaos and quantum theory are NOT deterministic. I don't see what the big deal is with doubting sciences usefullness in the grand scheme ...... ? and who said it was a big deal? the only constant human truth is that every generation /discourse has contrdicted the last .....and i'm sure it will continue well beyond our life times..... now that, i think, is a) not constant and not much of a truth. it is modernism as seen through a post-modern filter. but go ahead and believe that, it's not a testable statement. if i have to pick a 'truth' about the human world, it's that our bodies die. that one is pretty testable. once upon a time people believed in the four elements....earth wanted to be down to the ground....air wanted to be in the sjky...fire wanted to be higher than anything else and water wanted to be on earth ......and of course...the earth was the centre of the universe etc etc...capurnicus , gallileo ...had some interesting theories....altghough they were more correct....and closer to our current understanding....they were by no means relevant of valid in the grand scheme of things.....just as our grandchildren will laugh at our futile attempts//// well i think if we are laughing at copernicus then we are idiots. also, when we smugly talk about aquinas (or whoever it was) wondering how many angels fit on the head of a pin, we are grossly oversimplifying what those people were thinking/talking about. true they held some beliefs about the universe that we don't share. and some of their statements have a falsifiable, non-metaphysical component which has since been falsified. but it isnt terribly productive to make straw men of them. as for the earth being round, the greeks knew that. it looks like you are skating dangerously close to a simplistic version of the pomo "all is discourse" and therefore "one discourse is as good as another." that to me sounds like mere dogma and kind of silly, like baudrillard's assertion that the gulf war didn't happen. (which i am, in turn, oversimplifying, taking out of context and making a straw man of). there's a big difference between what i think you mean by validity and completeness.. we will never completely understand anything, and no 'truth' will ever be an absolute truth. but we can reliably understand some aspects of some things, and the most reliable shared knowledge is that gained through scientific practice (because the statements are falsifiable). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.