• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Proud of scientific achievements?

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Ernst Pöppel | Edge.org



Ernst Pöppel

Head of Research Group Systems, Neuroscience and Cognitive Research, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany; Guest Professor, Peking University, China
My belief in science


Average life expectancy of a species on this globe is just a few million years. From an external point of view, it would be nothing special if humankind suddenly disappears. We have been here for sometime. With humans no longer around, evolutionary processes would have an even better chance to fill in all those ecological niches which have been created by human activities. As we change the world, and as thousands of species are lost every year because of human activities, we provide a new and productive environment for the creation of new species. Thus, humankind is very creative with respect to providing a frame for new evolutionary trajectories, and humankind would even be more creative, if it has disappeared altogether. If somebody (unfortunately not our descendents) would visit this globe some time later, they would meet many new species, which owe their existence the presence and the disappearance of humankind.

But this is not going to happen, because we are doing science. With science we apparently get a better understanding of basic principles in nature, we have a chance to improve quality of life, and we can develop means to extend the life expectancy of our species. Unfortunately, some of these scientific activities have a paradoxical effect resulting in a higher risk for a common disappearance. Maybe, science will not be so effective after all to prevent our disappearance.

Only now comes my dangerous idea as my (!) dangerous idea. It is not so difficult to come up with a dangerous scenario on a general level, but if one takes such a question also seriously on a personal level, one has to meditate an individual scenario. I am very grateful for this question formulated by Steven Pinker as it forced me to visit my episodic memory and to think about what has been and still is "my dangerous idea". Although nobody else might be interested in a personal statement, I say it anyway: My dangerous idea is my belief in science.

In all my research (in the field of temporal perception or visual processes) I have a basic trust in the scientific activities, and I actually believe the results I have obtained. And I believe the results of others. But why? I know that there so many unknown and unknowable variables that are part of the experimental setup and which cannot be controlled. How can I trust in spite of so many unknowables (does this word exist in English?)? Furthermore, can I really rely on my thinking, can I trust my eyes and ears? Can I be so sure about my scientific activities that I communicate with pride the results to others? If I look at the complexity of the brain, how is it possible that something reasonable comes out of this network? How is it possible that a face that I see or a thought that I have maintain their identity over time? If I have no access to what goes on in my brain, how can I be so proud, (how can anybody be so proud) about scientific achievements?
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
We are not anti science. We understand that what we study and and take as objective truths are the representations.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Ernst Pöppel | Edge.org



Ernst Pöppel

Head of Research Group Systems, Neuroscience and Cognitive Research, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany; Guest Professor, Peking University, China
My belief in science


Average life expectancy of a species on this globe is just a few million years. From an external point of view, it would be nothing special if humankind suddenly disappears. We have been here for sometime. With humans no longer around, evolutionary processes would have an even better chance to fill in all those ecological niches which have been created by human activities. As we change the world, and as thousands of species are lost every year because of human activities, we provide a new and productive environment for the creation of new species. Thus, humankind is very creative with respect to providing a frame for new evolutionary trajectories, and humankind would even be more creative, if it has disappeared altogether. If somebody (unfortunately not our descendents) would visit this globe some time later, they would meet many new species, which owe their existence the presence and the disappearance of humankind.

But this is not going to happen, because we are doing science. With science we apparently get a better understanding of basic principles in nature, we have a chance to improve quality of life, and we can develop means to extend the life expectancy of our species. Unfortunately, some of these scientific activities have a paradoxical effect resulting in a higher risk for a common disappearance. Maybe, science will not be so effective after all to prevent our disappearance.

Only now comes my dangerous idea as my (!) dangerous idea. It is not so difficult to come up with a dangerous scenario on a general level, but if one takes such a question also seriously on a personal level, one has to meditate an individual scenario. I am very grateful for this question formulated by Steven Pinker as it forced me to visit my episodic memory and to think about what has been and still is "my dangerous idea". Although nobody else might be interested in a personal statement, I say it anyway: My dangerous idea is my belief in science.

In all my research (in the field of temporal perception or visual processes) I have a basic trust in the scientific activities, and I actually believe the results I have obtained. And I believe the results of others. But why? I know that there so many unknown and unknowable variables that are part of the experimental setup and which cannot be controlled. How can I trust in spite of so many unknowables (does this word exist in English?)? Furthermore, can I really rely on my thinking, can I trust my eyes and ears? Can I be so sure about my scientific activities that I communicate with pride the results to others? If I look at the complexity of the brain, how is it possible that something reasonable comes out of this network? How is it possible that a face that I see or a thought that I have maintain their identity over time? If I have no access to what goes on in my brain, how can I be so proud, (how can anybody be so proud) about scientific achievements?
I love science. Had I been inclined with mathematics better I would have pursued a field in physics or astronomy.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Not science, religion, commerce, or any other human endeavour is going to save humankind from having ravaged and misused Earth's natural resources. Humans are our own worst enemy, and will eventually eliminate the species................ Long live the beetles.

.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
If I look at the complexity of the brain, how is it possible that something reasonable comes out of this network? How is it possible that a face that I see or a thought that I have maintain their identity over time? If I have no access to what goes on in my brain, how can I be so proud, (how can anybody be so proud) about scientific achievements?

Nothing at all "reasonable" originates in the human brain any longer. It is a non sequitur because our brains are programmed to use an unreasoning language.

It "seems" reason can come out because we can each understand our thoughts even though we can't communicate them in a language that is deconstructed by each listener. Whether a scientist knows it or not the fact is his models and knowledge all reflect his beliefs. Order is partially imposed because of the effect of well crafted experiment and to a lesser extent the quantified logic we call "mathematics" but everything is still belief and not reality itself.

"Pride" is real and originates in a part of the brain that still operates digitally; the amygdala. This "device" provides us a vector sum total of everything that occurs. One should be proud of his accomplishments and the accomplishments of others that made it possible. Life is knowledge > creation > understanding and science is the most direct route to this very very religious concept.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
In all my research (in the field of temporal perception or visual processes) I have a basic trust in the scientific activities, and I actually believe the results I have obtained. And I believe the results of others. But why? I know that there so many unknown and unknowable variables that are part of the experimental setup and which cannot be controlled. How can I trust in spite of so many unknowables

Science has demonstrated the validity of its methods and underlying philosophical principles (skepticism, empiricism, etc..) with its tremendous eclat.

All we need to know about our experience of what we call reality is that we experience sensations, inclinations, desires, proclivities, and preferences.

Also, that we make decisions, and that we experience perceptions of outcomes that follow implementing those decisions through our senses.

If a person has a belief B that some action A will produce desired result D, if B is true, then doing A should achieve D. If A fails to achieve D, then B is false.

Either one agrees that the validity of a claim about reality should be measured by its capacity to inform decisions and produce desired results, or he doesn't.

Science works. Others can dispute science based on arcane principles and arguments, but the proof is in the pudding. Which religion and its precepts put men on the moon and returned them safely?

If I look at the complexity of the brain, how is it possible that something reasonable comes out of this network?

It's been suggested. paradoxically, that If the human brain were simple enough to understand, that fact would render us too simple to understand it.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
..

Science works. Others can dispute science based on arcane principles and arguments, but the proof is in the pudding. Which religion and its precepts put men on the moon and returned them safely?

Yes. That I why I do not personally accept a mechanism view of intelligence.
 
Last edited:

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Really. Science does not do "objective truths".
I Toss a rock in the air it falls to earth. Is science the the causality or is a narrative about the cauality created by $cience? Is science even a necessity or related to the rock actually falling? No it's not it's narrative. Can it be accurate? Yes. is accuracy TRUTH? No it accurate within prescribed criteria. Who determines the criteria? Us, thus it unto itself is not objective, and to think otherwise is reductionism.

Richard Feynman in the 60's has an interesting discussion on science . Apparently what he talks about is very difficult to understand. Nature is way bigger than science or religion. Objective resides in nature not our narratives about it.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
We are not anti science. We understand that what we study and and take as objective truths are the representations.
Religious forums tend to break out into eitheri hyper reductionism religiously and scientifically in debate. It seems to be a debate more about the details with no awareness of base Sub-concious assumptions which are shared. In such a debate framework the arguments are "what" we understand and little activity or discussion or even awareness about "how" we understand. That's a major problem certainly in religion and in science and general culture as well.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
We are not anti science. We understand that what we study and and take as objective truths are the representations.
I think the fact you felt the need to add that demonstrates the flaw (or maybe "dangerous idea" :) ) in the article. He isn't really talking about science, it's a much deeper and more fundamental concept. You don't have to be applying formal scientific process to face the problems and limitations he speaks of. Crossing the road, climbing stairs, eating food, communicating with each other... pretty much everything we all do involves us observing and understanding things via our limited senses and imperfect mental capacities. That's why we all mess those things up sometimes.

I'm not clear what the writers underlying intent actually was because it reads very much like the all too common attack on "science" by those who would push "alternative" ideas but that doesn't fit with the background of the proposed author. I am truly confused by the whole thing.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
I think the fact you felt the need to add that demonstrates the flaw (or maybe "dangerous idea" :) ) in the article. He isn't really talking about science, it's a much deeper and more fundamental concept. You don't have to be applying formal scientific process to face the problems and limitations he speaks of. Crossing the road, climbing stairs, eating food, communicating with each other... pretty much everything we all do involves us observing and understanding things via our limited senses and imperfect mental capacities. That's why we all mess those things up sometimes.

I'm not clear what the writers underlying intent actually was because it reads very much like the all too common attack on "science" by those who would push "alternative" ideas but that doesn't fit with the background of the proposed author. I am truly confused by the whole thing.

I think what he says makes almost perfect sense literally. I'm not sure he sees the irony of science being a belief system but it's not like he's the only one who can see it.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
I think the fact you felt the need to add that demonstrates the flaw (or maybe "dangerous idea" :) ) in the article. He isn't really talking about science, it's a much deeper and more fundamental concept. You don't have to be applying formal scientific process to face the problems and limitations he speaks of. Crossing the road, climbing stairs, eating food, communicating with each other... pretty much everything we all do involves us observing and understanding things via our limited senses and imperfect mental capacities. That's why we all mess those things up sometimes.

I'm not clear what the writers underlying intent actually was because it reads very much like the all too common attack on "science" by those who would push "alternative" ideas but that doesn't fit with the background of the proposed author. I am truly confused by the whole thing.

Neither I see it as an attack on science nor I am confused. :)
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Ernst Pöppel | Edge.org



Ernst Pöppel

Head of Research Group Systems, Neuroscience and Cognitive Research, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany; Guest Professor, Peking University, China
My belief in science


Average life expectancy of a species on this globe is just a few million years. From an external point of view, it would be nothing special if humankind suddenly disappears. We have been here for sometime. With humans no longer around, evolutionary processes would have an even better chance to fill in all those ecological niches which have been created by human activities. As we change the world, and as thousands of species are lost every year because of human activities, we provide a new and productive environment for the creation of new species. Thus, humankind is very creative with respect to providing a frame for new evolutionary trajectories, and humankind would even be more creative, if it has disappeared altogether. If somebody (unfortunately not our descendents) would visit this globe some time later, they would meet many new species, which owe their existence the presence and the disappearance of humankind.

But this is not going to happen, because we are doing science. With science we apparently get a better understanding of basic principles in nature, we have a chance to improve quality of life, and we can develop means to extend the life expectancy of our species. Unfortunately, some of these scientific activities have a paradoxical effect resulting in a higher risk for a common disappearance. Maybe, science will not be so effective after all to prevent our disappearance.

Only now comes my dangerous idea as my (!) dangerous idea. It is not so difficult to come up with a dangerous scenario on a general level, but if one takes such a question also seriously on a personal level, one has to meditate an individual scenario. I am very grateful for this question formulated by Steven Pinker as it forced me to visit my episodic memory and to think about what has been and still is "my dangerous idea". Although nobody else might be interested in a personal statement, I say it anyway: My dangerous idea is my belief in science.

In all my research (in the field of temporal perception or visual processes) I have a basic trust in the scientific activities, and I actually believe the results I have obtained. And I believe the results of others. But why? I know that there so many unknown and unknowable variables that are part of the experimental setup and which cannot be controlled. How can I trust in spite of so many unknowables (does this word exist in English?)? Furthermore, can I really rely on my thinking, can I trust my eyes and ears? Can I be so sure about my scientific activities that I communicate with pride the results to others? If I look at the complexity of the brain, how is it possible that something reasonable comes out of this network? How is it possible that a face that I see or a thought that I have maintain their identity over time? If I have no access to what goes on in my brain, how can I be so proud, (how can anybody be so proud) about scientific achievements?


Norman Borlaug, led the green revolution and is accredited with saving over a billion people from starvation. Science to be proud of.

Raymond Damadian, invented the MRI scanner, it helps accurately diagnose conditions within the body without invasive surgery. It too is saving lives. Science to be proud of.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Norman Borlaug, led the green revolution and is accredited with saving over a billion people from starvation. Science to be proud of.

Raymond Damadian, invented the MRI scanner, it helps accurately diagnose conditions within the body without invasive surgery. It too is saving lives. Science to be proud of.

Certainly religion must have commensurate achievements to brag about, right?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Ernst Pöppel | Edge.org



Ernst Pöppel

Head of Research Group Systems, Neuroscience and Cognitive Research, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany; Guest Professor, Peking University, China
My belief in science


Average life expectancy <snip> scientific achievements?

Atanu,

Do you have any of your own comments to add to this? Why should anyone care what Ernst Poppel has to say? I am much more nterested in what Atanu has to say. In this case, he had nothing to say.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Atanu,

Do you have any of your own comments to add to this? Why should anyone care what Ernst Poppel has to say? I am much more nterested in what Atanu has to say. In this case, he had nothing to say.

:)

Someone cares. You do not allow me my freedom to just share? No?

But I did add a comment in 2nd post.

Since you bring this up, I say that I have often articulated in this forum the thought that if the intelligence is borne of mechanism, has it the freedom of discernment? I was surprised to see Mr. Poppel raise the same question.

If the chemicals are frenetically interacting among themselves giving rise to human intellect, is it competent to determine truth value of propositions? We may say that Evolution did it. Even then the question remains did Evolution do it to make us competent to discern truth?
...
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Norman Borlaug, led the green revolution and is accredited with saving over a billion people from starvation. Science to be proud of.

Raymond Damadian, invented the MRI scanner, it helps accurately diagnose conditions within the body without invasive surgery. It too is saving lives. Science to be proud of.

I have no doubt about what you list and more.

But do you not think that Mr. Poppel raises a scientific question on science?
 
Top