You can't have perfect knowledge through science

[atanu]

I could perhaps have been more forthcoming in defining what I meant.
So we might find that you're not the only one who has to work on their communication skills.
I meant that I find that Godel's theorem is largely correct, or at least, that I can find no immediate fault in it.
However, I do not agree that we should attribute this to what we normally refer to as 'common sense', thus maintaining the argument that 'common sense' is quite limited in it's application when it comes to understanding and determining reality.
Hope that was a bit clearer.

So, should we attribute this to uncommon sense?

It is easy for me. I will re-model your earlier sentence to "Our perception of what consitutes common sense is quite regularly overtaken by results of enquiry."

 

[jarofthoughts]

So, should we attribute this to uncommon sense?

I think it is quite safe to say that the insight possessed by Godel was far from 'common'.

It is easy for me. I will re-model your earlier sentence to "Our perception of what consitutes common sense is quite regularly overtaken by results of enquiry."

That would require that the results of our enquiry actually become common sense at some point, which, so far, it doesn't appear to.
Admittedly certain things seep into the common consciousness over time but it is a very slow process and it is all too often incomplete.

 

[atanu]

That would require that the results of our enquiry actually become common sense at some point, which, so far, it doesn't appear to.

It can never be so for the materialist.

 

[PolyHedral]

It can never be so for the materialist.

Can you explain the entirety of reaity in non-material terms?

 

[jarofthoughts]

It can never be so for the materialist.

Can you give a single example of something that is not physical?

 

[Daviso452]

Very interesting conversation. Spanned 69 pages.

 

[Straw Dog]

It can never be so for the materialist.

I wonder if it would make any difference in this discussion if the philosophy of materialism was separated from physicalism. Materialism states the everything in existence is made of matter. Physicalism has actually evolved with the physical sciences. It holds that everything is no more extensive than its physical properties. Physicalism is preferable because it has evolved with the physical sciences to incorporate far more sophisticated notions of physicality than matter, for example wave/particle relationships and non-material forces produced by particles. Physicalism ultimately includes whatever is described by physics — not just matter but energy, dark energy, dark matter, space, time, physical forces, structure, physical processes, information, state, etc.

I agree that no everything is made of matter, but I would maintain than everything is no more extensive than their physical properties.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I agree that no everything is made of matter, but I would maintain than everything is no more extensive than their physical properties.

My point exactly, and the reason for the careful wording above.

 

[atanu]

I wonder if it would make any difference in this discussion if the philosophy of materialism was separated from physicalism. Materialism states the everything in existence is made of matter. Physicalism has actually evolved with the physical sciences. It holds that everything is no more extensive than its physical properties. Physicalism is preferable because it has evolved with the physical sciences to incorporate far more sophisticated notions of physicality than matter, for example wave/particle relationships and non-material forces produced by particles. Physicalism ultimately includes whatever is described by physics — not just matter but energy, dark energy, dark matter, space, time, physical forces, structure, physical processes, information, state, etc.

I agree that no everything is made of matter, but I would maintain than everything is no more extensive than their physical properties.

I do not think so. Mathematicians and scientists do agree that there are truths in the strong formal system that are not provable in the system. That was the theme of the thread, IMO.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...8-post621.html

Tao Te Ching
The Way that can be told of is not an unvarying way;
The names that can be named are not unvarying names.
It was from the Nameless that Heaven and Earth sprang;
​

 

[Straw Dog]

I do not think so. Mathematicians and scientists do agree that there are truths in the strong formal system that are not provable in the system. That was the theme of the thread, IMO.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...8-post621.html

Tao Te Ching
The Way that can be told of is not an unvarying way;
The names that can be named are not unvarying names.
It was from the Nameless that Heaven and Earth sprang;
​

I just said that I'm maintaining that everything is no more extensive than its physical properties. I'm not concluding definitively that this is the case. "Truth" is tentative and continues so far as it proves to be useful. I prefer not to speculate about the absolute nature of the Tao, since I only experience it on a relative/pragmatic basis. I'll wait patiently for those scientists and mathematicians to flesh out what those truths in the strong formal system actually are before imposing my preferences onto it.

 

[atanu]

I just said that I'm maintaining that everything is no more extensive than its physical properties. I'm not concluding definitively that this is the case. "Truth" is tentative and continues so far as it proves to be useful. I prefer not to speculate about the absolute nature of the Tao, since I only experience it on a relative/pragmatic basis. I'll wait patiently for those scientists and mathematicians to flesh out what those truths in the strong formal system actually are before imposing my preferences onto it.

Well. I differ by what is meant by truth. And surely I am not throwing away the empirical truth.

 

[Straw Dog]

Well. I differ by what is meant by truth. And surely I am not throwing away the empirical truth.

Perhaps you differ in what you mean by truth because we all experience it on a individually relative or pragmatic basis.

How do I look outside of my self whenever it's the self that's doing all the looking?

 

[idav]

Perhaps you differ in what you mean by truth because we all experience it on a individually relative or pragmatic basis.

How do I look outside of my self whenever it's the self that's doing all the looking?

Both looking within and looking outside ourselves involves looking. It is experience either way.

 

[9Westy9]

Perhaps you differ in what you mean by truth because we all experience it on a individually relative or pragmatic basis.

How do I look outside of my self whenever it's the self that's doing all the looking?

Excellent point. The only way to have a chance of looking outside yourself is collaboration with others.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

What bothers me is not whether the scientific method is flawed (I dont believe it is). But how people look at science and technology. There are many who look to both as the only things that will ensure our future as a species on this planet. Thinking that we have only benefited from science and technology. I say these thing come at a price, an often terrible price.

Science and technology have brought us some very bad things and I don't understand why so many people idolize it. Science and technology are nothing more than tools that we use, they are not our saviors. Put both both in hand's of ignorant people and they can become our destruction.

 

[FreeTHinker4eva]

You can't have perfect knowledge with Science alone.
You can't have perfect knowledge with Religion alone.

We can't have perfect knowledge.

A finite mind cannot know perfect knowledge perfectly.

We are hard wired to strive for the glimpse of perfection, the grasp for a nano-second of -perfection- while here-'till we then remember, we realize again, we have a finite mind.
A finite mind does not comprehend infinity.
We may grasp the concept yet none of us can describe further.
We have no frame of reference for infinity because we experience a finity[lol]->a finite ending. We die-seemingly permanently; Seeming nothingness.
No-one has seen fit to come back in the flesh and convince anyone of continued existence. Not in a way humanity as a whole can agree on. -yet-anyway.
I experience more than the sum of my parts. I call this tenuous consensus of science, philosophy, religion, spirit- mind. Each to their place and their part of this grand design. It is everything and also nothing. It is organic and inorganic all at once for now and forever. Life continues regardless of form. Perfectly perfect.
I hope for sentient existence because I long for the experience of perfection at some event within eternity. )(

 

[jarofthoughts]

There are many who look to both as the only things that will ensure our future as a species on this planet.

It is.
It may doom us as well, but without it, we have no chance in the long run.

Thinking that we have only benefited from science and technology. I say these thing come at a price, an often terrible price.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that science and technology is exclusively beneficial.
It all comes down to how we use it.

Science and technology have brought us some very bad things and I don't understand why so many people idolize it.

Because it is the best and most efficient method we have ever devised for figuring out how the universe works.
Nothing else comes even close.

Science and technology are nothing more than tools that we use, they are not our saviors.

They are indeed tools, but they are the best tools we have for any task.

Put both both in hand's of ignorant people and they can become our destruction.

Solution: Stop having ignorant people.

 

[Two-bit guru]

You can't have perfect anything through anything.

 

[BottomlessThought]

What on Earth are you trying to say? The scientific method may never come up with the correct answers but:

1. It's the best guess we've got. At least it bases it's hypotheses on tested evidence, reasoning, and logic, and takes the best logical positions it can come up with. It's produced by way of making the best and most progressive guesses it can, based on evidence. This is as opposed to religion, which involves taking answers just because they are said to be correct; if I write up random explanations for the universe's laws, does that mean they should be accepted, just because I say they are definitely true, whereas science admits to constantly improving? Religion works with assertions that science has long since left behind in the dust as far as probability is concerned.

2. Just look at the benefit of science in our modern world, as opposed to religion. Which world-view do you think has caused the production of such great feats, in the fields of technology and engineering most eminently, but also in all other fields of academic progress? The one which is willing to constantly be changed in order to match new logical thought, or the one which will always insist it is correct?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Just look at the benefit of science in our modern world, as opposed to religion.

Yes let us look at the wonderful benefits that science and technology have bestowed so blessedly upon us, let's us bow down in wonder to science and technology as we comtemplate such scientific and technological blessings such as thermonuclear warheads, cancer-causing chemical agents, Chernobyl and the Great Pacific Garbage Patch!