Re: OT: Huckabee, Ughh

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
dpb wrote:
....

mathematicians, scientists, and philosophers, my contention is
merely much *broader* in their knowledge base. This makes them
far less parochial than some of the arguments we hear coming
from the Rationalist/empiricist camp (as demonstrated in this thread
in spades).

I dispute the conclusion and contend that with the "width" comes inevitably the "shallow", particularly in the sciences.

....
...simply 150 years ago or so, ...
...the level of knowledge in the field was such that it was still considered "philosophy", not "science".

Which is as it still should be. If you don't know *why* you "know"
things, you will never understand the limits of the system you're
using. Science - whether scientists like it or not - is the handmaiden
of philosophy. It does not stand on its own except as a purely
utilitarian discipline - i.e. The auto mechanics of knowledge.

That is _precisely_ the self-righteous pontification of the liberal education major of which you smear the scientific community... :(

It is the d-d rare eminent scientist who lacks such founding.

....
...Everybody has an opinion or belief, hardly anyone understands even the rudiments of string theory.

There is some truth to this. But I still maintain that
if you do not understand the philosophical foundations of your
knowledge system, you cannot ever understand its limits and pretty
soon everything starts to look like a nail for your hammer - much
as we've seen in this thread.

But the same is true from the other direction -- if you do not understand the _depth_ of scientific theory, how can you possibly pontificate meaningful upon its meaning (or lack thereof)?

I contend it is like clashing cymbals...

....
...In the case of science that axiom is that we can reliably
observe our universe and draw general conclusions about its
operations based on those observations. While I happen to agree
with that starting point, it is not inherently True and could turn
out to be entirely wrong. ...

Well, so far it has worked remarkably well. If we ever find a point in time or in space where it doesn't work, then the axiom will have to be modified. ...

I've never disputed the utility value of science.

[snippage above repaired to retain context]

Utility aside, the ultimate ability of "a theory of everything" to understand the "how" of "what" may prove there was no "why" or at least what the "why" had to do.

It is at least as significant to me you ignore the point that scientific thought would be thrown into a tizzy and completely regenerated if such an event as hypothesized were to actually be observed. As opposed to purely philosophical arguments, the necessity to meet reality is key and whatever modifications to the axioms of science required would be promptly created and adopted to meet the revised state of knowledge.

That's a reality folks on your side have as difficult a time of grasping as the most ardent creationist does of the possibility of more than seven literal days.

I'll note one "pet thought" of mine regarding your earlier question of root cause and "where did it come from originally" is that the existence of quantum fluctuation just _might_ be that external force, or in another way, that little bit of "wriggle room" in the Heisenburg principle is the man behind the curtain we're not supposed to be paying attention to.

And this is the sort of thinking that is productive, useful, and interesting even though it is not amenable to empirical confirmation.

"Productive and useful" I don't know about...interesting, perhaps.

And, as I've alluded to on numerous occasions (which I note you adroitly avoid even acknowledging), the former is seeming to be likely to be either what we find or at least a prelude.

--
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Proposal - a new strategy to counter anti-evolutionists
    ... >> philosophy in the US, ... >>> encourage students to consider the nature of comparative faith and the ... he was a North Carolina State science prof.. ... etc. are complicated and often misunderstood by scientists ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hard Sci-fi?
    ... it down with your nonsens philosophy. ... math are never going to be more than a subset of science. ... everything is part of nature. ... some experimental scientists might). ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... qualify the repeat requirement that science places to prove an event. ... You have some pieces (observe) but you ... As far as I can tell, religion contains zero pieces. ... Scientists are always looking for more ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... History is a social science. ... just as natural scientists will ... You are trying to solve a puzzle. ... You have some pieces (observe) but you ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... History is a social science. ... You are trying to solve a puzzle. ... You have some pieces (observe) but you ... Scientists are always looking for more ...
    (talk.origins)