Re: Objective Anti-Intellectualism

On Aug 13, 2:16 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 13, 10:00 am, tg <tgdenn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 13, 10:28 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 12, 4:10 pm, tg <tgdenn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

Our direct perceptions, yes. but physics, for example, has theories -
models of reality - which not only make successful predictions but
which are *not intuitive, or even comprehensible without serious math
training.

The little physics I "know" is just a simple mental image I have in my
ape brain built on metaphors from pop science books and articles.

So what you say is certainly true about me and my inner construct of
the world, but science - using tools that require special training -
gives every indication that it is closing in on reality.

What indications would there be?  The only thing we can know is that
prediction is getting better.

Ummm... that *is the test for correctness in science, is it not? How
else would we know that we are closing in on reality?


The problem which you don't seem to be getting is that we can get more
correct in science *without* closing in on reality. Newton at least
was honest enough to say that even though he had improved the ability
to predict certain phenomena, he was unwilling to claim that he better
understood those phenomena.

As I mentioned in my original post, we have gone back and forth about
the 'nature' of light, but in that period of time, prediction and
manipulation of that phenomenon has consistently improved. Clearly,
getting the physical/conceptual model right is not a necessary
condition for the 'correctness' of science to increase.

-tg




Sure, we can say something like in GR that the math *is* the 'nature
of reality', properly dispensing with visualizations like 'curved
space-time'. But it is only 'the nature' of a perceptually defined
subset of what we perceive as 'phenomena' within the perceptually
defined 'universe'.

We already know of many phenomena that we cannot directly perceive:
Our brains give indications of deciding something before we are aware
of it.
The creation of particles that last only for nanoseconds.
Galaxies too far away to see with our eyes.
Viruses.
The Earth's magnetic field.
Heck, even gravity.

There are many things we cannot see directly, but because they have
effects on things we *can perceive, we can deduce their existence and
nature (to a degree).

Some of these things we think of as perceivable (microbes) but they
really aren't; other things are explicable only through high math or
other less intuitive means. Heck, my wife and I refer to some drivers
on the road as having "cat brains". Cats get run over frequently,
despite being superb athletes. Their brains did not evolve to process
sensory input for two-ton, 80 kph predators.  They can catch birds on
the wing, but they get run over by cars they can see coming down the
road. I see people who obviously have no grasp of the distance they
can travel at highway speeds while processing  the sight of an
accident, their physical reflex, and the braking time involved. They
"feel" safe when 3 meters behind someone while driving at 80 kph. Even
our interpretations of ordinary perceptions can be off.

There may be some things that interact with our perceptual realm so
little that we may not be able to get a handle on them. I don't see
this as a fundamental problem. Some things we may never know. That
doesn't mean that we know nothing, nor that we cannot learn much, much
more.



-tg

<snip>
Kermit

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Original Sin
    ... Ontological scientific naturalism holds that the entities posited ... phenomena can be explained based on scientific principles. ... think that anybody versed in science will have much reason to doubt ... physical reality is local. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Incommensurability of Mathematical Logic and Scientific Logic
    ... Reality has everything to do with Physics. ... The purpose of science is to explain or interrelate various perceived aspects of natural phenomena! ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Incommensurability of Mathematical Logic and Scientific Logic
    ... Reality has everything to do with Physics. ... The purpose of science is to explain or interrelate various perceived aspects of natural phenomena! ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Where we Christians too often get it wrong
    ... moved closer to reality. ... future phenomena or modeling observed phenomena. ... No it's not TRUTH. ... bridge the gap between science and the "ultimate truth". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Some new in science, completely new picture of physics and world.
    ... configuring some reality made with smaller "particles". ... In this new physics speed of propaga ting ... not practicing in science at that time). ... Regions with changed characteristic (closer to rota tion axis) can't ...
    (talk.origins)