At worst string theory is a physics-based mathematical metaphysics, so clearly within the remit of science (e.g. Galilean Relativity, Newtonian Gravity, Maxwell's Demon, Schödinger's Cat, The Copenhagen Interpretation, etc). — 180 Proof
↪180 Proof here's two: When scientists claim there is no god. When scientists claim they are understanding the nature of reality.
It would only be right to make assertions like this if reality was merely physical — emancipate
There’s the biological theory of the evolution of species. Then there’s Darwinism as a philosophy. Sometimes, there’s a connection. — Wayfarer
For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that scientisim's bedrock foundation is a firm conviction that science is a, the sole dealer/purveyor/agent of "truth" which is clearly not tru — TheMadFool
Some would say the sole article of faith required is absolute commitement to the non-existence of God. — Wayfarer
For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that scientisim's bedrock foundation is a firm conviction that science is a, the sole dealer/purveyor/agent of "truth" which is clearly not true. — TheMadFool
Don't know about scientism as opposed to science. But there are many secular humanists - advocates of science who would argue that science provides the best models of reality based on the evidence available and makes no proclamations about truth. It is a tool, no more. To say there is no God or to say that there are no other truth sources does not fit with many secular humanist science geeks I know — Tom Storm
there are many secular humanists - advocates of science — Tom Storm
definition of "fact": a thing that is known or proved to be true. — TheMadFool
Google definition of "fact": a thing that is known or proved to be true. — TheMadFool
Gravity waves were unfalsifiable for a century or more yet not "woo woo", you know why? Because in principle they were always testable, but the technological means to do so were lacking until recently. Same with string theory: the energy required to test it are far beyond even foreseeable technological capabilities at the moment but it is in principle testable nonetheless. Neither "pseudo-science" (falsified and not the best explanation available e.g. "Lamarckism") nor "woo woo" (unfalsifiable in principle and doesn't explain anything that it purports to explain e.g. "Jungian Synchronicity"). Though I'm not persuaded of its approach compared to, say, Rovelli's RQM, I hold that string theory purports to explain a great deal (re: quantum gravity) but that so far there aren't any technically feasible ways to falsify its explanatory model (i.e. science).In a Popperian sense, this definitely is a serious setback for string theory for it relegates what to me is a very promising mathematical model to pseudoscience (woo-woo). — TheMadFool
Because the project of life is to live well, and what that means exactly is a mystery that can only be discovered through living. And there are not enough moments in a single life to do it justice. So we need to develop a lexicon for sharing the complex understandings that each of us uniquely develops. That's why mythologies exist.Why would you bother with that challenge? — Isaac
So don't believe that modern 'secular humanism' is actually humanistic - whatever humanism it retains, is from the dying embers of the Christian culture that gave rise to it. Look to the CCP for the future of 'secular humanism'. — Wayfarer
You know the Italian Renaissance is said to be the seeding ground for humanism, right? — Wayfarer
Google definition of "fact": a thing that is known or proved to be true. — TheMadFool
I am heading into late middle age. I don't think I have learned anything much from the passing of time or experience. I'm not sure how I would test this — Tom Storm
I don't really.How exactly do you quantify knowledge? — Pantagruel
How exactly do you quantify knowledge? Is it measured by the salary that it facilitates? Or is it in the types of things that you do with that salary? Or the way you use your free time? — Pantagruel
I don't really.
All I am doing is reporting what my memory and impressions tell me. It may well be wrong but it is all we can do. — Tom Storm
And the other way around too, some people "know" astronomy very well, but can't fix a broken desk. — Manuel
Specialization is like a...reward. — Pantagruel
Btw, a fellow working-class, Catholic-raised Bronx, wiseass who called common sense "bullshit" on the religious outlook (not a word about "science"):Your issue is, I hope you don't mind me saying, you're still completely wedged in the Science V Religion dichotomy — Wayfarer
Gravity waves were unfalsifiable for a century or more yet not "woo woo", you know why? Because in principle they were always testable, but the technological means to do so were lacking until recently. Same with string theory: the energy required to test it are far beyond even foreseeable technological capabilities at the moment but it is in principle testable nonetheless. Neither "pseudo-science" (falsified and not the best explanation available e.g. "Lamarckism") nor "woo woo" (unfalsifiable in principle and doesn't explain anything that it purports to explain e.g. "Jungian Synchronicity"). Though I'm not persuaded of its approach compared to, say, Rovelli's LQG, I hold that string theory purports to explain a great deal (re: quantum gravity) but that so far there aren't any technically feasible ways to falsify its explanatory model (i.e. science). — 180 Proof
Life doesn't teach lessons. It's up to us to learn them.So we might as well try to learn all of the lessons that life teaches us. — Pantagruel
Giordano Bruno's speculation of "thousands of other suns with other earths" (which got him burned at the stake in 1600 CE), it took nearly four centuries before humans walked on the moon and the Hubble telescope, etc had found apparently Earth-like exoplanets around distant stars; likewise, the problem of testing "string theory" is currently intractable, and besides there are other candidates such as "LQG" / "RQM" being worked on toward prospective experimental testing. (NB: Carlo Rovelli, Sean Caroll, Kip Thorne, David Deutsch, Frank Wilczek, Max Tegmark, et al are among the current popularizers of fundamental physics that I've found most informative.)Given string theory is one that's widely publicized as a candidate conceptual framework for The Theory Of Everything (TOE), shouldn't scientists be racing full-throttle towards developing the technology to test string theory? — TheMadFool
What is fascinating to me is that people like Dawkins love their architecture, classical music and poetry and great literary works. — Tom Storm
You point to the CCP as the future of secular humanism? — Tom Storm
Btw, a fellow working-class, Catholic-raised Bronx, wiseass who called common sense "bullshit" on the religious outlook (not a word about "science"): — 180 Proof
He doesn't seem to understand that philosophy itself is one of the things that is dissolved in 'Darwin's dangerous idea'. He's too philosophically naive to understand the philosophical implications of his own writing. — Wayfarer
think Thomas Nagel's Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion is germane in the context. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.