tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post2166773969046939232..comments2024-03-19T10:45:06.077+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: Why science works like a 'theory of mind delusion'Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-65699579328988311712011-10-10T14:08:53.018+01:002011-10-10T14:08:53.018+01:00@Bonald - my thesis is that specialization (beyond...@Bonald - my thesis is that specialization (beyond a certain modest point) actually renders science both useless and/ because untestable.<br /><br />Modern micro-specializations are often wholly false/ bogus - but restrict the evidence base and permitted reasoning modes so sharply that their wrongness can never be estabished to the satisfaction of the micro-specialists (while being obvious to the scientific generalist, or even to informed commmon sense). <br /><br />Just so long as the oney keeps flowing, they are happy. <br /><br />http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2009/08/zombie-science-of-evidence-based.htmlBruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-65438355864722625492011-10-10T02:23:51.611+01:002011-10-10T02:23:51.611+01:00http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace
...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace<br /><br />Laplace went in state to Napoleon to accept a copy of his work, and the following account of the interview is well authenticated, and so characteristic of all the parties concerned that I quote it in full. Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, 'M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.' Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. ("I had no need of that hypothesis.") Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, Ah! c'est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses. ("Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains many things.")<br /><br />For my part, I think the real situation with science is a little more cheerful than one might think.<br /><br />The USA is a wretched mess, because its most influential scientists (at the National Academy of Science) are still beating the dead horse of logical positivism. <br /><br />Most scientists have moved on. Perhaps the USA will decline before this becomes apparent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-77760450363810542102011-10-09T22:13:27.762+01:002011-10-09T22:13:27.762+01:00I've wondered myself about our minds' tend...I've wondered myself about our minds' tendency to specialize, and whether it's necessary to allow such a process to happen to one's own mind, meaning that one person can really only be perceptive about one thing. Like how a runner can't train himself as both a sprinter and a distance runner. By philosophizing in my spare time, am I making myself a worse scientist during work time? Perhaps, although I'd like to think I'm making myself a fuller human being. At the very least, it means I say fewer silly things about what my investigations mean, and what they have and haven't disproved.Bonaldhttp://bonald.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-5300201480728771632011-10-08T12:55:32.597+01:002011-10-08T12:55:32.597+01:00@JK - This is just a segment of my analysis - obvi...@JK - This is just a segment of my analysis - obviously I am not a relativist. <br /><br />You could either look at this<br /><br />http://thestoryofscience.blogspot.com/<br /><br />of wait until (I think) tomorrow) the posting of which will cover this point.Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-37608358012019835972011-10-08T12:39:23.310+01:002011-10-08T12:39:23.310+01:00If we are not just inhabitants of this discourse o...If we are not just inhabitants of this discourse or that, and we can be dissatisfied with all of them, can we somehow discuss how much truth there is in each of them? It seems we should be able to do so, and so engage with reality at a more basic level, but the way you present the problem seems to deny the possibility. You treat philosophy as simply another self-limiting specialist discourse for example. The result seems to be a sort of absolute relativism.James Kalbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17262354596266250867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-12757617301267573042011-10-07T16:48:23.065+01:002011-10-07T16:48:23.065+01:00"of his era" was right - it was Laplace,..."of his era" was right - it was Laplace, not Lavoisier.deariemenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-73193760009582620982011-10-07T14:37:12.469+01:002011-10-07T14:37:12.469+01:00@GR - obviously, each shortish blog post makes onl...@GR - obviously, each shortish blog post makes only a piece of an argument - tomorrow's should add another piece to this one.Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-68576095730441378982011-10-07T13:57:58.140+01:002011-10-07T13:57:58.140+01:00To my mind, this is not completely fair. As you me...To my mind, this is not completely fair. As you mentioned, when Crick felt the time line wasn't long enough to justify UNS, he made up some off the wall hypothesis with less support than any God. But this is the role of science, to explain as much of the world as possible without resorting to "God did it." So while I agree that most do it out of prideful disdain for what they consider superstition, from the example of the first scientists you can see that is not the only possible motivation. Modern science does go very wrong in asserting that it has proven its fundamental assumptions.Gabe Ruthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958214257606957422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-59513061091518897752011-10-07T13:04:57.363+01:002011-10-07T13:04:57.363+01:00I didn't know much about Lav. and on googling ...I didn't know much about Lav. and on googling found this site which describes him as a Great Catholic Scientist:<br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/08/antoine-lavoisier-great-catholic.html<br /><br />Of course, science does not need God/s in its inner workings - but it does need God/s (transcendental Truth) outside science (especially in the upbringing of the scientist/s and the culture) to keep it honest.Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-62041824333408736292011-10-07T12:26:22.567+01:002011-10-07T12:26:22.567+01:00Lavoisier, or someone of his era, was asked by the...Lavoisier, or someone of his era, was asked by the King of France why there was no reference to God in one of his books. "I have no need of that hypothesis". Which is wrong, of course: "God" isn't one hypothesis, it's as many as you like - Thor, Zeus, Jaweh, Allah, the turtles.......,deariemenoreply@blogger.com