Ben Gunn on 8/4/2008 at 21:31
Quote Posted by Muzman
If wonder and curiosity was his goal it kinda backfired.
Wonder and curiousity should very well be the motivation behind science and not the local, temporary war with stupid IDers which will be forever history's laughing stock.
If it backfired, so be it- it will not be for the good of science if it will be too cautious and afraid of implications when it comes to test new ways of looking at things.
Im not sure whether your'e all aware of it but the theory of Evolution is still a work in progress. By no means the work is done.
I laugh at the ignorance of creationists- they are concentrating their attacks on the most fortified walls of the theory, totally unaware it still has a softer belly... oh, oh- dont get me wrong- I did say it's a work in progress, one day soon it will be all concrete walls.
The_Raven on 8/4/2008 at 21:35
I'll probably have to do more research on this, but I would be surprised if mathematics disproved like existing in the universe. For one, as has already been mentioned, that the Earth and just about everything else in the universe is not a closed system. The Warth gets its energy from the sun, and numberous objects in the universe are affected by each others by the curvatures in space time that are created by their respective mass.
I have to cut this short, but after doing a quick look up of material you're talking about, I found this little paper. While I have yet to read it, and do not have time to at the moment, the abstract looks promising.
Quote:
E. P. Wigner's argument that the probability of the existence of self-reproducing units, e.g., organisms, is zero according to standard quantum theory is stated and analyzed. Theorems are presented which indicate that Wigner's mathematical result in fact should not be interpreted as asserting the improbability of self-reproducing units
Ben Gunn on 8/4/2008 at 22:10
Why is it analayzed so rigoursly if it is known that he only did it as an entertaining exercise for a friend?
You are such a hypocrite, jay.
catbarf on 8/4/2008 at 23:17
Quote Posted by Ben Gunn
Any phylosophical inquiry is just a pointless metaphysical babbel.
Or, it's a query as to the nature of the human mind. Being governed by science does not in any way make it less complex.
Quote Posted by Ben Gunn
Music, poetry and art have nothing to teach us about ourselves (only science can)- hence they are merely for fun and only have an entertainment value. Why bother to make good art than?
Perhaps because entertainment in itself is more likely to make me work without complaining, instead of hurling myself off a cliff after working twelve hours a day seven days a week.
Besides, music and art do not directly cause the research which is the basis of science. They might state something about human nature, or ask questions about the world around us, and doesn't that make them science in themselves? What is your definition of science?
Quote Posted by Ben Gunn
Psychology? Till proven itself a true science, it is closer to a phylosophical highly speculative same-kind-of-babble. Next.
Highly speculative same-kind-of-babble is what psychology has always been. That doesn't make it any less important or accurate.
Quote Posted by Ben Gunn
Eastern philosophies? Even worse than the western. What can those stupid Indians teach us? They didnt even discover electricity before we came to light their cities.
Entertainment or possibly increased efficiency in the specific example.
Quote Posted by Ben Gunn
Another way to show the absurdity of this view:
Let's say someone wants to learn what love is. Not just any ol' kind of love, let's say the romantic, passionate, mad kind of love.
The way I see it he has three options to choose from-
a. To learn everything science has to say about it- what parts of the brain are stimulated when in love, what kind of hormones are secreted, why did natural selection prefered it if it did, what were the benefiets if at all and so on.
b. To Delve into a piece of art that deals honestly with this subject- to go and watch a Truffaut movie or something like that.
c. To let himself go, take a chance and fall in love. First hand experience.
Anyone that think that a. is the superior way is emotionally fucked Im afraid.
And choosing to decide that there is not some magic man in the sky does not instantly mean that this person will adopt a Spock-like level of emotionless logic. I can follow a scientific mindset and still feel emotions, thank you very much. And even if they're just hormonal secretions that increase the likelihood of me surviving or reproducing, so what? It doesn't change their effect.
The_Raven on 8/4/2008 at 23:17
Way to go Jay and post the exact same thing that I posted 20mins beforehand. :grr:
jay pettitt on 8/4/2008 at 23:25
I linked to the text from the authors own site by way of a helpful service to all :angel: - the linky you provided required a payment to view the full text, which I wasn't about to cough up.
The_Raven on 8/4/2008 at 23:40
Works for me, but that may be because I'm using the university's Internet.
EDIT: Yeah, that's definitely it. I never noticed that it identified the university in the sidebar before.
jay pettitt on 8/4/2008 at 23:43
Athens rocks :thumb:
Ben Gunn on 8/4/2008 at 23:49
Sorry, catbarf, I would gladly continue this discussion but your reply is wrong on so many levels I wouldnt know where to start.
Out of curiosity, is there anyone else here who thinks that art is science? :erg:
