1097425
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2018
- Messages
- 82
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2019
- Messages
- 2,049
While it is true that science continues to advance, the correspondence principle suggests that any new theory ought to provide the same answers as the old theory in situations where the old theory has been supported by accurate observation and experiment. There are certainly unexplained phenomenon in extreme cases, but overall, science has measured a lot of what we experience in daily life to a very high degree of confidence.
Also, uncertainties in how the mind works have less to do with the complexity of the mind, and more to do with the ethics involved in cracking people's heads open to study them directly.
Also, uncertainties in how the mind works have less to do with the complexity of the mind, and more to do with the ethics involved in cracking people's heads open to study them directly.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2018
- Messages
- 35
@Facade @gunnybunny It must be a reference to JAL 123, a 747SR that crashed into a mountainside after losing hydraulic control (The SRs were higher capacity, lower range 747s). 500+ souls onboard were lost
Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2020
- Messages
- 358
Instead of a nightmare, Kanako actually having a wet dream.
@icekatze
True. But, as she stated before, there are a lot more things that the science, let alone explained, not even brushed/grazed yet. Just like this world ocean, it's depth, and the organisms within. That's simply because we don't have the technology for it yet, and that's mean our current knowledges are pretty much limited.
@icekatze
True. But, as she stated before, there are a lot more things that the science, let alone explained, not even brushed/grazed yet. Just like this world ocean, it's depth, and the organisms within. That's simply because we don't have the technology for it yet, and that's mean our current knowledges are pretty much limited.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2019
- Messages
- 2,049
@KochengOren
We actually do have the technology to explore the depths of our ocean. I know some people in the field of oceanic research, they often have very depressing things to say about it. The ocean depths, like the tropical rain forests, haven't been picked over with a fine tooth comb. But we have a pretty good idea of what is there in general, even if we haven't mapped the genome of every species.
To break down her argument even further:
• She claims that Copernicus didn't believe in scientific thinking, and while it is true that he lived prior to the scientific revolution and the coining of the term scientific method, his methodology and focus on empirical evidence shows that he did use scientific thinking. During the middle ages, prior to the renaissance, priests were at the forefront of a lot of scientific work in Europe.
• She claims that Newton had many theology books and still lead the human genome program. This is a spurious correlation at best, and an Association Fallacy at worst.
• I don't know which Dr. Collins is being referred to... But in the world of Neuroscience, psychic phenomenon have indeed reached a certain status. They've been discredited over and over again.
• Astral projection and near death experiences are understood by science, and can be reproduced in a laboratory setting by depriving parts of the brain of oxygen, using electrodes, or varying anesthetics. It's found mostly in the temporal lobe when other parts of the brain have shut down.
• She says that denying things that can't be explained by science is hubris, and this isn't completely wrong. But the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim, and the paranormal cannot provide proof. See Russel's Teapot.
Science works based on observations, not the absence of an observation.
That being said, I'm the last person to criticize anyone for getting scared by scary movies, so I totally understand the feeling. I still remember when I first saw Aliens, and I literally got zero sleep for the next two nights afterward. It was awful.
We actually do have the technology to explore the depths of our ocean. I know some people in the field of oceanic research, they often have very depressing things to say about it. The ocean depths, like the tropical rain forests, haven't been picked over with a fine tooth comb. But we have a pretty good idea of what is there in general, even if we haven't mapped the genome of every species.
To break down her argument even further:
• She claims that Copernicus didn't believe in scientific thinking, and while it is true that he lived prior to the scientific revolution and the coining of the term scientific method, his methodology and focus on empirical evidence shows that he did use scientific thinking. During the middle ages, prior to the renaissance, priests were at the forefront of a lot of scientific work in Europe.
• She claims that Newton had many theology books and still lead the human genome program. This is a spurious correlation at best, and an Association Fallacy at worst.
• I don't know which Dr. Collins is being referred to... But in the world of Neuroscience, psychic phenomenon have indeed reached a certain status. They've been discredited over and over again.
• Astral projection and near death experiences are understood by science, and can be reproduced in a laboratory setting by depriving parts of the brain of oxygen, using electrodes, or varying anesthetics. It's found mostly in the temporal lobe when other parts of the brain have shut down.
• She says that denying things that can't be explained by science is hubris, and this isn't completely wrong. But the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim, and the paranormal cannot provide proof. See Russel's Teapot.
Science works based on observations, not the absence of an observation.
That being said, I'm the last person to criticize anyone for getting scared by scary movies, so I totally understand the feeling. I still remember when I first saw Aliens, and I literally got zero sleep for the next two nights afterward. It was awful.
Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2020
- Messages
- 358
@icekatze
Eh, I didn't claim everything she said was true. My point is human knowledges are pretty much limited, incomplete.
1) the legend of sea serpent/leviathan/Chinese dragon stretch from skandinavia to europe, all across asia. You can't just dismissed them as just a myth. It's similar to Kraken, that only brought to light recently, that giant octopus actually real.
2) Another example, to this day we didn't know how to handle corium (mixed substance of nuclear meltdown). That's why they built a giant dome to keep the radiation in check, in Chernobyl. We also still don't know how to handle nuclear waste, except contain and bury it in tight safe place, and hope the bunker can survive for few centuries.
3) There are a lot of illness and diseases without a cure yet.
Please, don't misinterpret this okay. I know that human knowledges advancing so fast in the past centuries, but it doesn't mean we know everything.
Eh, I didn't claim everything she said was true. My point is human knowledges are pretty much limited, incomplete.
It doesn't mean we knows everything. For example:
1) the legend of sea serpent/leviathan/Chinese dragon stretch from skandinavia to europe, all across asia. You can't just dismissed them as just a myth. It's similar to Kraken, that only brought to light recently, that giant octopus actually real.
2) Another example, to this day we didn't know how to handle corium (mixed substance of nuclear meltdown). That's why they built a giant dome to keep the radiation in check, in Chernobyl. We also still don't know how to handle nuclear waste, except contain and bury it in tight safe place, and hope the bunker can survive for few centuries.
3) There are a lot of illness and diseases without a cure yet.
Please, don't misinterpret this okay. I know that human knowledges advancing so fast in the past centuries, but it doesn't mean we know everything.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2019
- Messages
- 2,049
@KochengOren
Phew, I'm glad we can at least agree on that first part. 😀
Human knowledge is inherently incomplete. But science doesn't need to know everything. Someone who says otherwise is probably either oversimplifying, or trying to pull a fast one.
In fact, it's not even what science is about. Science is taking observations, making predictions based on those observations, and then measuring how accurate those predictions were. The better the predictions, the better the model. Because there are no 100% certainties, rather than trying to achieve absolute truth, science is trying to quantify doubt.
We have a incredibly high level of confidence in a lot of core areas, and like I said with the correspondence principle/classical limit, that gives us a pretty good idea of the limits of what we'll find.
With regards to sea serpents, if they existed, we will likely find remains eventually, assuming they weren't people seeing the tentacles of giant squid. Otherwise, we also have lots of examples of humans creating fantasy creatures from their imaginations. (I've played D&D, and I've read the Aberdeen Bestiary, circa ~13th century)
1) As for the Kraken, are you sure you don't mean the giant squid? The earliest descriptions of the Kraken say that it was crab-like in nature, see The First Attempt at Natural History of Norway, Copenhagen, 1752. It was also claimed to be 16 km wide, which from what we know of crustaceans, would make it impossible for them to molt or support their internal structure with an exoskeleton above the water (cube-square law) to imitate islands as they were said to do in myth. Giant squid, however, have records documenting their existence as early as Aristotle (4th century BC), and have had physical evidence since at least 1861 when a ship of the French navy encountered one. (Which directly inspired the giant squid attack in 20,000 leagues under the sea)
2) We don't know how to handle corium, but that's not a science thing, that's a human politics thing. There are ways of handling it, like encasing it in a giant dome. It's not a question of scienctific theory, but of value judgements. "How much is it worth to do the thing." We know that we're not going to overturn thermodynamics, or change the half-life of an isotope.
3) When people want to figure out how the Higgs Boson works, they can spend some millions of dollars and build a particle collider. When people want to figure out how to treat diseases, they can't just grab a few thousand people off the street and start cutting them open. Even if it would make things go faster. (In the end, we know we won't be able to reverse entropy, and we have a pretty good understanding that cures won't involve homeopathy.)
We don't know everything, this is absolutely true. But we do know some things with pretty solid confidence, and we can use those things to make some reasonable predictions about things we'll find in the future.
Phew, I'm glad we can at least agree on that first part. 😀
Human knowledge is inherently incomplete. But science doesn't need to know everything. Someone who says otherwise is probably either oversimplifying, or trying to pull a fast one.
In fact, it's not even what science is about. Science is taking observations, making predictions based on those observations, and then measuring how accurate those predictions were. The better the predictions, the better the model. Because there are no 100% certainties, rather than trying to achieve absolute truth, science is trying to quantify doubt.
We have a incredibly high level of confidence in a lot of core areas, and like I said with the correspondence principle/classical limit, that gives us a pretty good idea of the limits of what we'll find.
With regards to sea serpents, if they existed, we will likely find remains eventually, assuming they weren't people seeing the tentacles of giant squid. Otherwise, we also have lots of examples of humans creating fantasy creatures from their imaginations. (I've played D&D, and I've read the Aberdeen Bestiary, circa ~13th century)
1) As for the Kraken, are you sure you don't mean the giant squid? The earliest descriptions of the Kraken say that it was crab-like in nature, see The First Attempt at Natural History of Norway, Copenhagen, 1752. It was also claimed to be 16 km wide, which from what we know of crustaceans, would make it impossible for them to molt or support their internal structure with an exoskeleton above the water (cube-square law) to imitate islands as they were said to do in myth. Giant squid, however, have records documenting their existence as early as Aristotle (4th century BC), and have had physical evidence since at least 1861 when a ship of the French navy encountered one. (Which directly inspired the giant squid attack in 20,000 leagues under the sea)
2) We don't know how to handle corium, but that's not a science thing, that's a human politics thing. There are ways of handling it, like encasing it in a giant dome. It's not a question of scienctific theory, but of value judgements. "How much is it worth to do the thing." We know that we're not going to overturn thermodynamics, or change the half-life of an isotope.
3) When people want to figure out how the Higgs Boson works, they can spend some millions of dollars and build a particle collider. When people want to figure out how to treat diseases, they can't just grab a few thousand people off the street and start cutting them open. Even if it would make things go faster. (In the end, we know we won't be able to reverse entropy, and we have a pretty good understanding that cures won't involve homeopathy.)
We don't know everything, this is absolutely true. But we do know some things with pretty solid confidence, and we can use those things to make some reasonable predictions about things we'll find in the future.
Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2020
- Messages
- 358
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2019
- Messages
- 2,049
@KochengOren
What do you mean we strayed from the point that we don't know everything? I know we don't. No self-respecting scientist would suggest we do. I never disagreed with that point. I don't see how you think I missed that point.
What do you mean we strayed from the point that we don't know everything? I know we don't. No self-respecting scientist would suggest we do. I never disagreed with that point. I don't see how you think I missed that point.
Similar threads
