The beauty of science.

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

A wonderful article from James Haught.
At < wvinter.net/~haught/universe.html >

And some good quotes from Dawkins and Sagan.

“I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true.” – Carl Sagan

“For most of human history we have searched for our place in the cosmos. Who are we? What are we? We find that we inhabit an insignificant planet of a hum-drum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgoten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxys than people. We make our world significant by the courage of our questions, and by the depth of our answers.” – Carl Sagan

“The well-meaning contention that all ideas have equal merit seems to me little different from the disastrous contention that no ideas have any merit.” – Carl Sagan

“The Universe forces those who live in it to understand it. Those creatures who find everyday experience a muddled jumble of events with no predictability, no regularity, are in grave peril. The Universe belongs to those who, at least to some degree, have figured it out.” – Carl Sagan

“Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.” -Carl Sagan

" The stereo- type of scientists’ being scruffy nerds with rows of pens in their top pocket isjust about as wicked as racist stereotypes." - Richard Dawkins

" The world and the universe is an extremely beautiful place, and the more we understand about it the more beautiful does it appear. It is an immensely exciting experience to be born in the world, born in the universe, and look around you and realize that before you die you have the opportunity of understanding an immense amount about that world and about that universe and about life and about why we’re here. We have the opportunity of understanding far, far more than any of our predecessors ever. That is such an exciting possibility, it would be such a shame to blow it and end your life not having understood what there is to understand." " - Richard Dawkins.

2

“When you become bored of other people, science becomes beautiful”

3

… so goes the stereotype. :slight_smile:

And most people fall for it - hook, line and sinker. :slight_smile:

4

“When you become bored of other people, science becomes beautiful”

5

Science, like philosophy ('course it is a section of philosophy), has the ability to take the familiar and make it seem impressive. So it is true in a way, when you get bored of other people or bored of the normal way of things in general, you can turn to science to see it broken down in ways that can seem more interesting than normal drab life.

“I am standing on the threshold about to enter a room. It is a complicated
business. In the first place I must shove against an atmosphere pressing
with a force of fourteen pounds on every square inch of my body. I must
make sure of landing on a plank traveling at twenty miles a second round
the sun - a fraction of a second too early or too late, the plank would be
miles away. I must do this whilst hanging from a round planet, head
outward in space, and with a wind of aether blowing at no one knows how
many miles a second through every inch of my body.” - Arthur Eddington

6

Thats a good way of presenting science.
But thats a very inane bit of science that you use. For far more profound knowledge, read up on genetics or astronomy. Most of us dont even know 0.00001% of whats been discovered, which is probably 0.00001% (or much likely, even lesser) of whats there to find out.

And as for the bored of other people bit, its not even a stereotype, so please enlighten me on how you came to that conclusion. Do you have any statistics to back your claim or did you just think you can assert it and people would accept it ? Surely you cant be that naive, on a science forum ??? :slight_smile:

  • Sivakami.
7

I don’t see you giving any kind of statistical evidence to back those other people’s claims…

so isn’t that naive of you also?

8

Nope. You should read up on some logic you know. :smiley:
By default, we assume no patterns. So if you make a claim (that when people get bored of other people, they turn to science), it is you who should provide the evidence, not me. The onus of proof is on the claimant.
Otherwise your claim aint a valid one !

  • Sivakami.
9

I can’t even begin to tell you what you ought to read up on…
for starters re-read what I wrote…
when I said "I don’t see you giving any kind of statistical evidence to back those other people’s claims… " The ‘other people’ that I’m referring to, are not the others on this site, or myself!!
I’ve realized that you pay utmost attention (more than necessary at times) to what ‘other’ scientists have come to say as far as just about anything is concerned. And you (as you’ve done at the beginning of this post “the beauty of science”) just follow on, you re-write their views, and so boldly claim that it IS the truth… no questions asked!! What is that? Please try and be a reasonable ADULT. Come to the realization that there are other people on this site that are new to science to some degree and so we will (I WILL) question it until whatever claim that’s made is justified.
You’ve provided no statistical evidence either, to proove some rather… (ugh! can’t find the word) statements you’ve made. A blaring example is where you tried to thrash someone by calling them pathetic…?!
can’t remember precisely.

If you really want me to give you reasons for re-stating
what Pangloss said, then ok… here goes:

  1. I am not sure if you’re are gonna be ‘blinded’ (again), but… just try and imagine how many other things there are that are equally and possibly greater than proportionately rewarding than science.
  2. Boredom as I see it, causes people to at times either just slouch away and become bigger loosers or it propels them to make something of themselves perhaps… so then the fact that you have lured yourself into science isn’t necessarily a ‘bad’ thing, so chill yourself.
  3. What Paul said: science makes familiar things seem more interesting so, the science you are drenched in, maybe your way of healing yourself of the otherwise boredom you experienced with people.
10

sorry, the above post was written by me.
forgot to sign in (not using me comp. u see).

11

Svikami stated:
"Nope. You should read up on some logic you know.
By default, we assume no patterns. So if you make a claim (that when people get bored of other people, they turn to science), it is you who should provide the evidence, not me. The onus of proof is on the claimant.
Otherwise your claim aint a valid one ! "

You are wrong when you say we assume no patterns. This is exactly the problem with a good majority of people I have known, it appears that everyone works by patterns. When something happens to you in a given situation, we instinctively believe that the same thing will happen when a similar situation occurs. Our thought processes are based on patterns, our lives work on patterns. Patterns are what leads to answers, theories, and discoveries. Assumptions is something everyone I have seen on the messaging board do, so when you say ‘we’, you should define clearly the group of people that are on such a higher level of consciousness that they never assume any kind of patterns by default at any time in their lives.

Natsilicious was expressing her opinion on a matter.

You are quite correct in stating that the onus is on her to prove her statement correct, but she didn’t claim it to be some kind of absolute truth, she simply posted a quotation. You responded with:

Svikami:
“And as for the bored of other people bit, its not even a stereotype, so please enlighten me on how you came to that conclusion. Do you have any statistics to back your claim or did you just think you can assert it and people would accept it ? Surely you cant be that naive, on a science forum ???”

Who do you think you are talking to people like that!?! You go around telling people what to read up on and make claims that we don’t even know
0.00001% of what has been discovered. WELL BACK THAT UP!

You sarcastically ask her to enlighten you with her explanation of the quotation, when the quotation itself was suppose to enlighten you. You chose the path of the ‘projector’ which I’m sure a scientific person like yourself knows that it is a psychological term for someone who blames and projects his/her own inadequacies on others.

You say that if she doesn’t provide evidence than her claim is not a valid one, but what claim? She simply posted a quote. Get off your high horse and read some books on how to coerse with human beings, how to handle feelings, how to articulate yourself without being a naive, sarcastic, and rude egoist. Like many of my posts prior to this one, it appears I have to say it again, smart people like yourself Svikami too often fall into the trap of thinking science has somehow made you above the rest, made you know something that you can hold on to with all your might because you know it is impenetrable. I pity souls like you because you make it so evident that you don’t have much else, or I don’t pity you because you may be an egoist. Either way, you must realize that science is only that which has worked best for us so far, but is nowhere near concluding anything, and it is because of those people that think outside conventional science that make the grande differences in the world.

If you were truly some kind of scientist you would have understood the meaning of her quote. Scientists have alot on their minds, usually, it is something aside from norm and ahead in it’s years, this means that when they are doing other normal things in life - they simultaneously think of their interests (ie. Astronomy, Biology, etc.) and theories. But they feel bored because what they really want to be doing is experimenting, theorizing, and playing around with their thoughts. Which is the only time they are not bored. So science in effect is the most beautiful thing in their lives, not only because of its cause or structure, but because those who devote their lives to it are bored without it, and it is this boredom that pushes their love and sense of beauty for science.

This is only one way to take it. I can think of atleast another off the top of my head. The point here is, that even a simple quote like the one Natsilicious posted can be interpreted many different ways, and no matter which way you interpret it - you have no right to be as rude as you were.

I personally have visited many messaging boards, and I chose this one to post on because all the posts I read were written by what appeared to be intelligent, caring, understanding, and most of all open minded people. No nonsense, but yet here you are talking like you were some kind of yuppy who hasn’t grown out of the highschool put down mentality.

Watch yourself.

12

Does this forum react to all new posters this way ? By getting nasty ? Sure, thats an intelligent, mature way to converse :slight_smile:

Anyone who posts a quote like that … those who get bored of other people turn to science has to at least have the sense to back it up. Otherwise why post such a quote (I understand that wanting to be nasty is second nature to all of you, but besides that!) ?

  • Sivakami.
13

I swear it!, this chick must be a fat and lonely. :astonished:

14

Lady, people only get rude because you get rude.

so what…if people don’t necessarily agree with you, you then classify them as persons without sense??. such a humble scientific attitude. I’m sure I gave three reasons for my claim above… but then again, why should you read, after all, your claims (sorry, your spoogy Carl Sagan’s claims) are always right.

15

Sivakami stated:

Sivakami, now you switch from your scientific foundation to the hurt and innocent rabbit. YOU are the one who got nasty!!! You insulted Natsilicious, yelling at her with capitals and exclamation marks, calling her naive - smart people like yourself should know the meaning of naive, and if you do know the meaning then you should also use it wisely and not off hand because those who know what it means can get very hurt. You are committing the Ad Hominum fallacy.

BY THE WAY, THE MODERATOR FOR THIS FORUM SHOULD NOT LET REMARKS GO ON LIKE THE ONE MAMALAO MADE. MODERATOR DO HAVE THE POWER TO BAN, IF THE POLICIES FOR THIS BOARD ARE DIFFERENT, THAN THE ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD BAN MAMALAO.

16

What is interesting is that the author of this thread called Paul’s point ‘inane’ even after he gave a quick definition of aesthetics and showed what the point of beautiful means. I’m all too happy to agree that science is beautiful and I see no conflict between science and Humanism or science and aesthetics. It is precisely the ability to make the familiar sound strange that science can be called beautiful. Perhaps, the author is confusing beauty with significance?

That is, the author doesn’t seem to understand the complement in the sentence.

Oh well, nobody’s perfect.

Brad

17

Here are some important notes on science that I found lying around the net. My favourite definition of science is in italics.

Science

  • The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

  • Science is applied or pure.

  • The mathematical and physical sciences are called the exact sciences.

  • Science is literally knowledge, but more usually denotes a systematic and orderly arrangement of knowledge.

  • In a more distinctive sense, science embraces those branches of knowledge of which the subject-matter is either ultimate principles, or facts as explained by principles or laws thus arranged in natural order.

I wish to illustrate how math is not an exact science. The following you are about to read was a realization I made in OAC philosophy class while taking up Aristotle and altering his definition for one of his principles. I attempt to illustrate the characteristic problem between concept and reality. Specifically speaking, the problem of applying concept to reality. Which is in this case…math.

We begin with two basic concepts:

  1. The unquestionable truth that 1+1=2.
  2. X cannot equal X and not X at the same time and in the same respect.

Whether we are aware of it or not, we all believe (consciously or sub-consciously) that ‘x cannot be x and not x at the same time and in the same respect’ - this may sound similar to Aristotle’s quote but I assure you I mean something a little different. The above illustrates the impossibility of something existing in one place, at one time, in one form; while also not existing at that same place, same time, and same form. To further simplify, I give an example; your mind can believe that the monitor you are staring at right now either exists or doesn’t exist, but your mind cannot imagine the monitor you are staring at both exists and doesn’t exist at this very moment in the same form it is right now. Just to clarify that the time and form have everything to do with this concept since your monitor may one day exist and the next day be gone. Moreover, the monitor can exist at this very moment in one form and another one later, ie. right now it is together in a solid form; if you were to melt it, then it would be in another form.

Having established the impossibility of a thing both existing and not existing at the same time and in the same respect we can move on to more intricate matters. I wish to explain that there is no two things on the planet or of the universe as far as we know that are exactly the same. The atomic structure of any one thing is different from the atomic structure of another thing. Atoms themselves are different in that their electrons are in different locations and there are parts of atoms so small that there really is no two atoms exactly alike no matter what element you choose. This being said, I wish to illustrate that in doing 1+1=2, it cannot be done in practice, because once you pick one representative for the first number 1 in the equation you will never find another one exactly like it to add together. The only way you could have two exact things existing is if they occupied the same space. But if two things existed in the same place they would alter the form of each one, so neither would exist in its original form. If they could occupy the same space and stay in the same form than there would no longer be two, but only one would remain. One would sieze to exist and one would exist. Since nothing can both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect.

We have established that there is no such thing as two (2). It only exists as a concept. We are so use to adding labels and concepts that many have come to believe that it is undeniably true in all situations. We have labelled these tall things that grow from the ground as ‘trees’. With this label we can say that we see two trees. But really, they are not exactly alike. You may think that this exactness is just my trivial meanderings, but I assure you that when this simplistic math is put to the test to explain sub-atomic particles or the temperatures of stars hundreds of parsecs away, it is exactly what I am talking about here that causes us all to stop and rework our math to suit a new condition. This reworking sometimes takes hundreds of years because people are close minded and think that there is nothing wrong with our math and that it will never need amending or altering.

I will clarify what math is to me. It may appear to you that after you have read this you are left with less rather than more prior to reading this. Math is the categorization and grouping of labels to stimuli. It is also a systematic conceptual framework that allows us to manipulate the very framework it is constructed on.

We must realize for ourselves that math is something we thought up, it wasn’t waiting for us to be found. Therefore, math is conceptual framework created to the best of our ability, with the greatest results so far and a lack of some better option - obviously we would not be using math if there was a better framework we knew of to use.

What’s your take?

18

Didn’t we rework math to better suit sub atomic particles and all that stuff?

19

Good point cba.

magius: “X cannot equal X and not X at the same time and in the same respect”
I dont think we can call that a “truth” anymore. Quantum superposition has pretty much put an end to aristotlian binary logic. Instead of “yes” and “no” being the only two possible states, we have yes, no, and maybe.

For example: A photon is a wave. A photon is a particle. Both statements are correct at the same time and in the same respect.

20

Cba,
yes we reworked math to suit sub-atomic physics, that was my whole point, did you read my whole post?

HVD,
you critique my most basic concept without reading the whole post, again, please, if your going to critique my work atleast give me the courtesy of reading the whole thing. If you had, you would have fallen upon…

What’s your take?