Interesting Point

[Fish]

In agreeing to write this essay, I have promised to explain why I find Darwinism unconvincing. In order to keep this promise, I will be compelled to acknowledge the apparently paradoxical fact that I find it convincing as well. I find it convincing because it is in certain respects correct, and in fact tautologically so in the logical sense; I find it unconvincing because it is based on a weak and superficial understanding of causality and is therefore incomplete. (http://www.ctmu.org/)

-Chris Langan

Related to several blog posts I have and will be making, this is the essence of my "you got it mostly right, but missed the big picture" argument against most science. I'm not saying that most science is wrong. I find most of it to be very logical and, dare I say, scientific. But the problem, as Langan points out, is that there is lack of a big picture; a reason or mechanism for why.

Think of it this way: 1 + 1 = 2, but why are we adding 1 and 1? What is causing them to be added together into 2? What greater universal purposes are overshadowed by our taking-it-for-granted simplification? What do "+" and "=" actually mean, and who decided that, and why? 1 plus 1 will always equal 2, but we may never know why beyond our shallow understanding of the relative truth of our representation of this fact. the symbols are just that -- symbols to represent larger concepts that we do not neccesarily understand, but merely think we have because the evident self truth blinds us to the underlying mechanisms of the truth.

I'll be elaborating on this later, but I suppose the debate aspect is this:

Do you believe there is an overlying (or underlying) "truth of everything" or do you think that the truths of the world that we see are what there is? Is science absolute, or is there meaning?

[Suzie]

If you ask a scientist if science is absolute, their answer would be no.

There's a lot they don't know, don't understand, YET.

But that's the key word.. Science is a progressive thing, because there are so many possible things to know, and to understand.

To me, religion does not explain enough things. It requires very specific faith, not even general faith.

For example, "the lord your god is the only god".

Ok. Nice, cuts out on all those other deities.. Those other deities that have exactly the same amount of evidence for existence as the Christian god does.. What makes this theory better than any other? Personally, I'm a big fan of the Sumerian Gods and goddesses.. and they've been around a hell of a lot longer than most other deities.. Why should I accept that Christianity is the one true answer, based on the same evidence?

Science explains what it explains. It does not claim omnipotence, or omniscience, but it does clearly define what it knows, and how it knows it. Is it all good? No. Of course not, there are times when scientists needed to stop, and think about the implications of what they were doing (the atom bomb being a prime example).. You're right in that their needs to be a bigger picture.

It's funny, though, if you take a closer look, there are religions that complement science, that seem to suggest that they were on the right track all along.. A great book to read on the subject is "The Tao of Physics".. especially because it also talks about the difficulty that lies in translating things best expressed symbolically, using words, by their nature very imprecise, instead.

[Leonidas]

this was a pretty good bump

[Rizzo in a box]

Agreed. I feel the same way about science, though mostly because of personal experience. Fish makes an excellent point. What is adding 1 and 1 together, and why?

[Leonidas]

im gonna have to find this 'tao of physics'