Open mindedness

[andrewducker]

I have a sceptical mindset, which means that I don't go around believing things without some reason to do so.

Recently, I've been contemplating Science and what it stands on, what assumptions it makes. One of the assumptions is that the universe acts in a consistent manner (the other two are sadly on the computer on which my girlfriend is currently writing a review of the Barber of Seville).

There's an interesting article on Kuro5hin on this very topic that's definitely worth a look at.

Comments

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

This is funny.

On the redlounge list, when I still posted, you and Kirsty always used to get pissed off when I said that scientific "laws" were meaningless for this very reason. They're not laws. They're observations of things working a certain way, when measured in a certain place, with certain tools.

Funny how views change.

"Science cannot prove the Universe is consistent because it cannot really address the matter of inconsistent things at all."

I always assumed this was self-evident. I could never understand why people didn't realise this.

I guess other people trust what they're told by men in white coats.

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

Oh, and I thought the article was hilarious in its generalisations of how "people" supposedly all think.

[andrewducker]

especially when most of them don't.

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

Well yeah.

The article read like the writer had turned around and said "Bob, Dave? You think this way, right?" and they'd muttered a vague reply through the nachos which he'd taken as an unequivocal and strangely universal "yes"

People are strange.

[andrewducker]

I disagreed with Gordon, who said that science is on the same level as religion, because it's clearly not.

And I have real problems imagining a universe that's not consistent, or doesn't work through cause and effect, so I don't have problems assuming the same things science does, as they are basically the assumptions I make anyway.

It is

[wordofblake.livejournal.com]

Yay me!

Well, you have unprovable assumtioned accepted unquestioningly on faith.

It walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.

[andrewducker]

Well, there's no such thing as proof, so all assumptions are accepted on faith.

As for unquestioningly, I've already stated that I'm questioning them. Just not terribly hard at the moment, as I've never found any reason to, despite a fair bit of looking.

[spaj.livejournal.com]

"As for unquestioningly, I've already stated that I'm questioning them. Just not terribly hard at the moment, as I've never found any reason to, despite a fair bit of looking."

How can you say that? It makes little (no!) sense.

a) You've not questioned these before.
b) You're not questioning very hard
c) You're reason for not questioning them hard is because you've never found a reason to
d) You've not found a reason to because you've not questioned them before.
e) Despite a fair bit of looking? But.... you've never questioned these before. You said you'd always accepted them, in your original post...
On this logic, Andy, there wouldn't have been a wheel. Or fire.

[andrewducker]

I'd like to know where you got (a) from.

(b) is an 'at the moment' thing, and doesn't necessarily describe my actions in the past.

and I don't get where you get (c) from either.

[spaj.livejournal.com]

"Recently, I've been contemplating Science and what it stands on, what assumptions it makes"

Implying that you haven't contemplated this before. Maybe I'm just reading it wrongly, but this is where I got a) from.

"not terribly hard at the moment, as I've never found any reason to"

Uh, c) is really just a re-wording of what you wrote.

[andrewducker]

You are reading it wrong, but that's fair enough, it's ambiguous.

Basically, I used to have a lot more faith in 'stuff', which was slowly whittled away by the complete lack of any indication that I could find that there was actually 'stuff'. I used to assume things like Free Will and Souls and Ghosts. Not any more. Now they're still in there as possible, but with no evidence. But then so is Vishnu and Flying Pigs.

[andrewducker]

Oh, I'm definitely more open minded now than I was then, anyway. As you said, views change.

[cleodhna.livejournal.com]

Hmm, yes, well. Epistemology has always been a favourite topic of mine, but one on which I will not be baited. ;)
Andrew, have you read Schroedinger's What Is Life? I think it might interest you along these lines: he discusses the possibility of our cognitive capacities being limited by such factors as physical size given certain apparent characteristics of the universe, and how that might influence our ability to project into other cognitive spaces, that sort of thing. It's been a long time for me, so I don't remember it too terribly well, but it might be a point at which our reading lists cross.

[andrewducker]

I haven't read it, I'm afraid. Nor have I read an awful lot about epistemology, but a quick scan of a primer shows me that I fall somewhere between individual constructivism and evolutionary epistimology, in that I believe that individuals believe what fits best into their own internal philosophical structure, but that the reason that groups/individuals hold certain beliefs and have certain innate methods of thinking is that those methods have proved to be the most useful (evolutionarily speaking).

Sorry I took so long to get back with this, but it looked like it required thought, so I sent it from work to home, where it languished in with the other 305 emails that I've done that with.

Incidentally, I still haven't bumped into you on MSN, well not past the initial evening, when I left you messages.