4 ms·
A variation of this already exists, called the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) [0]. It is dismissed by critics as not being based on empirical
by daliwali 9y ago
A variation of this already exists, called the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) [0]. It is dismissed by critics as not being based on empirical methods or pure reason, which is what it's getting at: science isn't the answer to everything. Some questions can't be answered by reason alone, mind-body dualism for example.
[0] http://www.ctmu.org/ http://www.ctmu.org/
- castle-bravo 9y agoScience can't express all of the truths about the universe. Scientists know this. What science does provide is a reliable framework for finding out some truths about the universe. So far the science approach has been very successful. Art projects like CMTU do not provide any such framework. While entertaining, the information presented is of little to no use. At worst, pseudoscientific presentations like CMTU are used to persuade certain people that the scientific establishment is engaged in a conspiracy to mislead and defraud the public.
- daliwali 9y agoI think abstract, non-empirical knowledge can be useful. For example, all of mathematics. It is unreasonably effective at modeling nature, there is no reason why nature must adhere to abstract mathematics. For example the invention of the imaginary number preceded its explanation of alternating currents. I disagree with the claim that "pseudo-science" as you call it is used to discredit the establishment. Rather it is exactly the opposite, the establishment uses the label to discredit outlandish ideas. Every scientific theory starts off as hypothesis and maintains falsifiability, to accept it as dogma is worse than not exploring other ideas.