11 ms·

Wow...a very interesting read. It's always humbling when reminded of how many and how large are the pieces we are completely missing in the understanding of eve

Wow...a very interesting read. It's always humbling when reminded of how many and how large are the pieces we are completely missing in the understanding of even the immediate world around us. We mostly behave like we have our basic every-day experience pretty much covered - yet, there are such vast areas - across basically all of sciences - that we just utterly don't understand, and who knows how much more additionally that we don't even know is there.

mistermann 2y ago
> across basically all of sciences Not to mention what is outside the domain of science. Sadly, this area is essentially culturally off limits so I expect it to remain as is in the short to medium term, perhaps forever.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  Nothing is outside the domain of science. It's not about culture, but attitude - science makes everything its domain. Scientific method is generally applicable, it's a universal tool for identifying any kind of pattern that we can possibly identify. Everything else is, in practice if not theory, completely random, but "completely random" is a pattern too, so it too lives in the domain of science.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - foolswisdom 2y ago
    I'm reminded of this response to the question "Is materialism essential to scientific progress?" <https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/110019 https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/110019>.
  - eikenberry 2y ago
    If you cannot observe it (directly or indirectly) it is outside the realm of science, likewise if it is not falsifiable (testable) it is not science. Observe, theorize, predict, test. Science 101.
    - airstrike 2y ago
      the science of finding ways to observe it is still science. we couldn't observe many phenomena before we developed the science to do so.
      - eikenberry 2y ago
        Nope. Science is a specific tool of thought with a definition that starts with observation. Science might help feed ideas for technological or other sorts of advancement that allows us to observer more than before, but just because it helps science doesn't make it science.
      - eikenberry 2y ago
        Sure, and once we can observe something we can science it. But not until then.
        mistermann 2y ago
        Does the word "observe" have any constraints? For example: claimed observations, but that lack a way of measuring scientifically. Could science study this phenomenon?
    - adrianN 2y ago
      If you can’t observe it at all there is no reason to believe that it exists.
      - mionhe 2y ago
        No scientific reason, no.
        TeMPOraL 2y ago
        No computational reason, literally zero reason at all. Fundamentally unfalsifiable beliefs are completely arbitrary, and those fundamentally unobservable subjects of those beliefs cannot affect reality in any way - if they could, then they would be observable in principle, and therefore the belief in them would be falsifiable too.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    > Nothing is outside the domain of science. I'm going to go waaaaay out on a limb here and make a guess: you have no proof for this claim of fact? I am endlessly fascinated how science is held up by its fan base as superior because it is evidenced based, yet when defending challenges to it, any "fact" can be deployed effortlessly, with no evidence required. > It's not about culture I strongly believe that thinking is downstream from culture. > science makes everything its domain It certainly rhetorically extends ownership to all of "reality" (identical to The Universe, dontcha know), but they certainly do not investigate all that can be. Here's a nice discussion: The Nature of Reality: A Dialogue Between a Buddhist Scholar and a Theoretical Physicist https://youtu.be/pLbSlC0Pucw?si=hFdhJ1U5pbFP6BEf https://youtu.be/pLbSlC0Pucw?si=hFdhJ1U5pbFP6BEf Note that the gloves remain on, as always. (Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with why humans are perpetually wandering around confused, without knowing it.) It's a slick technique, especially if it is done intuitively: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey Furthermore: do you consider scientists to be a part of science? If so: how do you know if everything important is actively being worked on by at least one scientist (never mind a near optimal number)? (See also: [1]) If not: how does science accomplish anything? How can only ideas interact with the physical realm, if not through human bodies engaging in work? > Scientific method is generally applicable "generally", "applicable" I am also fascinated at the loose language science fans use when describing their ideology, that is so great because it deals in precision. > it's a universal tool for identifying any kind of pattern that we can possibly identify. "identifying" Here is a pattern, Humans. Well done, Scientists! Can you point me to science's study of war, and their strategies for ending it in the near future? It's a pretty important topic, they surely have thousands of the very best minds on it I would think, since it is their domain (in that it is a part of everything). > Everything else is, in practice if not theory, completely random... Present a proof. Just because your ideology is sitting in the throne right now doesn't mean you get beliefs = facts freebies like this, especially when shit talking competing ideologies for that very same behavior is a core component of your marketing/indoctrination strategy. These conversations remind me of one of my favorite sayings: "People don't have ideas. Ideas have people." - Carl Jung I'd recommend him, but he is a peddler of "woo woo". [1] From foolswison's link: "Plenty of scientists are theists. But the ones that do good science leave their theism at the door and try to explain things in naturalistic terms (even if theism is the reason they entered that door in the first place)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic) I don't keep detailed records, but I have had easily hundreds of science fans tell me with absolute sincerity and good faith that any scientists that don't behave the way they describe (say, if I was to link them to articles) don't count, because they aren't scientists. (Actual scientists only behave perfectly, of course.) I wonder if science not studying such things (ontology, etc) and thus not constantly tooting their horn about it in the media [2] might have something to do with why their fans have utterly no knowledge of it, and thus believe that it doesn't exist[3]. [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+train+a+neural+network https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+train+a+neural+networ... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_Silver_Blaze https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_Silver_Blaze Apologies for any negative vibes, I just think it's a fascinating phenomenon, and fun to discuss. Curiosity used to be so popular!
  - throwup238 2y ago
    Sadly no one got the joke. "culturally off limits" means it can't be cultured in a lab, which is the entire point of this article.
  - eysgshsvsvsv 2y ago
    Okay. Prove to yourself others exists using science.
    - sgbeal 2y ago
      Not quite science, but this quote from Conan the barbarian is, IMO, nonetheless relevant: "I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content." ― Robert E. Howard, Queen of the Black Coast
  - stareatgoats 2y ago
    > Nothing is outside the domain of science. Later qualified by: "that we can possibly identify". You seem to forget at least one basic circumstance here: that the scientific method is but one narrative. It may be universally applicable, but it is not the only interesting thing that can be said (and what it says is more often than not "we don't know"). The current cultural paradigm (in some quarters), which seem to think that only "scientific truth" is worthwhile, everything else is just random noise is likely precisely what the parent objected to, and that you stepped in to defend. Incidentally, you seem to agree that there are indeed things outside the domain of science, those things that we can not possibly identify. This is also the reason I'm not as pessimistic as the parent when it comes to the longevity of the current, scientismically informed paradigm: The insight that the things we can possibly identify are but a fraction of the infinite will surely land sooner or later. It doesn't make the scientific method wrong by any stretch of the imagination, but it will always be just mapping local phenomena (that we can notice), not everything.
- analog31 2y ago
  >>> Sadly, this area is essentially culturally off limits Not in my experience. I just got back from a week of playing music in the woods with a bunch of folk musicians. Sometimes we talked about science, but music is for all intents and purposes an orthogonal way of exploring reality. Likewise for many areas of art, literature, etc. Disclosure: Scientist and musician.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    Music, and dancing, do seem to have transcendent powers.

mistermann 2y ago

> across basically all of sciences Not to mention what is outside the domain of science. Sadly, this area is essentially culturally off limits so I expect it to remain as is in the short to medium term, perhaps forever.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
Nothing is outside the domain of science. It's not about culture, but attitude - science makes everything its domain. Scientific method is generally applicable, it's a universal tool for identifying any kind of pattern that we can possibly identify. Everything else is, in practice if not theory, completely random, but "completely random" is a pattern too, so it too lives in the domain of science.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- foolswisdom 2y ago
  I'm reminded of this response to the question "Is materialism essential to scientific progress?" <https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/110019 https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/110019>.
- eikenberry 2y ago
  If you cannot observe it (directly or indirectly) it is outside the realm of science, likewise if it is not falsifiable (testable) it is not science. Observe, theorize, predict, test. Science 101.
  - airstrike 2y ago
    the science of finding ways to observe it is still science. we couldn't observe many phenomena before we developed the science to do so.
    - eikenberry 2y ago
      Nope. Science is a specific tool of thought with a definition that starts with observation. Science might help feed ideas for technological or other sorts of advancement that allows us to observer more than before, but just because it helps science doesn't make it science.
    - eikenberry 2y ago
      Sure, and once we can observe something we can science it. But not until then.
      - mistermann 2y ago
        Does the word "observe" have any constraints? For example: claimed observations, but that lack a way of measuring scientifically. Could science study this phenomenon?
  - adrianN 2y ago
    If you can’t observe it at all there is no reason to believe that it exists.
    - mionhe 2y ago
      No scientific reason, no.
      - TeMPOraL 2y ago
        No computational reason, literally zero reason at all. Fundamentally unfalsifiable beliefs are completely arbitrary, and those fundamentally unobservable subjects of those beliefs cannot affect reality in any way - if they could, then they would be observable in principle, and therefore the belief in them would be falsifiable too.
- mistermann 2y ago
  > Nothing is outside the domain of science. I'm going to go waaaaay out on a limb here and make a guess: you have no proof for this claim of fact? I am endlessly fascinated how science is held up by its fan base as superior because it is evidenced based, yet when defending challenges to it, any "fact" can be deployed effortlessly, with no evidence required. > It's not about culture I strongly believe that thinking is downstream from culture. > science makes everything its domain It certainly rhetorically extends ownership to all of "reality" (identical to The Universe, dontcha know), but they certainly do not investigate all that can be. Here's a nice discussion: The Nature of Reality: A Dialogue Between a Buddhist Scholar and a Theoretical Physicist https://youtu.be/pLbSlC0Pucw?si=hFdhJ1U5pbFP6BEf https://youtu.be/pLbSlC0Pucw?si=hFdhJ1U5pbFP6BEf Note that the gloves remain on, as always. (Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with why humans are perpetually wandering around confused, without knowing it.) It's a slick technique, especially if it is done intuitively: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey Furthermore: do you consider scientists to be a part of science? If so: how do you know if everything important is actively being worked on by at least one scientist (never mind a near optimal number)? (See also: [1]) If not: how does science accomplish anything? How can only ideas interact with the physical realm, if not through human bodies engaging in work? > Scientific method is generally applicable "generally", "applicable" I am also fascinated at the loose language science fans use when describing their ideology, that is so great because it deals in precision. > it's a universal tool for identifying any kind of pattern that we can possibly identify. "identifying" Here is a pattern, Humans. Well done, Scientists! Can you point me to science's study of war, and their strategies for ending it in the near future? It's a pretty important topic, they surely have thousands of the very best minds on it I would think, since it is their domain (in that it is a part of everything). > Everything else is, in practice if not theory, completely random... Present a proof. Just because your ideology is sitting in the throne right now doesn't mean you get beliefs = facts freebies like this, especially when shit talking competing ideologies for that very same behavior is a core component of your marketing/indoctrination strategy. These conversations remind me of one of my favorite sayings: "People don't have ideas. Ideas have people." - Carl Jung I'd recommend him, but he is a peddler of "woo woo". [1] From foolswison's link: "Plenty of scientists are theists. But the ones that do good science leave their theism at the door and try to explain things in naturalistic terms (even if theism is the reason they entered that door in the first place)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic) I don't keep detailed records, but I have had easily hundreds of science fans tell me with absolute sincerity and good faith that any scientists that don't behave the way they describe (say, if I was to link them to articles) don't count, because they aren't scientists. (Actual scientists only behave perfectly, of course.) I wonder if science not studying such things (ontology, etc) and thus not constantly tooting their horn about it in the media [2] might have something to do with why their fans have utterly no knowledge of it, and thus believe that it doesn't exist[3]. [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+train+a+neural+network https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+train+a+neural+networ... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_Silver_Blaze https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_Silver_Blaze Apologies for any negative vibes, I just think it's a fascinating phenomenon, and fun to discuss. Curiosity used to be so popular!
- throwup238 2y ago
  Sadly no one got the joke. "culturally off limits" means it can't be cultured in a lab, which is the entire point of this article.
- eysgshsvsvsv 2y ago
  Okay. Prove to yourself others exists using science.
  - sgbeal 2y ago
    Not quite science, but this quote from Conan the barbarian is, IMO, nonetheless relevant: "I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content." ― Robert E. Howard, Queen of the Black Coast
- stareatgoats 2y ago
  > Nothing is outside the domain of science. Later qualified by: "that we can possibly identify". You seem to forget at least one basic circumstance here: that the scientific method is but one narrative. It may be universally applicable, but it is not the only interesting thing that can be said (and what it says is more often than not "we don't know"). The current cultural paradigm (in some quarters), which seem to think that only "scientific truth" is worthwhile, everything else is just random noise is likely precisely what the parent objected to, and that you stepped in to defend. Incidentally, you seem to agree that there are indeed things outside the domain of science, those things that we can not possibly identify. This is also the reason I'm not as pessimistic as the parent when it comes to the longevity of the current, scientismically informed paradigm: The insight that the things we can possibly identify are but a fraction of the infinite will surely land sooner or later. It doesn't make the scientific method wrong by any stretch of the imagination, but it will always be just mapping local phenomena (that we can notice), not everything.
analog31 2y ago
>>> Sadly, this area is essentially culturally off limits Not in my experience. I just got back from a week of playing music in the woods with a bunch of folk musicians. Sometimes we talked about science, but music is for all intents and purposes an orthogonal way of exploring reality. Likewise for many areas of art, literature, etc. Disclosure: Scientist and musician.
- mistermann 2y ago
  Music, and dancing, do seem to have transcendent powers.