tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6489111.post1033026857487780719..comments2023-09-25T07:29:38.364-06:00Comments on Café Philos: an internet café: At Best, All Our Truths Are Useful ModelsPaul Sunstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02462598852553696040noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6489111.post-17346739746398741412007-03-23T19:39:00.000-06:002007-03-23T19:39:00.000-06:00Hi Eolake!Which bio of Einstein are you reading?"[...Hi Eolake!<BR/><BR/>Which bio of Einstein are you reading?<BR/><BR/>"[You oughter indicated quotes.]"<BR/><BR/>I think you're right. Time to amend the Cafe Philos style book.Paul Sunstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02462598852553696040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6489111.post-9630170306802339072007-03-23T18:31:00.000-06:002007-03-23T18:31:00.000-06:00[You oughter indicated quotes.]Einstein was fascin...[You oughter indicated quotes.]<BR/><BR/>Einstein was fascinating. I'm reading a bio of him now.Eolake Stobblehousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07126147415891586345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6489111.post-16065284411667646682007-03-21T03:06:00.000-06:002007-03-21T03:06:00.000-06:00Hi Greta!It is indeed a fascinating paradox. The ...Hi Greta!<BR/><BR/>It is indeed a fascinating paradox. The very fact scientific truth is conditional -- dependent on observation -- is what makes it predictive, and hence, useful. But that is also what makes it uncertain, and hence, provisional. Do you think that's a fair assesment of the paradox you referred to, or have I misunderstood you?<BR/><BR/>About Creationists, etc. I think most are simply nice people who happen to be both hopeful their religion is true, and blissfully ignorant of the science that says, at least to some extent, their religion is false. That's most Creationists.<BR/><BR/>Others are ... well, brats. They've studied the issues somewhat but in bad faith and with a guiding agenda: They are either willfully ignorant of the science, or common liars, or both. Fortunately, when the aliens land, those folks will be the first to get eaten.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for a great post, Greta! I'm glad you dropped by tonight and I sure hope it's not a one night stand. I read a comment of yours the other day on PZ Meyer's blog in which you described yourself in a fascinating way. So, I said, "I want to know more about her!" and intrepidly added your blog to my roll. Great blog!Paul Sunstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02462598852553696040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6489111.post-87724427534928608402007-03-21T00:53:00.000-06:002007-03-21T00:53:00.000-06:00Yes. Yes, yes, yes. This is such a fascinating par...Yes. Yes, yes, yes. <BR/><BR/>This is such a fascinating paradox. Science is an extremely powerful tool for understanding the world, possibly the most powerful tool we have. It's created astonishing, revolutionary insights into the world, and has enabled us to make predictions about it that would have been, not just impossible, but unthinkable.<BR/><BR/>And yet, any good scientist knows that even their best theories are a good approximation at best, and that the chances are excellent that, in 500 years, they'll have been replaced by something more accurate.<BR/><BR/>Of course, what bugs me is that creationists, etc., use this to support the idea that science is bunk. Which is so not the point at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6489111.post-12322441127732925752007-03-20T14:44:00.000-06:002007-03-20T14:44:00.000-06:00Thank you, Mystic Wing!"...science always circles ...Thank you, Mystic Wing!<BR/><BR/>"...science always circles back to join the mystics..."<BR/><BR/>I think that's a vital insight. I would agree with it largely because both scientists and mystics (at least the mystics I have in mind when I use the word) base their "truths" on observation and are pretty careful to distinquish between what they can and do observe and what they are merely speculating about.<BR/><BR/>Consider, for instance, the extent to which the Buddha goes to avoid metaphysical speculation.<BR/><BR/>Great comments, Mystic Wing!<BR/><BR/><BR/>Hi Brendan!<BR/><BR/>"What scientist or artist first helped you to snap to this awareness?"<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately for brevity, Brendan, it would take a full chapter in a book to list all the people who have influenced me. Everyone and their dogs seem to have helped me understand the puzzle. Thank you for asking!<BR/><BR/>"...the latter has won out for most people because it is the most useful model for predicting [observations]"<BR/><BR/>Precisely! Yet, that can be disturbing news to some people. Many people want to believe that it is absolutely true the earth revolves around the sun. That presupposes we have certain knowledge of the relevant metaphysics. Unfortunately, we do not have such knowledge. So, we are forced to leave it at "all models are unprovable, but some are more useful than others."<BR/><BR/>I happen to be quite comfortable with that. I don't look for absolute truths, but rather usefulness to guide me. In fact, I strongly suspect absolute truth, even if it exists, is of no practical consequence. What, after all, could you do with it?Paul Sunstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02462598852553696040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6489111.post-50236169587626413202007-03-20T11:22:00.000-06:002007-03-20T11:22:00.000-06:00To give an example of how this works, BTW, conside...To give an example of how this works, BTW, consider the propositions "the Sun and stars revolve around the Earth" and "the Earth revolves around the Sun" are both <I>true</I> from the perspective of the various individuals who hold to one or the other of those propositions. But the latter has won out for most people because it is a more <I>useful</I> model for predicting the movement of celestial bodies and other phenomena observed by scientists. That's not to say that the latter proposition is "objectively true." It is just the most useful from our current perspective.Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07134613201384730701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6489111.post-29256585399154996542007-03-20T07:52:00.000-06:002007-03-20T07:52:00.000-06:00Excellent post, Paul. What scientist or artist fi...Excellent post, Paul. What scientist or artist first helped you to snap to this awareness?Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07134613201384730701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6489111.post-57632738014475377912007-03-20T06:59:00.000-06:002007-03-20T06:59:00.000-06:00Great post. Anytime you hear a scientist proclaim...Great post. Anytime you hear a scientist proclaim that his discipline has "the answer," you can be sure you're listening to a mere technician, not a genuine scientist. <BR/><BR/>Like Nietsche, all real scientists understand that there are no truths, only useful fictions. <BR/><BR/>At its outer limits, science always circles back to join the mystics in celebrating the unknowable.The Geezershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12132213545989946724noreply@blogger.com