Glad you enjoyed it. I have re-read it several times and find something new or hilarious every time despite its brevity. I commend it to all the regulars and especially to the religious among us. It skewers the romantic notion that propositions may be judged by other than rationalist standards, on some higher plane of understanding. While that might be true (we bow to Kant here), it is incredibly naive to believe that higher plane consists of Iron Age superstition, and incredible leaps into fantasy.

My man, you are the gift that keeps on giving. Thanks for the link. The Edge is now permanently bookmarked.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne09/coyne09_index.html#rc

Yet another part of the scientific method is the integration of new information, as it becomes available…

Here’s another quote from Einstein you might appreciate:

“It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.”
–Albert Einstein

Maybe the issue is in using absolutes. A state of perfect knowledge isn’t mathematically possible. A reasonable “Theory of Everything” needs not be perfect to function as a working, predictive model. Just look at the huge numbers of theories that have had predictive value in application only to be later usurped by a later, more refined theory that produces “higher resolution” results? Even Newton and Einstein received later corrections. This in no way invalidates relativity or the still useful parts of Newtonian physics. Something to consider.

I would think that there’s a big difference between a process and the result. While the pool of knowledge is constantly changing and getting corrected, science itself stays the same. Unfortunately I don’t have the time to look up the relevant quotes from Shermer, Sagan, etc. but that is a pretty consistent theme running through the body of literature on science.

I admit we’re arguing semantics here, but I think the implication is major when we’re discussing a statement like “…not everything we do is explainable scientifically.” If we’re talking of science as a finite state of knowledge then that is accurate. If we’re talking about science as a process of gaining knowledge then I have to disagree. Do I think it’s possible for humanity to know everything? Nope. Do I think that science combined with the right knowledge base could in theory explain everything we observe? Yes.

I also think you misread my earlier post, I never implied that laboratory research was the only method of data gathering that science could use. I was just giving an example of how it is harder to research certain medical theories because of the ethics involved.

I thought you might appreciate this quote, sorry I don’t recall the source, but I think it was Ian Ketterling.

“Logic is a way to go wrong with absolute certainty.”

My favorite one is:

All celestial bodies are made of green cheese

The moon is a celestial body

Therefore the moon is made of green cheese

The theme of The Critique of Pure Reason is not to invalidate reason but to explore its facets and examine its limitations.

And I think that’s about the shortest summary I’ve ever written about that book.

If I may . . .

Reason is the application of logic. Logic is a tool, not an end in itself. Whether you use the tool for finding truth or obscuring it is up to the individual. Not all logics are correct. Example:

All UFO’s are beige.
All telephones are beige.
Therefore all telephones are UFOs.

That’s logically consistent and formally correct although completely erroneous in conclusion. The way to compensate for this is to use alternative logics to reach a conclusion that either confirms or refutes what observation shows to be the reality of a given situation and eliminating as many potential errors in interpretation and form as possible. That being said, it’s a given that error cannot be totally eliminated from ANY system of any degree of complexity – see chaos theory – but it can be reduced. This particular logic in the example fails for a variety of reasons – argument by generalization/non-sequitur/spurious similarity and the fallacies of composition and division to name a few. That’s hardly a comprehensive list of what’s wrong with this logic, but you get the idea. When used properly, logic/reason is a powerful tool to uncover the truth of what we see in the world around us. When misused, it’s a tool for self-deception or lying to others unable to dissect what you’d said. But logic is a tool you can use to diagnose itself. Just like a computer does.

How do you use reason to invalidate reason?
I am probably missing something and would appreciate any insight you have.

Turtle

Bob and Mespo, eureka,
If this is what Kant is about I’m there. Our understanding is naturally limited by the limits of perceptions. Isn’t this referred to by Plato in his cave example, or by physics which posits that the result is affected by the observation. The format, intensity and length of the proof presented is what is what throws me off. However, I can understand one being enraptured by the logic of the process.

My personal prejudice comes from a quote I heard many years ago that resonated with me and i paraphrase: “All of human philosophy and theology can be encapsulated by the thoughts in a person’s mind as they take a long Saturday night bath.” To wit as I see it: What is life? Why am I here? What am I to do about it? What significance does it all have?

This is not meant as a dismissal of philosophical thought, but merely reflects on my way of organizing my consciousness. I respect people who can do it differently and gain insight and pleasure from the experience. I think philosophy attempts to give people the blueprints for productive integration. Education is not equipped to show each child how to productively organize their consciousness and it is a hit and missed proposition with each of us.

Kant’s appeal lay not so much in his particular ideas, but in his methodology.

Here’s one of the best description of Kant’s method I’ve ever read:

From “Zen & The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”:

“A fragment of memory is preserved of [Phaedrus] sitting in a room at three and four in the morning with Immanuel Kant’s famous Critique of Pure Reason, studying it as a chess player studies the openings of the tournament masters, trying to test the line of development against his own judgment and skill, looking for contradictions and incongruities.

Phædrus is a bizarre person when contrasted to the twentieth-century
Midwestern Americans who surround him, but when he is seen studying Kant he is less strange. For this eighteenth-century German philosopher he feels a respect that rises not out of agreement but out of appreciation for Kant’s formidable logical fortification of his position. Kant is always superbly methodical, persistent, regular and meticulous as he scales that great snowy mountain of thought concerning what is in the mind and what is outside the mind. It is, for modern climbers, one of the highest peaks of all, and I want now to magnify this picture of Kant and show a little about how he thought and how Phædrus thought about him in order to give a clearer picture of what the high country of the mind is like and also to prepare the way for an understanding of Phædrus’ thoughts.” (R. Pirsig, ZATAOMM, pp. 129-130)

Btw, if I’d never read ‘The Critique’ I don’t think I ever would have figured out the Ninth Amendment.

SIYOM,

Bob

I know, I know. That’s why I said is was a “state.” And as we all know, you can’t tell you’re in a “state” just by looking around. Damn that metaphysical Kant!

Whereas epistemology is from the Greek ‘episteme’ meaning ‘knowledge.’

“No one attempts to establish a science unless he has an
idea upon which to base it.” — guess who?

Bob, Esq. is a long-time Kant-o-phile, and his musings about the limitations of our understanding based upon the limitations of our sensory perceptions are usually prescient. I do fault him for knowing so much more than me, but maybe that too is Kantian given I cannot possibly know if that is so given my own limited sensibilities. However, I do believe it to be the case, my cognitive shortcomings not withstanding.

No, I think I’d call it quibbling.

By your own examples, the scientific method, of which observation, is but one of the major criteria, would likewise hardly require one to reproduce head injuries, in a lab experiment, to support any hypothesis of expected recovery from coma.

Indeed, outcomes are constantly measurable and rely on many factors.

“Now I have to decipher Kant’s logic?”

Not really. I was just taunting Mike Appleton regarding his comments implying that empiricism is the ultimate arbiter of all disputes.

Empiricism can guarantee you neither certainty nor necessity.

And per the Intelligent Design debate, Kant illustrated more than two centuries ago how proving & disproving the existence of “an absolutely necessary being” is an antinomy. WARNING: Familiarity with this concept will force you to see Bill Maher in a less intellectual light. You might even end up despising Bill Maher for his arrogance and stupidity as many have come to despise Dennis Miller for his lack of both spine & integrity; right wing suckup that he is.

What can I say, 20 years ago, Kant changed the way I think and The Critique became my inertial frame of reference, so to speak, for my method of thinking.

SIYOM,

Bob

“Try? There is no try. There is only can and Kant.” –Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back, Draft 1

“But I was going into Toshi Station to pick up some power converters…” -Luke Skywalker

Not to quibble, but science isn’t a pool of knowledge, it’s a manner of getting knowledge. While you can say that there are things that happen that haven’t been explained by science, you can’t really say that something can’t ever be explained. Since our knowledge base is constantly expanding and changing, so is our ability to figure out certain things.

Mankind had known about heredity for years, but only recently have we begun to unlock the mechanisms that cause it. We had no scientific explanation for why people passed on certain traits, just the observation that they did. Finding the mechanisms for medical recoveries is problematic because there’s all sorts of ethical concerns. You can’t reproduce several serious head wound in a laboratory to study to see why some people come out of a coma but others don’t.

That aside, I would never say that knowledge is the only thing necessary to practice medicine in one form or another. It does however lead to better medicine.

As for faith, I acknowledge that it’s important to some people, but that doesn’t mean I have to share it.

My point is that not everything we do is explainable scientifically.

For instance, I cultivate relationships with my patients. Being adept at explaining the science is just one part of what I do in addition to my training in procedures. Taking the time needed for my patients to feel comfortable is equally important.

Obviously, you have no first-hand experience in a hospital setting, as there are often instances where there is no scientific explanation for patients to have survived and yet they do.

Needless to say, there are many more instances, but for ‘faith’, a lot of people wouldn’t make it through the senselessness of it all on a lot of other days.

I’m sorry, but I find knowing how things work fascinating. I appreciate things much more when I know the complexity that goes into them. I guess it’s my personality type.

I don’t know any scientist who thinks that science is responsible for everything that happens. They think that science just happens to be the best way to go about figuring out what exactly happened and how it happened.

Here’s just a couple of quotes from Einstein on ‘religion’…

‘Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.’
(Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, New York, 1954, p. 46.)

Once in answer to the question “Do you believe in the God of Spinoza?” Einstein replied as follows:

“I can’t answer with a simple yes or no. I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza’s pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.”
(Denis Brian, Einstein, A Life, New York, 1996, p. 186.)

Three of my four favorites are on that list. To be honest I always thought Mile’s claim to fame was the company he kept. I like Mingus’s response when asked about Miles during his fusion years (I can’t find the original so this is probably a little inaccurate), “Miles, that cat that played with Dizzy and Trane? Isn’t he dead?”

If you don’t mind a little advice, check out “Money Jungle” it’s a trio led by Ellington, with Mingus and Max Roach. It’s an eye-opener as to just how phenomenal of a piano player Ellington was (that tends to get overlooked).

Buddha,
Great comment in its’ entirety. It is obvious to many that this is what is endangering the future of humanity. This is the issue though how do we humanely accomplish it? My only answer, not necessarily the
best is that first we increase our personal self awareness to identify that within us that is controlled by the atavism of the savanna. We then learn to control it within ourselves, easier said and done. We find kindred spirits to ally with in trying to persuade humanity of the need and of course we teach proper behavior to our children. Facile to expostulate, but enormously difficult to accomplish within the flux of an ever more complicated environment.

Gyges,
Thanks on the Jazz theory but although I’ve got good ears and taste, I’m functionally illiterate musically. I suspect though that you’d appreciate my Jazz mentors which start with Luis Armstrong from the 20′s and 30′s, the Count, The Duke, Benny G.,
Dizzy, Miles and Monk.

I’m glad you mentioned adaptation. It has been my thought for some time that the next step in evolution is the conscious abandonment of a competitive model and adopting a cooperative model for human interaction and building civilization. If this means we have to eliminate the “overly competitive” from political process and positions that impact other’s lives, so be it. Hence my insistence that the Neocons must be excised from the body politic like a cancer and corporate greed put on a short (very short) leash. Hyper-competitive behavior is a function of ego and we all know what that means. It’s also outmoded as a survival mechanism. We need to consciously walk away from instincts that may have served well on the savanna, but are killing us as a species right now. We simply aren’t physically evolving fast enough in the face of technology and uncontrolled population growth. Our instincts are geared for hunting mammoth and fighting cave bears with pointed sticks while keeping those guys from over the hill from stealing or raping the women. I don’t know about you, but I haven’t seen any Pleistocene critters roaming about KC or anywhere else. And Facebook seems to have replaced the club and drag method of exercising “The Booty Call”. Our next leap must be a conscious decision using the “wetware” and “software” we already have. After all, it’s our mental capacities that differentiates us from animals, not the ability to feel emotion. Dogs love, dogs hate, but they don’t build nuclear weapons. Chimps love, chimps hate, chimps use tools, but they don’t know how to weaponize anthrax. We need as a species to make this choice and we need to make soon or the stars will most certainly not be our destination.

If you want, I can also explain a little bit of jazz theory to you.

Mike A.,
To sort of get back on topic you make an excellent point in that today’s fundamentalism, across all religions, is essentially not in line with traditional theology or theological history. In Islam, Wahabism is less than 200 years old; Jewish Hassidism is slightly older; Christian fundamentalism ignores older theological thought and Roman Catholic intellectualism; The Book of Morman is about 180 years old and there have been at least two more fundamentalist schisms there; While I’m on shakier ground I assume there is a strain of fundamentalist Hinduism that has also morphed away from traditional thought; and so it goes.

This seems to stem from a fear of a rapidly changing world and a person’s inability to keep up with change. As someone in my 60′s I understand how this can lead to fear, confusion and a desire to return to a simpler time and mode of thought. Unfortunately, this returns us to Darwinian thought in that the species that survive are able to adapt to a rapidly changing environment, surviving and prospering from it. We humans face a complexity of change in all areas and if we are to survive and grow, we must learn to adapt.

If it’s any consolation, it’s been by experience that Kant causes even the most ferocious of intellects to reach for the aspirin. Most quit reading him when once it’s no longer a class requirement unless they are linguistic masochists. And knock out the “false” modesty, buddy, you hang in just fine for an “old social worker”.

Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back, Draft 1

“Therefore, the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in the classroom is a effort to promote a very narrow and specific theology in the public schools. It is unconstitutional for that reason alone.”

…

“At the risk of appearing dogmatic, anyone who disagrees with what I just wrote is wrong and, in a perfectly just world, would be shot.”

I Kant understand a word…

“THE ANTINOMY OF PURE REASON A452 B480 FOURTH CONFLICT OF THE TRANSCENDENTAL IDEAS

Thesis

There belongs to the world, either as its part or as its cause, a being that is absolutely necessary.

Proof

The sensible world, as the sum-total of all appearances, contains a series of alterations. For without such a series even the representation of serial time, as a condition of the possibility of the sensible world, would not be given us. ++ Time, as the formal condition of the possibility of changes, is indeed objectively prior to them; subjectively, however, in actual consciousness, the representation of time, like every other, is given only in connection with perceptions.

P 415a

Antithesis

An absolutely necessary being nowhere exists in the world, nor does it exist outside the world as its cause.

Proof
If we assume that the world itself is necessary, or that a necessary being exists in it, there are then two alternatives. Either there is a beginning in the series of alterations which is absolutely necessary, and therefore without a cause, or the series itself is without any beginning, and although contingent and P 416a
conditioned in all its parts, none the less, as a whole, is absolutely necessary and unconditioned.
P 415 But every alteration stands under its condition, which precedes it in time and renders P 416 it necessary. Now every
conditioned that is given presupposes, in respect of its existence, a complete series of conditions up to the unconditioned, which alone is absolutely necessary. Alteration thus existing as a consequence of the absolutely necessary, the existence of something
absolutely necessary must be granted. But this necessary existence itself belongs to the sensible world. For if it existed outside that world, the series of alterations in the world would derive its beginning from a necessary cause which would not itself belong A454 B482 to the sensible world. This, however, is impossible. For
since the beginning of a series in time can be determined only by that which precedes it in time, the highest condition of the beginning of a series of changes must exist in the time when the series as yet was not (for a beginning is an existence preceded
by a time in which the thing that begins did not yet exist).”

…

http://arts.cuhk.edu.hk/cgi-bin/cprframe.pl?query=16ant1-4.htm,415

I’m a little out of date myself. Last thing I read was a calculation of dark matter mass as being insufficient to cause contraction, but dark matter study evolves fast, I know there’s new stuff out there I haven’t read. So many books, so little time.

You can believe it is. I was in Oklahoma when they first got concealed carry rights. The churches opened at 12:00 a.m. for permits. People were lined up out the door. I am right with Pastor!!!

I do realize that with Linde’s our universe could be either of those two options. I haven’t really been keeping up with that particular field, so I have no idea what the current findings seem to confirm.

Is your concealed carry permit up to date?
You could be in a world of hurt with Pastor if it isn’t!

I have my gun and I’ll see ya in church!

Or for that matter, my favorite cosmological theory.

Consider it done. If I cash out on it, your royalty check is in the mail.

Hmmm . . . maybe I should write a book.

I am not talking about meterology or chemistry, or biology, I am thinking of the beginning how did it all start where did the universe(s) come from, that type of stuff.

Bron98,

If you’re talking about evolution, you’re talking about biology. If you’re talking about biology, then you’re talking about science?

If meteorology needn’t concern itself with supernatural explanations, then why should biology?

Besides, the Theory of Evolution does not address the origin of the universe (that’s the field of cosmology). Nor does it address the origin of life; it addresses the origin of species.

This is not meant to offend believers in God in any way, but “God did it” is just as scientific as “it’s turtles all the way down.”

“I’m telling you right now, FFLEO. I’m going to be using that one.”

You are welcome to use it Sir. However, if you write a book and make a million…..