The cartoon's right, science does take the mysticism and magic out of the world, but it replaces it with knowledge. I'm no less in awe of the world because it's origin had nothing to do with the supernatural or hocus-pocus.
The cartoon's right, science does take the mysticism and magic out of the world, but it replaces it with knowledge. I'm no less in awe of the world because it's origin had nothing to do with the supernatural or hocus-pocus.
Since "mysticism and magic" seems to mean "stuff you can't possibly understand, ever" -- an epistemological brick wall that stops all investigation before it even starts -- then I say good riddance. Delving into something, understanding how it works -- what Feynman called "the pleasure of finding things out -- is the real source of awe and wonder. The other is a counterfeit promise that never delivers.
Well, youre blog has helped to improve my understanding of some aspects of science which impact on my own research in the arts; most notably youre views on species. So perhaps there is something to the subject after all!
So it's help me move forward in a sober fashion. Thanks
Since I've been offline (failure of my ISP for a day), I haven't had a chance to reply til now, but thanks, Jeb.
I often hear people say that science takes the mystery out of life. Almost always these are people who don't know the science but regret the passing of their own personal mystique.
The cartoon sounds (ha!) great out of context, but in context it irritated me. Science does *not* answer the question of "when a tree falls in the wilderness and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" because it's not science that determines what "sound" is. The strip suggested that "sound" consists of the vibrations in the air, but "sound" could also (more plausibly, I would think) refer the *experience* that humans and many organisms have when exposed to those vibrations, given the structure of our ears, etc. And on the latter understanding of sound, the tree does not make a sound if there is no one (organism with the appropriate apparatus) there to hear it.
Well as a complete qualia-denier I haev no trouble with that solution, but that is not a scientific debate as such. However, this raises some interesting questions about what aspects of metaphysics science actually has managed to resolve. I think it has undercut the need for hylomorphic metaphysics, for example (although if one wishes to retain it, one can always redefine it, as the idealists and neo-Thomists did).
The strip suggested that "sound" consists of the vibrations in the air, but "sound" could also (more plausibly, I would think) refer the *experience* that humans and many organisms have when exposed to those vibrations, given the structure of our ears, etc. And on the latter understanding of sound, the tree does not make a sound if there is no one (organism with the appropriate apparatus) there to hear it.
If I measure the volume level of a given âsoundâ using a decibel meter whilst at the same time wearing noise-cancelling headphones to protect my hearing as the sound could be injurious to my health, what am I measuring? According to your definition it can't be sound because I am, thanks to the headphones, not perceiving it with my ears. So what is it?
One of the best justifications for science I have ever read. :)
Saw this this morning and I'm glad it got posted. Excellent strip.
Not a party pooper at all. Science defines the territory for the party. You can't just have a party anywhere. Well, not outside of Las Vegas.
The cartoon's right, science does take the mysticism and magic out of the world, but it replaces it with knowledge. I'm no less in awe of the world because it's origin had nothing to do with the supernatural or hocus-pocus.
The cartoon's right, science does take the mysticism and magic out of the world, but it replaces it with knowledge. I'm no less in awe of the world because it's origin had nothing to do with the supernatural or hocus-pocus.
Since "mysticism and magic" seems to mean "stuff you can't possibly understand, ever" -- an epistemological brick wall that stops all investigation before it even starts -- then I say good riddance. Delving into something, understanding how it works -- what Feynman called "the pleasure of finding things out -- is the real source of awe and wonder. The other is a counterfeit promise that never delivers.
I, too, saw that this morning and was wondering about posting a link. Did anyone do that at t.o.?
Well, youre blog has helped to improve my understanding of some aspects of science which impact on my own research in the arts; most notably youre views on species. So perhaps there is something to the subject after all!
So it's help me move forward in a sober fashion. Thanks
Since I've been offline (failure of my ISP for a day), I haven't had a chance to reply til now, but thanks, Jeb.
I often hear people say that science takes the mystery out of life. Almost always these are people who don't know the science but regret the passing of their own personal mystique.
The cartoon sounds (ha!) great out of context, but in context it irritated me. Science does *not* answer the question of "when a tree falls in the wilderness and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" because it's not science that determines what "sound" is. The strip suggested that "sound" consists of the vibrations in the air, but "sound" could also (more plausibly, I would think) refer the *experience* that humans and many organisms have when exposed to those vibrations, given the structure of our ears, etc. And on the latter understanding of sound, the tree does not make a sound if there is no one (organism with the appropriate apparatus) there to hear it.
Feh.
Well as a complete qualia-denier I haev no trouble with that solution, but that is not a scientific debate as such. However, this raises some interesting questions about what aspects of metaphysics science actually has managed to resolve. I think it has undercut the need for hylomorphic metaphysics, for example (although if one wishes to retain it, one can always redefine it, as the idealists and neo-Thomists did).
If I measure the volume level of a given âsoundâ using a decibel meter whilst at the same time wearing noise-cancelling headphones to protect my hearing as the sound could be injurious to my health, what am I measuring? According to your definition it can't be sound because I am, thanks to the headphones, not perceiving it with my ears. So what is it?