[ Tao Speaks ]

radio show - how to think about science Posted by dagmar on 1/19/2008, 3:55 pm 68.145.209.X on wednesday i heard the eighth of this 10 part series on the radio, an interview with Wendell Berry speaking about agriculture. i really enjoyed the talk so i'd like to pass it along. to me it's a confirmation that wisdom is beginning to flow into the mainstream of agribusiness. the podcast can be found at the link below. "Wendell Berry is known to the reading public mainly for his poems, essays and novels, not his commentaries on science. But in the year 2,000 he published a surprising book called Life Is A Miracle: An Essay Against Modern Superstition. The superstition the book denounces is the belief that science will one day give us a complete account of things. Science is admirable, Wendell Berry says, but it can only be deployed wisely when we recognize the limits to our knowledge. Science must submit to the judgement of Nature. In this episode, Wendell Berry unfolds this philosophy to IDEAS producer David Cayley." ps- Zentao, thanks for the new feature showing visitors country of origin Link: http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/science/index.html#episode8  Post a Response

Re: radio show - how to think about science Posted by Wayne L on 1/20/2008, 12:40 pm, in reply to "radio show - how to think about science" 128.241.105.X --Previous Message-- the book denounces is the : belief that science will one day give us a : complete account of things. Many of the so called Empirical Sciences do however involve a great deal Theorectical Knowledge, Science, Speculation, Conjecture, Belief. A Scientic Truth is One Thing, a Fact, Scientific Theory, Speculation, Conjecture, belilef, is another, is Blasphemous, is Nothing more than Hog Wash, to include Mathematical Theory. Theorem 1. Math. a theoretical proposition, statement, or formula embodying something to be proved from other propositions or formulas. 2. a rule or law, esp. one expressed by an equation or formula. 3. Logic. a proposition that can be deduced from the premises or assumptions of a system. 4. an idea, belief, method, or statement generally accepted as true or worthwhile without proof there of. Theory a spectacle, a subject, for contemplation, thesis, yet to be proven.  Post a Response

Re: radio show - how to think about science Posted by Chris on 1/21/2008, 7:59 pm, in reply to "Re: radio show - how to think about science" 163.189.217.X Reducing science to the status of a faith-based religion renders it vulnerable to exploitation purely by ideological, commercial (and by extension, military) interests, as unprovable theist religions tend to be. What place curiosity? Is there a mandated ceiling to curiosity? To what or whose end? Hypotheses are temporary things. They end up proven or disproven. This is far different to faith and mystery, whose only claim to validity is the identity of whom espouses one superstition or another. Who in this world is prepared to champion understanding and awareness as an end in itself? This is aside from the philosophy of what awareness means or connotes about our nature.  Post a Response

Re: radio show - how to think about science Posted by dagmar on 1/23/2008, 10:03 am, in reply to "Re: radio show - how to think about science" 68.145.209.X quote>: The superstition the book denounces is the : belief that science will one day give us a : complete account of things. Wayne>: Many of the so called Empirical Sciences do : however involve a great deal Theorectical : Knowledge, Science, Speculation, : Conjecture, Belief. i agree Wayne, the quote also supports your statement and is part of what the program is about. d  Post a Response

Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science Posted by Jaime on 1/24/2008, 12:57 am, in reply to "radio show - how to think about science" 65.27.43.X It is a hard for me to understand why people feel the need to criticize science. Why is science disconcerting to some? On the one hand there are the people who claim their revelations (which are usually preposterous bronze-age ravings by some priest who is a co-parasite with the ruling class of a society) are all the truth we need about the world. The fundies of Kansas point to their poorly translated anthology and think it should replace the studies of geology and biology. On the other hand, we have a methodology of acquiring knowledge, which we call science, resting upon the ability to a) conceptualize some method of testing the truth or fallacy of an idea; and b) accept provisionally the truth of said idea if one consistently gets the same results each time one tests the idea. Science, thus, is the methodology. Very Daoist, this: the voyage being mostly about the road. That is the right way to think about science, in my opinion. In your way, -J  Post a Response

Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science Posted by gar on 1/24/2008, 6:40 am, in reply to "Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science" 70.100.197.X --Previous Message-- : It is a hard for me to understand why people : feel the need to criticize science. Why is : science disconcerting to some? : : On the one hand there are the people who : claim their revelations (which are usually : preposterous bronze-age ravings by some : priest who is a co-parasite with the ruling : class of a society) are all the truth we : need about the world. The fundies of Kansas : point to their poorly translated anthology : and think it should replace the studies of : geology and biology. : : On the other hand, we have a methodology of : acquiring knowledge, which we call science, : resting upon the ability to a) conceptualize : some method of testing the truth or fallacy : of an idea; and b) accept provisionally the : truth of said idea if one consistently gets : the same results each time one tests the : idea. Science, thus, is the methodology. : Very Daoist, this: the voyage being mostly : about the road. : : That is the right way to think about : science, in my opinion. : : In your way, : : -J : Greetings Jaime, It seems to me Jaime, the folks that embrace religion or science with unquestionable faith tend not to sense the whole spectrum of experience. But like the rat likes to say, "I" could be wrong! in peace, gar  Post a Response

Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science Posted by Chris on 1/24/2008, 6:10 pm, in reply to "Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science" 163.189.217.X : : It seems to me Jaime, the folks that embrace : religion or science with unquestionable : faith tend not to sense the whole spectrum : of experience. But like the rat likes to : say, "I" could be wrong! : : in peace, : gar The confusion arises in what one attributes to faith. Faith as hope is fine. Faith as a barrier to knowledge or inquiry is something else. Faith in the potential of science must be a hope at best. I wonder if scientific method is quite ready for reconciling all the dualities of existence. That said, knowing everything would be a dead bore. So I'm with Jaime - the path is the point.  Post a Response

Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science Posted by Jaime on 1/24/2008, 6:11 pm, in reply to "Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science" 65.27.43.X Hi Gar, : It seems to me Jaime, the folks that embrace : religion or science with unquestionable : faith tend not to sense the whole spectrum : of experience. The thing is, the very nature of science is to question. In other words, faith is the enemy of knowledge. Anybody embracing anything with "faith" is probably in error... Waywardly, -J  Post a Response

Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science Posted by dagmar on 1/24/2008, 9:20 pm, in reply to "Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science" 68.145.209.X the voyage being mostly : about the road. : : That is the right way to think about : science, in my opinion. Hi Jaime yes, i think what you say here is true. the challenge imo is whether one can remain open minded on the journey. i just listened to another program in the series last night, an interview with Rupert Shelldrake, also very interesting. you can listen to the podcast at the link below. "Into 1981 British biologist Rupert Sheldrake published A New Science of Life. The book argued that genes alone were not enough to account for life’s intricate patterns of form and behaviour. There must be, Sheldrake suggested, some sort of form-giving field that holds the memory of each thing’s proper shape – he called it a morphogenetic field. This intriguing idea was widely discussed in the months after the book’s publication. Then the editor of the prestigious scientific journal Nature, Sir John Maddox, wrote an editorial in which violently denounced Sheldrake’s work and called it “the best candidate for burning there has been for many years.” Years later in an interview with the BBC, he defended his denunciation on the grounds that Sheldrake’s view was scientific “heresy.” Maddox’s attack stuck Sheldrake a reputation for flakiness that still lingers. A few years ago Nobel physicist Steven Weinberg was still referring to the theory as “a crackpot fantasy.” But, for Rupert Sheldrake, this zealous policing of the boundaries of science only proved that scientific materialism had hardened into a rigid and inhibiting dogmatism. He carried on with the research programme he had put forward in A New Science of Life. Today on Ideas he shares the story of his journey with Ideas producer David Cayley." Link: http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/science/index.html  Post a Response

Re: radio show - how to think about science Posted by Bao Pu on 1/25/2008, 4:12 pm, in reply to "radio show - how to think about science" 99.249.86.X Sounds interesting Dagmar. Do I have to have Realplayer to listen to it? Do You know? Harmony, Bao Pu  Post a Response

Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science Posted by Jaime on 1/25/2008, 10:11 pm, in reply to "Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science" 65.27.43.X This is exactly the right way to approach this! : "Into 1981 British biologist Rupert : Sheldrake published A New Science of Life. : The book argued that genes alone were not : enough to account for life’s intricate : patterns of form and behaviour. There must : be, Sheldrake suggested, some sort of : form-giving field.. Here is where science comes in: He says there "must be" a form-giving field? Why must there? What is dependent upon it, that fails to occur in the absence of such? What is his evidence for the asertion? A mere "argument from design" is a logical fallacy. "We don't know why there is thunder so it must be the gods playing skittles." In other words, it is not enough to argue that "genes aren't enough." It is necessary to demonstrate some specific feature that is not a phenotype. Sheldrake (as cited) has not done this, and wonders that he is not taken seriously... Wayward, -J  Post a Response

Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science Posted by dagmar on 1/30/2008, 1:30 pm, in reply to "Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science" 68.145.209.X : Here is where science comes in: He says : there "must be" a form-giving : field? Why must there? What is dependent : upon it, that fails to occur in the absence : of such? What is his evidence for the : asertion? A mere "argument from : design" is a logical fallacy. "We : don't know why there is thunder so it must : be the gods playing skittles." personally, i don't know the answer to the questions you've asked, maybe the morphic field hypothesis is as valid as others. i think that science comes in by being open to ideas/possibilities or not so attached to previous assumptions and experiences to allow them to cloud discoveries. Dagmar  Post a Response

Re: radio show - how to think about science Posted by dagmar on 1/30/2008, 1:40 pm, in reply to "Re: radio show - how to think about science" 68.145.209.X --Previous Message-- : Sounds interesting Dagmar. : : Do I have to have Realplayer to listen to : it? Do You know? : : Harmony, : Bao Pu : : i just tried it and Real Player was what opened up for me. but i found the correct link for the podcasts which might work for you i liked listening to Wendell Berry talk Link: http://www.cbc.ca/podcasting/index.html?newsandcurrent#thinkaboutscience  Post a Response

Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science Posted by Jaime on 1/30/2008, 2:24 pm, in reply to "Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science" 65.27.43.X Hi Dagmar, : i : think that science comes in by being open to : ideas/possibilities or not so attached to : previous assumptions and experiences to : allow them to cloud discoveries. I quite agree: Unwillingness to test something new is bad science! To challenge the science, one must devise a test. To devise the test and to do the testing is to follow the Dao of science. Wayward, -J  Post a Response

Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science Posted by gar on 1/30/2008, 2:45 pm, in reply to "Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science" 70.100.197.X --Previous Message-- : Hi Dagmar, : : i : think that science comes in by being open to : ideas/possibilities or not so attached to : previous assumptions and experiences to : allow them to cloud discoveries. : : I quite agree: Unwillingness to test : something new is bad science! : : To challenge the science, one must devise a : test. To devise the test and to do the : testing is to follow the Dao of science. : : Wayward, : : -J :Greetings all, It seems to me, if you don't have the correct tools for conducting a test, the data will be invalid. Quantum physics seems to peer into the minuscule with inadequate tools. in peace, gar  Post a Response

Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science Posted by Jaime on 1/31/2008, 11:23 am, in reply to "Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science" 65.27.43.X Hi Gar, : It seems to me, if you don't have the : correct tools for conducting a test, the : data will be invalid. : Quantum physics seems to peer into the : minuscule with inadequate tools. Well said! Another example is human psychology. How does one measure psychic (mental) elements? The proof of the measure would seem the predictive value for behavior. The valiant efforts towards empirical studies of the human psyche led to the discovery that if a test is properly devised, we can use statistics as our measuring tool. Funny you brought up quantum physics, of which the above may hold true. I am re-reading Carl Jung's book Synchronicity, and he notes that with advanced physics (circa 1960, but still true today), we have to speak of facts in terms of probabilities, not absolutes, unless we are speaking of sizes and quantities that are astronomical. Wayward, -J  Post a Response

Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science Posted by Wayne L on 2/1/2008, 9:05 am, in reply to "Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science" 128.241.104.X --Previous Message-- : Hi Dagmar, : : i : think that science comes in by being open to : ideas/possibilities or not so attached to : previous assumptions and experiences to : allow them to cloud discoveries. : : I quite agree: Unwillingness to test : something new is bad science! : : To challenge the science, one must devise a : test. To devise the test and to do the : testing is to follow the Dao of science. : : Wayward, : : -J It is the non-scientist that thinks of a Theory as being a Fact. The Fact is that the Theory of the Big Bang, the Theory of an Expanding Universe, is just that, a Theory, conjecture! Period. A True Scientist has no difficulty in distinguishing a Theory from Fact. �Syn. 1. THEORY, HYPOTHESIS are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A THEORY in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A HYPOTHESIS is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis. Of course when it comes to math theory 1. Math. a theoretical proposition, statement, or formula embodying something to be proved from other propositions or formulas, is defined by the mathematician. Take, Prime Number as defined, for example; Complete hogwash, sacrilege. Prime Number ; http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeNumber.html There is but a single prime number, a whole number that is neither relative nor differentiable, Period.--->O :  Post a Response

Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science Posted by Jaime on 2/1/2008, 1:36 pm, in reply to "Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science" 65.27.43.X Gravity, for example, is a theory. Even though one might sneer "oh, science cannot state it as a fact," I would be careful about how I went about doubting it... In the Way, -J  Post a Response

Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science Posted by Pharos on 2/2/2008, 1:25 pm, in reply to "Re: definition-based recommendation on how to think about science" 130.94.121.X --Previous Message-- : Gravity, for example, is a theory. : : Even though one might sneer "oh, : science cannot state it as a fact," I : would be careful about how I went about : doubting it... : : In the Way, : : -J : Gravity is Theoretical only because the cause of Gravitation (Gravity), is unknown, there is no know direct, material cause of Gravitation, Gravitation is an affect; an affect having consequence just as does an effect, while the cause itself, (Gravity) is Unknown. Gravitation is not part of the ordinary process born of Cause and Effect, Gravitation has no know Material, Direct, Cause. There is good reason that Gravitation, Love, is said to make the World go around.  Post a Response

     «Back to thread

"The Tao is basically utterly open. Utter openeness has no substance. It ends in endlessness, begins in beginninglessnes".
-Li Daoqun ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Webmaster: zentao00@yahoo.com