Question

Idioteque

In the past few years I've become more and more interested in Philosophy and have tried to read up on the many various philosophers when I have time. There has been one question that has been on my mind of late though, particularly when I come across a 'where do we come from argument'.
It is as follows (Bear with me while I try to be semi-coherent)....
Is not a lot of our questioning /logic flawed because we are limited to what knowledge we have?. While it is by all means interesting to question such things as the purpose of our existence or where we came from, surely a basic point is that we are limited to what we know. Hence our questioning is flawed...
e.g. Statement: God created Man.
Question: Yes, but what was there before God?

Now surely such questions as the one above are based upon our knowledge of physics etc but ultimately is such a question not flawed? After all didn't our ancestors at one time believe the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth, hence we are questioning things with our modern day understanding, yet correct understanding of the real answers are probably far beyond the comprehension of our minds currently. Are we not limited in the same way that a goldfish would be to swimming around a bowl, unaware of the magnitude of life around it? Ok, it's a simple blunt analogy but I was going to use mice only for I reckon those who have read hitchhikers guide will no doubt come back with some reference! (42 perhaps?!?).

The above reminds me of the Shadow/Cave analogy of Descartes.

I'm sure there's some simple flaw in what I'm asking but then again that's why this board is here is it not! Excuse my naivety but I’m no philosopher...

DadaKopf

Are we not limited in the same way that a goldfish would be to swimming around a bowl, unaware of the magnitude of life around it?

I agree with this completely.

The above reminds me of the Shadow/Cave analogy of Descartes.

It's Plato's analogy.

transperson

Are we not limited in the same way that a goldfish would be to swimming around a bowl, unaware of the magnitude of life around it?

you are dead right, but we have succeeded in making the bowl much larger with all this science lark. and we seem to know reality down to some deep levels, back to some long gone times and far away to the edges of the universe, so we seem to be approaching the limit of the bowl we are in.

maybe the questions that we have problems with are only problems because they are shouldnt be questions at all, maybe they are only confused language and strange customs left over from these ancestors who were in a much smaller bowl?

DadaKopf

No, science has 'deepened' knowledge in some areas and rendered others invisible at best, deviant at worst. Some questions are permitted, some just aren't on the radar. But this changes over time. So, to me, it is like the goldfish, with its short-term memory, swimming around a really weirdly shaped fishbowl.

transperson

science has 'deepened' knowledge in some areas and rendered others invisible at best, deviant at worst. Some questions are permitted, some just aren't on the radar

i used to have a similar view of science but my faith is growing in it. of course science does not give us a perfect and complete view of the world but it tries and does better than anything else we can come up with.
and there is absolutely no doubt what so ever that science has massively increased our knowledge of the world and expanded various horizons and continues to do so.

what are the areas that have been left invisible and off the radar or even deviant?

nesf

transperson wrote:

what are the areas that have been left invisible and off the radar or even deviant?

The questions science can't answer. They get ignored by the "religion" of science. People have faith in science and that's an issue when they don't understand it's limitations.

We have people dismiss any subject that is not "scientific" in society. That is not a good thing. Science is not the be all and end all that it has been painted as in the past few decades.

Idioteque wrote:

I'm sure there's some simple flaw in what I'm asking but then again that's why this board is here is it not! Excuse my naivety but I’m no philosopher...

Naivety? No. A naive person wouldn't think to ask the question in the first place

transperson

QUOTE]The questions science can't answer. They get ignored by the "religion" of science. People have faith in science and that's an issue when they don't understand it's limitations.

We have people dismiss any subject that is not "scientific" in society. That is not a good thing. Science is not the be all and end all that it has been painted as in the past few decades[/QUOTE]

i grant that science is not the be all and end all,

the point i took to be raised by the OP was that may be we are asking the wrong questions about our world and dont have the tools to fully conprehend it.

and obviously science is our most effective tool [look at the eveidence of its success] so maybe all the other questions that we are being stumped on [is there a God what is really right etc] are being thought about in the wrong way? is that not a possibility?

also is it not a fact that what most people think to be their reality is defined by science? is the bowl not science shaped?

Bodhidharma

I too have become very interested in philosophy in the past few months and if i was a pretentious intellectual( i'm not, i'm a pretentious wannabe), i would say that sartre got it right in saying that science is an example of bad faith. we are not capable of knowing anything about the universe because science was created by us. like it or not we know nothing. even the great minds are empty of real knowledge. science is based on maths, which we created.
us humans are the most arrogant and presumptious speices in the universe ( or maybe not, i am being presumptious), but why do we think WE can solve anything? flesh and blood with a little bit of intelligence. we create maths to find answers to the world, but if we created them with this in mind surely the system is flawed. it begins with an answer and tries to fit the questions to it.

Son Goku

Bodhidharma wrote:

I too have become very interested in philosophy in the past few months and if i was a pretentious intellectual( i'm not, i'm a pretentious wannabe), i would say that sartre got it right in saying that science is an example of bad faith. we are not capable of knowing anything about the universe because science was created by us. like it or not we know nothing. even the great minds are empty of real knowledge. science is based on maths, which we created.
us humans are the most arrogant and presumptious speices in the universe ( or maybe not, i am being presumptious), but why do we think WE can solve anything? flesh and blood with a little bit of intelligence. we create maths to find answers to the world, but if we created them with this in mind surely the system is flawed. it begins with an answer and tries to fit the questions to it.

The one thing Science has going for it though is experimental results. We did invent Maths and the equations are entirely our own invention, but they are supported by observation.
Take the equation F = dp/dt. We invented the concept of derivative, e.t.c.. However when we measure Force we find that it is the change of momentum over time, as predicted.
The second part in bold in particular is historically incorrect. The majority of Maths was invented as pure math, with an average of thirty years before it had a use and was originally intended for nothing.
After a while though it was found that it described natural systems.

As for the first part in bold, my question would be why does your computer work then?
A very mundane question, but it essentially gets my point across. Unless you are going for a very specific definition of knowledge.

Bodhidharma

First off i dont think my computer running shows any great sign of intelligence. after all, what is it but a tool for communicating, Smoke signals did the same hundreds of years ago.
Secondly, giving me examples of equations is all well and good, but they are based on numbers. What is a number? Answer that. its nothing but an illusion created by us to fool us into believing we will be able to answer questions totally beyond our comprehension.
Maths is the universal language eh? if we ever make contact be sure to ask them that equation of yours!

Son Goku

Woah!, where did that response come out of, my original post was intended to be neutral and non-confrontational in character.

Bodhidharma wrote:

First off i dont think my computer running shows any great sign of intelligence. after all, what is it but a tool for communicating, Smoke signals did the same hundreds of years ago.

You're missing the point.
A computer is built according to the rules of condensed matter physics for electron flow. If these rules weren't correct the computer wouldn't function at all. It's got nothing to do with how smart a computer is.

Secondly, giving me examples of equations is all well and good, but they are based on numbers. What is a number? Answer that. its nothing but an illusion created by us to fool us into believing we will be able to answer questions totally beyond our comprehension.
Maths is the universal language eh? if we ever make contact be sure to ask them that equation of yours!

A number is an axiomatic structure in number theory. The quanta of the naturals or reals, but this is beside the point.

The point is we have an equation which parameterises certain observational quantities, it isn't required that numbers are real.
Take the Field Equation, sure Tensors and differential forms are our invention, but what the field equation states has been observationally confirmed.

Regarding the part in bold, I never even said that and why do aliens need to understand our equations for them to be observationally accurate?
Science isn't just an armchair exercise, this stuff has been tested.

You can argue all you want, but at the end of the day I'll still say "Why does it agree with experiment, after little to no revision on our part?".

its nothing but an illusion created by us to fool us into believing we will be able to answer questions totally beyond our comprehension.

Dude, numbers were invented in order to count, not part of some mental conspiracy to fool the human race into thinking they're smarter than they really are.

DadaKopf wrote:

No, science has 'deepened' knowledge in some areas and rendered others invisible at best, deviant at worst. Some questions are permitted, some just aren't on the radar.

What to you mean by this?
(In case that sounds accusational, it isn't.
I'm just wondering do you mean that science has caused some areas of enquiry to seem ludicrous to people or do you mean scientists ignore certain things when working on understanding reality?)

Sapien

Bodhidharma wrote:

Maths is the universal language eh?

Precisely how much maths do you know?

If, as I expect, very little, then you are infra dignitatem, buddykarma.

Elitism, Son Goku, is the privilege of the elite. Insouciance, old bean, is the demeanour of the righteous.

Bodhidharma

Apologies to Son Goku if he/she saw my response as aggresive, it wasn't intended as such. To Sapien, as i have said i am a beginer in philosophy and am working it out for myself rather than blindly quoting an intellelectual giant, so excuse me for having an opinion.
I am neither a mathamatician nor a philosopher, so pardon me for not knowing about maths theories. Son Goku, i dont have an idea what your talking about. Axiomatic Structure? Bewildering people with obscure, highly specialised references is one way to end a discussion, it does not make you right though.
My theory is simply this, the universe is much more simple and staightforward than you can imagine. so simple in fact that we will never find the answers. its like looking all over the house for keys when they are in your pocket. Answers are over rated, its the questions that intrigue me.
One last thing, "Infra Dignitatem" I'm gonna assume that means "the good looking,highly intelligent, all around nice guy".

Son Goku

Bodhidharma wrote:

Apologies to Son Goku if he/she saw my response as aggresive, it wasn't intended as such.

Its cool dude.
The fact that bland text can't really convey emotion that well always causes these things.

Bodhidharma wrote:

I am neither a mathamatician nor a philosopher, so pardon me for not knowing about maths theories. Son Goku, i dont have an idea what your talking about. Axiomatic Structure? Bewildering people with obscure, highly specialised references is one way to end a discussion, it does not make you right though.

I only did so because it's a philosophy forum. As a student of physics, to me a number is just a yolk for counting, I thought you might have been making a point about formal definition in mathematics.

My theory is simply this, the universe is much more simple and staightforward than you can imagine. so simple in fact that we will never find the answers. its like looking all over the house for keys when they are in your pocket. Answers are over rated, its the questions that intrigue me.

I'm going to have to ask what you mean by answers, in case I go off on a tangent. Answers in what area. The questions that intrigue me are largely physical in character. ("What is gravity's role in decoherence?", e.t.c.)
I think we can find answers to those kind of questions and I think the answers are important and not at all over rated.
Look at what we've found out about how atoms and quarks work and the bizarre world that lurks at the subatomic level. Not to mention what we have found out about space itself, the vacuum is a boiling sea of nothingness that bends on itself, full of sound and fury.
The Universe, physically, is complex and the answers are hidden away in the difficult to discern patterns that occupy our world.

Unless of course you are talking about a different kind of question.

Bodhidharma

Answers in regard to Philosophy, to me anyway, are in relation to the way we regard ourselves and our place in the universe. Why are we here? How are we here? Is there a meaning to anything or is it all just a random mess? I dont know, and will never know. These questions are the ones that affect us deep inside, at a very basic level.
As a student of Physics i can see why you would have the view you have, but that isn't really Philosophy, its more theoretical physics. I think that science can answer the questions it poses of itself, in relation to Physics especially, but it cannot give the answers to the real questions a philosopher should ask.
An example of this is the Skeptics belief that you can never know for sure if other people have minds of their own. It may seem obvious, but from a totally logical perspective it is correct and science cannot disprove it. Science and numbers are only useful if you accept the nature of reality that we perceive to be true, and this is open to debate.

Son Goku

I see what you mean now. In which case I have no dispute.

Science and numbers are only useful if you accept the nature of reality that we perceive to be true, and this is open to debate.

It's open to debate, but to be frank I don't think the debate has any merit.
It just becomes "what if real isn't real?" very quickly.
(Although I do think the philosophy of science is a decent debate)
Also, Science is useful anyway, given all the technology we have gained from it.
And most of current physics deals with a reality humans can't percieve at all.

At the end of the day I'll always come back to "Why does it match observation at all?".
All of our theories were just made up models, but when we turned on the particle accelerators we found exactly what we predicted.
This is something that I think gets lost in the super-Popperian view of science.(the old hypothesis-observation-theory-renewal thing) We predicted things twenty to thirty years before they were discovered and they behaved exactly as we predicted, I think that means we're doing something right. That we might actually be learning something.

They are human constructs, but unbelievably successful ones.

Bodhidharma

I disagree with what you have said, the " what if real isnt real" debate has got merit, because my whole point is that science is based on observation, and observation is about perception. If we are not seeing or understanding things the right way then any results will be useless.

Again you have written about science and results and so on, that is not Philosophy!

I think maybe your definition of Philosophy is somewhat different to mine. I see it as the search for greater understanding of the human condition and our place in the scheme of things, if indeed there is one. To put it simply i am more interested in the things that can make life better, understanding and experiences.

Particle accelerators hold no interest for me.

Son Goku

Again you have written about science and results and so on, that is not Philosophy!

Yeah, but man look at what you originally said:

i would say that sartre got it right in saying that science is an example of bad faith.

How can I comment on that without referencing Science.
I'm probably leaning to much in the Science end in my exposition, but I can't help that.
You specifically started talking about how Maths and Science mean nothing.
I can only demonstrate the value of science by examples from science.
You've said I was using terminology that was too advanced, when that terminology was actually philosophical.
What do you want me to say?
In what manner do you want me to examine your claim that:

What is a number? Answer that. its nothing but an illusion created by us to fool us into believing we will be able to answer questions totally beyond our comprehension.

and

we are not capable of knowing anything about the universe because science was created by us. like it or not we know nothing. even the great minds are empty of real knowledge. science is based on maths, which we created.

How am I to philosophically rebuke this, without speaking of science at all?

I disagree with what you have said, the " what if real isnt real" debate has got merit, because my whole point is that science is based on observation, and observation is about perception. If we are not seeing or understanding things the right way then any results will be useless.

We're probably seeing and understanding things in a some what correct way because our results match our theory even though the theory was formulated years earlier, we actually have predictive power.
Thats my point.

I think maybe your definition of Philosophy is somewhat different to mine. I see it as the search for greater understanding of the human condition and our place in the scheme of things, if indeed there is one. To put it simply i am more interested in the things that can make life better, understanding and experiences.

Particle accelerators hold no interest for me.

Then why comment on these things as if all of Science is trumped by Sartre?
And why can't particle accelerators lead to understanding?
If you make an assertion like your first post, somebody like me is going to arrive and go "Eh, no!".

Imagine if I went to the Science board now and started a thread about philosophy being nothing more than people talking about nothing and that its useless because its made up and then when philosophers try to rebuke me I respond with "Eh, where is your empirical evidence?".

Sapien

Son Goku wrote:

How can I comment on that without referencing Science.

I don't think you're meant to comment, Son Goku. You're supposed to sit back and bow your head in humility while the validity of your discipline is judged through the vocabulary of another.

Don't you know - all you need to investigate the epistemological coherence of Science is a grounding in Existentialism and a Michael Crichton novel.

Commensurability anyone?

Bodhidharma

Ok, let me try and make this as clear as i can possibly make it.

I am trying to get across MY philosophy,what it means to me. I look at philosophy in an almost spiritual way. By thinking of it i feel closer to mankind. The essential spirit of philosophy is to questioin the assumptions of life. I think that it can benefit every aspect of your life because you are not constrained by commonly accepted beliefs.

In regard to quoting Sartre, yes i think he is right. Religion and science are examples of bad faith because we cannot know anything about the universe. This is also MY belief. I am not saying you are wrong. I am not a Philosophy facist. I am glad you have your opinion and i have mine. The world needs more thinkers.

You are a Physics student. To even consider doing that subject you would have to hold strong beliefs on the value of science. Thats fine. But it does have me believe that you prefer the structured and linear to the free flowing and random. I am of the opinon that the answers you search for will not benefit the human condition. I cannot argue with you on science, i am not qualified. Science can do great things but it cannot ease the suffering of the soul. The constant questioning of our purpose will never end.

To Sapien, why dont you actually come out with an opinion instead of sniping away in the background with your pseudo intellectual gibberish. Myself and Son Goku may not agree with one another but at least we're not afraid to give an opinion.

Son Goku

But it does have me believe that you prefer the structured and linear to the free flowing and random.

Thats a very old view of physics and I think it explains the mental background to a lot of what you're saying.
The quickest way I can explain is physics isn't levers and rods anymore, it has moved on since Newton.
There is nothing structured or linear about modern physics, it isn't full of the old "rules".
I love the free-flowing and random, thats why my favourite subjects are quantum field theory and chaos.

Religion and science are examples of bad faith because we cannot know anything about the universe.

In what manner to you mean know?
I agree with you if you mean what I think you mean.

I am of the opinon that the answers you search for will not benefit the human condition. I cannot argue with you on science, i am not qualified. Science can do great things but it cannot ease the suffering of the soul. The constant questioning of our purpose will never end.

If you mean by this that Science cannot answer philosophical questions, then you are correct.

Bodhidharma

The answers i look for are very hard to describe. I woudn't say the meaning of life, more like, why life? These answers are very much based on emotional intuitiveness. Something you feel more than you can quantify.

I do admit that Physics is probably the most dynamic and changable of all the disciplines, i still find it difficult to see how it can enhance our spiritual life. How it can bring us closer to the ultimate truth.

I know i am being vague in regard to what questions i want answers for, but i am only a beginner after all. I do not profess great knowledge in the subject but i do feel some truth to the words of some of the great pholosophers. I am not a skeptic but i do feel there is great value in questioning the assumptions of the world.

Son Goku

Bodhidharma wrote:

The answers i look for are very hard to describe. I woudn't say the meaning of life, more like, why life? These answers are very much based on emotional intuitiveness. Something you feel more than you can quantify.

I do admit that Physics is probably the most dynamic and changable of all the disciplines, i still find it difficult to see how it can enhance our spiritual life. How it can bring us closer to the ultimate truth.

I know i am being vague in regard to what questions i want answers for, but i am only a beginner after all. I do not profess great knowledge in the subject but i do feel some truth to the words of some of the great pholosophers. I am not a skeptic but i do feel there is great value in questioning the assumptions of the world.

You explained yourself perfectly in the first part in bold, thanks for taking the time.

As for the second part in bold, it can't enhance anybody spiritually at all and it'll only bring you closer to the "ultimate truth of how this universe operates", but not closer to the "ultimate truth of life".

Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

Bodhidharma

Good, i am glad we cleared that up. I enjoyed that. See you on the boards again some time.

Sapien

So nice to see the two of you getting on. (Sarcasm)

Why don't you people recognise a decent fight when it presents itself. :mad: We're not here to agree!

Bodhidharma wrote:

To Sapien, why dont you actually come out with an opinion instead of sniping away in the background with your pseudo intellectual gibberish.

There's nothing pseudo- about my intellectual gibberish.

My snide put-downs come replete with didactic inferences. Try not to be so precious about "[YOUR] philosophy" and you might catch them every now and then.

Here's another...

Bodhidharma wrote:

The answers i look for are very hard to describe. I woudn't say the meaning of life, more like, why life? These answers are very much based on emotional intuitiveness. Something you feel more than you can quantify.

Some philosophy for you:

"Whereof you cannot speak, thereof you must be silent."

Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.

It's lovely that you have a philosophy Bodhi', but you're going to have to put it in a vaguely compelling way before people will accept that it trumps the spiritual edification that a knowledge of science can bring. It is lamentably clear that you know nothing about science, and a fortiori, that you have no wish to know. How, then, can you possibly expect people to grant that you are in a position to comment on its philosophical importance? You do not understand that which you dismiss.

Son Goku wrote:

it can't enhance anybody spiritually at all

On the contrary - I find my spirituality is forever advanced by the insights that science offers me.

bonkey

Idioteque wrote:

Is not a lot of our questioning /logic flawed because we are limited to what knowledge we have?.

No. A lot of our questioning/logic is flawed because we ignore some of the totality of the knowledge we have.

Our ability to ask and answer questions is bounded by the knowledge we have, which is a subtly different point.

Let me explain...

Hence our questioning is flawed...
e.g. Statement: God created Man.
Question: Yes, but what was there before God?

Now surely such questions as the one above are based upon our knowledge of physics etc but ultimately is such a question not flawed?

It is flawed because it assumes the existence of God and time when man (or the universe) was created, and that there was an initial creator who in turn was not created. The existence of time is the sticky one here. To have a "before", we require time, but if we have time, then we can't really have an "uncreated first"......

Now we've hit an impasse. By ignoring some of what we understand while framing the question, we've pretty much removed the ability to answer it even within the bounds of what we believe or know without leading to more inherent contradictions.

Are we not limited in the same way that a goldfish would be to swimming around a bowl, unaware of the magnitude of life around it?

Yes and no. We have the ability to recognise that we are in such a bowl, and that our ability to address issues outside the bowl cannot be predicated on our experiences inside the bowl. The problem is that we generally don't do this.

Thsi thread seems to have devolved into the usual attack on the "religion of science", but science isn't a religion. Science doesn't offer truth, completeness, absolutes, nor anything like that. Science is a modelling system. Just because we can model something to a degree of accuracy that we can make meaningful predictions from it does not mean that there are no other compatible (and equally accurate) models.

Consider a simple mathematical example. I can locate any point on a flat, 2-dimensional plane using X/Y co-ordinates. I can also find it using radial co-ordinates (angle and distance). Which of these two co-ordinate systems is the "truth"? Which is the "right one"? Or are they both just differing ways of looking at the same thing?

Good science never claims to be the absolute truth. It claims to be a model of a system, which is applicable within certain boundaries. Sometimes those boundaries are unstated, and sometimes they're entirely overlooked.

So, for example, science doesn't try and explain what existence is, but rather tries to offer a model (or models) which match our observations of existence.

Many critics of science will say that science cannot address issues such as metaphysics, and thrrefore is flawed/wrong. But its not flawed or wrong, simply bounded. People will rubbish an idea on the grounds that "there is no scientific basis to believe....", but right there is the flaw: Science and belief should not be connected in this manner. What people should say is that "There is no scientific model with which we can address this question". Now...if these people choose to live their lives solely by what science can model...then thats fine, but I would suggest that given that we scientifically know that our science is incomplete and imperfect that this is an admission that such people choose to live lives based on imperfect and incomplete knowledge.

The problem is not with science, but rather with people misunderstanding what it is, and what its limits are.

So ultimately, I'd say our questioning/reasoning/answering is flawed when we misunderstand and misuse the tools at our disposal for questioning/reasoning/answering, and bounded by the limits of those tools.

It is important to seperate the flaws from the bounds. To not do so would only be adding additional flaws.

jc

bonkey

Son Goku wrote:

I love the free-flowing and random, thats why my favourite subjects are quantum field theory and chaos.

Shouldn't you have put the word "apparently" before "free-flowing and random" there?

Son Goku

bonkey wrote:

Shouldn't you have put the word "apparently" before "free-flowing and random" there?

Quantum Mechanics is actually random in the R process and non-deterministic chaos is equally random in a different sense.
However they aren't random in the sense of being acausal.
Although the R process is borderline acausal.

Bodhidharma

Hey Sapien, its the day before christmas eve here on earth and i was wondering if they celebrate christmas up your arse, since thats where you seem to spend most of your time.
Here's my question to you, why are you so sarcastic and generally negative? Lucky for you I'm also an amateur psychologist as it happens, not enough hugs from daddy by the sound of it. Poor little boy.

simu

Bodhidharma, this isn't the place for psychological analysis of Sapien. Stick to the topic at hand. If you have a problem with any of the posts on here, report them or PM me.

simu (philosophy mod)

Idioteque

bonkey - thanks for the interesting perspective as it's one I hadn't considered.