This is an example of the fundamental problem with empirical scientific
method. Simply stating that because modern science cannot prove a theory
does not automatically mean that the theory or belief is untrue. There are
many phenomenon in the universe that are much too difficult to prove or
explain with scientific method. The pure fact that why is there 'something
rather than nothing' cannot be determined by science. Certainly there are a
vast number of theories. The beginning of life, of consciousness can
probably never be proved and their may never be a 'rational explaination'. A
lot of scientific knowledge cannot be proved either but that does not mean
that proof is impossible. For instance, the properties of light for instance
can be observed and described and measured to a certain extent. However the
exact nature of light cannot be described adequately in that it appears to
have both the properties of a quantum of matter when it strikes a surface
[it acts by giving off energy] and as a wave phenomena. Yet scientist are
unable to characterize light [visible light] adequately. This question
puzzled Einstein immensely. Having studied relativity and classical
mechanics, I believe that matter and how it behaves is much too complex and
intricate to be able to be fully understood except through the use of
creative and abstract conceptual thinking. For instance, the existence of
bucky balls was conceptualized in theory before they were ever thought to
exist. And lately they are being manufactured. These molecules have
incredibly useful properties. Secondly the existence of the benzene ring was
determined in a dream. This is interesting since the scientist found a
solution to the existence of a chemical structure while asleep. The use of
creativity in science is widespread, however the use of symbol and primitive
intuition now are being replaced more and more by computers.
jon
Steve wrote:
>>>Bryan, are you making the literal Gaia arguement? i.e. the Earth is
>>>sentient? I've heard that, but it requires a definition of sentience which
>>>boggles the mind. It has been argued that the Earth has a feed-back system
>>>and is homeostatic. Just conjecture, no data.
>>>Bissell
>>
>>hi SB, i'm only vaguely familiar with the concept of Gaia, so i couldn't
>>presume to be making a 'literal' argument for the concept... if you have
>>any web links in regards to Gaia, i'd be interested in reading more about
>>it... and btw, i LOVE things that boggle the mind.... they are the best
>>kinds of things... :)
>>
>>bryan
>>
>
>
>Most of the Gaia stuff is crap, IMO. I heard Dr. Lynn Margulis talk about
>the biological basis for the theory in Chicago a few years ago and I believe
>she and her son, Julian Sagan (son of Carl) have a book on it, but haven't
>read it.
>
>The New Age Movement has jumped on this big time and so have some feminists.
>If it weren't for Margulis and a couple of other writers, I'd be tempted to
>ignore the idea. The concept of a "super-organism" was popular among early
>ecologists, that was the original idea behind the concept of "communities."
>However, there has never been any evidence for the theory and tons against.
>Based on Popper's falsification principle, very few ecologists take it
>seriously anymore.
>
>I've read Lovelock's book and it is interesting speculation, but it's just
>that.
>
>If you can find a copy of Eugene Marais' "Soul of the White Ant," it is
>worth reading about the concept of "super-organism." I'm sure others on the
>list know more about Gaia than I, and I remain very skeptical.
>
>Bissell
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|