I wouldn't call the fact that it is impossible for the empirical
scientific method to explain and describe everyting a weakness. I began
my college career as a biochemisty major. I know by heart the chemical
composition of so many elements, it sometimes makes my friends sick to
listen to me. I quit biochemistry because I realized I didn't want to
know some things. I want the mystery to remain. Sure, knowledge of
principles is indespensible, and without science we would probably still
be living in the very dark ages, but there are some thing presently
outside of our realm of discovery, like what lies at the edge of the
universe, that I prefer to remain ignorant of.
Jerusha
On Sat, 05 Dec 1998 10:57:31 -0800 John Foster
<[log in to unmask]> writes:
>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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|