tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post5576265072967803315..comments2024-03-29T03:31:37.775-04:00Comments on Half an Hour: Relativism and ScienceStephen Downeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-78350669193826195192011-04-20T17:52:15.523-04:002011-04-20T17:52:15.523-04:00Your blog popped up on googling even after a coupl...Your blog popped up on googling even after a couple of years, which just shows how rare your blog is, and how simple, obvious truths are the most difficult to understand. Relativity is absolutely(!) true. <br /><br />For each of us, when "I" die, the world will end for "me". This subjective relativity is absolute for all observers, whether human or otherwise.<br /><br />What does a cloud look like from inside? Is it still a cloud? Why not?<br /><br />Isn't the internet wonderful?<br />~~~<br />Steve G. (NY)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-75215458339114469212009-05-07T03:06:00.000-04:002009-05-07T03:06:00.000-04:00Kia ora Leigh!
Perhaps in time sharing will not b...Kia ora Leigh!<br /><br />Perhaps in time sharing will not be the exclusive province of mysticism. There's a lot that Science can bring to mysticism.<br /><br />It's been my understanding that the two are nebulously intertwined. After all, wasn't astronomy and alchemy the beginnings of Science?<br /><br />Isaac Newton has been ridiculed for taking an interest in alchemy. Frankly I think his critics couldn't understand his interest. It took the passage of time to bring the Sagans and the Hawkings into the arena before the scientists and the mystics began talking the same language.<br /><br />Catchya later<br />from Middle-earthBlogger In Middle-earthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08722634477041121797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-52701971270924909682009-04-23T02:09:00.000-04:002009-04-23T02:09:00.000-04:00To Blogger in Middle Earth: No need to consider Cl...To Blogger in Middle Earth: No need to consider Clarke and Aliens, consider colonialism in the 16th-19th century, NZ for example. Consider cultural differences around the world today.<br /><br />While commonality of experience doesn't exist in these examples, many common truths still struggle to form. But form they will.. over time and shared experience.<br /><br />It seems to me to be only a matter of time before science understands mysticism in scientific terms, and then we will have a common experience for the two poles, and so evidence will be recognisable and common truth will form. <br /><br />Sometimes common truths/evidence can take longer to form than we permit time for, and so we agree to disagree and commence killing each other because our common truth is "we don't have time to negotiate" and we recognise that so long as one exists, the other must negotiate. <br /><br />I thought this video was a type of killing, of a similar kind of violence, intended to remove the other so that negotiation is no longer required. Interesting that the last line referenced time.Leigh Blackallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17845313396595646728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-84674906249156054722009-04-18T07:28:00.000-04:002009-04-18T07:28:00.000-04:00Thanks Stephen,
My personal experiences have lead...Thanks Stephen,<br /><br />My personal experiences have lead me to change many of my previously held beliefs and 'certainties'. I no longer look to neuroscience for all my answers about life and what it is to be human. I have found some of my answers and more questions in theoretical physics. <br /><br />Quantum physics gives me hope, which neuroscience couldn't after I was forced to turn my 18 year old daughter's life support off. <br /><br />Quantum physics, ancient philosophy and even some of the ideas of Deepak Chopra have been good sources of 'knowledge' for me. They all use a different language but have many overlapping ideas.<br /><br />And what is evidence? Is anecdotal evidence acceptable? Or does all evidence have to come from a science lab or be measured and observed by numerous scientists. <br /><br />I never regarded myself as a 'relativist' but after reading Stephen's comment, I think I might be one. I have knowledge based on my life experiences. I have sat and watched three of my loved ones die and witnessed or experienced things that don't fit with 'scientific knowledge' or 'common sense'. <br /><br />I have learnt from my experiences and reading of quantum physics to be open to all possibilities and not to be so certain of my 'certainties'.Dragonflynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-67290745027731368352009-04-16T11:20:00.000-04:002009-04-16T11:20:00.000-04:00Hello Stephen-
Isn't this really just a positivis...Hello Stephen-<br /><br />Isn't this really just a positivist vs constructivist sort of debate? The positivist acknowledges that her understanding is not yet complete or perfect and therefore may change based on new evidence. However, she still believes that an absolute "reality" exists and can eventually be comprehended in full.<br /><br />The constructivist on the other hand (at least in some lines of thought) views reality itself as the construction of his comprehension and thus changeable over time.<br /><br />In some ways the difference between the two seems almost semantic to me, but maybe that's just my "reality." ;-)Russnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-38128027467328043772009-04-16T02:57:00.000-04:002009-04-16T02:57:00.000-04:00Thanks, Steven. This post actually inspired me to ...Thanks, Steven. This post actually inspired me to get off my duff and start my own blog, just personal observations and thoughts...adding my personal knowledge/experience/reason/perspective on the world. I imagine we'll agree in spirit more often than in substance, or perhaps nuance, but thanks for inspiring me to begin at least...Peterhttp://contre-ego.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-71941897340296657192009-04-16T01:16:00.000-04:002009-04-16T01:16:00.000-04:00Kia ora Stephen
Arthur C Clarke posited that we (...Kia ora Stephen<br /><br />Arthur C Clarke posited that we (that is any human civilisation) would have no common base to converse with aliens if and when they arrive. He estimated that the commonality (that you refer to between people) between humans and aliens would be so thin that it would take the most interpretive intellectual thinkers of both intelligences to work out enough commonality so that a start could be made on conversing. Forget, "Take me to your leader".<br /><br />I believe Clarke was right. What commonality of knowledge, experience and basis for reason would there be?<br /><br />So I have no problem with what you say about relativism.<br /><br /><I>Vive le difference!</I> -<br /><br />Catchya laterBlogger In Middle-earthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08722634477041121797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-45226472457756236652009-04-14T11:38:00.000-04:002009-04-14T11:38:00.000-04:00Hello Stephen
In re-reading your short article it...Hello Stephen<br /><br />In re-reading your short article it now appears that you equate 'evidence' to '...his or her own distinct set of experiences'. Which appears to answer the question I posed above.<br /><br />I wonder about the limitations you place on our ability to achieve constancy, as in the example of gravity. Could it be that relativism approaches constancy in its limit? i.e. while our evidence or body of experience may change, thereby impacting our knowledge and beliefs accordingly, our networked context permits the use of others' evidence (body of experience) to impact our individual (and collective) knowledge and beliefs. In the end then, our relative perspectives tend to a collective one. Agree?Ken Andersonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-79791141913415839432009-04-14T10:48:00.000-04:002009-04-14T10:48:00.000-04:00As a child, when we see magic tricks we view them ...As a child, when we see magic tricks we view them in a whole different lens than that as an adult (well, actually that would be true of most adults, though not all I am sure.) My grandmother is an example. She is 97. A decade ago, we tried to explain to her how the baby bottle with my daughter's doll worked. You see, as you turn the bottle full of "milk" upside down, the milk disappears. It was difficult for her to fathom that the milk bottle was not full of milk, but a double walled container with a small portion of milk filling the thin space between the walls and making it appear as if the bottle were full. When inverted, the small amount of fluid could fit in the tip. Her experiences were limited especially in terms of any science as well as the opportunity to perhaps tear things apart to see how they work. What lens we work through (and our ability to challenge it) defines what we see. <br /><br />I think scientists are unique individuals as they have the ability to not let their beliefs or past experiences cloud what they now see and stay open to new connections or understandings.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06544468563054087057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-39430557367092030672009-04-14T09:18:00.000-04:002009-04-14T09:18:00.000-04:00Ken, I'm saying that knowledge and truth are based...Ken, I'm saying that knowledge and truth are based on experiences, and that different people have different experiences. Therefore, what count as instances of knowledge and truth vary from person to person.<br /><br />Additionally, a person's own experiences change over time. Therefore, what count as instances of knowledge and truth for an individual change over time.<br /><br />There is nothing mysterious about this; we see it every day. One person knows what the weather is like outside, another person doesn't. Or, yesterday you didn't know what the meaning of a word is, but today 9after reading something) you do know.<br /><br />I am not in this short article <I>defining</I> knowledge and truth, I am simply arguing that, since they are empirically based, they are relative to the experience on which they are based.Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-66288820238725802402009-04-14T09:11:00.000-04:002009-04-14T09:11:00.000-04:00I confess that I am confused. Are you saying that...I confess that I am confused. Are you saying that truth is relative to the individual, and therefore non-unique? Would truth not then be unique to the individual?Ken Andersonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-35466751591535365612009-04-13T14:06:00.000-04:002009-04-13T14:06:00.000-04:00Ken, you are asking for specific answers to questi...Ken, you are asking for specific answers to questions I have just said will not have a specific (or unique) answer.Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-17927588297957950382009-04-13T13:32:00.000-04:002009-04-13T13:32:00.000-04:00Well, sure, people experience things differently, ...Well, sure, people experience things differently, perhaps as a result of their different 'perspectives', as you have suggested here. Or maybe through differences in their sensory abilities. And knowledge arises from experience.<BR/><BR/>A couple of questions though. What constitutes 'evidence'?<BR/><BR/>And in your last paragraph, what then would represent 'beliefs' and therefore 'truth', if not the articulation of it in language?Ken Andersonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-42669986236990949942009-04-12T08:54:00.000-04:002009-04-12T08:54:00.000-04:00s the second time I have seen this and it is enter...s the second time I have seen this and it is entertaining no matter the number. As a science teacher, I wonder how to get my students to "cross boundaries" of understanding science concepts. How they have built their knowledge (faith, misguiding of family) up to this point affects their ability to understand and make connections.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06544468563054087057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-88203818361513669322009-04-12T08:23:00.000-04:002009-04-12T08:23:00.000-04:00Great stuff. Thanks for sharing Stephen. That was ...Great stuff. Thanks for sharing Stephen. That was the cake, and here's <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI" REL="nofollow">some icing</A>.Peterhttp://gnuosphere.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com