540: Do we believe ins science ?

Since the beginning of our search into the Philosophy of Science, we already ran into a number of issues: science as the winner or cause of the clash of cultures,

science as knowledge of the structure of the cosmos or as the result of human communication and social interaction, a controversy between hard science and soft science.

Then the worst of accusations… one being accused of scientism: the point of view that science is the only kind of human knowledge, which eventually will answer all our questions.

Yesterday I was invited to participate in a discussion among a group of friends. Consciousness was their subject and all kinds of aspects of it.

At some point subjects like telepathy, precognition, special visions and the like came up and some of the participants told about examples, which they had experienced personally.

There is no way to check the truth value of such stories, no observations or experiments. We only have their words and often such stories end with the question “You don’t believe me?”

In such cases, where people claim to KNOW something and you have no further test than that claim, you only then can believe, that there is talk of genuine knowledge about our reality. But the problem remains, that it yet is private knowledge.

What about science? The world is full of scientists who claim to know this or that. They too say, that we should take serious what they say, in other words, believe what they say.

Do we have to BELIEVE in science? Let’s just check out what science is said to be:

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. [ WIKIPEDIA ]

Not a bad definition at all. Main term is KNOWLEDGE, not private knowledge, but knowledge as the product of testable explanations and predictions.

Kevin Padian, (born 1951), professor of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote an open-access article about science and evolution, entitled “Correcting some common misrepresentations of evolution in textbooks and the media.” 

He states:

“Saying that scientists ‘believe’ their results suggests, falsely, that their acceptance is not based on evidence, but is based somehow on faith.”

Padian continues:

“…it is about the quality of the evidence: scientists accept their results as the best explanation of the problem that we have at present, but we recognize that our findings are subject to reevaluation as new evidence comes to light.”

This puts us in a very special relation to science. Does this mean, that science is only possible in so far as we ACCEPT the evidence like the scientist does?

How do we do that? On what should that acceptance be based? The answer here could be: philosophy and in particular logic, epistemology and philosophy of science, 

which give arguments for why we, among other things, need 

testable explanations and predictions to assure our acceptance. Then there will be no debate about scientific facts.

Great, but then “Why Do People Believe Scientifically Untrue Things?”, the title of an article by Ronald Bailey. He is the award-winning science correspondent for Reason magazine and Reason.com, where he writes a weekly science and technology column.

He writes, and this is just one of his many examples:

The majority of climate scientists believe that human activity is causing the earth’s temperatures to increase. A recent Pew Research poll (2012) found that two-thirds of Americans also believe that the earth is warming. 

But a deep partisan divide yawns between conservatives and liberals on the cause of the warming: Only 16 percent of conservative Republicans believe that human activity is responsible, 

whereas 77 percent of liberal Democrats do. Moderate Republicans and Democrats accept human responsibility by 38 and 51 percent, respectively. -end quote -

Or this piece of science: In 2012 Gallup Poll that found that 46 percent of Americans are young Earth creationists—that is, believe that God created humans beings in their present form within the past 10,000 years.

The Pew Research poll reported that 87 percent of scientists believe that humans evolved through entirely natural processes, whereas only 8 percent thought that God guided the process.

A nice example of what guides the acceptance of science and its evidence, testable explanations and predictions. I guess we need some more lectures on the subject to unravel this complex situation.

I do not believe in science. It isn’t the believing what makes science true, it is the evidence that supports it.

Thank you… ^_^

The Discussion

.

[13:23] argus Portal: Thank you

[13:23] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman

[13:23] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:23] Loo Zeta: ty

[13:23] Roger Amdahl: /claps

[13:23] Beertje Beaumont: pfew

[13:23] Lizzy Pleides: thank you, brilliant!

[13:23] herman Bergson: Thank you...

[13:23] Bejiita Imako: hmm its complex indeed this for sure

[13:24] Huntress Selenium: yes, ty, herman

[13:24] Bejiita Imako: science vs religion and similar

[13:24] Rocky Mensing: thank you Herman

[13:24] Ciska Riverstone: It stands and falls with the definition of "what is an evidence" I guess

[13:24] herman Bergson: Yes they always say science this science that....but as you see..it is not that clear cut

[13:24] Loo Zeta: Has since become the 'new religion'?

[13:25] Ciska Riverstone: In some ways yes Loo- at least i would say so

[13:25] herman Bergson: Yes Ciska...the concept of evidence is the basic philosophical issue here

[13:25] argus Portal: [13:22] herman Bergson: I do not believe in science. It isn’t the believing what makes science true, it is the evidence that supports it.

I agree, if that refers to science as a discipline. But scientists can fool people. So it is important, at the beginning to be in doubt.

[13:25] Ciska Riverstone: look at economic "science" and what it does

[13:25] Loo Zeta: Scientific probability is relient on 0.05% probability

[13:25] Huntress Selenium: Evidence is determined, in large measure, by the dominant theory and research agenda of the time; facts that don't fit it are rejected, at least until there's a more comprehensive theory than can explain them.  The radiation that lead to the discovery of star nurseries of the existence of ball lightening being classic examples

[13:26] herman Bergson: That is the problem Loo

[13:26] Loo Zeta: but lies damn lies and statistics

[13:26] Loo Zeta: Oh my typos sorry

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: yes science is actual observing while religion is belief from someone that claims he have seen god even he has probably must dreamt or something

[13:26] Roger Amdahl: If religion was a fill for things one don't understand, then science become the new religion as almost everything can be explained without the need for a God

[13:26] herman Bergson: Yes Huntress anomalies aren't a pleasure for scientists :-)

[13:26] Ciska Riverstone: thats not completely true Bejiita - as science is done by people...

[13:26] Loo Zeta: 9gag did a brilliant spoof... will get the link so you may see

[13:27] Huntress Selenium: That's why herman used 'scientism,' I thin,, Roger.  'Sientism,' first coined by Hayek, is a belief in science that is dogmatic

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: take ghosts for example, many say they have seen them but no one have scientifically been able to prove that they are real

[13:27] Lizzy Pleides: every new scientific insight begins with an unproved theory, so what we believe is also part of science

[13:27] Ciska Riverstone: yes Lizzy

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: a scientific proof means its 100% true and observed

[13:27] Huntress Selenium: The part I found most intriguing about your lecture, herman, were the examples of how political views influences are beliefs in science

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: no doubt

[13:27] herman Bergson: It begins with a testable theory, Lizzy...

[13:28] herman Bergson: That means the hypothesis is assumed to be true.....

[13:28] Lizzy Pleides: but still unproved

[13:28] herman Bergson: what is to discover is its falsification

[13:28] Huntress Selenium: A lot of times it begins with a computer model, though; string theory has yet to be tested, and people even disagree as to what would count as a test for it or the holographic universe.

[13:28] herman Bergson: yes

[13:28] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:29] herman Bergson: Computer models are the intellectual horro of today is my opinion

[13:29] Huntress Selenium: Agreed, herman.

[13:29] argus Portal: Why is it horror ?

[13:29] Roger Amdahl: depends on what those models are for

[13:29] herman Bergson: It ruined the banking system lately for instance...

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: thats true

[13:29] herman Bergson: Well Roger it is because..

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: was a real mess

[13:30] argus Portal: ok, thats true

[13:30] Huntress Selenium: But then there is the problem of what counts as "testing."  String theory, the holographic universe has their problems, and then we have borderline science at best, parapsychology, with it's own notions of testing--eVP's, for instance

[13:30] herman Bergson: as soon as the model is created they are inclined to take the model as reality

[13:30] herman Bergson: Just take the weather forcast...

[13:30] Huntress Selenium: you mean models aren't reality, herman?  lol

[13:30] herman Bergson: No..they are creations of the brain

[13:31] herman Bergson: which try to correlate with reality

[13:31] Loo Zeta: <---- a="" and="" complimentary="" dodgy="" embrace="" font="" having="" just="" load="" of="" rl="" taken="" theories="" therapies="" to="" up="">

[13:31] Roger Amdahl: String Theory is a mathematical model that is very elegant, and exists only by formula's.

[13:31] Loo Zeta: My brain is whoa!!!

[13:31] Roger Amdahl: but help science...proof them wrong !

[13:31] Huntress Selenium: Well, 'correlate with reality,' is a problem too; the correspondence theory is frought with problems, and, back to the idea of dominant theories, 'correlation' becomes consistency with everything else you believe

[13:31] Loo Zeta: Roger meet you in another dimension

[13:31] Bejiita Imako: depends on, someone create the computer program doing the simulation and if there is some miscalculation there

[13:32] Roger Amdahl: :)

[13:32] Bejiita Imako: poof goes that theory

[13:32] Huntress Selenium: Which may explain people's attitudes toward global warming or the short-Earth theory; people think those are consistent with all their other beliefs

[13:32] herman Bergson: They did tests with reptiles I recently heard....

[13:33] herman Bergson: moving them from a cold into a worm environment.....

[13:33] herman Bergson: the model predicted their extiction....

[13:33] herman Bergson: but they adapted rapidly and survived

[13:33] Ciska Riverstone: (unlike the dinosaurs)

[13:33] Huntress Selenium: They all became birds, right? lol

[13:33] herman Bergson: Something like that :-))

[13:34] argus Portal: :-)

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:34] herman Bergson: Anyway.....we have to face a number of issues here....

[13:34] herman Bergson: especially the issue of 'evidence'....

[13:35] herman Bergson: in fact we have to return to basic epistemology here, I guess

[13:35] herman Bergson: WHAT is knowledge....

[13:35] Roger Amdahl: when you have to calculate the chance of survival for a species, you deal with huge amount of uncertainties.. so even when put in computer, the prediction might be off by miles

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:35] Loo Zeta: http://io9.com/we-wear-babies-on-our-backs-because-our-ancestors-wore-1634624109/+ishaaran

[13:35] herman Bergson: Yes Roger...that is why models are a horro tome....

[13:35] Lizzy Pleides: the evidence depends of our level of knowledge

[13:36] Ciska Riverstone: yes Lizzy and that develops

[13:36] herman Bergson: the arrogance to believe that we can grasp all variables of reality

[13:36] Ciska Riverstone: how can u catch a running stream? you only get moment pictures no the whole thing

[13:36] Huntress Selenium: Yes, evidentiary-statements are only take as true, or at least not false, if they are consistent with all other statements taken as evidentiary.  And that is determined by history, dominant theories, and research agendas

[13:36] Lizzy Pleides waves @ Ciska

[13:36] herman Bergson: panta rei....

[13:36] Huntress Selenium: Ciska, yes, very good point.

[13:36] Ciska Riverstone: ㋡

[13:36] Roger Amdahl: it is just a field of science where computer models are highly unpredictable... in other field they work fine

[13:37] Loo Zeta: well you can make a 3D virtual running stream....

[13:37] Huntress Selenium: Well, computer models suffer from GIGO more than actual field work.

[13:37] Loo Zeta: yes

[13:37] herman Bergson: What is GIGO, Huntress?

[13:37] Huntress Selenium: Garbage In; Garbage Out

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: hahaha

[13:37] herman Bergson: Oh yes....a classic

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: now thats true

[13:38] Loo Zeta: when will augmented reality be so involved in RL we do not see the difference

[13:38] Huntress Selenium: Loo, that happened in 1999, but we didn't notice it.

[13:38] Loo Zeta: lol

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: like MAtrix?

[13:38] Ciska Riverstone: (so calvin & Hobbes are right after all: scientific process is going boink)

[13:38] Huntress Selenium: Yeah, why I picked 1999

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: i could have guessed that

[13:39] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:39] Huntress Selenium: But another problem is you can make statements consistent with one another by interpretation, and there are an infinite number of interpretations.

[13:39] herman Bergson: The Matrix was a nice fantasy....

[13:39] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:39] Ciska Riverstone: yes Selene

[13:39] Loo Zeta: It is where my child says she is uploading me in my dotage!!!

[13:40] Huntress Selenium: Yeah, it broke down, even in its own terms.  Neo found the "desert of the real."  which was necessary for the Matrix to work

[13:40] herman Bergson: There we go Postmodernist....everything is just an interpretation :-))

[13:40] Loo Zeta: whoops sorry

[13:40] Huntress Selenium: No, not saying that, herman; but we do have to make decision when we are doing anything in science

[13:41] herman Bergson: yes we have....

[13:41] Huntress Selenium: Do we accept the results, or save the hypothesis?  The radiation that led to star nurseries was first observed and dismissed as NASA's instruments being broken.  All of them?  yes.

[13:41] herman Bergson: That is the problem with computermodels.....we make the decisions first...

[13:41] Huntress Selenium: Then they figure out how to make the findings consistent with what else they held as true, and all better.

[13:42] Loo Zeta: They are still slaves to our reality until they become sensient

[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes As I read today about folds in space which showed to be just dust....

[13:42] Loo Zeta: I spelt that wrong

[13:42] Huntress Selenium: That's ok, Loo, we all speak typonese.

[13:42] Bejiita Imako: there is a case i saw before though when an undiscovered fluid phenomena called the trench effect was discovered by a computer by combining already known lud statements

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: the phenomenon led do a disastrous flash fore in the london subway killing lot of people but no one could see how it could happened

[13:43] Huntress Selenium: Yeah, computer models can be very helpful; we just need to be aware of their limits.

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: when testing it for real it proved to be true

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_effect

[13:43] Loo Zeta: *scentient... still looks wrong

[13:43] Huntress Selenium: That's a key, "testing it for real."  But alas in astrophysics or economics, or global warming, we often can't do that.

[13:44] Huntress Selenium: 'sentient.'

[13:44] Loo Zeta: ahh

[13:44] herman Bergson: Well this is a lot of issues...:-)

[13:44] Lizzy Pleides: computers can only calculate with the data we feed them

[13:44] Huntress Selenium: Lizzy, yes, GIGO

[13:44] Loo Zeta: Ohhh bother Vidz was involved in that fire at King's Cross

[13:44] herman Bergson: So the computer is a GIGOlo :-)

[13:45] Bejiita Imako: aaaa ok

[13:45] Huntress SeleniumHuntress Selenium laughs

[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: eheheh herman

[13:45] Loo Zeta: He was on his way back from Uni :(

[13:45] argus Portal: hehe

[13:45] Huntress Selenium: Yes, very fickle, goes with *any* operator.

[13:45] herman Bergson smiles

[13:45] Bejiita Imako: did he got killed but that blaze?

[13:45] Bejiita Imako: by

[13:45] Loo Zeta: No

[13:45] Loo Zeta: He is very much alice RL and SL

[13:46] Lizzy Pleides: thank god Loo!

[13:46] Loo Zeta: *alive

[13:46] Bejiita Imako: ok

[13:46] Huntress Selenium: Who is this person?  Sorry to be an insular Yank.

[13:46] Bejiita Imako: that’s good

[13:46] Bejiita Imako: was a nasty event

[13:46] Loo Zeta: But it was 12 hours of angst for me

[13:46] herman Bergson: Sorry Loo..lost track of what you are discussing

[13:46] Loo Zeta: he was held up in a tunnel on the Northern Line

[13:46] Loo Zeta: ahh the link

[13:46] herman Bergson: Does’t sound good..that is what I understand

[13:47] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:47] Bejiita Imako: its about a computer simulation discovering somehing new

[13:47] Loo Zeta: and I had a flash back sorry

[13:47] Bejiita Imako: but it did it probably because both the coanda effect ( that make airplanes lift) and flashover are already well known phenomena and proven

[13:48] Bejiita Imako: they did just combine in an unexpected way

[13:48] Huntress Selenium: Can anyone tell me the difference between a computer simulation and a thought experiment?  The latter has a time honored role in and out of science, so no problem, if that's really what it is.

[13:48] Bejiita Imako: with disaster as result

[13:48] herman Bergson: I have my questions about thought experiments too Huntress....

[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: huntress - the computer simulation has no additional ideas

[13:48] herman Bergson: Modern philosophers seem to be fond of them now and then..

[13:48] Huntress Selenium: Oh, so it's like a dumb thought experiment.  lol

[13:48] Bejiita Imako: no, it can only make use of already known facts

[13:49] Huntress Selenium: yes, Rawls, in particular.

[13:49] Bejiita Imako: sort of

[13:49] Bejiita Imako: hehe

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: it has more data then a human selene

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: but thats it

[13:49] Rocky Mensing: I think the power of a computer simulation is that a computer can calculate faster then a human ever can

[13:49] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:49] Huntress Selenium: A dumber but faster thought experiment

[13:49] herman Bergson: And it is not emotionally involved and biased

[13:49] Bejiita Imako: thats why computers was invented in first place and because it doesnt make mistakes if correctly programmmed

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: yes and it cannot check back with reality - only if a human gives it the data for it

[13:49] Huntress Selenium: herman, well...it's programmer could be.

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: there we are faster usually

[13:50] herman Bergson: maybe yes....

[13:50] Lizzy Pleides: Computers are stupid, aren't they?

[13:50] herman Bergson: I guess it might be time to cool your brains again....:-)

[13:50] Loo Zeta: ermmm no

[13:50] Huntress Selenium: Well, let's be nice, and say 'unimaginative.'

[13:50] Bejiita Imako: they are just machines

[13:51] Loo Zeta: Ever talked to Siri?

[13:51] Bejiita Imako: a box if silicon and wires

[13:51] herman Bergson: Only programmers can be stupid :-))

[13:51] Ciska Riverstone: heheh i had some funny conversations with siri - yes

[13:51] Bejiita Imako: without electricity its as dead as any other machine

[13:51] Lizzy Pleides: lol herman

[13:51] Loo Zeta: It learns

[13:51] Huntress Selenium: Well, w/o electricity so are most of us.

[13:51] Bejiita Imako: well sort of

[13:51] Loo Zeta: yep

[13:51] argus Portal: without oxygen a human as well, Bejiita ;-)

[13:51] Bejiita Imako: and computers can learn sort f but it cant experience things

[13:51] Loo Zeta: we are biochemical computers

[13:52] Huntress Selenium: argus, yeah, but don't rust--that's one advantage over machines

[13:52] argus Portal: yes :-)

[13:52] Lizzy Pleides: but computers have to serve us, we are the masters

[13:52] herman Bergson: Ok...since we have reached near death now it might be a good moment to thank you all for your participation

[13:52] Loo Zeta: lol

[13:52] Loo Zeta: ty

[13:52] Bejiita Imako: to understand speech the computer have to convert that into a string of 1 and 0 and distinguish it from others despite noise ect

[13:52] Huntress Selenium: Thank you for doing this, herman

[13:52] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman- thanx everyone

[13:52] argus Portal: Thank you, Herman

[13:52] Bejiita Imako: thats why its so hard make a computer understand speech , it cant understand it directly like we can

[13:52] herman Bergson: It was a pleasure to share my time with you again....

[13:52] Beertje Beaumont: thank you again Herman:)

[13:53] Bejiita Imako: great herman

[13:53] Bejiita Imako: )

[13:53] Lizzy Pleides: thank you herman!

[13:53] Bejiita Imako: cu soon

[13:53] Huntress Selenium: bye, everyone

[13:53] herman Bergson: Thank you all and till next time...Thursday

[13:53] Bejiita Imako: Hoooo!

[13:53] Bejiita Imako: Hooo!!!

[13:53] Roger Amdahl: thanks herman

[13:53] argus Portal: Goodnight all

[13:53] Ciska Riverstone: enjoy everyone ㋡

[13:53] Rocky Mensing: thanks all...good night

[13:53] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ..^_^

539: Scientism...

“In 1959 C.P. Snow published a book titled The Two Cultures. On the one hand, there were the literary intellectuals; on the other, the scientists. 

He noted with incredulity that during the 1930s the literary intellectuals, while no one was looking, took to referring to themselves as "the intellectuals," as though there were no others. 

This new definition by the "men of letters" excluded scientists such as the astronomer Edwin Hubble, the mathematician John von Neumann, the cyberneticist Norbert Wiener, and the physicists Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, and Werner Heisenberg. “ (John Brockman, Edge.org)

I have been put on this track because of the subject of my previous lecture: the apparent believe, that science means only “natural sciences”.

Gemma already remarked, that literature can not be science. True, but al kinds of empirical research on the works of specific writer, for instance, can be.

We can ask questions about his use of syntax and semantics, how his novels relate to the history of his time, what kind of metaphors does he use and so on.

Unwittingly we got involved in a debate, that shows to be very topical. One of the most recent contribution came from Steven Pinker in August 2013.

His general idea is that the humanities are in a deplorable state at the universities in the US and that they should adopt more empirical scientific methods, in stead of condescendingly rejecting this, mumbling “yuk…filthy scientism”.

The term “scientism” is anything but clear, more of a boo-word than a label for any coherent doctrine. Sometimes it is equated with lunatic positions, such as that “science is all that matters” or that “scientists should be entrusted to solve all problems.” Sometimes it is clarified with adjectives like “simplistic,” “naïve,” and “vulgar.” (SP)

Scientism is the view that only scientific claims are meaningful. It is often widely abused as a term to refer to science and attitudes associated with science, and its primary use these days is a pejorative.

Scientism is a topic of major contention in the philosophy of science and philosophy in general. While often used as a term of abuse, 

it is also used in a descriptive sense to refer to any philosophy that treats science as the only means of acquiring knowledge .

For this reason, scientism is often associated with logical positivism, which attempted to do away with metaphysics entirely.

Logical positivism is a school of philosophy that emerged out of the Vienna Circle in the early 20th century. Its proponents emphasize materialism, empiricism, philosophical naturalism and the scientific method as the highest pursuits of rational thought. 

The most famous principle of logical positivism is that any statement that is not inherently verifiable is meaningless and can be safely ignored. 

The funny paradox here is, that since this statement is itself inherently unverifiable, logical positivism tells us that logical positivism can be safely ignored.

Those of you who know me, may recognize the familiar terms like materialism, empiricism, philosophical naturalism and the scientific method, as parts of my philosophical frame of mind.

And the title of this project “Why Science is Right” doesn’t that smell seriously of scientism inclinations too? Maybe so…..

The non-pejorative, and therefore boring, sense of the term denotes the "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist."

These methods consist of empirical observations, experiments, tests, but how can you apply these to god or any other deity, for instance.

Maybe this project will teach you and me how much a supporter we are of scientism or not, or somewhat….

Thank you …. ^_^

The Discussion

[13:19] argus Portal: Thank you

[13:19] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you!

[13:20] argus Portal: I have a question:

[13:20] argus Portal: [13:16] herman Bergson: The most famous principle of logical positivism is that any statement that is not inherently verifiable is meaningless and can be safely ignored. 

what means "inherently verifiable" exactly ? Excludes this the current unknowingness ?

[13:20] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman

[13:20] herman Bergson: It means that the proposition must be such that you can empirically verify it

[13:20] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:20] argus Portal: i see

[13:21] herman Bergson: Bertrand Russell developed for instance the idea of sense-data

[13:21] Ciska Riverstone: how do you do that with theoretical math?

[13:21] argus Portal: so all theoretical things (quantum physics as example) are excluded by the positivists ?

[13:22] herman Bergson: That is the difference between the empirical and non empirical sciences....the division Hempel made

[13:22] herman Bergson: No no....

[13:22] herman Bergson: Mathematics for instance has no intrinsic relation with the empirical reality

[13:23] Ciska Riverstone: yes

[13:23] herman Bergson: so it is a science in itself using only logic as its method

[13:23] Bejiita Imako: MAth is natures language so it is true by all means

[13:23] Bejiita Imako: dont need to verify that

[13:23] Ciska Riverstone: thats a difficult catch Bejiita

[13:23] herman Bergson: That is a big statement Bejiita.....

[13:23] Bejiita Imako: true

[13:23] herman Bergson: But you may have Pythagoras at your side here :-))

[13:24] herman Bergson: But it is a metaphysical statement....

[13:24] argus Portal: Mathematic has open questions. As example: Are there endless prim-numbers

[13:24] Ciska Riverstone: i just read something about the mathematical god proof of goedel

[13:24] herman Bergson: oh yes and paradoxes

[13:24] herman Bergson: That sounds really odd Ciska :-))

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: but for ex math enables computers to do everything with just numbers, and cern can calculate stuff and in i think almost all cases find they are true when they try them in an accelerator or similar thing

[13:25] Lizzy Pleides: Math is true as long as you don't miscalculate

[13:25] herman Bergson: Yes Bejiita...math works.....:-)

[13:25] Ciska Riverstone: it does - spiegel did put it up so you could reckon it yourself ;)

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: but indeed math is special

[13:25] herman Bergson: But it doesn’t tell us that reality therefor is mathematical by nature

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: color, shape, sound ect can all be described by formulas

[13:26] argus Portal: yes

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: and fractals which are everywhere in nature is an example of iterative math

[13:26] herman Bergson: yes but emotions and feelings and ideas and thoughts can not

[13:27] herman Bergson: Neither can beauty or art

[13:27] Lizzy Pleides: not sure about that

[13:27] argus Portal: why not ? At least this are functions in the brain. Almost like data in an comptuer-program

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: indeed that is harder, but that is i think only because it doesnt reach outside of your body and can be measured directly

[13:28] argus Portal: not yet

[13:28] Bejiita Imako: no one can feel what you feel, its all inside of you

[13:28] Bejiita Imako: and thus hard to apply math on i guess

[13:28] Lizzy Pleides: but inside of you its logic Bejiita

[13:28] herman Bergson: Quantifying the mind still doesn’t tell you that the mind is math

[13:28] argus Portal: yes

[13:28] Bejiita Imako: that too

[13:28] Bejiita Imako: hmm now it start getting veeeery complicated here

[13:28] Bejiita Imako: lol

[13:28] argus Portal: :-)

[13:28] herman Bergson: Let me give you an example....

[13:29] herman Bergson: Economics is regarded as a social science....

[13:29] herman Bergson: but there has developed a brach named econometrics....

[13:29] herman Bergson: Kind of mathematical economic theory....

[13:30] herman Bergson: And like in other cases, with this mathematics they build models.....which claim to apply to reality

[13:30] herman Bergson: For instance for risk calculation....

[13:30] herman Bergson: and we have seen the result....one big crisis

[13:31] herman Bergson: not a single socalled model had predicted it....

[13:31] herman Bergson: Then there are models of environmental changes....global warming effects etc...

[13:31] herman Bergson: They did the test....

[13:32] herman Bergson: they took a lizard population from a cool island to a warm island...

[13:32] herman Bergson: according to the models the population would eventually die....

[13:32] herman Bergson: the opposite happened.....it adapted to the new temperature easily

[13:33] herman Bergson: all examples of calculations....the believe that math works

[13:33] herman Bergson: I think that we hardly know why it works ...or that we overestimate it

[13:33] argus Portal: for me this is not an anti-proof for mathematic. Maybe there are just too much unknown parameters

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: maybe cause a formula is absolute and not flexible

[13:33] Lizzy Pleides: they miscalculated because they couldn't count in all influences on economy i guess

[13:34] herman Bergson: yes...could be....

[13:34] herman Bergson: which poses the question..is everything quantifyable, which math presupposes

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: math is based on a known formula just like code in a compute program, if something unexcpected happend the computer will not know how to cope with it

[13:35] argus Portal: an interesting question could be: Is there an real chaos ? This could mean, that it is impossible, to know some day all parameters

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: since its not in the code

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: same with a formula for something

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: something

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: non flexible

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: hard defined

[13:36] herman Bergson: If we now say that eventually everything can be descripted by and calculated by math we are the ultimate scientism supporters :-))

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: hehe

[13:36] herman Bergson: Is there a real chaos? Isn’t the question itself not a paradox?

[13:37] argus Portal: I meant: Is there really a chaos

[13:37] herman Bergson: If very thing was chaos we never would be able to see it

[13:37] argus Portal: exist this ? Or is all in the universe at least "logical"

[13:38] herman Bergson: Only Mr. Spock would believe that Argus :-))

[13:38] argus Portal: hehe

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: well nature goes toward un order for ex if you swipe some previously ordered things away they will always end up in a mess, not another ordered pattern

[13:39] Bejiita Imako: simply because there are billions of possible posistions an object can take

[13:39] argus Portal: yes

[13:39] Bejiita Imako: and that i d call chaos

[13:39] Lizzy Pleides: maybe its a chaos because we don't understand it

[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: i sometimes think it might be chaos because our language is too limited yet

[13:40] herman Bergson: Hello Moon :-)

[13:40] Moon Fargis: greetings

[13:40] Bejiita Imako: maybee possible to calculate but then we need to apply a calculation for every single of those object based on applied force , direction of it, air resistance ect

[13:40] Moon Fargis: greetings

[13:40] argus Portal: hi

[13:40] Bejiita Imako: hi Moon

[13:40] Lizzy Pleides: hi Moon

[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: hi moon

[13:41] herman Bergson: Well at least you see what position science has in our culture....

[13:41] herman Bergson: is all solvable by science...?

[13:41] herman Bergson: If not...where are the limitations?

[13:41] herman Bergson: Why are there such limitations?

[13:41] Moon Fargis: Unlimited+unlimited = ?

[13:42] argus Portal: The question is: is there a sort of "iontertial system" as a simplification in an "closed area" ? In such a area mathematic will work.

[13:42] argus Portal: Its like an little malestrom in the ocean

[13:43] argus Portal: *maelstrom

[13:43] herman Bergson: Yes Argus....in closed systems math may work due to its axiomatic structure...

[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: but how much has that to do with our reality?

[13:43] argus Portal: so maybe we are in a chaos. but there are little insulas of stability

[13:43] herman Bergson: indeed Ciska....

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: well or we create them argus

[13:43] argus Portal: *isles

[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: those insulas

[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: ;)

[13:44] argus Portal: i have still my problems with english ;-)

[13:44] herman Bergson: In fact we do by applying math to them...

[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: yes - math is a classic with that

[13:45] herman Bergson: insulas are islands ...np :-)

[13:45] argus Portal: ok :-)

[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: so in a mathematical system they really might be able to proof a god

[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: but does it have anything to do with our reality?

[13:45] herman Bergson: Impossible....

[13:45] argus Portal: a lot, ciska

[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: math works with assumptions

[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: they must just be defined

[13:46] herman Bergson: Mathematics is the abstract product of our mind

[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: it is yes

[13:46] Bejiita Imako: i guess so

[13:46] herman Bergson: ok....gods are too :-)

[13:46] argus Portal: indeed

[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: yes

[13:46] argus Portal: :-)

[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: ;)

[13:46] Bejiita Imako: its not a physical thing or law

[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: so thats something those two have in commen

[13:46] herman Bergson: unless you say that you have empirical data for their existence

[13:48] herman Bergson: and as long as it is a product of our mind only it has no real existence outside the mind

[13:48] herman Bergson: no mind...no god

[13:48] argus Portal: yes !

[13:48] argus Portal: fully agree

[13:48] herman Bergson: That is what people like Dawkins say

[13:49] argus Portal: i appreciate Richard Dawkins

[13:49] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:49] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:49] herman Bergson: yes and then he get "accused" of scientism :-))

[13:50] argus Portal: he is "fighting" a lot :-)

[13:50] herman Bergson: He makes a lot of noise indeed ^_^

[13:51] herman Bergson: But I wonder what the future of religions is....

[13:52] herman Bergson: When you fight it they accuse you of scientism ...:-)

[13:52] Moon Fargis: aslong there are pieces of truths, people will make a religion out of it, so we wont run out of them

[13:52] herman Bergson: what are pieces of truth, Moon?

[13:52] Ciska Riverstone: you need to have an alternative for what it does to the real world and that is structuring

[13:53] herman Bergson: They would reply...science structures the world, Ciska

[13:53] Ciska Riverstone: it does not

[13:53] argus Portal: it does, i think

[13:53] Ciska Riverstone: because it is not able to structure society

[13:53] Moon Fargis: herman:: are you happy ?

[13:53] argus Portal: ??

[13:53] herman Bergson smiles

[13:53] argus Portal: Ciska, dont understand what you mean

[13:53] herman Bergson: Yes I am Moon

[13:54] Moon Fargis: awesome! just , try not to make it force to be always that way

[13:54] Moon Fargis: happiness comes and go

[13:54] herman Bergson: What is the problem with that.....rain comes and goes too

[13:55] Lizzy Pleides: this summer it didn't go here

[13:55] argus Portal: lol

[13:55] Moon Fargis: no problem at all with that, its wonderful if you are happy, its a awesome truth. People tend to cling on it thougm striving always to be happy, always sunshine

[13:55] herman Bergson: awww...poor Lizzy.....

[13:55] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:55] Bejiita Imako: been really hot summer indeed

[13:55] Lizzy Pleides: giggle*

[13:56] herman Bergson: No no Moon.....clinging to happiness means just clinging to some material  or earthly thing or state

[13:56] herman Bergson: That isn’t happiness

[13:56] Moon Fargis: indeed herman

[13:56] herman Bergson: So I am not happy in THAT sense....I am just happy :-)

[13:57] Moon Fargis: and thats true happiness, that your truth ㋡

[13:57] herman Bergson: not a scientific one, but a personal one, yes.....

[13:57] Lizzy Pleides: more kind of contenteness then?

[13:57] herman Bergson: call it that, Lizzy, yes

[13:57] argus Portal: inner contenteness

[13:58] herman Bergson: the state of a pond, when no one has thrown a stone in the water

[13:58] argus Portal: yes

[13:58] argus Portal: great picture

[13:58] Bejiita Imako: aaa ye

[13:58] Bejiita Imako: s

[13:58] herman Bergson: But eventually the ripples wil fade out again....and I'll be as happy as I was

[13:59] argus Portal: This is, how i define happiness

[13:59] herman Bergson: yes...such it is to me

[14:00] herman Bergson: Well..I hope that you all end this class today in happiness :-)

[14:00] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)

[14:00] Ciska Riverstone: hahah

[14:00] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[14:00] herman Bergson: So, thank you all again for your participation....

[14:00] Moon Fargis: indeeD:) on calm waters a lotus blooms best ;)

[14:00] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^

[14:00] Bejiita Imako: my default state is happy i guess

[14:00] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[14:00] Ciska Riverstone: thanx herman

[14:00] herman Bergson: Every human being has such a default state, Bejiita....:-)

[14:01] Moon Fargis: thank you herman too bad i logged in just a few minutes ago

[14:01] argus Portal: Thank you, Herman

[14:01] Bejiita Imako: nice class Herman

[14:01] herman Bergson: You are always welcome, Moon

[14:01] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[14:01] Lizzy Pleides: thank you all and have a good night!

[14:01] Moon Fargis: now lets have some tea and cookies ㋡

[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: sleep well Lizzy ㋡

[14:01] argus Portal: Good night, Lizzy

[14:01] herman Bergson: Bye Lizzy :-))

[14:02] Moon Fargis: this place looks nice didn’t know you had classes her till today

[14:02] GreenTea(Matcha): Mmmhh... enjoy the best green tea Moon Fargis

[14:02] herman Bergson: I have classes since 2007 Moon....

[14:03] herman Bergson: this was lecture 539 :-))

[14:03] Moon Fargis: ohboy

[14:03] Moon Fargis: thats quiet a time...

[14:03] Ciska Riverstone: well i never told you moon?

[14:03] Bejiita Imako: ok cu soon again all

[14:03] Ciska Riverstone: cannot imagine

[14:03] Moon Fargis: haha no :D

[14:03] Ciska Riverstone: take care bejiita

[14:03] Ciska Riverstone: i think i did

[14:03] Moon Fargis: bye

[14:03] Ciska Riverstone: last year

[14:03] argus Portal: Bye Bejiita

[14:03] Moon Fargis: hmm

[14:03] herman Bergson: Be well Bejiita

538: Will the real Scientist rise.....

Let’s continue our analysis of science in our world. First we had the controversy of science as the winning culture versus science as the cause of clash of cultures.

Second I pointed out  the dichotomy between the idea of scientific knowledge as something absolute based on facts and scientific knowledge as the product of social interaction.

And we are not yet done. Ciska brought another issue in relation to science to my attention, which is worth mentioning here.

According to Carl Hempel in his “Philosophy of Natural Science” (1966) the various branches of scientific research can be divided into two main groups: the empirical and non-empirical sciences. The former try to investigate, describe, explain and predict the events of the world which we live in. 

Their statements should therefore be checked on the basis of the facts of our experience, and are acceptable only if they are supported in the right way by empirical data. 

These data are obtained in many different ways: by experimenting, by systematically observing, by oral or written surveys, by psychological or clinical trials, by carefully studying documents, inscriptions, coins, archaeological remains and so on. 

This dependence on empirical data distinguishes the empirical sciences of the non-empirical disciplines like logic and pure mathematics, whose propositions are proved without reference to empirical findings is essential. 

The empirical sciences are in turn often classified into natural and social sciences. The criterion for this classification is much less clear than that by which is empirical research is  distinguished from non-empirical research, 

and there is no general agreement on the question of where the dividing line should be drawn exactly.

Usually one groups physics, chemistry, biology and their border areas among the natural sciences. The social sciences are among others sociology, political science, cultural anthropology, economics and related fields. 

Psychologie sometimes refers to one area, sometimes to the other, and often it is said that it belongs to both areas. 

So far Hempel describes an understandable picture of the science landscape. Keep in mind….this is 1966.

Then he continues with the next statements:

The great prestige that science enjoys today, is undoubtedly due to its remarkable success, and the rapidly expanding range of its applications. 

Many branches of empirical science have become the basis for corresponding technologies that make the results of scientific research practically useful.

Science not only helps man in his desire to control his environment, but also responds to another, disinterested, but no less profound and persistent urge: namely, his desire always to acquire greater knowledge and deeper insight of the world in which he is located. 

And here Hempel is mainly referring to the natural sciences. This may be one of the first signs of a serious debate on science that is raging on these days. The great prestige of science is rather questionable today.

In fact, when you think about it, my choice of the theme for this project “Why Science is Right” is unintentionally a manifestation of what is going on in that debate.

Just think of it. My choice was more or less induced by our study of Non Western philosophies. Somewhere in the back of my mind slumbered the thought, 

that all this religious thinking was more disastrous for mankind than helpful. Only science is really helpful. Just look how it shaped our welfare and prosperity. An amateur Fukuyama here, so to speak.

Unaware of it, it seems now that I already have chosen the Fukuyama party and become a supporter of men like Richard Dawkins regarding the point of view about the postion and meaning of science in our society.

Now, when I ask you to think of some benefits of science, 90% chance you’ll come up with examples from the natural sciences. And here reveals itself something we should keep an eye on too.

What today tends to be seriously underexposed is the fact, that science is not only physics and chemistry. There is also an area, which Hempel calls “social sciences”, but which with a wider meaning can be calles “Humanities”.

The area where you find the sciences concerned with language, literature, art, aesthetics, history. Before 1650 there was no division in fields of science.

Till then the scientist was the “huomo universale”. You just studied everything. Reality was a whole. The scientist was the intellectual.

Later, say till the 1930’s, those who were engaged in philosophy, literature, art, aesthetics and the like were still the intellectuals, while those who were working in physics, were just…well…

But today the real scientist, as shown on TV and in every movie, wears a white lab coat and the previously called intellectual now is often portrayed as a rather unworldly myopic figure, half hidden behind the smoke from his pipe  and under piles of books.

Next time I’ll elaborate more on this issue, for there really is a debate going on today…..

Thank you….. ^_^

The Discussion

[13:19] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman

[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: yes

[13:19] Dawn Rhiannyr: Thank you Herman :-)

[13:19] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:19] argus Portal: Thank you

[13:20] argus Portal: An very interesting topic

[13:20] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:20] argus Portal: [13:13] herman Bergson: Many branches of empirical science have become the basis for corresponding technologies that make the results of scientific research practically useful. 

I think, this is a problem, as we discussed last time. Science should be free as possible. But: If the results (the knowledge) that science brings reach daily life,

then restrictions are needed. Not all, that one can realize, should be realized.

[13:20] herman Bergson: Yes indeed Argus....and I am still learning on the spot

[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: I never considered literature and arts etc as a part of science

[13:20] Bejiita Imako: and indeed its science that have given us all we have today, not religion

[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: we call them liberal arts

[13:20] Bejiita Imako: things like electricity, all kind of chemistry ect

[13:20] Bejiita Imako: all science

[13:21] herman Bergson: There you are Gemma...!

[13:21] herman Bergson: It is part of science...

[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: that may be applied to the sciences

[13:21] Dawn Rhiannyr: agree Gemma

[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: sciences

[13:21] herman Bergson: We are completely brainwashed to think that real science is physics

[13:22] argus Portal: yes

[13:22] Ciska Riverstone: in german its often devided in hard science and hardly science... social science being hardly science....

[13:22] herman Bergson: Your remark is characteristic Gemma...!

[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥

[13:22] Bejiita Imako: the discovery of electricity and how to make use of it is probably the most important one, otherwise our modern world woulndnt be possible, electric motors, computers ect

[13:22] Bejiita Imako: not to mention as a great light source

[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: it will be hard to convince me that literature is a science

[13:22] herman Bergson: Yes Ciska...the hard scientists even look down on the softies!

[13:23] Ciska Riverstone: yes bejiita.. but is it really worth more then the discovery of democray?

[13:23] herman Bergson: Ok...let me try, Gemma...

[13:23] Ciska Riverstone: the problem is that we do value things wrongly nowadays

[13:23] Dawn Rhiannyr: it seems that those subjects that can be used for economical reasons are seen as science today

[13:23] Ciska Riverstone: true dawn

[13:23] Bejiita Imako: also an imprtant thing

[13:23] Bejiita Imako: democracy

[13:23] herman Bergson: Literature as such isn’t science of course....but THINKING about literature can be...

[13:23] Ciska Riverstone: yes - and thats not physics bejiita ;)

[13:23] Bejiita Imako: and one that many parts of the world would need

[13:24] Bejiita Imako: nope its a completely different science science is a such broad topic nowadays 

[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: thinking about it hmmm

[13:24] Bejiita Imako: but one thing is clear, science is concrete things as opposed to religion

[13:24] Bejiita Imako: hard facts that work

[13:24] Ciska Riverstone: gemma -its easy: we have star trek on the one hand and now scientist who try to beam an atom

[13:25] Ciska Riverstone: what did inspire the try?

[13:25] Ciska Riverstone: "literature"

[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: but that is literature applied to a science

[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: or using science

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:25] Ciska Riverstone: no the other way round - beaming was imaginative

[13:25] Ciska Riverstone: when star trek started

[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: but is a creative way of using science

[13:25] herman Bergson: Well....take for instance the historical analysis of literature...

[13:25] Ciska Riverstone: ;)

[13:25] argus Portal: don’t think so, ciska. The results of science lead to the following experiments and ideas. not so much literature

[13:25] herman Bergson: the question...why was that book written in that way in that time?

[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: still application of an art on science

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:26] argus Portal: sorry for typos. I hope, its readable ;-)

[13:26] herman Bergson: what does it tell us about that context

[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: we can relate one to another

[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: but

[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: still I consider them separate

[13:27] Dawn Rhiannyr: in german we distinguish in "Naturwissenschaften" und "Geisteswissenschaften"

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: as said, science is very broad today

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:27] herman Bergson: If science is about us trying to understand the world we also have to understand why that world generated certain literature at certain times for instance

[13:27] Dawn Rhiannyr: yes Herman agree

[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: that is true

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:28] herman Bergson: Science is not just learning about something with a purpose to transform it into a product...

[13:28] herman Bergson: on the contrary....

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: like CERN and NASA, they just want to understand why we are here

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: and how the universe work

[13:29] herman Bergson: science has always been our struggle to understand life....the meaning of our existence...our attempt to improve our conditions with the scientific knowledge

[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: Einstein would agree with you I guess

[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: so phllosophy is a science for sure

[13:30] Dawn Rhiannyr: surely it is

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: indeed

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: very much so

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: i guess

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:30] herman Bergson: Well....that might be debatable...

[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: ahhhaaaaaa

[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate GIGGLES!!

[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: ...LOL...

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: hehe

[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: you just defined philosophy

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: haha

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: ys

[13:30] herman Bergson: Edmund Husserl wrote an essay with the title "Philosophie als strenger Wissenschaft"

[13:31] herman Bergson: but yuo might question that...

[13:31] herman Bergson: I think the best answer still is given by Bertrand Russell...

[13:32] Bejiita Imako: but unlike science philosophy is not 100 % determined information but rather more speculative and more uncertain

[13:32] Bejiita Imako: something like that

[13:32] herman Bergson: He said, that when you have a clear and definite answer to some question the questions stops to be philosophical and moves into the realm of scientific knowledge

[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: sounds good

[13:32] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:32] Bejiita Imako: exactly so

[13:32] argus Portal: yes, agree

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: philosophy is a middle level before it becomes science

[13:33] herman Bergson: philosophy of science questions science.....questions what methods lead to knowledge and so on

[13:33] Dawn Rhiannyr: but aren't there questions that will never have a clear answer?

[13:33] herman Bergson: Oh yes Dawn....

[13:33] herman Bergson: that is the whole issue here....

[13:34] argus Portal: even that "never" is not sure

[13:34] Dawn Rhiannyr: and is it not scientific to question them? ;)

[13:34] herman Bergson: There is a group who believes that science eventually will answer ALL questions....

[13:34] Dawn Rhiannyr: yes Argus

[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥

[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: not sure about that

[13:34] Ciska Riverstone: agree gemma

[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: we don’t even know all the questions yet

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: nope

[13:35] herman Bergson: Well..the fact that Argus here already quesntions the "never".....

[13:35] Dawn Rhiannyr: as long as the universe develops and changes I do not think science will answer ALL questions

[13:35] Ciska Riverstone: i think so too dawn

[13:36] herman Bergson: this is a peculiar idea....all questions...

[13:36] argus Portal: who believes in a "never" has stopped thinking. He / she plays with ideas without really interest to understand

[13:36] herman Bergson: it implies that the number of questions is limited....but how can we know that?

[13:36] Dawn Rhiannyr: oh yes agree Argus

[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: right

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: indeed

[13:37] Ciska Riverstone: for now it seems that things always develop on - look at evolution... and every new combination brings along new questions

[13:37] herman Bergson: that is the same as Gemma said, that we still do not know ALL questions

[13:37] Dawn Rhiannyr: just think about times they were sure that earth is a disc

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: far from

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: i guess

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: there is still a group that believes this for some reason

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: and they think NASA only do special effects that are all bluff

[13:39] Bejiita Imako: images of earth ect

[13:39] Dawn Rhiannyr: yes and think about answers from the last 25 years - how many will proof as false?

[13:39] herman Bergson: funny Bejiita :-)

[13:39] Bejiita Imako: hehe

[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: that is junk

[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: N

[13:40] herman Bergson: At least I notice that some of you have that generally accepted idea about science....dominated by natural sciences...

[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: NASA does not need to lie

[13:40] herman Bergson: and that there is a kind of definite answer there

[13:40] Bejiita Imako: indeed but many believe moon landing is still a hoax

[13:40] Bejiita Imako: for some reason

[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: there are some who do yes

[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: it is ridiculous

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: i dont get it at all

[13:41] argus Portal: I am not sure about the moon-landing , too

[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥

[13:41] herman Bergson: I guess that they have seen that movie about the mission to Mars....

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: (throws moon in the head of argus)

[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: Many countries have moon rocks distriibuted to them

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: BONK!

[13:41] Dawn Rhiannyr: I do like the way we define these 2 parts here as natural science and science of mind or intelligence - none weighting more than the other

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: lol

[13:41] argus Portal: thanks lol

[13:42] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:42] herman Bergson: No Dawn...and believe me...it is a hot debate at the moment....

[13:42] herman Bergson: so next lecture I'll dig into it somewhat deeper :-))

[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: ohoh

[13:42] Dawn Rhiannyr: oh yes please :-)

[13:43] herman Bergson: For now...thank you all for your participation again :-)

[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: ㋡

[13:43] herman Bergson: Class dismissed

[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥

[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: thanx herman

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)

[13:43] Bejiita Imako whispers: great Herman!

[13:43] argus Portal: Thank you, Herman

[13:43] Dawn Rhiannyr: Thank you Herman!

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: Hooo!!!

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: Hoooo!

[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye, Bye  ㋡ 

[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: for now

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: cu soon again all

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: thinks i may be here thursday

[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: take care everyone

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: bye

[13:43] argus Portal: Goodbye all

[13:43] Dawn Rhiannyr: bye everyone

[13:44] herman Bergson: If someone wants a piece of cake......a gift form Ciska :-))