tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post7520151953182292196..comments2024-03-28T00:48:19.961-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Prologomina to God Argument: Transcendental SignifiedJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-77741061882176170272018-02-04T12:00:53.046-08:002018-02-04T12:00:53.046-08:00Not to insult small children :)Not to insult small children :)7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-54336596236684915492018-02-04T12:00:07.527-08:002018-02-04T12:00:07.527-08:00Well, send your CV in, You could be their correspo...Well, send your CV in, You could be their correspondent in Canadia ;)<br /><br />But seriously folk, we gotta look at the <i>reasons</i> why someone doesn't believe in something. And Trump is seriously stupid. He has the mind of a small child. 7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-68895254887712747552018-02-03T11:25:01.372-08:002018-02-03T11:25:01.372-08:00Hehe! No, I only know Fox News by reputation and o...Hehe! No, I only know Fox News by reputation and on the Internet, I don't know if we can even get it here... Think it mighta been banned. ;-)Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-28276932305364241562018-02-03T11:13:16.411-08:002018-02-03T11:13:16.411-08:00Aw, c'mon. It makes Trump and the anti-science...Aw, c'mon. It makes Trump and the anti-science crowd look smarter? Really? How long have you worked for Fox News? :)7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-84234544139650224282018-02-03T07:15:54.126-08:002018-02-03T07:15:54.126-08:00Yah, man!
I learned so much from those guys........Yah, man! <br /><br />I learned so much from those guys.....Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-74422052140807808662018-02-03T06:55:13.061-08:002018-02-03T06:55:13.061-08:00and Urbild and McGreet. Try to do some wayback mac...and Urbild and McGreet. Try to do some wayback machine on themJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-10272874667552416992018-02-03T05:54:48.055-08:002018-02-03T05:54:48.055-08:00Yeah, there were some awfully good ones over the y...Yeah, there were some awfully good ones over the years ... plus funny! <br /><br />.....maybe there's a lesson in it about "impermanence" ;-(Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-47140952879807322212018-02-03T05:33:16.192-08:002018-02-03T05:33:16.192-08:00yes that just drives home again the sorrow of not ...yes that just drives home again the sorrow of not having those discussions to look atJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-67749706899582313632018-02-02T16:19:32.014-08:002018-02-02T16:19:32.014-08:00The fallout from the SUSY particle thing - calling...The fallout from the SUSY particle thing - calling most of the theorectical physics of maybe the last 30 years into question - could be significant, tho, when it comes to funding Big Science. Makes the likes of Trump and the anti-science crowd look smarter for one thing....<br /><br />But many physicists felt like the theory was "so elegant it had to be true".....<br /><br />http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2007/05/14/why-the-simplest-theory-is-alm/<br /><br />(We talked about this idea, lack of parsimony in many aspects of actual reality, once on the forum, Iirc) Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-71532667055696778972018-02-01T11:56:06.092-08:002018-02-01T11:56:06.092-08:00I dunno. It seems unlikely, given how hyper-specia...I dunno. It seems unlikely, given how hyper-specialized and technocratic science is today.7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-15722164058894658072018-01-30T17:03:07.322-08:002018-01-30T17:03:07.322-08:00Yeah, it invokes unlikely images of a starving sci...Yeah, it invokes unlikely images of a starving scientist with a day job struggling to "make it", like in the arts.<br /><br />The social realilties of science and scientists just aren't like that; it's a relatively conservative and normative set of pursuits (and careers) and has been since a long time too....perhaps even since the times of its Euro-bourgeois roots.<br /><br />But otoh are there humbler possibilities for, say, advancement in physics that don't need (eg) $50 billion accelerators taking decades to construct for validation or rejection? Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-8814083532539744822018-01-30T11:49:51.955-08:002018-01-30T11:49:51.955-08:00One problem is it's hard to imagine a free lan...One problem is it's hard to imagine a free lance scientist without connections to big institutional power and money. Maybe a physicist working mainly with paper and pencil like Einstein, but has there been someone like that since Einstein? Or a benevolent but largely disinterested billionaire....If that's possible.7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-86322240913636629112018-01-29T02:01:00.523-08:002018-01-29T02:01:00.523-08:00Mike that is becoming common it's high time, e...Mike that is becoming common it's high time, episodically it needs to be discovered by the Church.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-32440334949395175812018-01-28T16:33:01.947-08:002018-01-28T16:33:01.947-08:00Well, could it be the law of diminishing returns a...Well, could it be the law of diminishing returns as applied to empirical investigations? Is it "the End of Science?" <br /><br />The article has really foucaldian undertones of how "empirical scientific investigations" can become constricted by social norms and big economic power flows (aka "Big Money") just like, as you said, the case is with every other kind of human endeavour. In this instance, tho, the result would seem to be Big Science (as he calls it) - endeavours requiring the investment of billions and decades of research, and wide conformity to an agenda that results in lack of real diversification, which greatly amplifies the possibity of spectacular failures across pretty wide scientific fields: the failures of decades-long investigations, as some are sketched there. Leading to a loss of public confidence in the whole scientific project, among other things....<br /><br />These kinds of critiques are getting more and more common tho, even, or perhaps esp, coming from the scientists themselves.Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-46452506650288846712018-01-28T15:25:51.456-08:002018-01-28T15:25:51.456-08:00Interesting article, Mike. How much of this bandwa...Interesting article, Mike. How much of this bandwagon effect do you think is due to the big institutional big money infrastructure to science? The same corrosive effects that those influences have on religion and, oh, I don't know, just everything? 7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-88717984163702399992018-01-28T15:10:07.755-08:002018-01-28T15:10:07.755-08:00Definitely! Well put!!!Definitely! Well put!!!7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-27980782622779088542018-01-28T14:22:14.500-08:002018-01-28T14:22:14.500-08:00But -- in spite of the thorny riddles and paradoxe...But -- in spite of the thorny riddles and paradoxes that emerge inevitably from the so-called "deeper" levels when one tries to do so -- could it be "knowledgeable" to resist, or at least try to resist radical absolutism too - esp if evidence and analysis both fail to support such? ;-)Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-14166666952196041022018-01-28T13:02:10.371-08:002018-01-28T13:02:10.371-08:00Do you think "perspectivist" views such ...<b>Do you think "perspectivist" views such as I described could be a result of the demise of the generalized "man of science", of hyper-specialization and the trend that science is so vast now that there really isn't anyone who has an "in toto" grasp of its developments?<br /><br />Neither "science" nor "religion" would seem such monolithic things as they come off in these debates. There' seems as much philosophical infighting as out fighting in both realms....</b><br /><br />Those are really good points. No one can 'hold' "Science" in his or her head; it's too big and amorphous and dynamic of a thing. I agree that we should avoid monolithic assumptions about both science and religion. But that shouldnt keep us from speculating about inherent tendencies. Maybe more so with science than with religion since science is epistemic by nature...And knowledge resists radical perspectivalism, imo! :)7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-43005228447127747312018-01-28T11:31:03.652-08:002018-01-28T11:31:03.652-08:00https://www.thenational.ae/uae/science-at-a-crossr...https://www.thenational.ae/uae/science-at-a-crossroads-as-supersymmetry-theory-falls-flat-1.218622Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-42318261959457798772018-01-28T08:47:28.490-08:002018-01-28T08:47:28.490-08:00Maybe, but I think the working assumption of weste...<i> Maybe, but I think the working assumption of western science is that things are intelligible in toto. Not that that goal is ever reachable, maybe even in principle, but i think it's just an assumption that animates the whole enterprise.</i><br /><br />An interesting physics article I read -- since my brainy cousin always posts such things on FB -- claimed that the rate of universal expansion can be understood as constant instead of accelerating if you consider that the Big Bang might not have produced an absolutely symmetrical explosion in certain ways. This could greatly simplify you some things, like the need to postulate dark matter and energy, but then physicists would have to give up a certain belief in the overall "elegance" (ie symmetry) of the universe that they've adhered to for a long time, perhaps? Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-15264291289346373662018-01-28T08:38:49.508-08:002018-01-28T08:38:49.508-08:00Do you think "perspectivist" views such ...Do you think "perspectivist" views such as I described could be a result of the demise of the generalized "man of science", of hyper-specialization and the trend that science is so vast now that there really isn't anyone who has an "in toto" grasp of its developments? <br /><br />Neither "science" nor "religion" would seem such monolithic things as they come off in these debates. There' seems as much philosophical infighting as out fighting in both realms....Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-86770310106186985182018-01-28T03:01:02.875-08:002018-01-28T03:01:02.875-08:00Maybe, but I think the working assumption of weste...Maybe, but I think the working assumption of western science is that things are intelligible in toto. Not that that goal is ever reachable, maybe even in principle, but i think it's just an assumption that animates the whole enterprise. And if it's jetissoned, my guess is it will still find a way of resurfacing covertly, under different guises. Just like the TSer and metanarratives may be harder to free ourselves of than previously thought, as Joe has alluded to.<br /><br /><b>I agree completely. That's what we see in my essay where the same idea re-emerge in physics.It's God or the one without mind or personal nature. But in terms of logical consistency,modern thought keeps losing coherence at the point where they keep denying the TS while trying to preserve it. That's really going to come out in chapter four where the contradiction between trying to dump the phraseology of law while hanging on to law like order in the cosmos.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-36779842234073567642018-01-27T18:31:49.731-08:002018-01-27T18:31:49.731-08:00It doesn't mean that nothing is intelligible, ...<b>It doesn't mean that nothing is intelligible, only that the universe may not "render down" to a single organizational principle that's comprehensible to humans. Things can still be provisionally intelligible, esp when looked at in some certain, limited ways. </b><br /><br />Maybe, but I think the working assumption of western science is that things are intelligible in toto. Not that that goal is ever reachable, maybe even in principle, but i think it's just an assumption that animates the whole enterprise. And if it's jetissoned, my guess is it will still find a way of resurfacing covertly, under different guises. Just like the TSer and metanarratives may be harder to free ourselves of than previously thought, as Joe has alluded to.7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-36334183654978190282018-01-27T15:47:04.554-08:002018-01-27T15:47:04.554-08:00Well, I think his critique is aimed mostly at the ...Well, I think his critique is aimed mostly at the mist grandiose, theoretical physics, which has become more and more speculative in its attempts at a GUToE -- at reconciling QM and relativity -- developing string and M-brane theories and such. That's what the majority of theoretical physicists have been doing in recent decades. But that that unlikely project, he claims, keeps physics from making humbler and more promising types of advances. <br /><br />These kinds of critiques have become more credible now too, since the big collider in Switzerland has NOT produced any evidence of the "SUSY" particles that all string theories predict....Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-34026982061267545072018-01-27T02:20:37.840-08:002018-01-27T02:20:37.840-08:007th Stooge said...
Yeah,that's what he saying....7th Stooge said...<br />Yeah,that's what he saying...altho 20th century scientific trends tend to belie that, according to him, as there's no reason to expect a "coherent, intelligible whole."<br /><br />But he said that science insofar as it's looking for a GUTOE is under the mythic spell of oneness. I would say that insofar as it gives up this dream of intelligibility and oneness, it will be in tension with its underlying assumptions.<br /><br /><b>that would not exactly endear him to atheists.My point is that we have to assume a certain degree of intelligibility to go on with the modern world. But we have to start acknowledging that the major oneness is the transcendent and move into the spiritual realm and mystical answers because we can't go further. There is something more there but is the commanding mind not us.<br /><br />That I can't render that more for them in logic that's ok, I would not want anyone to claim to do that</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com