tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post6029751517678382027..comments2024-03-29T03:30:25.637-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Science is a Social ConstructJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-42071188523577926052012-09-05T03:58:37.589-07:002012-09-05T03:58:37.589-07:00NO it is not true that the probability of God has ...NO it is not true that the probability of God has gone down. Trying to put a probability on God is silly becuase God is not a thing in creation but the basis of reality. That's like trying to weigh a scale with itself.<br /><br />Science changes the probability of various conceptions of God. So if you only think of God as a big man in the sky with a white beard then yea, there's very little change of there being a God. But modern progressive theologians develop new sophisticated ideas and move forward with human understanding.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-281858615225045792012-09-04T14:08:58.963-07:002012-09-04T14:08:58.963-07:00Hi! Just read your text, really good summary of th...Hi! Just read your text, really good summary of the book and ideas, pleasant to read. <br />If you don't mind, I just think you concluded it in a way too much biased religious fashion. It's very difficult to disagree that science ultimately cannot disprove god (it is clear that it cannot disprove anything at all) but you cannot follow from that that no knowledge at all is gained during the processes. And, because of these knowledge (by which I don't mean to be absolute truths), we can (or MUST) assign probabilities to our claims. <br />It's very clear that, during the human scientific endeavor, we have sent gods probabilities to very very low levels. As said before, it might be impossible to disprove but, still, its very very unlikely due to our accumulated knowledge.<br /><br />if you feel like to answer to that, I'd be very pleased to read it at kksacchi@gmail.com . Thanks and cheers! CarlosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-78279116373276039022011-09-06T06:25:57.984-07:002011-09-06T06:25:57.984-07:00Look at the comment by Tinythinker aboveLook at the comment by Tinythinker aboveJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-14763409548963183722011-09-06T06:25:20.696-07:002011-09-06T06:25:20.696-07:00hey am troubled by the following question,can you ...hey am troubled by the following question,can you help?<br /><br />Paradigm shifts in a discipline are an indication that disciplines are just like living organisms,To what extent do you agree with this statement? Justtify your position using the development of the discipline of Geography? <br /><br /><b>I would rather use Kuhn's description that they are like revolutions in politics. The faithful to the old paradigm do damage control. He may have said both but I think the political analogy is more acute.<br /><br />One aspect of Kuhn's theory that was criticized the most in the 90s was his understanding of "ordinarily science in specific disciplines. He give some good example sin the Structure of Scientific Revolutions.<br /><br />I'm not very familiar withe the history Geography. I think we can see that aspect clearly in what's been happening with medicine. There's basically an epistemological crisis with ideas there were just completely ridiculed 50 years ago and now are rapidly becoming part of medicine. <br /><br />Alternative medicine, the idea that natural medicine can be found in plants and was known in some folk remedy by shamans in the rain forest was compete and utter BS back in the 60s. The idea that faith could play a positive role in healing was just looked upon as witchcraft and stupidity and the epitome of everything backward. Now a huge number of medical school teach about the value of faith for the patent.<br /><br />the history of those ideas coming into medical use they were given organized resistance, and when they started to show success there was damage control just like a political regime would do it. </b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-7885209060943534132011-09-06T04:56:30.785-07:002011-09-06T04:56:30.785-07:00hey am troubled by the following question,can you ...hey am troubled by the following question,can you help? <br /><br />Paradigm shifts in a discipline are an indication that disciplines are just like living organisms,To what extent do you agree with this statement? Justtify your position using the development of the discipline of Geography?simayuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063097486218617644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-27464170064305177362008-10-05T23:22:00.000-07:002008-10-05T23:22:00.000-07:00I do think that some sorts of progress are real. O...I do think that some sorts of progress are real. Our capabilities have increased enormously over the last few centuries, not only in technology but also in predictive power. And much of that was due to application of various scientific theories.<BR/><BR/>And although I think that Kuhn is right about the importance of conceptual breakthroughs, I think that his concept of incommensurability is just plain wrong -- newer paradigms often include older ones as special cases.<BR/><BR/>Let's take his example of the discovery of the difference between a compound and a mixture in the late 18th cy. While some mixtures can have continuous-varying proportions of their constituents, as one might expect of a mixture, some other mixtures were discovered to follow a Law of Definite Proportions, which hinted at a different mechanism for mixing. And mixtures that follow that law got named compounds in recognition of that difference.<BR/><BR/>So what happened here was an addition to the concept of mixture, rather than the outright replacement of that concept.<BR/><BR/>There are numerous other examples of cumulative progress, though older paradigms sometimes get reduced in scope, as has happened to the concept of mixture, Newtonian mechanics, etc.<BR/><BR/>I can also agree with Kuhn that old paradigms don't get overthrown by the discovery of this or that little fact, however dramatic that might be. Instead, as he describes, many old theories die slow deaths. A good example of that, I think, is vitalism. Though popular for millennia, vitalism gradually went downhill over the last few centuries, and was completely discredited by the middle of the 20th cy. And in its last decades, it must have looked like a hypothesis of a "vital force of the gaps" -- gaps that were gradually getting filled.<BR/><BR/>But I've noticed that many crackpots and pseudoscientists wave around Kuhnian paradigm shifts as if such shifts are a vindication for their theories; it's like the way that they often compare themselves to Galileo.Lorenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13984896453534621864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-24511077492185869442008-10-05T08:53:00.000-07:002008-10-05T08:53:00.000-07:00Huh. OK. Well, let's try again:Here is that 3rd l...Huh. OK. Well, let's try again:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://peacefulturmoil.blogspot.com/2008/10/into-great-wide-open-going-beyond.html" REL="nofollow">Here is that 3rd link again</A><BR/><BR/>And I just remembered this quote I spotted a couple weeks ago that you might enjoy...<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://peacefulturmoil.blogspot.com/2008/09/science-is-simply-dogmatic-form-of.html" REL="nofollow">"Science is a simply dogmatic form of superstition."</A>tinythinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17137637122776756669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-26837186812421337112008-10-05T08:47:00.000-07:002008-10-05T08:47:00.000-07:00The third link it says "no found." that's the one ...The third link it says "no found." that's the one i really want to see. although I enjoyed the bit about the peace pick nickJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-45872729162998326992008-10-05T08:43:00.000-07:002008-10-05T08:43:00.000-07:00Thanks Tiny. i am very interested in what you have...Thanks Tiny. i am very interested in what you have to say about this.<BR/><BR/>those guys on carm are going ape shit over it. they say "you making a fool of yourself to talk this way." I might as well be telling them pigs can fly and fairies live in my garden.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-52131584943843542692008-10-05T07:51:00.000-07:002008-10-05T07:51:00.000-07:00Interesting topic. I talk a little about cultural...Interesting topic. I talk a little about cultural construction <A HREF="http://peacefulturmoil.blogspot.com/2008/10/picnics-for-peace-and-other-idiotic.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> (under the subheading 'The mechanics of changing perspective'), the nature of cultural differences <A HREF="http://peacefulturmoil.blogspot.com/2008/10/into-great-wide-open-part-two-going.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> (under the subheading 'Metaphors as catalysts for a change in perspective'), and the limits of science using similar language and perspective <A HREF="Metaphors%20as%20catalysts%20for%20a%20change%20in%20perspective" REL="nofollow">here</A> (ubiquitously).tinythinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17137637122776756669noreply@blogger.com