# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  Does Science Kill the Magic?

## mazHur

Interesting talk...turn on your speakers, listen and share your thoughts.

'Robin Ince, Brian Cox and guests put science up against the supernatural. 

Science V The Supernatural: Does Science Kill the Magic?
Robin Ince and Brian Cox are joined on stage by actor and magician Andy Nyman, psychologist Richard Wiseman and neuroscientist Bruce Hood as they take on the paranormal. They'll be looking at some of the more popular claims of supernatural goings on, and asking whether a belief in ghosts, psychic abilities and other other-worldly phenomena, is just a bit of harmless fun, or whether there are more worrying implications in a belief in the paranormal.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0128mlk#synopsis

----------


## munkinhead

Science IS the magic!

----------


## cafolini

Anything has a magic throughout. The difference in science is that the magic is three-dimensional. Being and existence are two-dimensional representations of what may or may not occur in three dimensions. At the source, even being and existence occur in the three dimensions (scientific) of the imaginative functions. The split of soul and body is the schizophrenia that causes the classical, confused systems of thought. Soul and body are the same. Anything is virtual.

----------


## mazHur

> Anything has a magic throughout. The difference in science is that the magic is three-dimensional. Being and existence are two-dimensional representations of what may or may not occur in three dimensions. At the source, even being and existence occur in the three dimensions (scientific) of the imaginative functions. The split of soul and body is the schizophrenia that causes the classical, confused systems of thought. Soul and body are the same. Anything is virtual.


If soul and body are taken as the same, all the toil done by philosophers, prophets,saints
and saviors would go down the drain!!
I think body and soul 'interact', inter-mix' but they are ''insoluble'' ?

----------


## YesNo

I enjoy reading science when the authors are writing about their fields of expertise, but I don't waste my time on so call "science" that is used to belittled the paranormal or psychics. Almost by definition, this is not the field of expertise of any of these scientists unless they specifically study the paranormal. And so I trust the psychics over these folks when it comes to what people understand as the paranormal. After all, the psychics are the ones having the _experiences_, while the "scientists" are the ones with only _ideas_ that those experiences are not valid.

As far as destroying the magic, science is presenting the world as quite magical. Just consider subatomic particles, the big bang, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, relativity, evolution and historical research into ancient civilizations to name just some areas I find interesting. The world is no longer the deterministic, mechanistic world of the early 1800's--thanks to science.

----------


## cafolini

> If soul and body are taken as the same, all the toil done by philosophers, prophets,saints
> and saviors would go down the drain!!
> I think body and soul 'interact', inter-mix' but they are ''insoluble'' ?


Yes, exactly. They already did go down the drain. And they are not coming back in importance. They are today a form of museum gossip and entanglement.

----------


## Theunderground

Science these days with a few notable exceptions is boring,dogmatic and of not help in discussing the human condition. Art will always be more magic than science,and the experience of life itself is even more magic than art.
The body and soul are inseperable,with the proviso that the soul will outlive the current material body then search for another!

----------


## cafolini

> Science these days with a few notable exceptions is boring,dogmatic and of not help in discussing the human condition. Art will always be more magic than science,and the experience of life itself is even more magic than art.
> The body and soul are inseperable,with the proviso that the soul will outlive the current material body then search for another!


You'll definitely be surprised. There occurs no thing in itself. Things in themselves are essential, ex-ist-ential gossip of human diarrhealectics long gone to backstage and not ever coming back to the forefront.

----------


## Theunderground

Caffy,postmodernism is not the dominant strain of thought in the world today. Its mainly for overeducated bufoons living in ivory towers and media bubbles. Phrases like 'the thing in itself' and 'essentialist' are only metaphors and phrases invented by philosophers. Taking 'soul' literally means missing the Meaning. Potmodernism is henned in by its own preconceptions and jargon. Postmodernists are nowhere near as free intellectually as they think they are. You have been warned...

----------


## stuntpickle

> Yes, exactly. They already did go down the drain. And they are not coming back in importance. They are today a form of museum gossip and entanglement.


This is overly optimistic for an atheist. Actually, the popular atheism of late has done little more than expose atheism as pre-Socratic sophistry, and I mean "sophistry" not in the pejorative sense, but the literal. The much-heralded end of religion has proved to be an over-estimation for quite some time now. Of course, it's been fun watching Dawkins assume the mantle of Socrates while evincing a neo-Pyrrhonism that greatly entertained the neo-Aristotelian philosophers he was screaming at.

----------


## MattG

Interesting show, thanks for posting. 

To me, looking at things in as rational a way as possible is helpful in discerning wheat from chaff. 

There are a lot of strange stories out there, and most don't hold up to scrutiny. Scientific method helps separate that which is truly mysterious from that which is simply anecdotal etc. 

So no, science doesn't kill magic. Rather, it helps to define it.

----------


## Ecurb

> Caffy,postmodernism is not the dominant strain of thought in the world today. Its mainly for overeducated bufoons living in ivory towers and media bubbles. Phrases like 'the thing in itself' and 'essentialist' are only metaphors and phrases invented by philosophers. Taking 'soul' literally means missing the Meaning. Potmodernism is henned in by its own preconceptions and jargon. Postmodernists are nowhere near as free intellectually as they think they are. You have been warned...


Yes, education is a problem, and being "overeducated" a horrible, horrible fate for anyone. 

Of course it may seem that ignorance is a problem, and that it is unlikely to learn too much. But that SEEMS to be true only if you are "henned in" by your own preconceptions and jargon (whatever that means). 

Ivory towers, of course, tend to be inhabited by the overeducated, some of whom (horrors!) invent phrases. Thanks for the warning, Theunderground! I'll take heed!

----------


## cafolini

> Caffy,postmodernism is not the dominant strain of thought in the world today. Its mainly for overeducated bufoons living in ivory towers and media bubbles. Phrases like 'the thing in itself' and 'essentialist' are only metaphors and phrases invented by philosophers. Taking 'soul' literally means missing the Meaning. Potmodernism is henned in by its own preconceptions and jargon. Postmodernists are nowhere near as free intellectually as they think they are. You have been warned...


Modernism is what's past tense. Postmodernists do not think of themselves as free. There is no free will. The thought in the foreground of today is not the dominant thought of today. It's just decibels without consequence. Science is the dominant thought of today and there is no other more postmodernist. Humanity has been overcome together with modernism or any Neothis or Nethat. Einstenian relativity, the Big imaginary Bang and all the prole of its quackers is now fully forgotten where the action is. You have not been warned. We have no need to confront you.

----------


## cafolini

> Yes, education is a problem, and being "overeducated" a horrible, horrible fate for anyone. 
> 
> Of course it may seem that ignorance is a problem, and that it is unlikely to learn too much. But that SEEMS to be true only if you are "henned in" by your own preconceptions and jargon (whatever that means). 
> 
> Ivory towers, of course, tend to be inhabited by the overeducated, some of whom (horrors!) invent phrases. Thanks for the warning, Theunderground! I'll take heed!


It's absolutely impossible to know too much. Overeducation cannot be sustained, cannot even begin anywhere. It's a dumb thing and cannot count.

----------


## Ecurb

> It's absolutely impossible to know too much. Overeducation cannot be sustained, cannot even begin anywhere. It's a dumb thing and cannot count.


Perhaps you have never seen the excellent Hitchcock film, "The Man Who Knew to Much".

----------


## cafolini

> Science these days with a few notable exceptions is boring,dogmatic and of not help in discussing the human condition. Art will always be more magic than science,and the experience of life itself is even more magic than art.
> The body and soul are inseperable,with the proviso that the soul will outlive the current material body then search for another!


The problem you have with that is that science is the art and the life of the day. All the rest is merely historical and lingers on with reduced energy.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> The problem you have with that is that science is the art and the life of the day. All the rest is merely historical and lingers on with reduced energy.


While I think there can be some beautiful photos of galaxies that has artistic qualities, very few people I know would consider science and scientific discovery art in the way normal people use the word.

----------


## cafolini

> While I think there can be some beautiful photos of galaxies that has artistic qualities, very few people I know would consider science and scientific discovery art in the way normal people use the word.


I think you'll be surprised. Have fun.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> I think you'll be surprised. Have fun.


Doubt it. But if you enjoy traveling to the Museum of Natural History only to confuse it for the MET or manage to get the same thrill from the reports at Science Daily as you do from Shakespeare, what can I say but enjoy?

----------


## Taliesin

I do suspect that science is art and has aesthetical qualities mainly if you have studied it enough, a sort of an acquired taste, if you will. I'm also rather certain that it's not for everybody. But then again, the same holds for quite a number of authors.

I also think that education plays a part - people might not understand nor enjoy neither Joyce nor quantum chemistry but since they have been taught that Joyce is art but quantum chemisty is not, they will say that the former is art but the latter is not. They will also therefore believe that it is possible to enjoy Joyce but not possible to enjoy quantum chemistry.

Of course, there are differences between art and science - in art, broadly speaking, everything is allowed, while science, so that it could be calles science, should describe reality in some sense. But if we forget this aspect and discuss just the aesthetic one, I think that what I said above is true.

----------


## cafolini

> I do suspect that science is art and has aesthetical qualities mainly if you have studied it enough, a sort of an acquired taste, if you will. I'm also rather certain that it's not for everybody. But then again, the same holds for quite a number of authors.
> 
> I also think that education plays a part - people might not understand nor enjoy neither Joyce nor quantum chemistry but since they have been taught that Joyce is art but quantum chemisty is not, they will say that the former is art but the latter is not. They will also therefore believe that it is possible to enjoy Joyce but not possible to enjoy quantum chemistry.
> 
> Of course, there are differences between art and science - in art, broadly speaking, everything is allowed, while science, so that it could be calles science, should describe reality in some sense. But if we forget this aspect and discuss just the aesthetic one, I think that what I said above is true.


But Joyce is science as much as art. That's why people who hated science burned his first shipment of books to America.

----------


## Climacus

Science _qua_ science cannot touch let alone kill the extra-scientific. How could it? We can use science-informed premises to _philosophise_ about the supernatural. But science as science can neither prove nor disprove the same. That would be asking science to do something non-scientific.

----------


## MystyrMystyry

I was in the local church this morning recording their performance of Handl's Messiah. That can easily take a person higher than science (and technology, and philosophy etc etc)

I think if they did it every Sunday I'd show up much more often

----------


## cafolini

> Science _qua_ science cannot touch let alone kill the extra-scientific. How could it? We can use science-informed premises to _philosophise_ about the supernatural. But science as science can neither prove nor disprove the same. That would be asking science to do something non-scientific.


Proving that a 40+ lb force is necesary to lift a 40 lb sofa is enough to prove that the crazy cat that makes a video lifting it with mental emissions is insane. What about the retarded group in Puerto Rico who has this fellow that inserts his fingers inside an electric outlet and pases the electrical energy to the other hand to light a paper with the sparks, without electrocuting his body?
Science needs not prove what has been scientifically determined impossible.

----------


## Climacus

> Proving that a 40+ lb force is necesary to lift a 40 lb sofa is enough to prove that the crazy cat that makes a video lifting it with mental emissions is insane. What about the retarded group in Puerto Rico who has this fellow that inserts his fingers inside an electric outlet and pases the electrical energy to the other hand to light a paper with the sparks, without electrocuting his body?
> Science needs not prove what has been scientifically determined impossible.


You're missing the point, friend, to say nothing of begging the question. The point was that scientists _qua_ scientists are methodological naturalists.

But suppose we argue: "Scientifically it's impossible that _p_. Therefore not _p_." You'll notice two things about this sort of argument, I hope. (1) It's a _non sequitur_. And (2) it's a science-informed _philosophical_ argument, not a _scientific_ argument.

----------


## cafolini

> You're missing the point, friend, to say nothing of begging the question. The point was that scientists _qua_ scientists are methodological naturalists.
> 
> But suppose we argue: "Scientifically it's impossible that _p_. Therefore not _p_." You'll notice two things about this sort of argument, I hope. (1) It's a _non sequitur_. And (2) it's a science-informed _philosophical_ argument, not a _scientific_ argument.


Because of that, they are impossible arguments. And they are impossible precisely because they are already proven non squitor. You are the one who's missing the point that it is science that will not argue them because they are ridiculous. But why are they ridiculous? Because science has shown them an impossibility. 
Before humanity was overcome by science, they were argued all the time among the pseudoscientists of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

----------


## Climacus

> Because of that, they are impossible arguments. And they are impossible precisely because they are already proven non sequitur.


You might have bothered to learn what _non sequitur_ means before responding. There's no such thing as a proven _non sequitur_. _Non sequitur_ means 'does not follow.' The _non sequitur_ argument is logically invalid. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise(s). In our two-proposition example - "Scientifically it's impossible that p. Therefore not p" - the conclusion does not follow logically from the premise. 




> You are the one who's missing the point that it is science that will not argue them because they are ridiculous. But why are they ridiculous? Because science has shown them an impossibility.


No, science doesn't deal with the non-scientific just because it is non-scientific. You're asking scientists to do philosophers' work. Commit this to memory: scientists _qua_ scientists are methodological naturalists. (But, note well, philosophers _qua_ philosophers needn't be naturalists.)

It never fails, proponents of scientism are always logically deficient. But let's try a different tack. Would you agree with the following proposition? "All that which exists is that which is scientifically verifiable."

----------


## cafolini

> You might have bothered to learn what _non sequitur_ means before responding. There's no such thing as a proven _non sequitur_. _Non sequitur_ means 'does not follow.' The _non sequitur_ argument is logically invalid. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise(s). In our two-proposition example - "Scientifically it's impossible that p. Therefore not p" - the conclusion does not follow logically from the premise. 
> 
> 
> 
> No, science doesn't deal with the non-scientific just because it is non-scientific. You're asking scientists to do philosophers' work. Commit this to memory: scientists _qua_ scientists are methodological naturalists. (But, note well, philosophers _qua_ philosophers needn't be naturalists.)
> 
> It never fails, proponents of scientism are always logically deficient. But let's try a different tack. Would you agree with the following proposition? "All that which exists is that which is scientifically verifiable."


We disagree rotundly. And I think it is obvious that you are labeling scientists philosophically (methodogical naturalists = strightjacket) to dispose of the argument in the brutal way philosophers have always used.

----------


## ForrestJG

Science is beautiful, and perhaps the most sublime thing one can be educated about; to actually learn about your place in the universe and marvel at the wonders of existence is just too awe inspiring. Everyone should be scientifically literate, because it is so advantageous to their lives. Science doesn't kill the mystery...it reveals it and makes it more profound. Read Dawkins' brilliant book 'Unweaving the Rainbow', to understand it. Dawkins was the one who introduced me to science - basically after reading 'The God Delusion', I became interested in it.
But seriously...get into science.

----------


## cafolini

> Science is beautiful, and perhaps the most sublime thing one can be educated about; to actually learn about your place in the universe and marvel at the wonders of existence is just too awe inspiring. Everyone should be scientifically literate, because it is so advantageous to their lives. Science doesn't kill the mystery...it reveals it and makes it more profound. Read Dawkins' brilliant book 'Unweaving the Rainbow', to understand it. Dawkins was the one who introduced me to science - basically after reading 'The God Delusion', I became interested in it.
> But seriously...get into science.


I agree. There was a time when we fought analphabetism. We won that battle with enough critical mass and used it as a springboard to fight for scientific literacy. We are now half ways there, soon to be there. It is very exciting.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> I do suspect that science is art and has aesthetical qualities mainly if you have studied it enough, a sort of an acquired taste, if you will. I'm also rather certain that it's not for everybody. But then again, the same holds for quite a number of authors.
> 
> I also think that education plays a part - people might not understand nor enjoy neither Joyce nor quantum chemistry but since they have been taught that Joyce is art but quantum chemisty is not, they will say that the former is art but the latter is not. They will also therefore believe that it is possible to enjoy Joyce but not possible to enjoy quantum chemistry.
> 
> Of course, there are differences between art and science - in art, broadly speaking, everything is allowed, while science, so that it could be calles science, should describe reality in some sense. But if we forget this aspect and discuss just the aesthetic one, I think that what I said above is true.


Like I said before, there are definitely beautiful and aesthetically pleasing elements to science or to be more exact the things science studies (astronomical features, crystal/mineral/rock formations, etc.), but that doesn't make it an art.

Any aesthetic qualities are secondary to discovering facts and rules governing the natural world, whereas producing aesthetic beauty is one of the primary purposes of art. Science really is only a unique way of asking and answering questions about the natural world.

----------


## Climacus

> We disagree rotundly. And I think it is obvious that you are labeling scientists philosophically (methodogical naturalists = strightjacket) to dispose of the argument in the brutal way philosophers have always used.


I'm labelling scientists to dispose of an argument? What argument are you talking about? Arguments have propositions in the form of premises and a conclusion. So far, you haven't put any forward.

Anyway, remember I said "scientists _qua_ scientists" - that is, scientists acting as scientists. And by definition, scientists _qua_ scientists are methodological naturalists. There's nothing wrong with that. ("Methodological naturalist" is not a pejorative term.) Science wouldn't work otherwise. But that means that extra-scientific propositions like "A spiritual realm exists" are neither provable nor disprovable by science as such. They're just off the table, not open for discussion.

Moreover, you didn't answer my question. Would you agree with the following proposition? "All that which exists is that which is scientifically verifiable."

----------


## Climacus

> Like I said before, there are definitely beautiful and aesthetically pleasing elements to science or to be more exact the things science studies (astronomical features, crystal/mineral/rock formations, etc.), but that doesn't make it an art.
> 
> Any aesthetic qualities are secondary to discovering facts and rules governing the natural world, whereas producing aesthetic beauty is one of the primary purposes of art. Science really is only a unique way of asking and answering questions about the natural world.


You're on the right track here, I think. But I would make the case stronger and say that producing beauty is _the_ primary purpose of art. There's so much confusion about what art is. Is it knowledge? Truth? But these things are related to art as matter is to form. As one philosopher put it, where the fine arts are concerned, "philosophy is the handmaid of beauty: _philosophia ancilla artis_."

----------


## cafolini

> Moreover, you didn't answer my question. Would you agree with the following proposition? "All that which exists is that which is scientifically verifiable."


If it is three-dimensional, yes. If it is two-dimesional, only as such.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> You're on the right track here, I think. But I would make the case stronger and say that producing beauty is _the_ primary purpose of art. There's so much confusion about what art is. Is it knowledge? Truth? But these things are related to art as matter is to form. As one philosopher put it, where the fine arts are concerned, "philosophy is the handmaid of beauty: _philosophia ancilla artis_."


Eh, I see aesthetics being one of the purposes of art rather than the only purpose. Overemphasizing "beauty" as the only purpose of art tends to lead to overly formalistic interpretations that ignores the important content and social/philosophical issues much art attempts to tackle.

----------


## Theunderground

Three and two dimensional are only imaginary definitional concepts cafolini.
Come on,you cant be this obtuse. All the great sceintists have an 'artistic streak',but the dogmatic naturalists have a priori and philosophically ruled out anything beyond the physical. I think no one in their right mind would deny a thought or emotion but do we apprehend it in a physical form that science can look at objectively? No!science cannot even prove that other people have thoughts or emotions,but common sense and art definately can. Science is the study and conceptualisation of physical processes,not the final word on the human condition. Philosophy is the study of logic and language and rational thought and likewise nothing more.
The End.

----------


## cafolini

> Three and two dimensional are only imaginary definitional concepts cafolini.
> Come on,you cant be this obtuse. All the great sceintists have an 'artistic streak',but the dogmatic naturalists have a priori and philosophically ruled out anything beyond the physical. I think no one in their right mind would deny a thought or emotion but do we apprehend it in a physical form that science can look at objectively? No!science cannot even prove that other people have thoughts or emotions,but common sense and art definately can. Science is the study and conceptualisation of physical processes,not the final word on the human condition. Philosophy is the study of logic and language and rational thought and likewise nothing more.
> The End.


You show clearly that you have very little idea of scientific exploration and discovery in the 21st century.

----------


## Climacus

> If it is three-dimensional, yes. If it is two-dimesional, only as such.


So. You _are_ a proponent of scientism. That means you're in some self-referential trouble. It cannot possibly be that case "all that which exists is that which is scientifically verifiable" because that proposition itself is not scientifically verifiable. And propositions in general are not scientifically verifiable. Neither are _a priori_ logical nor mathematical truths - like _modus ponens_. They are not accessible to the scientific method, but are merely presupposed by science. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. But you have to understand the narrow demarcations of science.

----------


## cafolini

> So. You _are_ a proponent of scientism. That means you're in some self-referential trouble. It cannot possibly be that case "all that which exists is that which is scientifically verifiable" because that proposition itself is not scientifically verifiable. And propositions in general are not scientifically verifiable. Neither are _a priori_ logical nor mathematical truths - like _modus ponens_. They are not accessible to the scientific method, but are merely presupposed by science. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. But you have to understand the narrow demarcations of science.


I am not a proponent of anything at all, least of all any straightjacket philosophy like scientism. I am just looking at what's going on. The scientific method was an invention of another overcome philosopher, Rene Descartes. Who uses it, or rather pretend to use it without using it? Philosophers in a museum. This is enough.

----------


## Climacus

> Eh, I see aesthetics being one of the purposes of art rather than the only purpose. Overemphasizing "beauty" as the only purpose of art tends to lead to overly formalistic interpretations that ignores the important content and social/philosophical issues much art attempts to tackle.


But it doesn't ignore those latter things. It sets them in their proper place, as means to an end, as matter to form. What differentiates the fine arts from other fields is the creation of beauty _for beauty's sake_. That, in Aristotelian terms (I'm looking at your avatar), is its specific difference. Art _involves_ self-expression, meaning, knowledge, philosophy, and so on, and so on. But something doesn't become art by virtue of these things. Take Dante's _Commedia_. It contains a lot of philosophy and theology. But we read Dante neither for philosophy nor theology. (If we did, we would be misguided. Better to read philosophers and theologians.) We read it for its beauty, which philosophy and theology contribute to.

I know this seems oversimple, _prima facie_. But it is philosophically tenable. Stronger still, I think it's on-the-mark. A few philosophers of art have developed it fully: Étienne Gilson, for instance.

----------


## Climacus

> I am not a proponent of anything at all, least of all any straightjacket philosophy like scientism.


All who agree with the proposition* are proponents of scientism. And you agree with the proposition . . . I'll let you draw the conclusion.

*"All that which exists is that which is scientifically verifiable." (Your dimensional qualifications don't alter anything here.)

----------


## Ecurb

> All who agree with the proposition* are proponents of scientism. And you agree with the proposition . . . I'll let you draw the conclusion.
> 
> *"All that which exists is that which is scientifically verifiable." (Your dimensional qualifications don't alter anything here.)


"There are more strange things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than you have dreamt in your Philsophy." -- Hamlet. (Philosophy meant "science", in those days.)

----------


## Climacus

> "There are more strange things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than you have dreamt in your Philsophy." -- Hamlet. (Philosophy meant "science", in those days.)


Not sure why you're pointing this in my direction. And, yes, I'm quite familiar with the history of philosophy. Thanks.

----------


## mazHur

> that means that extra-scientific propositions like "A spiritual realm exists" are neither provable nor disprovable by science as such. They're just off the table, not open for discussion.
> 
> Moreover, you didn't answer my question. Would you agree with the following proposition? "All that which exists is that which is scientifically verifiable."



I think there is flaw in your argument. Science is not science if it lets go unsolved mysteries yet known to man. A hundred years ago things that were thought to be impossible and in your words ' off the table, not open for discussion.'' are now ON the table and not only discussed but processed by science alone.

The real meaning of true Science is to keep on investigating anything and everything that comes to mind or may touch the scientific query and curiosity.

----------


## Climacus

> I think there is flaw in your argument. Science is not science if it lets go unsolved mysteries yet known to man. A hundred years ago things that were thought to be impossible and in your words ' off the table, not open for discussion.'' are now ON the table and not only discussed but processed by science alone.


No. If scientists _qua_ scientists are methodological naturalists, as is usually conceded today, then it's follows logically that much will be "off the table." In seeking to explain phenomena scientists _qua_ scientists can not - not _will_ not but _can_ not - appeal to the supernatural. For science would stop at that point and philosophy would begin. So, again, extra-scientific propositions like "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" are neither provable nor disprovable by science _qua_ science. And, again, there's nothing wrong with that. (We can, of course, use science-informed premises in a _philosophical_ argument for or against one of the above propositions.)

(Maybe you mean something like, "Phenomena previously explained only supernaturally are now explained naturally." Well and good. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.)




> The real meaning of true Science is to keep on investigating anything and everything that comes to mind . . .


No, it's not. Modern science does not investigate _anything_ and _everything_. That would include science investigating the non-scientific, which is absurd. Modern science investigates that which is accessible to the scientific method - considerably less than _everything_ (!). For instance, science doesn't and can't investigate _a priori_ logical truths; it presupposes them.

----------


## mazHur

I thought there was something like the Science of the Soul as well....so you mean science has limited itself to 'priori logical truths'? What if some of these 'truths' changed over the time??

----------


## Climacus

> . . . so you mean science has limited itself to 'priori logical truths'?


No. What I said was that science _presupposes_ logical and mathematical truths, without which it could not operate. These truths are not accessible to the scientific method, but science wouldn't work without them. And, yes, science is limited by these axioms, but so is everything else - and a jolly good thing too.



> What if some of these 'truths' changed over the time??


If you understood what we're talking about, you wouldn't ask this question. _A priori_ logical and mathematical truths - like _modus ponens_ - are _necessary_ truths. They cannot not be true. So, your question reads: "What if that-which-cannot-change changed over time?"

----------


## cafolini

> No. What I said was that science _presupposes_ logical and mathematical truths, without which it could not operate. These truths are not accessible to the scientific method, but science wouldn't work without them. And, yes, science is limited by these axioms, but so is everything else - and a jolly good thing too.
> 
> If you understood what we're talking about, you wouldn't ask this question. _A priori_ logical and mathematical truths - like _modus ponens_ - are _necessary_ truths. They cannot not be true. So, your question reads: "What if that-which-cannot-change changed over time?"


You are saying the same thing I'm saying, except that in your case, you do not want to accept that it is science that actually sent you and all philosophers to the museum. You just have a hard skin, and want to get out on weekends. But we can't give you a pass.

----------


## Taliesin

> Like I said before, there are definitely beautiful and aesthetically pleasing elements to science or to be more exact the things science studies (astronomical features, crystal/mineral/rock formations, etc.), but that doesn't make it an art.
> 
> Any aesthetic qualities are secondary to discovering facts and rules governing the natural world, whereas producing aesthetic beauty is one of the primary purposes of art. Science really is only a unique way of asking and answering questions about the natural world.


Yes, and writing novels is only a way of asking and answering questions about the human condition.

_Scientific method_ is the unique way of asking and answering questions about the natural world. _Science_ is somewhat bigger and has quite a lot of human mixed into it.

Generally, scientists quite often study things that they do find interesting and beautiful - well, at least they would like to if they were provided the grants for it. They are not robots who do stuff without motivation or emotion, caring only about applications and results, beauty is quite often a rather important reason for studying some things.

And by beautiful I do not mean the "oooh, pretty rocks!" thing that you keep bringing up though that can be there too - it is something of a deeper level, I think I could compare the difference to the difference between enjoying a novel and enjoying the cover picture of a novel - the simile is not perfect, but I just want to make clear that "pretty rocks" certainly isn't what I have in mind when I speak of beauty of science. Maybe the difference between the beauty of a chess board and the beauty of a chess game is a better simile - yes, I think I'll stick to that one. Can chess be thought of as an art form? Although it's "only about" winning?


I have posted this quote before on a rather similar discussion on this forum.



> On June 7, to escape the effects of a bad attack of hay fever, Heisenberg left for the pollen free North Sea island of Helgoland. While there, in between climbing and learning by heart poems from Goethe's West-östlicher Diwan, he continued to ponder the spectral issue and eventually realised that adopting non-commuting observables might solve the problem, and he later wrote[1]
> "It was about three o' clock at night when the final result of the calculation lay before me. At first I was deeply shaken. I was so excited that I could not think of sleep. So I left the house and awaited the sunrise on the top of a rock."



Keep in mind - I don't want to imply that all of science is beautiful - as you said, it is not it's main motivation, so there are not-so-aesthetic results too. But occasionally some rather beautiful results are found. And I would like to believe that the aesthetics is quite an important reason why people do it.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Yes, and writing novels is only a way of asking and answering questions about the human condition.
> 
> _Scientific method_ is the unique way of asking and answering questions about the natural world. _Science_ is somewhat bigger and has quite a lot of human mixed into it.
> 
> Generally, scientists quite often study things that they do find interesting and beautiful - well, at least they would like to if they were provided the grants for it. They are not robots who do stuff without motivation or emotion, caring only about applications and results, beauty is quite often a rather important reason for studying some things.
> 
> And by beautiful I do not mean the "oooh, pretty rocks!" thing that you keep bringing up though that can be there too - it is something of a deeper level, I think I could compare the difference to the difference between enjoying a novel and enjoying the cover picture of a novel - the simile is not perfect, but I just want to make clear that "pretty rocks" certainly isn't what I have in mind when I speak of beauty of science. Maybe the difference between the beauty of a chess board and the beauty of a chess game is a better simile - yes, I think I'll stick to that one. Can chess be thought of as an art form? Although it's "only about" winning?
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think I implied at all scientists are just mindless robots. It takes a lot of imagination and creativity to come up with scientific discoveries. There can even be beauty in the process of the scientific method itself, in designing experiments, and in discovering abstract principles and facts about the universe, but it still doesn't quite make it into art.

----------


## mazHur

> No. What I said was that science _presupposes_ logical and mathematical truths, without which it could not operate. These truths are not accessible to the scientific method, but science wouldn't work without them. And, yes, science is limited by these axioms, but so is everything else - and a jolly good thing too.
> 
> If you understood what we're talking about, you wouldn't ask this question. _A priori_ logical and mathematical truths - like _modus ponens_ - are _necessary_ truths. They cannot not be true. So, your question reads: "What if that-which-cannot-change changed over time?"


Too much_ logic_getting mixed up with science.....more power to _modus ponens and modus tollens!_

----------


## Theunderground

By some a Complete lack of understanding of the limits of science,its presuppostions and what it can and cant show. Not to mention the limits of technical or scientific language to 'describe' the 'truth'. Hence the popularity still of novels,art and poetry,not to mention the grand daddy of them all,personal experience. One would think that the men in lab coats have the human condition fully encompassed with their theoretical niceties. Ignoring the fact that hundreds year old entrenched 'scientific theories' get overturned regularly. Scientism is the new fundamentalism,religious in its dogma and fervour but like religion,wholly inadequate to describe the human condition.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> It takes a lot of imagination and creativity to come up with scientific discoveries. There can even be beauty in the process of the scientific method itself, in designing experiments, and in discovering abstract principles and facts about the universe, but it still doesn't quite make it into art.


Well it's not the method, that's just the skeleton. Results are just the tail end and not the motivating factor, the beauty of science usually found in the subject itself. 

I understand what Taliesin means when he says that there is beauty in science. I was attracted to ecology and plants because of the absolute beauty and perfection in the systems. With ecology, I just love following feedback loops around, everything is so _balanced_. It's literally awesome to see what happens when one aspect of a niche is altered, tiny little details which you couldn't have even imagined would have been affected _are_ affected. And plants, they're wonderful, they do everything that animals do (eat, mate, breathe, die) except they do it more efficiently and they're much more resiliant. On a micro scale the details of plants are wonderfully simple, but on a macro scale their forms are so complex and with such variation. My favorite thing of all is fungi, I spend quite a bit of time in the fall dissecting mushrooms and I wish that I could see the whole of the species underground, threaded around everything, just poking through the earth here and there. I loved learning about how they mate, it was the best thing that I have ever studied.

There definately is beauty and passion in science, and the appreciation of science is as profound for those who are are into it as books are to those who enjoy literature. It's this obsessive love for the subject itself that drives people to research it in the first place. As for whether it's an _art_, I'm not so sure. Doesn't that imply creation? Scientists don't usually "create" anything (I guess that you could argue that they create theories, but that doesn't seem quite right). Enjoying science is comparable to enjoying literature, but _creating_ science =/= creating art.

----------


## cafolini

I think creativity is a very primitive delusion. And if you include the vehicles in the process, the activity reduces to relationships and transformations of what's already given.

----------


## Climacus

> Too much_ logic_getting mixed up with science.....more power to _modus ponens and modus tollens!_


Well, the point is that science is not the be-all and end-all. Science is great. And its discoveries can be awe-inspiring. But we must be aware of its presuppositions and demarcations. There is an intellectual danger here. For we have a tendency to reductionism. In the later Middle Ages, logicism was popular. After Descartes, mathematism gained credence. And today it's scientism, which is the least tenable of the three (!). 

People nowadays are reading the likes of the aforementioned Dawkins, uncritically, and being led astray. He's a good biologist, and an engaging popular-science writer too, but he has only a schoolboy's grasp of logic and philosophy. And it's this inadequacy that leads him, and similar writers, into overstatement and error. This is embarrassingly obvious in books like _The God Delusion_, but is just as painful in others like _The Blind Watchmaker_.

----------


## Climacus

First this:



> We disagree rotundly


Then this:



> You are saying the same thing I'm saying


Anyway, I know you'd like to think that philosophy is dead and buried, bit it's very much alive and well. And if you were up-to-date in the philosophy of science you wouldn't be so cocksure.

----------


## Climacus

About the philosophy of art, I think you guys are a little confused. The fine arts ultimately produce beauty _for its own sake_. And they employ any number of means - philosophy, for instance - to that end, but only as matter to form. Now, yes, scientific theories can be beautiful. And often, as the history of science witnesses, the more beautiful theory is given priority over the less beautiful. But here the beauty is not produced for its own sake. _It_ is now matter to form. And it is logically accidental. So, again, what differentiates the fine arts from everything else is that they produce beauty _for its own sake_. That is their _raison d'être_.

By the way, *Drkshadow03*, you didn't respond to my earlier post. What do you think?

----------


## cyberbob

> Well, the point is that science is not the be-all and end-all.* Science is great. And its discoveries can be awe-inspiring. But we must be aware of its presuppositions and demarcations. There is an intellectual danger here. For we have a tendency to reductionism. In the later Middle Ages, logicism was popular. After Descartes, mathematism gained credence. And today it's scientism, which is the least tenable of the three (!).* 
> People nowadays are reading the likes of the aforementioned Dawkins, uncritically, and being led astray. He's a good biologist, and an engaging popular-science writer too, but he has only a schoolboy's grasp of logic and philosophy. And it's this inadequacy that leads him, and similar writers, into overstatement and error. This is embarrassingly obvious in books like _The God Delusion_, but is just as painful in others like _The Blind Watchmaker_.


Posts like this remind me of what Orwell said about modern English writing in Politics and the english language.

You say a lot of vague things without giving examples like "For we have a tendency toward reductionism.", "And today it's scientism which is the least tenable of the three (!)."

I've heard all these criticisms of science before and I think I have a pretty good idea what they're trying to say in general, but the way you state it makes me wonder if you even know what you're talking about or you're just firing off a series of intelligent sounding phrases. 

I don't doubt that some, maybe lots, of people misconstrue the scientific ideas presented in the works of writers like Dawkins and science writing in general, but that does not say much about science itself. 

One good thing that you'll pick up from reading those popular science books is the idea that despite how wrong any individual scientist may be, that does not take away from science in general and, in fact, only makes it stronger. Maybe Dawkins does make overstatements and errors (again, you don't cite specific examples) but that does not mean that it's "intellectually dangerous" in viewing science as the best way to make observations of the physical world. It _is_ I think in many ways the be-all end-all because its only purpose is describing things that already are. Even if God existed, for example, that wouldn't disprove science, it'd probably just mean that God is somehow based on science.

----------


## cyberbob

And about the aesthetic of science and people who view science as beautiful:

I don't think anyone is really saying science is an art. What they're saying is that it has it's own beauty, it's own poetry if you will. Those who see the beauty of science aren't just awed by the epic pictures of space or the cool technological innovations, but also by the tiny details/trivia and by the principles behind science. We (I'm one of them) are amazed by the neatness in the chaos (and vice-versa) of nature. We're amazed by how such few rules can lead to such complexity and diversity and how you can predict a variety of things based on these few rules.

In the end it's like Juniper said, it's the same as having an appreciation of Literature, but also philosophy or comic books or TV shows or whatever you like. It's having an appreciation for even the tiny details and being familiar with its language. I don't think that feeling this way necessarily means that you'll start "worshipping" science anymore than really loving TV shows means that you'll worship them or think that you can explain anything all of the time by watching them.

----------


## Climacus

> You say a lot of vague things without giving examples like "For we have a tendency toward reductionism.", "And today it's scientism which is the least tenable of the three (!)."


You'll find that I gave three historical examples of reductionism: logicism, mathematism, and scientism.



> I've heard all these criticisms of science before and I think I have a pretty good idea what they're trying to say in general, but the way you state it makes me wonder if you even know what you're talking about or you're just firing off a series of intelligent sounding phrases.


Well, how can I help you? Shall I spell it out in less technical language? (By the way, I've made no criticism _of_ science, but only of popular-level misconceptions _about_ science.)



> I don't doubt that some, maybe lots, of people misconstrue the scientific ideas presented in the works of writers like Dawkins and science writing in general, but that does not say much about science itself.


We've no quarrel here.



> Maybe Dawkins does make overstatements and errors (again, you don't cite specific examples)


We could write tomes on this theme. (Remember, I'm talking about logical-philosophical rather than scientific blunders; Dawkins' popular-level books consists mostly of _philosophising_ about science.) As a for instance, in _The God Delusion_ Dawkins notes, 'I've forgotten the details, but I once piqued a gathering of theologians and philosophers by adapting the ontological argument to prove that pigs can fly. They felt the need to resort to Modal Logic to prove that I was wrong.' But the ontological argument just _is_ an experiment in modal logic, the logic of the possible and the necessary. Dawkins is making a fool of himself. There are many of these sorts of unwitting admissions of ignorance. But they're more or less innocuous. Worse are his actual 'arguments.' But critiquing them would take more space. If you like, I can go ahead and do so, when I've the time.



> but that does not mean that it's "intellectually dangerous" in viewing science as the best way to make observations of the physical world.


This is a straw man. I said reductionism was intellectually dangerous. Not science _qua_ science.



> Even if God existed, for example, that wouldn't disprove science . . .


No, why would it? My initial point was that science _qua_ science can neither prove nor disprove extra-scientific propositions, like 'God exists.' But, again, we may prove or disprove such propositions _philosophically_ with science-informed premises. (Big difference.)

----------


## Drkshadow03

> I don't think anyone is really saying science is an art.


Actually I'm pretty sure that is exactly what Cafolini said.

*Originally Posted by cafolini @ 16* 



> The problem you have with that is that science is the art and the life of the day. All the rest is merely historical and lingers on with reduced energy.

----------


## cafolini

> First this:
> 
> Then this:
> 
> Anyway, I know you'd like to think that philosophy is dead and buried, bit it's very much alive and well. And if you were up-to-date in the philosophy of science you wouldn't be so cocksure.


The filosophy of science has been in the museum for decades. Science and the systems of confusions called philosophies are mutually exclusive. The so-called scientific method and the philosophy of science never, ever worked but for the stability of involution.

If you could, although I don't think you might have the brain to do it, when you quote me, please quote the entire paragraph.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> By the way, *Drkshadow03*, you didn't respond to my earlier post. What do you think?


I didn't respond because I was still thinking it over. I think the problem is exactly what I said, overemphasizing aesthetics subordinates theme, story, basically content to style. It's overly formalistic. It assumes the primary purpose of art is to produce beauty and any truths art might reveal about the nature of the world are only there to function as a kind of tone coloring and guiding principle for the structure of the overall piece and to add to the work's innate beauty. However, another possibility exists; the primary purpose of art is to reveal truths about human condition and experience through the means of aesthetic beauty. Style can just as easily be there to make the content that much more interesting.

I'm not convinced necessarily that the origin of the literary arts stems from some abstract desire for aesthetic beauty, but rather I think they have their origins in the joys of story-telling itself and in the need of making sense of the world--regardless of style. You're making a lot of good points, though, and sharing some wonderful food for thought.

----------


## Climacus

> I didn't respond because I was still thinking it over. I think the problem is exactly what I said, overemphasizing aesthetics subordinates theme, story, basically content to style. It's overly formalistic. It assumes the primary purpose of art is to produce beauty and any truths art might reveal about the nature of the world are only there to function as a kind of tone coloring and guiding principle for the structure of the overall piece and to add to the work's innate beauty. However, another possibility exists; the primary purpose of art is to reveal truths about human condition and experience through the means of aesthetic beauty. Style can just as easily be there to make the content that much more interesting.


If what you're saying is true, then it seems that while there are many things that are 'artistic,' there's is no such thing as art _qua_ art. It seems to me that you're mixing things - at the moment, truth and beauty - that certainly admit of mixture, but which can also be taken in isolation. Now, you can serve both masters - truth and beauty - for a time, but conflicts of interest will eventually emerge. And what then? Well, I would say, at such a juncture, the artist follows beauty, and the truth-seeker follows truth. There may be artistic philosophers and philosophical artists, yet philosophers and artists are two different things.

Here's another way of looking at things. Like you, no doubt, I read both Plato and Aristotle. But whereas I enjoy reading Plato, reading Aristotle is a chore. If ever I understand Aristotle fully, I will never read him again. Yet if ever I fully understand Plato, I will continue to read him. Why? Not to _learn_ anything. For I will have done _that_ already. No, I will continue to read him because his writing is beautiful and beauty _qua_ beauty gives ever-renewable pleasure. Knowledge _qua_ knowledge does not.

Moreover, what about the non-propositional arts? Surely 'truth' is not pertinent here. Chopin's étude in c-sharp minor, true or false? Klimt's _Jurisprudence_, true or false? The questions are meaningless. Truth-values cannot be ascribed to non-propositional things. What is beautiful needn't _mean_ anything.




> I'm not convinced necessarily that the origin of the literary arts stems from some abstract desire for aesthetic beauty, but rather I think they have their origins in the joys of story-telling itself and in the need of making sense of the world--regardless of style.


Maybe you're right. I don't have any strong opinions about the origins of art. But I _would_ be very much surprised if its genesis was attributable to anything like what I'm talking about. I'm thinking of the 'fine arts,' which are relative latecomers.

----------

