Science and Philosophy (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, October 09, 2011, 20:24 (4772 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

I am taking this discussion off the ORIGIN OF LIFE; PRE-PLANNING thread for obvious reasons.-TONY (b_m): Do not confuse knowledge with understanding, my well spoken friend. Knowledge must be actively sought after, science is the pursuit of knowledge. Knowledge could be summed up as a collection of facts and figures pertaining to a subject, and does not in and of itself imply understanding of that data. The pursuit of knowledge can only lead to more knowledge, not understanding. What it does do however, is open the door for understanding to occur, and one might hope that said understanding would eventually lead to wisdom, though apparently that has not happened in humanity yet.
 
We are back in the realm of epistemology, which always requires definitions, so perhaps it's foolish of me to continue the discussion without asking what you mean by "understanding" and "wisdom". I suspect, though, that you're thinking of something like awareness of the essence of things, their purpose, their interrelatedness ... the realm of philosophy as opposed to that of science. (I include religion under the heading of philosophy.) Your criticism of scientists, in that case, is presumably that some of them dare to draw philosophical conclusions from their "knowledge", or colour their "knowledge" with their personal philosophy, but by what criteria do you judge their philosophy, their understanding, their wisdom? Dawkins and David both link their science background to their beliefs, and much as I dislike the strident tones of Dawkins' brand of atheism, and much as I respect David's more gentle and more open brand of theism, I wouldn't dream of saying that Dawkins' humanism is any more or any less "wise" than David's faith in a UI. But all this is too vague, and I may have misunderstood the paragraph above.-TONY: I never said that unapologetic theists had a monopoly on being aware or appreciative of life's beauty, complexity, and richness. I said that we are less tied to pet theories and other such non-sense. Less shackled by things that would inhibit or otherwise sour that moment of appreciation. I have no tenure to worry over, no fellows to impress, no grants to earn or papers to publish or books to write. I can enjoy for the sheer bliss of enjoying without concern over my state of ignorance of which I am well aware (and hopefully any educated person worth their salt is well aware of their own as well).-My objection was to the link you made between being an "unapologetic theist" and your ability to marvel at the "beautifully orchestrated symphony of life". My point is that this has nothing to do with theism. Less tied than who? Less shackled than who? Are all atheists and agnostics worried about tenure etc.? I too can "enjoy for the sheer bliss of enjoying without concern over my state of ignorance" etc. Perhaps I'm being too pedantic (an irritating trait, I know), but why did you mention your theism at all, since any atheist or agnostic can make exactly the same claims? In fact, I would go further: theists do have at least one pet theory (though I would not call it nonsense), and there are versions of that which may well leave them focusing on ... and even fearing ... the composer/conductor rather than admiring the symphony. Let me flog your image even further: from my seat right in the middle of the earthly concert hall, I'm able to admire for their own sake all the beautifully orchestrated passages, but I also hear the loud dissonances which for some reason are often edited out of the versions performed in churches, synagogues and mosques! (Another irritating trait of mine is my abhorrence of one-sidedness. Sorry!)----