Science and Philosophy (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, October 09, 2011, 22:44 (4772 days ago) @ dhw

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.
> -
You answered most of your own questions. Yes, I am contrasting science and philosophy as you have defined it above. My criticism of science is not that they dare draw conclusions, that is something we are all guilty of. My criticism of scientist is that they break their own rules. They are not objective. They have an ideal, a goal, for example evolution, and they expend all of their energy looking for evolution. The problem with this is that it blinds you. You can't see the forest for the trees. All they will ever find is evolution, because that is all they are looking for. Understanding and wisdom comes from sitting back, putting yourself to the side, and letting all of the pieces fall into place as THEY see fit, not as you see fit. (Sorry for personifying data, but you get the idea.) -As for the rest..-I will just withdraw the comment. I am certainly not in any mood to knit-pick every single syllable I type today. If the thrust of my statement has missed its mark, or somehow seems out of place, then simply ignore it. -The statement about being an 'unapologetic theist' was limited in scope to include and describe me personally. It was not meant to exclude anyone particularly from being able to have the same experience. It was merely descriptive of myself and the experience that I have had. -The short version is, I am not an academic. I am not a scientist, a writer, a doctor, a popular apologetic theologian, or in any other position where subscribing to one particular idea or another and having that idea proven or disproven could have material consequences to me, leaving me free to simply appreciate. Yes, there are others from every walk of life who have that same freedom. But, for those that fall into the categories above, there are always material concerns. -If I am wrong about their being a UI, that's ok. If I am right. That's ok too. If I am mistaken about the way a certain thing works, or one of the theories that I subscribe to is proven dead wrong tomorrow, I have no material or social baggage to keep me from simply marveling at it. Nothing to cause me any concern one way or the other. No grants will be lost, no book deals will drop off, no members of my community will shun me for having a heretical opinion contrary to theirs, my career will not end, the last twenty years of my life will not have been spent trying to prove something now proven totally wrong, and in short my life, other than my personal understanding and appreciation will not change one whit.-If God scheduled an interview with Dawkin's, his reputation would be ruined, his book sales would plummet and all of his fellows would treat him as if he had leprosy. If Dawkins could prove definitively that there was no UI, the Pope(and every other apologetic theist) would be in trouble. Their appreciation is tied to the material and social, because the proof or disproof of their pet ideas has material and social consequences. -Is that clearer?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.