Comments on I defend science against an unfair attackTypePad2009-07-22T03:38:29ZBrian Hineshttps://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2009/07/i-defend-science-against-an-unfair-attack/comments/atom.xml/Jayme commented on 'I defend science against an unfair attack'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e20115713dd0b6970c2009-07-25T06:44:53Z2009-07-25T06:44:53ZJaymeAndy Goldsworthy 1:42 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqADi52xqE4<p>Andy Goldsworthy 1:42</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqADi52xqE4" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqADi52xqE4</a></p>Jayme commented on 'I defend science against an unfair attack'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e20115713dc8a9970c2009-07-25T06:09:41Z2009-07-25T06:09:41ZJaymeHi Brian, I don't think my comments are unfair. Life is Fair, after all. (The title reminds me of the...<p>Hi Brian,</p>
<p>I don't think my comments are unfair. Life is Fair, after all. (The title reminds me of the rich man in "Waiting for Godot.")</p>
<p><br />
"Jayme, you're criticizing science because it is blind to truths. So it's pretty clear that you feel you have an eye to see truth that science doesn't. Do you think this is an egotistical viewpoint? Or just the truth?"</p>
<p>-- I think it IS an egotistical viewpoint I pose. In my present state of mind it would be egotistical for me to deny that. As for just the truth, I don't think it can be spoken of (but this remains a concept of mine).</p>
<p><br />
"If the truth, then how is it that it's OK for you to claim that you know truths (even though there's no proof of them), while science can't make the same claim -- even with proofs?"</p>
<p>-- I don't think that truth is a separable object from what is. But again - I can't speak of truth as you seem to be meaning.</p>
<p><br />
What I'm pointing to, Jayme, is what seems to be a fallacy in your outlook. You hold your viewpoint out to others as true, while that of science is false. Yet you also seem to be saying that subjective experience is the only really true truth.</p>
<p>-- No. What I am saying is that both the subject and the object are not separable. Science merely treats one facet and unduly places itself in a higher position of importance within society. A kind of sophism through its sophisticated theoretical arguements. Conversely, the individual touting a solipsist view presents the same problem when the truth of science is denied in service of the opinion of self. I don't have enough formal knowledge to build very good arguements but this is the model I'm conceiving.</p>
<p><br />
Huh? Why are you going to such lengths to try to convince people that your view of truth is truer than that of science? Isn't this an effort to claim that, objectively, your perspective is correct? How does this jibe with your apparent assertion that "ism's" can't be genuine truth?</p>
<p>-- What I present is a counter arguement to the assertion of the truth of science as somehow good and right but the perspective of self as somehow less right and less good. The point being that science (or the truths of science) are neither good nor bad. If one looks at a person, there is certainly a truth about that person. Their existence is truth and they have their own value and their own beauty not quantified through the truths of science. Likewise, the truth of science is of value to itself and may or may not be of value to others. It is inherently neither good nor bad but has its own value; its own beauty; its own truth. Isms are as true and beautiful as anything. I can't argue against what is, even when it kicks me in the teeth. That would be foolishness. Whether it is science or religion or isms. The only thing I can do is offer to do what I can with the greatest awareness that I can. If this has any relation to the notion of karma, it is that right action will leave little or no thoughts of the past nor the future. At present, I'm not deeply in this state of mind as there is still karma within my arguements but I am less attached to these ideas than I used to be when I held science as my gospel. This is just my personal perspective.</p>
<p>"I mean, you seem to have a well developed philosophy that you're doing your best to convince people of. How is this not Jaymeism?"</p>
<p>-- I don't think I'm convincing too many people. I can hear the shuffling shoes and the crickets chirping in the blogosphere when I start ranting on science. Brian: you, Roger, and tAo have been kind enough to give feedback but most here seem to prefer other more practical or even esoteric matters. Personally, I think this is good. Science was my god at one time but it never really provided a completeness in itself, imo. What is life all about, except being alive and living while you are alive? It is just good to step back and revel in the wonder rather than seek truths or some purpose and sense of control through science of defense of ego. You seem to do a nice job at this, Brian. I commend you. I just happened to have more science background than Tai Chi so that is what triggers my little brain. It certainly is Jaymeism. Not a very interesting branch of study. It has a following of exactly 1 and I'm trying to kick him out of the class-lol.</p>
<p>I still use science as a tool. It is very handy and even good for keeping drinks cold, too!</p>
<p>Roger,</p>
<p>Good point.</p>
<p>Kind Regards,</p>Roger commented on 'I defend science against an unfair attack'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e2011572309762970b2009-07-24T18:12:51Z2009-07-24T18:12:51ZRogerJayme, You stated, "I agree that a true scientist that is true to facts and not the ego doesn't push...<p>Jayme,</p>
<p>You stated,</p>
<p>"I agree that a true scientist that is true to facts and not the ego doesn't push facts but scientists do have egos and so there is inclination to push for specific research to get funding. In the worst and humiliating cases, data has been fabricated or conversely witheld."</p>
<p>---Yes, there are examples of scientists with egos, that push specific research to get funding. Likewise, in the worst cases, data has been fabricated and withheld. However, this issue has been stated, again and again, so let's move on to other issues.</p>Brian commented on 'I defend science against an unfair attack'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e20115722d6535970b2009-07-24T03:51:09Z2009-07-24T03:51:09ZBrianhttp://www.churchofthechurchless.comJayme, you're criticizing science because it is blind to truths. So it's pretty clear that you feel you have an...<p>Jayme, you're criticizing science because it is blind to truths. So it's pretty clear that you feel you have an eye to see truth that science doesn't. Do you think this is an egotistical viewpoint? Or just the truth?</p>
<p>If the truth, then how is it that it's OK for you to claim that you know truths (even though there's no proof of them), while science can't make the same claim -- even with proofs?</p>
<p>What I'm pointing to, Jayme, is what seems to be a fallacy in your outlook. You hold your viewpoint out to others as true, while that of science is false. Yet you also seem to be saying that subjective experience is the only really true truth.</p>
<p>Huh? Why are you going to such lengths to try to convince people that your view of truth is truer than that of science? Isn't this an effort to claim that, objectively, your perspective is correct? How does this jibe with your apparent assertion that "ism's" can't be genuine truth?</p>
<p>I mean, you seem to have a well developed philosophy that you're doing your best to convince people of. How is this not Jaymeism?</p>Jayme commented on 'I defend science against an unfair attack'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201157138ba6b970c2009-07-24T03:22:46Z2009-07-24T03:22:46ZJaymeRoger, I agree that a true scientist that is true to facts and not the ego doesn't push facts but...<p>Roger,</p>
<p>I agree that a true scientist that is true to facts and not the ego doesn't push facts but scientists do have egos and so there is inclination to push for specific research to get funding. In the worst and humiliating cases, data has been fabricated or conversely witheld.</p>
<p>It is a good question you ask. What is a fact and a truism? A fact isn't necessarily a thing. And "truth" is often an just an ism. When we get stuck in the practice of science and forget about the method of science, I think that truths become isms when this happens. The standard process of science works through truisms and is blind to truths.</p>
<p>I'll try to give a qualitatively "better" response to this blog topic when I get more time.</p>
<p>Respects,</p>Brian commented on 'I defend science against an unfair attack'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e20115713528aa970c2009-07-23T19:42:58Z2009-07-23T19:42:59ZBrianhttp://www.churchofthechurchless.com+Ao, you're right: comments disappeared; I put in a help ticket to TypePad; now they're back. Thanks for pointing out...<p>+Ao, you're right: comments disappeared; I put in a help ticket to TypePad; now they're back. Thanks for pointing out the problem. I wasn't aware of it until I saw your comment about comments.</p>+Ao commented on 'I defend science against an unfair attack'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e2011572299dfa970b2009-07-23T19:20:18Z2009-07-23T19:20:18Z+Aotesting, testing... what happened to the "recent comments" section? it has all but vanished, along with all the comments.<p>testing, testing...</p>
<p>what happened to the "recent comments" section? it has all but vanished, along with all the comments.</p>Roger commented on 'I defend science against an unfair attack'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e201157133fb7a970c2009-07-23T16:10:48Z2009-07-23T16:10:48ZRoger"To say that we have to wait for the "truth" science has to offer before we can call it truth...<p>"To say that we have to wait for the "truth" science has to offer before we can call it truth is giving one's own authority away. Any scientist who is pushing a theory is simply making up a good story that seems to fit the facts. It is only true because other scientists who are popular with their peers have agreed it is true and it seems to fit the facts."</p>
<p>---Well, a true scientist would not need to "push" a theory. I can see "presenting" a theory. The presented theory, would be such, any representation as "being the truth" would come from the reader of such presented theory. So, how are we defining facts and truisms?</p>