Honesty, the core value of Science....

[Starboy]

I started a thread discussing dishonesty as the core value of supernatural religion. Now let us examine the core value of science, honesty.

Before we start, just to let you know that I am not a raving lunatic fanatic (or at least not completely, and besides, who says that just because someone is a fanatic they automatically are right or wrong, after all it is up to the reader to make that decision) here is a link to an essay by Richard Feynman, a very well known Nobel Laureate in theoretical physics (and one of my heroes) and the co-creator of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics). A man who definitely knew how to think for himself.

"Cargo Cult Science" - Richard Feynman

That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school--we never say explicitly what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards.

As Richard said, the scientific method is just an attempt at utter honesty. Try not to fool yourself, and try not to fool others and try not to be fooled by others. Of course science is performed by people and not all people succeed or even care to succeed at being honest but in the end honesty is what science is all about. Look at any scientific tradition and it is an attempt to be honest. When any philosopher or any religious person challenges science I laugh my ass off. They don't have the honesty in their entire historical traditions that an average scientist has their little pinky.

Starboy

[Gorgo]

Thanks. I'm printing that out now.

I went to the "Universal Light Expo" in Columbus, Ohio yesterday and heard about reincarnation from Kevin Ryersonand some others.

Because there is a small resemblance between Andrew Jackson and John Kerry, well, that's further proof that reincarnation is true.

People spend so much time and money on nonsense.

I read far enough to see what Feynman had to say about prisons. Too true. I'll shut up now and read some more.

[Starboy]

Here are a whole lot more, enjoy...

Feynman, Richard

That is just a sampling. For those that may not know, Feynman was that kooky guy that showed the Challenger commission that the problem was with the orings by dipping an oring in ice water and showing everyone on national television.

He also has some very interesting essays about our school system.

Starboy

[Suburbanite]

oh cool. I always wish I had the power to decide what books should be taught in school here in CA.

[Starboy]

Get ahold of Feynman's description as one of those that select textbooks. It is a hoot. As I have said before, the problem with our school system is that it is rotten at the head.

Starboy

[Suburbanite]

I'd agree with that.

[Technosoul]

What is the correct philosophy about honesty?

Should we present apparent facts that would direct a person towards a particular opinion when we know (based on past experience) that new evidence or a new discorvery might void that opinion?

Is it then the main goal of science to state "we don't know but this is our best guess to date"?

Under such a principle we must always doubt our opinion whiich would always be founded on the shifiting sands of data that can be added too or rebuked by additional interpretations of it when ever some new fact pops up. And is it a honest purpose to seek to know when we know we must remain forever in doubt as long as new information is possible.

Seeking to know then would be like looking for fantasy gold at the end of a rainbow. Where the only taboo is belief in anything we think we know.

None the less, I would agree in all honesty that IS our present status but I must ask if we can, under that guideline, at least have faith in the belief that someday the human momentum towards seeking the truth will result in the final manifestation of something "all knowing and absolute"?

Technosoul.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Technosoul, What is the correct philosophy about honesty?

I am not sure exactly what you mean by this.

Should we present apparent facts that would direct a person towards a particular opinion when we know (based on past experience) that new evidence or a new discorvery might void that opinion?

Sure, why not. As long as everyone agrees that the opinion are held tentatively. It is done all the time. It is called a working hypothesis. Religion is not about working hypothesis, it is about the “truth”.

Is it then the main goal of science to state "we don't know but this is our best guess to date"?

That is pretty much what they do. Please understand that science is a human endeavor just as any other human endeavor with all sorts of characters making all sorts of claims but if you examine the history of science it is a history of explanations that change based on what is discovered. Sometimes it goes smoother than other times but over time the explanations get better at prediction phenomenon before the fact and better at discovering new science (reality).

Under such a principle we must always doubt our opinion whiich would always be founded on the shifiting sands of data that can be added too or rebuked by additional interpretations of it when ever some new fact pops up. And is it a honest purpose to seek to know when we know we must remain forever in doubt as long as new information is possible.

Yup, that is it. Only those that had a god’s eye view of reality could ever claim to know reality in its entirety. We are very finite creatures in both space and time. What amazes me is how much of reality we have been able to discover. With my personal telescope and a CCD camera I can observe objects as far a 10 billion light years from earth, this is 2/3 the distance to the big bang. Not bad for a country field on a dark night. But even so, as good as we think we are we can never be sure if we would ever have a god’s eye view of the universe.

Seeking to know then would be like looking for fantasy gold at the end of a rainbow. Where the only taboo is belief in anything we think we know.

If you take the philosophical view I agree, because the philosophical view presumes the possession of a god’s eye view of reality. But that does not preclude us from having a working knowledge of what we can observe that is refined or changed as we learn more. This is essentially the enterprise of science. And of course it is not only philosophers that presume the gods eye view. If anyone is guilty of that sin it would have to be the supernatural religious. They not only claim to posses the gods eye view but to know the mind of god. I am amazed that the adherents of these religions have not all stood up and walked out on these liars long ago.

None the less, I would agree in all honesty that IS our present status but I must ask if we can, under that guideline, at least have faith in the belief that someday the human momentum towards seeking the truth will result in the final manifestation of something "all knowing and absolute"? Technosoul.

Faith, as I have pointed out has definitions and uses that are obviously dishonest. But hope is perfectly honest. You can hope that there is a god. Hope that it loves you, hope that it listens and answers your prayers and hope that there is a heaven and god is going to send you there when you die so on. But to claim as so many of the supernatural religious do that all of those things are real and are going to happen when they do not even begin to pass the tests for reality that we posses, as crude as they are, is just dishonest. It abuses its adherents and makes liars out of all of them. It also creates in them such a confused state of thinking that most of them will commit all sorts of dishonesties in the name of Jesus at the bidding of their religious leaders simply because their leaders have told them to do it. And they believe their leaders because these people have convinced them that they know the mind of god.

As you may have seen in an earlier post in this thread from a Christian adherent, the poster thought that there was no evidence for the theory of evolution. His thought processes are so muddled by what he has been taught by his religion that I am not sure that he even understands what evidence is. What amazes me is that we let these people teach this crap to our young. I have had more contact with these nutcases than I care to admit. These pastors and ministers deliberately tell their adherents to ignore science, to completely discount it. It happens because these pastors and ministers are able to convince them that they are privy to a god’s eye view. That they understand reality in ways that are beyond verification and require and demand that people must take it on faith. It goes well beyond basic dishonesty. If such behavior were found in any other part of our society such as business or government people would be facing jail time but is has been practiced by religion in our culture for so long that no one gives it a second thought.

Starboy

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Starboy,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Starboy,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Technosoul, What is the correct philosophy about honesty?

I am not sure exactly what you mean by this.



Sure, why not. As long as everyone agrees that the opinion are held tentatively. It is done all the time. It is called a working hypothesis. Religion is not about working hypothesis, it is about the “truth”.



That is pretty much what they do. Please understand that science is a human endeavor just as any other human endeavor with all sorts of characters making all sorts of claims but if you examine the history of science it is a history of explanations that change based on what is discovered. Sometimes it goes smoother than other times but over time the explanations get better at prediction phenomenon before the fact and better at discovering new science (reality).



Yup, that is it. Only those that had a god’s eye view of reality could ever claim to know reality in its entirety. We are very finite creatures in both space and time. What amazes me is how much of reality we have been able to discover. With my personal telescope and a CCD camera I can observe objects as far a 10 billion light years from earth, this is 2/3 the distance to the big bang. Not bad for a country field on a dark night. But even so, as good as we think we are we can never be sure if we would ever have a god’s eye view of the universe.



If you take the philosophical view I agree, because the philosophical view presumes the possession of a god’s eye view of reality. But that does not preclude us from having a working knowledge of what we can observe that is refined or changed as we learn more. This is essentially the enterprise of science. And of course it is not only philosophers that presume the gods eye view. If anyone is guilty of that sin it would have to be the supernatural religious. They not only claim to posses the gods eye view but to know the mind of god. I am amazed that the adherents of these religions have not all stood up and walked out on these liars long ago.

None the less, I would agree in all honesty that IS our present status but I must ask if we can, under that guideline, at least have faith in the belief that someday the human momentum towards seeking the truth will result in the final manifestation of something "all knowing and absolute"?  Technosoul.

Faith, as I have pointed out has definitions and uses that are obviously dishonest. But hope is perfectly honest. You can hope that there is a god. Hope that it loves you, hope that it listens and answers your prayers and hope that there is a heaven and god is going to send you there when you die so on. But to claim as so many of the supernatural religious do that all of those things are real and are going to happen when they do not even begin to pass the tests for reality that we posses, as crude as they are, is just dishonest. It abuses its adherents and makes liars out of all of them. It also creates in them such a confused state of thinking that most of them will commit all sorts of dishonesties in the name of Jesus at the bidding of their religious leaders simply because their leaders have told them to do it. And they believe their leaders because these people have convinced them that they know the mind of god.

As you may have seen in an earlier post in this thread from a Christian adherent, the poster thought that there was no evidence for the theory of evolution. His thought processes are so muddled by what he has been taught by his religion that I am not sure that he even understands what evidence is. What amazes me is that we let these people teach this crap to our young. I have had more contact with these nutcases than I care to admit. These pastors and ministers deliberately tell their adherents to ignore science, to completely discount it. It happens because these pastors and ministers are able to convince them that they are privy to a god’s eye view. That they understand reality in ways that are beyond verification and require and demand that people must take it on faith. It goes well beyond basic dishonesty. If such behavior were found in any other part of our society such as business or government people would be facing jail time but is has been practiced by religion in our culture for so long that no one gives it a second thought.

Starboy[/b][/quote]


In highschool I stopped attending chruch because the preacher told me that the devil had planted all those dinosaur fossils as a deception to make people doubt the Bible. I enrolled in a class conducted at the a musem in our city and to my great satification even dug up a prehistoric camel knee cap which I discovered in this cliff where rain continues to wash away new evidence. (near Newport Beach on the Irvine ranch). I found it below the layer where I had found a fossil shark tooth. That was back in the late 1950s when the idea that humans evolved directly from modern apes was still dominating popluar thought.

My parents got the Bible school guy from our Baptist church to come around to have a little chat with me about my "straying from the fold" and so I asked him some questions about the Bible he could not answer logically and he just told me that it is all about faith, and that people who attempt to answer such questions logically end up going insane. I found that answer somewhat un-exceptable.
But the faith factor was still part of my brain and so the conflict continued as a question mark for later reseach.

One day I was visiting this old white haired man who worked at the musem, his job was sorting through thousands of tiny shells on a big table to find the ones not yet named as a seperate spcieces from the one's already on his list. Being that he was teaching evolution I asked him about God and what his answer would be if confronted by someone from my church, to my shock he thought that believing in God was a good thing and I think he talked about the intelligent design theory, which was not yet being used by religion. He thought that science did not really contradict the concepts of creation.

I was left with a new question to work on, was evolution part of the creationary method used by God to create life on earth? Folks on both sides of the fense had reasons why such could not be the case however I started to become aware of possible alternative interpretations of both sides of the issue that could unit them as one.

It became my new hobby in philosophy to and so far I have enjoyed my insanity and the freedom it has offered me in my orbits of objectivity.

My shaman like perspective resulted in the following anology about life and experience.

A brid leaves the nest to fly upon the wind, but such flight upon the groundless fantasy is cannot be stayed and the bird must always remember the well rooted tree so it can return to that logic when the winds get too wild or when it becomes tired of "thin air" as it's environment, a solidly rooted tree it can grab onto and hold fast too during the night or on real windy days. But it can also take flight into the sky (heavens) and zoom around with the liberty of a UFO.

In this anology the wind is our religious fantasy, and the tree is the logic of science and realistic thinking. A two-world environment for the mind that offers the liberty of flight and faith in our wings, as well as the security of our home in the tree of security.

So it is okay to get nutty as long as you "know the way back home" to the tree where you can rest up during the great adventures in thinking. What goes up must know how to come down and how to land safely (without crashing). Not crash landing is the "key" here to a well balanced expereince.

Whatcha' say?
Technosoul.

[Starboy]

Technosoul, unless you can explain how this post relates to my claim that honesty is a core value of science I think you should start a new thread and refine your ideas to a point where they contain litte to no emotion. The intent of your post to me is not so much to evoke a thought but an emotion. Debate on a website is not a very good medium for arguing by emotion.

Starboy

[Technosoul]

I would not object to the idea that honesty should be the core motive for science.

Everyone who ever watched the early versions of Star Trek knows about the contrast between the alien who thinks logically using data and evidence and his human counterpart played out by Captain Emotional.

However is the honesty of science ever perverted if the purpose of it has the partisan objective to prove that religions are false? Would that re-direct science away from finding truisms in nature via concentrating on the faults of religion? Should not the outer layer of the onion be made of the same stuff as is the core of the onion?

If science is to be honest to the core, how could it just overlook the felt experience as being as much of a reality as would be the physical body or other visable evidence? Surely science must agree that emotions such as fear and anger would play a role in animal evolution relative to the needs for survival? The reactions to stress via those emtional communicaitons. I doubt if animals could have evolved by doing test tube studies in their white mouse labortory, it had to include the systems of the felt experience.

A debate is in effect a kind of evolutionary system where one idea attempts to rise above another idea as the one most fit to survive the tests of time - aka peer opinions. If a emotional perpective should win out over a logical perspective then by the law of evoution it gets to lead the wolf pack.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Technosoul, I would not object to the idea that honesty should be the core motive for science. Everyone who ever watched the early versions of Star Trek knows about the contrast between the alien who thinks logically using data and evidence and his human counterpart played out by Captain Emotional.

Technosoul, that is all very interesting but you are aware I hope that Star Trek was a work of fiction? The writers made the stories turn out as they did because they thought that it would appeal to the audience. Forming conclusions about reality based on such a source exhibits a very weak mind.

However is the honesty of science ever perverted if the purpose of it has the partisan objective to prove that religions are false? Would that re-direct science away from finding truisms in nature via concentrating on the faults of religion? Should not the outer layer of the onion be made of the same stuff as is the core of the onion?

Of course there are dishonest people in science. Of course there are people with good intentions but have fooled themselves in science. They are everywhere.

Science is not out to find fault with supernatural religion. If you examine the historical record you will find that it has been the opposite. That the supernatural religious have tried to suppress and distort science. They are doing it right now with evolution. Those that require Genesis to be factual cannot allow people to think that humans are the product of an evolutionary process. To some extent they are doing it with cosmology. The historical account of the bible would only allow the earth to be on the order of 10,000 years old. This is in conflict with the result of cosmology that indicates 13.5 billion years. They have tried it with physics claiming that radioactive decay is not as is found in science. With geologic evidence, and fossil evidence, you name it they have tried it. These people would like nothing better than to throw us back into the dark ages. The vast majority of scientists could give a shit what supernatural theists think, it is when they start telling scientists what to think because scientists are discovering reality that conflicts with their take on reality is when the fun begins.

As for the onion, is that a scallion or a Vidalia onion?

If science is to be honest to the core, how could it just overlook the felt experience as being as much of a reality as would be the physical body or other visable evidence?

Technosoul, what makes you think that science is ignoring the three pound universe? Why don't you do your homework and research what science is learning about our minds.

Surely science must agree that emotions such as fear and anger would play a role in animal evolution relative to the needs for survival? The reactions to stress via those emtional communicaitons. I doubt if animals could have evolved by doing test tube studies in their white mouse labortory, it had to include the systems of the felt experience.

I am sure this makes perfect sense to you but I have no idea what you are getting at.

A debate is in effect a kind of evolutionary system where one idea attempts to rise above another idea as the one most fit to survive the tests of time - aka peer opinions. If a emotional perpective should win out over a logical perspective then by the law of evoution it gets to lead the wolf pack.

And exactly what would an emotional explanation look like? It rains because it makes the clouds feel relieved? I believe that mankind has already been there and done that.

Starboy

[Technosoul]

The point of all my explanations is due to the fact you stated that my observations were too emotional and thusly you effected a rule that the debate must be non-emotional and based only on the standards used by science.

I was pointing out that this is not the case at all, but that real science would in fact concider emotion as part of total picture and not reject it as something unimportant when it comes to understanding the processes of evoution - etc.

You in fact turned around and agreed with me on that point which would contradict your rule that emotional thinking should be avoided as not relating to reality.

Technosoul.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Technosoul, The point of all my explanations is due to the fact you stated that my observations were too emotional and thusly you effected a rule that the debate must be non-emotional and based only on the standards used by science. I was pointing out that this is not the case at all, but that real science would in fact concider emotion as part of total picture and not reject it as something unimportant when it comes to understanding the processes of evoution - etc. You in fact turned around and agreed with me on that point which would contradict your rule that emotional thinking should be avoided as not relating to reality. Technosoul.

Firstly I do not think that emotion plays no role in science. On the contrary, emotion is as important to science as it is to any other human endeavor. It is what gets us to go that extra mile; it is part of what motivates us to explore and try to explain anything. And honesty of course is not unique to science either. One would hope that bankers and judges would care about it as well. But I am trying to point out what it means to try to be utterly honest and that it is something that is a core value of science. And there has certainly been a great deal of research on emotion. You ought to explore it sometime. You would find it fascinating.

I am also sure that I agree with you on a large number of things as you do with me. However you have made claims and explanations that I do not comprehend so if you wish to pursue this discussion you will at least have to use terms that we both share. I have no doubt that you have developed a rich tapestry of metaphors for use in your inner conversation about what you are feeling however such descriptions do not in my case work very well since I suspect that you and I have very different backgrounds and the metaphors that I understand and imagine with would also be foreign to you. So we are stuck with the common metaphors of reality that we both share if we hope to communicate with one another. When you talk of a bird soaring in the sky it means one thing to you and to me it just means a bird soaring in the sky. But please do not confuse this statement with a lack of imagination. I am very sure that if I tried to explain the metaphors of my thought to you, it would leave you clueless. That is because I have in my life thought in the metaphors of science and mathematics and have explored and seen things with my own senses that mankind could not ever imagine. To this day scientists struggle with it. I often tell my daughter who is an artist and likes to think that the mind is a richer tapestry of possibility than reality that it is just not so. That nature can present to us things that we could never imagine. And the reason is simple, nature is not encompassed by our minds, our minds are encompassed by nature. Get out there and be a reality adventurer and stop with the mental masturbation.

Starboy

[Technosoul]

Okay, I used the flying bird parable and you claim I am not speaking in terms you comprehend.

And so I guess if I wish to exchange information with you I should in fact speak with you at your level. (however, I was also posting for everyone, many of whom would comprehend what I said).

In that story the "sky" represented "imagination" and the "tree" represented "solid evidence or logic". I did not comprehend that it would be all that difficult to get the point I was making.

I employed that kind of symbolism because you mentioned Campbell and his books that explore mytholoical symbolism.
Thus, did not feel that would be out of context of your research.

Now science that is involved in the study of orgins might be interested in the orgins of human culture. We have three ways I know of to determine facts about the past.

Fosils and bones that can be carbon dated.

Tools that were employed by prehistoric people.

And inscriptions called cave paintings or images and symbols left in places like the anicent pyramids. Before we used words and numbers people communicated with those images, drawing of birds and animals and other things. As well as making signs with their hands or making "faces". We have little such images here in this forum people can use to make faces to indicate their emotions or feelings as we communicate, much like they used back before words were created.

When we sleep at night we do not read a text, our mind commicates to us via those visual images and with those metaphors that represent our prehistoric forms of communication - which by the way is not so much about being emotional at all - it is just how our brain wishes to communicate information.

So it would be to the advantage of science to better comprehend more about the communicational aspects of visual symbolism and how those metaphors should be interpreted so they can get a better grasp on what our anicent cultures were talking about with their cave paintings and what not. Those images were not about gods or some sort of "spiritualism" ritual as many in the science world have imagined, for the most part. So it is important for science reserachers to find out more about this original type of communication in order to aid them in establishing an honest review of the past.

People like Campbell, Jung, and others have devoted much writing to that subject.

None the less I will attempt to avoid responding to your messages from out of the Blue as much as I am allowed to do so from now on. No more of my bird brain ideas.... I give you my word.... er... my symoboic pledge. Not that I can keep what I give away.

By the way, did you see my new post about biblical science? I would request your critical peer review of that if you get a chance to do so.

Dare to be aware.

technosoul.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Technosoul, Okay,  I used the flying bird parable and you claim I am not speaking in terms you comprehend.  And so I guess if I wish to exchange information with you I should in fact speak with you at your level.   (however, I was also posting for everyone, many of whom would comprehend what I said). In that story the "sky" represented "imagination" and the "tree" represented "solid evidence or logic".    I did not comprehend that it would be all that difficult to get the point I was making. I employed that kind of symbolism because you mentioned Campbell and his books that explore mytholoical symbolism. Thus,  did not feel that would be out of context of your research.

I do not doubt that you have read Campbell but I do not think that you gleaned everything that he was trying to tell you. I am not saying that I have gleaned everything but I do know that Campbell was trying to tell more than you appear to understand. That people do use metaphors to describe and explain their feelings and their thoughts and to explain their existence but such metaphors are very much subject to the culture from which the metaphors originate. Campbell also tried to explain that many of these metaphors are religious in nature. He also said that religious metaphors are no longer of this time. That mankind had developed a whole new set of metaphors based on science and mathematics and these have now become the metaphors of our age. So when I said that we speak in different metaphors I meant it and assumed that you understood it because you said that you have read Campbell. I also mentioned Campbell’s last book specifically because it is his last book where he says all this. He also admits that by way of his life journey, starting out as a Christian and exploring the religions and myths of history, he had become an atheist. He realized that mankind had developed a new set of metaphors for reality and what ever a religious adherent might mouth about the old metaphors; their world was now shaped and run by the new metaphors. So it is a difference of cultures, you are of the old and I am of the new. If we wish to communicate then we must try to use common metaphors.

Now science that is involved in the study of orgins might be interested in the orgins of human culture.

I agree. There is so much that is being learned if people would just take off the religious blinders and look.

Starboy

[Technosoul]

I agree, they need to be reborn again without the blinders on.

And I agree that we can learn much more from the works of Campbell then the one aspect that I elaberated upon. I recall in one lecture how he compared the the old with the new, I think he compared the story in a modern Star Wars book with a story in the Bible (or might have been in Greek Mythology).

Rupert Sheldrake wrote an interesting book also where he traced the history of science theory about the universe and different man made inventions that were current to the times when the theory was being developed. When man invented the machanical wind up clock it was soon that science came up with the theory about the machanical universe (which operated much like a clock with many gears and orbits, etc.) When we invented nuclear energy (A- bomb) is was soon after that science came up with the theory of the Big Bang - each new invention or discovery that was major resulted in a new science theory. (no doubt we have more modern ones relative to the invention of the computer). Some of the Biblical theory about the universe was patterned after the ideas employed for building a house. First god built the foundation - water and land on earth, then the middle living rooms, the environment, then he built the roof, the sky above. It sounded logical back then. they viewed the sky, the sun, moon and stars as being a dome roof for the flat earth which was he foundation for the whole universe. Man learned how to construct a building and so it was thought logical that god built the universe the same way, each new theory has it's related man-made invention.
Of book is better written then my breif review.

[Starboy]

Okay, so lets get back on topic. It was honesty as the core value of science.

Starboy