|
09 Mar 06 - 04:10 PM (#1689482) Subject: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: katlaughing Heard a fascinating discussion, on NPR, today, by the editor of the book, What We Believe But Cannot Prove, which came from discussions between members of a website called Edge. Here's a bit about the website: Edge Foundation, Inc., was established in 1988 as an outgrowth of a group known as The Reality Club. Its informal membership includes of some of the most interesting minds in the world. The mandate of Edge Foundation is to promote inquiry into and discussion of intellectual, philosophical, artistic, and literary issues, as well as to work for the intellectual and social achievement of society. Sounds like Mudcat! kat |
|
09 Mar 06 - 04:22 PM (#1689484) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: Clinton Hammond I suspect the book'd look good on the shelf beside the DVD of What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? |
|
09 Mar 06 - 04:40 PM (#1689494) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: Bill D gollee! Maybe Oprah will feature 'em both! |
|
09 Mar 06 - 05:20 PM (#1689517) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: Little Hawk Oprah is way ahead of you guys... ;-D |
|
09 Mar 06 - 07:32 PM (#1689599) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: McGrath of Harlow Its informal membership includes of some of the most interesting minds in the world. That sounds impressive, till you start trying to work our what "some of" adds up to. Not too much. Strictly speaking that could include just about everyone. Well, I suppose there'd have to be someone somewhere who wasn't included, but everyone else would fit into that. Of course the same would apply in the case of the "some of the least interesting minds in the world". And both expressions would apply to the Mudcat membership. Of course I can't prove that, but I believe it. |
|
09 Mar 06 - 09:44 PM (#1689694) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: katlaughing For anyone who is actually interested, there are excerpts from the book at NPR and one may listen to the broadcast at this page. The following were the people interviewed on the program, Talk of the Nation: Our day-to-day beliefs often come from established theories, but what about beliefs based on theories in progress? A new book asks literary and scientific thinkers about what they believe but cannot prove. Guest: John Brockman, editor, What We Believe But Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers in Science in the Age of Certainty; author and literary agent; publisher and editor of Edge.org Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist; professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University; author of many books about science and evolution, including The Selfish Gene and most recently, Unweaving the Rainbow Alison Gopnik, professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley; her books include The Scientist in the Club Paul Steinhardt, theoretical physicist; Albert Einstein professor of science at Princeton University. |
|
09 Mar 06 - 10:41 PM (#1689722) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: Janie Sounds really interesting Kat. About the evolution of ideas--from theory to some imperical evidence to more and revised theory, etc. The interplay of intuition and discovery. Thanks for passing it on. I'll check it out. Janie |
|
09 Mar 06 - 11:19 PM (#1689743) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: GUEST,Art Thieme The title---"What we believe but cannot prove"! -- as I've formerly opined in other threads, to me, really, only means wishful thinking. Instead of saying that what I and a bunch of others in our group believe to be true actually IS the truth, it sure does seem that we ought not go there. To go overboard, or even slowly forward, and force our not very finalized preliminary thought processes on others is not a road that respects others at all. Doing that, as we've so often seen, can cause serious injury or death to large populations of people in the name of our god, our ideology, or our political system. There's an ancient city hidden deep beneath the waves, It was founded on the principles of justice--- And the sweat of slaves, And I heard all about it In a New Age gospel hymn, But I ain't never gonna bathe in any water... Where the fish won't swim! "Old Coyote" a wonderfully ingightful song by the late Al Grierson It's very sad how misguided half-baked ideas are foisted on this world by well-meaning morons who never had a clue---but they did have the power and/or the votes. A huge majority with moronic ideas will often get it's way over the weaker minority. But the foisted ideas will still be bad ones. That's not very democratic, but it is true. And I've stated my case here by proclaiming how it can be proven true. Love, Art |
|
10 Mar 06 - 05:54 PM (#1690313) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: McGrath of Harlow As I understand it the Scientific Method isn't supposed to be about proving things - the idea is you set up a hypothesis, and then people are supposed to try and find ways of disproving it. If they can't, and until they can, you treat the hypothesis as provisionally true. But proof doesn't come into it. |
|
10 Mar 06 - 09:33 PM (#1690405) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: Little Hawk If they can't disprove it, it remains an interesting possibility. Piltdown Man, for example, (a quasi-scientific claim) was not disproven for a long time. Most alternative health therapies, esoteric theories, metaphysical concepts, and "New Age" ideas (if one must give them a label like that) have not been disproven by anyone either...just categorically rejected on the instant they are heard and denied out of hand without further ado by people like my pal Clinton who have are under the impression that they already KNOW everything that is real and everything that isn't, thank you very much! (smile) How like a God, to be so omniscient. The burden of disproof is on the sceptic. If he can't disprove it, he has no way of knowing whether or not it is real. He just has an opinion. |
|
11 Mar 06 - 06:29 AM (#1690513) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: McGrath of Harlow The fact that something has been categorically rejected by some people doesn't in fact that it hasn't also been investigated by other people and shown to be inconsistent with the facts. Many people nowadays think that the very suggesdion that the Earth is flat is ridiculous - they categorically reject it, without examining the matter closer. However this does not mean that it is still reasonable to think that it may be flat after all. |
|
11 Mar 06 - 06:43 AM (#1690519) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: Pied Piper On the balcony of my tower block lives an entity that controls the destiny of the Universe, of cause it's only visible to me. Piltdown wasn't "a quasi-scientific claim" it was a deliberate fraud just like Pyramid magic and crystal power. PP |
|
11 Mar 06 - 06:54 AM (#1690523) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: GUEST, Topsie There are people who believe that the light stays on in the fridge when the door is shut. Mine did stay on, I could see it, and the heat built up and melted the plastic around it. Then the bulb failed and now the light doesn't even come on when the door is open, leaving the inside dark and mysterious, with who knows what lurking in the depths (it's a big fridge). |
|
11 Mar 06 - 07:34 AM (#1690537) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: Pied Piper Coming up with silly ideas is easy, finding out what's really going on takes persistence and effort; tools not available in New Age kit bag. PP |
|
11 Mar 06 - 11:00 PM (#1690964) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: Janie I find I am quite surprised by the posts to this thread. The way I interpret the question is "What do you believe, based on your current knowledge, logical and intuitive inference from your current theoretical perspective as a(physicist, theoretical mathematician, neuropsychologist, etc.) that the knowledge or technology is not yet available to prove or disprove? Where do you believe, for example, string theory will take us? What is your next major hypothesis? Perhaps I misunderstand, but my impression is these are theoretical scientists and philosphers exploring where theory might lead. It is about asking questions. Einstein thinking and asking questions about light, time, energy, etc. is what eventually led to the theory of relativity. Other people asking questions that arise out of Einstein's theories and mathematical proofs have led and are leading to new intuitions, theories and logical inferences and mathematical proofs (or disproofs)that radically change the way we understand matter, energy and the universe. Janie |
|
12 Mar 06 - 03:52 AM (#1691059) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: katlaughing Well put, Janie. Thank you. |
|
12 Mar 06 - 11:54 AM (#1691291) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: Clinton Hammond I have never claimed to know everything... But I do claim to know enough to know bullshit when I see it... |
|
12 Mar 06 - 06:16 PM (#1691506) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: michaelr I believe Edge can't really play the guitar worth shite. But I can't prove it. |
|
12 Mar 06 - 06:40 PM (#1691521) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: Little Hawk No, you're not in a position to. You'd have to kidnap Edge and force him to play his entire repertoire in front of a panel of qualified judges. Even that would not provide certain proof, though, since he might deliberately not play up to standard under those conditions, or he might be too agitated to play well. The judges might be prejudiced also. I'm afraid we can't do better than hazard opinions about Ege's ability to play guitar well. The same is true of many court decisions. The papers scream that so-and-so has been "found guilty!" or "found not guilty!" as if that was all there was to it, the final word, and all the proof necessary, but it's still often as not merely the opinion of a judge or a jury, and they might be wrong. They often have been wrong in the past. Most of what people believe is simply their opinion. To say that they disbelieve is also their opinion. They almost never have undeniable proof to back it up. |
|
12 Mar 06 - 06:51 PM (#1691529) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: bobad "They almost never have undeniable proof to back it up." And even when they do, as in the belief in astrology, they believe only what they want to believe. |
|
12 Mar 06 - 07:23 PM (#1691549) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: Little Hawk That's the crux of it. 99% of people simply believe what they want to believe. It makes them happy. This is as true of atheists as it is of religious people. I've seen it in both lots enough to know that. They believe that the world is as they believe it is, because that's what makes them happy, and they don't give a damn about the evidence, except in a court of law or a laboratory. The vast majority of opinions are never tested in either of those venues. Who's got the time for it? ;-D |
|
13 Mar 06 - 05:55 AM (#1691834) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: autolycus I think the thread title refers to a site and book in which particularly scientists talk about those matters that they believe although the scientists can't prove that those beliefs are fact. Further, if Popper is be 'believed', scientific theories that hold the ring aren't proved. Just that no-one has succeeded in disproving them. Lastly, there are books on the market about unresolved scientific disputes. I believe. Ivor |
|
13 Mar 06 - 06:09 AM (#1691846) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: Purple Foxx Hilary Puttnam pointed out that if Popper is right no no theory is falsifiable either. This is because all theories have auxilliary assumptions about the nature of things. He therefore maintains that faced with an anomoly you either jettison the theory or the auxilliary assumptions. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 06:24 AM (#1691852) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: Paul Burke Are we all missing something here? The point isn't whether a theory is true or false, it's whether it's a better fit or a worse fit. The testing is what provides information about the fit. Scientific truth is IN ALL CASES a process, not a state. So that makes it true that no theory is provable, but theories are falsifiable to a greater or lesser extent as long as we agree about what constitutes a test. The big difference between the scientific approach and others is that the tests are openly stated, and as PF correctly says, when there's a miss, the choices are reject the hypothesis, or think about whether the test is a valid test of what we are postulating. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 08:35 AM (#1691940) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: A Wandering Minstrel There's never a Heisenberg when you really need one. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 04:32 PM (#1692383) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: autolycus "The point isn't whether a theory is true or false". Thanks Paul. Wish I knew how to write that in neon lights, for Mudcatters to learn, mark and inwardly digest. Meantime, are we all agreed? Ivor |
|
13 Mar 06 - 05:19 PM (#1692442) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: katlaughing THIS is more of the type of discussion I'd hoped would come about in the thread. Thanks, gents! |
|
13 Mar 06 - 05:38 PM (#1692467) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: Little Hawk Never a Heisenberg, no, but there is always a dachshund. |
|
14 Mar 06 - 11:21 AM (#1693225) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: GUEST,DB Free Market Economics is a 'theory' based on guesswork and wishful thinking (on the part of the rich and powerful) - it doesn't stop our leaders from using it as a basis for running the world, though. |
|
14 Mar 06 - 09:55 PM (#1693922) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: GUEST,Art Thieme Paul, Yes! Agreed from here!!! Right on. You said what I couldn't phrase---or what I think I meant. Soooo---I think, therefor I am. --- Is that a theory or a totally proven truism? ------ Descartes, I've been told, went into a bar. Bartender asked, "Would you like a drink?" He answered, "I think not."---And he disappeared! ---------Is that enough scientific research? So many questions! When is enough, enough? Enough what?Enough "proof" producing inquiries. ;-) Sometimes mental ruminations and deep thoughts aren't enough though. Often, like Descartes, ceasing to exist is the only real proof that you were ever here at all... As my old uncle was so fond of saying, "Suicide is the sincerest form of self-criticism." After that, the telling of the tale rests only on the hope that the biographer got the facts right!! ---- And hope is, after all, the stuff of faith -- wishful thinking. It's pure chance and evolutionary luck of the draw that might lead one to desire that there be some intellectual design behind those writings... But, I guess, we'll never know! Art Thieme ;-) |
|
14 Mar 06 - 10:12 PM (#1693933) Subject: RE: BS: Edge - What we believe but cannot prove From: GUEST I thought the program was bullshit. |