Scientific fundamentalism

There just disputing a simple question really. Whether anyone knows why gravity works the way it does, Avi said they do and CZ say they don't. Depends which perspective you want to take. You can say they are both right in some sense.
 
Postmaster said:
There just disputing a simple question really. Whether anyone knows why gravity works the way it does, Avi said they do and CZ say they don't. Depends which perspective you want to take. You can say they are both right in some sense.
Click to expand...

Newton himself said he didn't understand the cause, that he could only measure the effect.

I think it's rather odd that Avi doesn't even acknowledge Newton's own admission that he doesn't know what gravity is.

citizenzen-albums-my-silly-stuff-picture1063-beating-a-dead-horse-by.gif

It's not so bad if you don't mind the flies.​
 
citizenzen said:
Newton himself said he didn't understand the cause, that he could only measure the effect.

I think it's rather odd that Avi doesn't even acknowledge Newton's own admission that he doesn't know what gravity is.
Click to expand...

Newton understood the full nature of gravity from within the classical context in which he lived. His second law is an elegant example of this.

Within the context of special relativity which Einstein understood, gravity has a deeper meaning which Newton could not conceive. Special relativity showed the exception to the second law.

Within the context of a unified field theory, gravity has an even deeper meaning, which Einstein or any physicist since, has been unable to understand.

So my point is that deep knowledge comes about through hierarchical levels of understanding (disassemble and reassemble an elephant). This can take hundreds of years.

As far as scientific fundamentalism goes (CZ, don't lose sight of the big picture here), I think this is a contradiction in terms. Science always challenges fundamentalist beliefs or axioms or dogma. Newton and Einstein are great examples of this. They deconstruct and reconstruct (sound familiar :)? ). They are reformers by nature.
 
Avi said:
Newton understood the full nature of gravity from within the classical context in which he lived. His second law is an elegant example of this.
Click to expand...

Avi, if he understood "the full nature of gravity" then why do we find these statements attributed to him from the article in wikipedia?

• He [Newton] never, in his words, "assigned the cause of this power"

• ...but in the case of gravity, he [Newton] was unable to experimentally identify the motion that produces the force of gravity.

• ...he [Newton] refused to even offer a hypothesis as to the cause of this force on grounds that to do so was contrary to sound science

• ...he [Newton] was convinced "by many reasons" that there were "causes hitherto unknown"

• And in Newton's 1713 General Scholium in the second edition of Principia: "I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena and I feign no hypotheses..."​

What is your point in asserting that he had understood the "full" nature of gravity? How can you read these words, some directly attributed to Newton himself, and say he knew "exactly" what gravity was? Was the article wrong? Can you cite statements where Newton claimed to know gravity's "full" and "exact" nature?

citizenzen-albums-my-silly-stuff-picture1063-beating-a-dead-horse-by.gif

It's not so bad if you don't mind the flies.​
 
Love that emoticon CZ. You do come up with great graphics.:) In fact, sometimes your posts might be better served with only visuals and less verbal commentary. ;) earl
 
earl said:
Love that emoticon CZ. You do come up with great graphics.:) In fact, sometimes your posts might be better served with only visuals and less verbal commentary. ;) earl
Click to expand...

:D

More on Newton's Laws of celestial mechanics later. :)
 
earl said:
Love that emoticon CZ. You do come up with great graphics.:) In fact, sometimes your posts might be better served with only visuals and less verbal commentary. ;) earl
Click to expand...

Sorry to disappoint you earl. :(
 
Tao_Equus said:
what the hell are you on about? Try turning your argument round...bring the tribes most respected and wisest elder to Stanford or Harvard, lets see what enlightenment he can demonstrate. Time and time again I see straw man arguments when you build fallacies to knock em down and you do so not with a logical narrative but an emotional one. This is a personal chagrin you have, and its not rational or valid. What exactly is it you resent?
Click to expand...

No resentment on my part.

I was attempting to demonstrate the significance of culture when dealing with "science." To answer your question directly, it was already covered in the scenario. Such an Amazonian tribe would of necessity in order to flourish in that environment have to have an intimate knowledge (or "science" as CZ is describing the term) of how to effectively and efficiently deal with: malaria, dysentary, pirahna and flesh eating maggots. That is what they have to teach a Stanford or Harvard researcher...which is valueless until that researcher is specifically focussed on any of these particular issues, and priceless if they are focussed on any of these issues.

And it is well known that monkey brains are a prized delicacy among these people.

But then such obviously intelligent persons as yourself and CZ with all of your focus and advocation for science and anthropology should have been able to see all of that right off.

VCliff did. I bet others did too.
 
Last edited:
citizenzen said:
One other note: you claim science is a product "Graeco-Roman-derived urban civilisation," but I would say that scientific inquiry is cross cultural and found throughout history. There was the harnessing of fire, ancient tools, math, language, agriculture, ceramics, fermentation, astronomy. These sciences were developed all over the globe and independent of the Greeks and Romans.

Scientific inquiry really transcends culture. Could you explain this?
Click to expand...

Yes. You failed to note how early science as you are want to call it was closely related to and in some instances identical to "religion." The earliest I have connected the dots to would be animist-Taoism, from which elemental magic is a crude form of science.

Alchemy is a long tradition; sometimes closely related to religion, sometimes divorced from religion, and always affiliated with political power brokers. Modern science is directly descended from the medieval alchemists.

Scientific philosophy on the other hand appears to be descended from certain Greek thinkers such as Pythagoras, Socrates, Aristotle, Hippocrates, and Archimedes, although likely they developed ideas begun in Babylon. So there is merit in what both you and VC have said to this matter.
 
citizenzen said:
And when science turns nasty, it's not really science.
Click to expand...

The Manhattan Project was started with the express purpose of enlightening all those poor devils in Asia, and Samuel Colt developed the revolving pistol and Oliver Winchester the lever action rifle to bring peace to all those Native Americans. Even Greek fire was developed to enlighten the unbelievers of the Mediterranean world... Let's not forget the scientific wonders like catapults, trebuchets, cannonade, dynamite...all of which were expressly invented with the betterment of humanity in mind.

:rolleyes:

At best it seems science is rather amoral. Not moral, not anti-moral; science really has no concern with morality other than as one more curiosity to explore.
 
Avi said:
Newton also know exactly why it falls. It is because of the affect of gravity on the object.
Click to expand...
That is like Moliere's philosopher who, when asked why people get sleepy after smoking opium, answered "It is because opium has a soporific virtue."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top