Originally posted by Freethinker112
Originally posted by BirdieNumNum
hahaha shmaarrt boy
again i think that we'll get to a certain point playing mechano mechano trying to explain how things works, then we get stuck for a 100 years. After that we find a glitch and we are sent scampering for new theories and ideas...
now whether we believe in God or not, however rational or irrational we might find those beliefs to be, question is can we ever expect to go beyond things we can only measure using our classical world-view? Take GR. At the end of the day, we still evaluate results using "classical" devices. Add to that a scientific philosophy that is always looking for cause and effect. Can science deal with something that is non-causal? If not, then fine, we cannot prove existence. But then why come at it from an arrogant viewpoint that says it isn't so, and it isn't so because we cant prove things scientifically? I find that mentality as rigid as all the religious dogmas that we have been decrying. And no, i dont know what else we can do about it. The scientific method is still the best we have. But it is far from satisfactory in even beginning to get at what else there might be. Can it prove definitely that there isnt something else? I dont think so.
Yes, we will always be searching for new theories and ideas, because it is obvious that current ones don't explain everything. Otherwise there wouldn't be anything we didn't know. But it's still better than attributing the cause of everything we can't explain to an entity about which we have no idea. That's just shifting the fault. When we are out f depth, we put it to an entity which we can't explain. That will get us stuck and we would get nowhere.
About "classical" method, I don't know why you make it out to be so bad of a thing. We will try to understand from our point of view, won't we? And it still didn't limit us, QM came up which contradicts classical view. That's how we progress, that's how we answer the lies of complaint you make, our limiting view. We try to understand things at small scale and how does it give rise to large ones. And you point at the limitations as if it is meant to underestimate all the work that has gone into it. What would we have if we have followed your way. Everything will be mystical. Why try to understand something? Our view is very "limited", you will never be able to make sense of it all. We wouldn't know a thing if we followed that mentality. Maybe we will hit a wall one day and may not be able to make progress further. Or maybe that day won't come. Who knows? What we know is today is not that day and we have to take our understanding one way forward.
i am doing no such thing. If you read my post more carefully, you'll find the intent there and a tacit understanding of the points you have made. I was just trying to go beyond those.
See, the difference between you and me is that I like to think beyond what is, and that's after some understanding of "what is". I feel if people sat around waiting for the next day to come to find out whether they learned anything, the world would not have made progress. Unless accidentally when the proverbial apple fell on them. It's called thought leadership buddy and I like the position I am coming from. Works for me.
Edited by BirdieNumNum - 28 October 2012 at 6:28am