Theories Of The Gaps

[Cheerful Charlie]

I had an odd little thought while reading some damned blog where some Christian apologists were mixing rank theology and Christian apologisms with philosophy and metaphysics. We are all familiar with the idea of "the God Of The Gaps", where any little gap in knowledge is a place to smuggle in God as an explanation. But I realized we can see the same sort of thing in metaphysics. If something in metaphysics is not provable, than any bad metaphysics with an agenda is stuffed into that gap. One can divorce any metaphysical idea from reality by this trick.

This is why i hate metaphysics.

 

[Lion IRC]

Modern (non-theist) cosmology and particle physics is beginning to jettison strict, empirical verificationism in lieu of elegant theories. Why? Because they know we have hit the wall so to speak in terms of our knowledge horizon.

We literally lack the resources and we are certainly running out of the time needed to (scientifically) answer the big questions. Plus each new discovery simply pushes the horizon of our knowledge further and further off into the distance.

We are discovering more and bigger gaps than the ones we are filling.

 

[OLDMAN]

Modern (non-theist) cosmology and particle physics is beginning to jettison strict, empirical verificationism in lieu of elegant theories. Why? Because they know we have hit the wall so to speak in terms of our knowledge horizon.

We literally lack the resources and we are certainly running out of the time needed to (scientifically) answer the big questions. Plus each new discovery simply pushes the horizon of our knowledge further and further off into the distance.

We are discovering more and bigger gaps than the ones we are filling.

Why are we running out of time? In science, lack of information that can be verified simply means a possible idea lacks proof that allows it to be a theory. Scientist realize that no matter what strange answers the evidence leads to...it is still the correct answer. This doesn't mean we throw all our knowledge out and start over, but we spend the resources needed to figure things out.

We can only see so far back in time (presently) but some day may sit on the event horizon of a black hole and be able to measure much, much more.

 

[bilby]

Modern (non-theist) cosmology and particle physics is beginning to jettison strict, empirical verificationism in lieu of elegant theories.

No, it isn't.

Why? Because they know we have hit the wall so to speak in terms of our knowledge horizon.

We literally lack the resources and we are certainly running out of the time needed to (scientifically) answer the big questions.

We cannot be running out of time. We have (literally) all the time in the world. And we have only been doing the whole 'science' thing in earnest for about three centuries - and the physics underlying the everyday world is now completely understood. All of the unknowns are with regard to things smaller than an atomic nucleus, or larger than our solar system.

Plus each new discovery simply pushes the horizon of our knowledge further and further off into the distance.

Of course it fucking does. That's the whole point of the exercise.

We are discovering more and bigger gaps than the ones we are filling.

No, we aren't.

You don't have a single clue what is or isn't known; Nor even what it means to know things. You are less qualified to comment on this subject than my cat. Go and learn some physics; You are just making a fool of yourself.

 

[Lion IRC]

Modern (non-theist) cosmology and particle physics is beginning to jettison strict, empirical verificationism in lieu of elegant theories. Why? Because they know we have hit the wall so to speak in terms of our knowledge horizon.

We literally lack the resources and we are certainly running out of the time needed to (scientifically) answer the big questions. Plus each new discovery simply pushes the horizon of our knowledge further and further off into the distance.

We are discovering more and bigger gaps than the ones we are filling.

Why are we running out of time? In science, lack of information that can be verified simply means a possible idea lacks proof that allows it to be a theory. Scientist realize that no matter what strange answers the evidence leads to...it is still the correct answer. This doesn't mean we throw all our knowledge out and start over, but we spend the resources needed to figure things out.

We can only see so far back in time (presently) but some day may sit on the event horizon of a black hole and be able to measure much, much more.

We are running out of time because the events we most want to study are getting further and further away. The trail is literally getting colder. Harder to detect. We don't have very long to observe the available evidence.

 

[abaddon]

We are running out of time because the events we most want to study are getting further and further away. The trail is literally getting colder. Harder to detect. We don't have very long to observe the available evidence.

Even if the expansion of the universe meant scientists might never find what came before the "big bang", so what? What does that mean irt the god of the gaps?

 

[skepticalbip]

We are running out of time because the events we most want to study are getting further and further away. The trail is literally getting colder. Harder to detect. We don't have very long to observe the available evidence.

Even if the expansion of the universe meant scientists might never find what came before the "big bang", so what? What does that mean irt the god of the gaps?

The religious are conditioned to believe that there is absolutely no question that can not be answered so they cringe when anyone answers their questions with, "we don't know... yet". However fill that as yet unknown with god spackle and they can sleep comfortably.

 

[abaddon]

Heh, so I'm supposed to feel fright and grasp at a cozy answer before it's too late. That's hilarious.

Actually I find "I-don't-know-ism" kinda thrilling.

 

[Lion IRC]

We are running out of time because the events we most want to study are getting further and further away. The trail is literally getting colder. Harder to detect. We don't have very long to observe the available evidence.

Even if the expansion of the universe meant scientists might never find what came before the "big bang", so what? What does that mean irt the god of the gaps?

The religious are conditioned to believe that there is absolutely no question that can not be answered so they cringe when anyone answers their questions with, "we don't know... yet". However fill that as yet unknown with god spackle and they can sleep comfortably.

Make up your mind.
You accuse biblical theists of appealing to God's mysterious ways when they/we admit our inability to explain God with mathematical degrees of precision. And then you accuse us of doing quite the opposite - being "conditioned to believe that there is absolutely no question that can not be answered".

 

[skepticalbip]

The religious are conditioned to believe that there is absolutely no question that can not be answered so they cringe when anyone answers their questions with, "we don't know... yet". However fill that as yet unknown with god spackle and they can sleep comfortably.

Make up your mind.
You accuse biblical theists of appealing to God's mysterious ways when they/we admit our inability to explain God with mathematical degrees of precision. And then you accuse us of doing quite the opposite - being "conditioned to believe that there is absolutely no question that can not be answered".

That was consistency. An answer from a priest of "I don't know" is not acceptable to the flock -they expect an answer. However, the answer "goddidit" or "It was god's will" is enough god spackle to calm even the most curious - their question was answered so they can get a good night's sleep.

 

[steve_bank]

The RCC tried to reconcile Greek philosophy with theology. I believe that was Thomas Aquinas' forte.

 

[Speakpigeon]

All of the unknowns are with regard to things smaller than an atomic nucleus

What if most of the universe is made of "things smaller than an atomic nucleus"?

, or larger than our solar system.

Well, that's the whole of the universe for you...

And remember we just learnt recently that Pluto wasn't a planet after all...

You are less qualified to comment on this subject than my cat.

Be careful here, since Schrödinger, we know cats have learnt enough of quantum physics to be dead and alive at the same time.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I had an odd little thought while reading some damned blog where some Christian apologists were mixing rank theology and Christian apologisms with philosophy and metaphysics. We are all familiar with the idea of "the God Of The Gaps", where any little gap in knowledge is a place to smuggle in God as an explanation. But I realized we can see the same sort of thing in metaphysics. If something in metaphysics is not provable, than any bad metaphysics with an agenda is stuffed into that gap. One can divorce any metaphysical idea from reality by this trick.

This is why i hate metaphysics.

I would have thought metaphysics is essentially about nothing but non-provable things.

Good metaphysics is logical. Bad metaphysics isn't.

Maybe more people prefer bad metaphysics.

Science is good metaphysics but you still have many gaps in it, some as large as a Black Hole, literally.

Let's scientists do the job they're paid for. Most people don't have the luxury to spend time on any scientific theory. For most people, the rational thing to do, because it's much more economical, is to believe God did it.

But you're free to disagree.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Now here's a chance for the philosophers who value metaphysics to step up and demonstrate how their arguments actually laid the base for current scientific understandings. Maybe one should try a bit of metaphysics on something more relevant than God or the unprovable, say, to putting some metaphysical thought into how one might measures dark matter and energy. A chance to form a path from unprovable to provable.

To date all I read there is snit dung. 'fraid of a challenge?

 

[untermensche]

What if most of the universe is made of "things smaller than an atomic nucleus"?

Yes.

All of it can be thought of as being smaller than the smallest thing a human can perceive.

The question is: Is there any functional component smaller than a human can perceive or break apart with collisions?

This would prevent humans from ever gaining absolute knowledge.

 

[fromderinside]

Let's stipulate humans aren't going to gain absolute anything for already demonstrated observations by such as Godel, Heisenberg, Schrodinger and others. IOW limitations have already been stipulated by those who have gone way further into the realm of knowing than any here will ever venture.

Couple that with limitations like travel speed limits, human mortality, etc, etc, etc, and we must just be happy with our telescopes for big and small.

As for breaking apart it's already been determined measurement as we know it is finite, can't be reduced below a length limen.

 

[Lion IRC]

Now here's a chance for the philosophers who value metaphysics to step up and demonstrate how their arguments actually laid the base for current scientific understandings. Maybe one should try a bit of metaphysics on something more relevant than God or the unprovable, say, to putting some metaphysical thought into how one might measures dark matter and energy. A chance to form a path from unprovable to provable.

To date all I read there is snit dung. 'fraid of a challenge?

It's called METAphysics for a reason.

You're asking the equivalent of..."What has science ever done to help our understanding of undetected particles or abstract concepts?"

 

[fromderinside]

OH, I'm aware that scientists are trying to discover ways to measure what they know is there but can't see or measure. but, Uh no. I wa thinking more along the lines of Analytic Epistemology and Experimental Philosophy https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.e...=Analytic_Epistemology_and_Experimental_P.pdf

That is applying experimental technique to intuitions such as the problem of measurement. Can one justify the notion that something that can be found by looking at what can't be seen but can be intuited by looking at differences in phenomena and measurement of properties of what is seen move intuitions about what can't be can't be seen to discovering how it can be seen.

It's an area that has been set up several times, but, continues to fail because of lack of interest by philosophers.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

 

[WAB]

42, obviously.

(Since Lemuel lost weight)