Will science survive human nature.

[Lion IRC]

Any 'civilisation' sufficiently advanced to create the technology needed for interstellar travel will have (destructively) used that technology on itself long before it ever got the chance to pay us a visit.

To the Op.

"I've been wondering why philosophy began with rational rather than objective roots."
"...logic and rational argument rather than hypothesis and experiment."

I don't think these can be separated. Philosophy. Science. Philosophy of Science. Zeno's Paradox. Fermi Paradox. How many times can we split the atom before we get to non-matter? How many universes does it take to get one with a life form that can invent a time machine?

We are further away from a unified, scientifically testable theory of everything than we've ever been. We used to look into the microscope and the telescope and think we were entering the secular, godless Age of Enlightenment. Now we are spinning our wheels, bogged in the Age of Uncertainty. Baconian principles. LOL.

https://biblehub.com/isaiah/29-14.htm

 

[bilby]

Any 'civilisation' sufficiently advanced to create the technology needed for interstellar travel will have (destructively) used that technology on itself long before it ever got the chance to pay us a visit.

To the Op.

"I've been wondering why philosophy began with rational rather than objective roots."
"...logic and rational argument rather than hypothesis and experiment."

I don't think these can be separated. Philosophy. Science. Philosophy of Science. Zeno's Paradox. Fermi Paradox. How many times can we split the atom before we get to non-matter? How many universes does it take to get one with a life form that can invent a time machine?

We are further away from a unified, scientifically testable theory of everything than we've ever been. We used to look into the microscope and the telescope and think we were entering the secular, godless Age of Enlightenment. Now we are spinning our wheels, bogged in the Age of Uncertainty. Baconian principles. LOL.

https://biblehub.com/isaiah/29-14.htm

Horseshit. We are closer to a unified, scientifically testable "Theory of everything" than we have ever been before; And we are so close that we can demonstrate that our existing theories are accurate to the limit of our ability to test, for all phenomena smaller than the scale of solar systems and larger than the scale of quarks and leptons.

The only parts of reality we don't understand to a ludicrous number of decimal places are galaxies and quarks.

Essentially, we are certainly wrong about the nature of reality; But we are absolutely right about the bits that matter to anyone other than astrophysicists or string theorists and their ilk.

Just as Einstein's proof that Newton's theories were wrong didn't result in rocks that fall upwards (because Relativity boils down to Newton's laws for approximate solutions to gravitational problems in non-extreme circumstances), so any new theory of everything must, perforce (due to our repeatable experimental results), boil down to Quantum Field Theory and/or Relativity, on scales relevant to ordinary humans.

Your ignorance of the current state of scientific consensus is not evidence against its existence.

 

[steve_bank]

I was listening to a former astronaut talking on radio show. He said with certainty ET civilizations exist and any that get to the point of space travel and advanced science would undoubtedly be wise. Then he corrected himself citing the obvious, us humans.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a near miss for nuclear war.

The Twilight Zone episode To Serve Man comes to mind. An ET has a book To Serve Man. They think it means service to humans, turns out it was a cook book.

If evolution is a constant it means selection for survival, predator and prey.

 

[Lion IRC]

Any 'civilisation' sufficiently advanced to create the technology needed for interstellar travel will have (destructively) used that technology on itself long before it ever got the chance to pay us a visit.

To the Op.

"I've been wondering why philosophy began with rational rather than objective roots."
"...logic and rational argument rather than hypothesis and experiment."

I don't think these can be separated. Philosophy. Science. Philosophy of Science. Zeno's Paradox. Fermi Paradox. How many times can we split the atom before we get to non-matter? How many universes does it take to get one with a life form that can invent a time machine?

We are further away from a unified, scientifically testable theory of everything than we've ever been. We used to look into the microscope and the telescope and think we were entering the secular, godless Age of Enlightenment. Now we are spinning our wheels, bogged in the Age of Uncertainty. Baconian principles. LOL.

https://biblehub.com/isaiah/29-14.htm

Horseshit. We are closer to a unified, scientifically testable "Theory of everything" than we have ever been before;

Nope.
Our discoveries are disconfirming the notion that a unified theory of everything is even possible - let alone getting us closer to finding one.

And we are so close that we can demonstrate that our existing theories are accurate to the limit of our ability to test, for all phenomena smaller than the scale of solar systems and larger than the scale of quarks and leptons.

When the acquisition of knowledge does little more than expose how many more, and how much bigger the GAPS are in your knowledge, that's NOT getting you closer. The knowledge we are acquiring is akin to having a much more accurate compass on rudderless yacht that's drifting further and further away from shore.

Every time we reach some new height in scientific knowledge, we see a horizon that's getting further and further away.

Your ignorance of the current state of scientific consensus is not evidence against its existence.

Oh well, pardon me for citing atheist Professors of Physics and Astronomy at Dartmouth.

 

[steve_bank]

Nope.
Our discoveries are disconfirming the notion that a unified theory of everything is even possible - let alone getting us closer to finding one.

And we are so close that we can demonstrate that our existing theories are accurate to the limit of our ability to test, for all phenomena smaller than the scale of solar systems and larger than the scale of quarks and leptons.

When the acquisition of knowledge does little more than expose how many more, and how much bigger the GAPS are in your knowledge, that's NOT getting you closer. The knowledge we are acquiring is akin to having a much more accurate compass on rudderless yacht that's drifting further and further away from shore.

Every time we reach some new height in scientific knowledge, we see a horizon that's getting further and further away.

Your ignorance of the current state of scientific consensus is not evidence against its existence.

Oh well, pardon me for citing atheist Professors of Physics and Astronomy at Dartmouth.

Why add the atheist qualifier? If you know anything about science then you would know there is disagreement on theories and multiple theories on cosmology. Quoting one scientist in isolation without grasping the whole is ignorance.

Although based in math and generally linked to science we know, cosmology is largely speculative, there is no possible proof.. Hawking made some far out claims that were more philosophy. You can fill a book with outliers from scientists.

There is no pope or central authority in science. On major theories it works on peer review globally. It took AE a long time to get relativity looked at, it was initially rejected. It became mainstream as over time it was demonstrated to be accurate.

When you say science keep in mind it is not a unified whole. There are always competing interests.

 

[bilby]

Nope.
Our discoveries are disconfirming the notion that a unified theory of everything is even possible - let alone getting us closer to finding one.

And we are so close that we can demonstrate that our existing theories are accurate to the limit of our ability to test, for all phenomena smaller than the scale of solar systems and larger than the scale of quarks and leptons.

When the acquisition of knowledge does little more than expose how many more, and how much bigger the GAPS are in your knowledge, that's NOT getting you closer.

This is not a rebuttal of my statement.

We literally know EVERYTHING that is important at human scales. Everything.

There are huge gaps - at galactic and infra subatomic levels. These are important ONLY if you are an astrophysicist or subatomic physicist. They are not important if your interest is "Is it possible that there is a God or Gods?" - the answer to that question is an unequivocal and resounding "NO".

The knowledge we are acquiring is akin to having a much more accurate compass on rudderless yacht that's drifting further and further away from shore.

In what respect? This seems like a totally baseless emotional appeal.

Every time we reach some new height in scientific knowledge, we see a horizon that's getting further and further away.

As does this.

Your ignorance of the current state of scientific consensus is not evidence against its existence.

Oh well, pardon me for citing atheist Professors of Physics and Astronomy at Dartmouth.

They are probably right. You don't understand what they are saying, and YOU are deeply, deeply wrong.

 

[fromderinside]

The above adds to my confidence man will survive for sometime to come. There is enough realism here to suggest we're still climbing toward some empirical basis for understanding. It matters little whether we are at a state where seeing a way forward is unlikely or whether we remain optimistic we will find helpful answers. Questions are being addressed through experiments being carried out regardless of whether we are innately equipped to appreciate underlying natures.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is not a rebuttal of my statement.

We literally know EVERYTHING that is important at human scales. Everything.

We are not aware of any gaps in our knowledge but that doesn't say we know everything. All you can say is that we probably know everything.

There are huge gaps - at galactic and infra subatomic levels. These are important ONLY if you are an astrophysicist or subatomic physicist. They are not important if your interest is "Is it possible that there is a God or Gods?" - the answer to that question is an unequivocal and resounding "NO".

Once again, you're going too far. Consider my Populous theory of the gods. (Not that I actually think it's true but it does fit the facts.) Science as we know it describes the normal operation of our universe. However, our universe is actually a toy to some superbeing who is capable of interacting with it in various methods outside the normal rules governing it's operation. The long-ago legends of divine acts were true--they were that superbeing (or perhaps one of his opponents) interacting with our universe. However, said being has been AFK for some time now, in the era in which we can actually study what happens only natural laws have been in operation. This is consistent with all observations, explains a bit more but is not falsifiable.

 

[steve_bank]

Science throughput history has advanced regardless of conditions. The problem is all the basic low hanging fruit has been taken.

Current science requires a lot of money. Given a global financial breakdown particle physics will diminish.

Cheep paper texts are all over the world along with electronic media. Science will survive. Newtonian mechanics covers the bulk of everyday applied science. Fluid mechanics, civil engineering. Calculus and differential equations.

 

[fromderinside]

Given Science throughout history has advanced regardless of conditions I wonder why we lost the formula for cement for about 1500 years and why those who migrated to Tasmania lost the capability for making fire.

I'm thinking there must be more than history involved here. Perhaps communication, number of groups and group size have something to do with advancing learned things. I'm pretty sure the printing press had a lot to do with spreading empiricism during enlightenment.

 

[steve_bank]

Obviously communications were not what they are today.

Probably a fraction of what was done was passed down in writing.

Science survives because it benefits society and enhances survival. Science is an arbitrary term. Controlled fire, arrows then arrows spin stabilized with feathers all without any formal science as we have. It is a natural survival trait.

Not just humans. Chimps work rocks to an edge to crack nuts and the skill is passed on.

 

[fromderinside]

Point is I provide two examples where science wasn't preserved. So, in essence, in two populations science didn't survive. Sure the larger group retained fire on Australia. However I suspect that many times before that time when groups were too small the capability for starting fire was lost. And I suspect that many time even large populations lost preserving a particular science or engineering capability.

My point is that if something is empirical in nature humans will find ways to discover it however many times then need to to have it finally wind up in the present known. We often find more than one discovery of a principle or law in near time or subsequent time.

This takes me back to my earlier comment about rational logic without empirical reasoning.

 

[steve_bank]

I remember something about NASA loosing the formula for the SST heat tiles..

p1 Some science has been lost in the past.
c Therefore science may not survive at all.

Conclusion does not follow from premise. We have Pythagoras, Archimedes and more. History shows that in general know-edge grows and is passed on.

 

[fromderinside]

More Likely

p1 behavior changes lead to loss of science in the past
c Therefore behavior changes may lead to science lost forever

Now conclusion does follow from premise. History shows that knowledge is lost when conditions for sustaining behavior are lost.

My caution is that US will lose sustaining behavior for science and mathematics because behavior no longer is required for retaining competence in science and mathematics to provide increased food supply.

Instead US will become warrior state where power is preferred to scientific and engineering competence. Loss of math and science will lead to reduced food supply capability. Increased population growth will make food supply critical. Because we are warriors we will depend on others to provide innovations for sustaining growth. Even if others infuse science and mathematics into population US will still become a third world nation.