Jump to content

Science or Principles


  

27 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Combining bits and pieces from Gödel, Heisenberg and various philosophers like Berkley and Plato... we're quite certain that science will never hold all the answers. On the other hand, the principles are able to negate eachother and themselves and thus aren't quite an answer either. Plus the current list isn't exhaustive either... Personally I don't believe in democracy, but here's a poll anyway. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

my objectives are
1. to have fun
2. to perhaps learn something
3. to shout at people for voting the wrong option
4. to have fun while shouting at people for making me realize they prefer to vote for the wrong answer
5. dazzle people by saying there is no right answer
6. make you realize that by the above premises, YOUR ANSWER IS WRONG BY DEFINITION

In all seriousness, I actually fail to see how my initial post is confusing... I could have asked what do you rely on/believe in/prefer/like ... they're all quite related even though the nuances might be different. Even if your interpretation of the question is "different" and this might influence your result, my guess is that such differences will probably be structural depending on the answer you would have given without "different" opinion in such a way to reinforce your choice. (As opposed to eg people voting for the majority because they believe that is the 'right' answer.)
The only thing that might need clarification is who 'you' is, and I refer to you the forum reading human, not the 2d character which is enacted by you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Brulant' timestamp='1297119806' post='78607']
It's interesting that so far most people lean towards the "both" option.
I like looking at all of the various polls on the forums, as a sociologist how people answer polls is one of my favorite things to look at ^_^
[/quote]
More interesting is that no-one has picked Principles yet, which means you can infer that [of all the people who have voted so far] everyone who likes the principle approach also appreciates the the viewpoint of science.

Also, if all the answers are wrong, but you limited our possible options, then in whom does the fault lie, Kafuuka ;) ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion there is actually no wrong answer.

If there is no "right" answer like you said Kafuuka then there is also no "wrong" answer.
Who actually knows what the "right" answer is anyway?

So back to the topic:

I personally believe in both because if we only believe in one there will be no balance. It's like science and religion.
If you believe in one then you will be blinded or rather you won't accept anything from the other. Which will only cause conflict.
So my point is see every little point of view before believing. Don't blindly go for what you think is "right".

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pig: this is the offtopic part so it doesn't relate that much too MD. However I'll try to guess what happened to you in the game: you went through the tutorial and had to pick some principles several times. Once you choose three different principles, you will be unable to choose a 4th until you 'level up'.

As for science in MD, that is actually an interesting question. Inside MD, I don't believe much in science as we know it. I'm not even certain if the scientific method is all that easily established inside the realm of MD, but that might be because meta knowledge about MD and knowledge of established real life science conflict. MD is officially a fantasy game after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Luke27' timestamp='1297167510' post='78639']
I personally believe in both because if we only believe in one there will be no balance. It's like science and religion.
If you believe in one then you will be blinded or rather you won't accept anything from the other. Which will only cause conflict.
So my point is see every little point of view before believing. Don't blindly go for what you think is "right".
[/quote]

By your logic, you should be a member of every religion and cult imaginable. Praise Cthulhu!

How you believe in everything without conflicting beliefs is beyond me.

Edited by apophys
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='apophys' timestamp='1297196164' post='78652']
By your logic, you should be a member of every religion and cult imaginable. Praise Cthulhu!

How you believe in everything without conflicting beliefs is beyond me.
[/quote]

Hmm, see that distracting-with-insectoid-motion forum avatar there? What is it?

Is it a bug?
Is it a bunch of animated pixels?
Is it a series of digital data-values, translated by your computer software into a recognizable object?
Is it a forum avatar?
Is it a vague representation of apophys on this communcation-themed website?
Is it all of these?

I think yes.

To answer the original post, Science seeks to understand the world, by asking questions, forming testable hypothesis, and recording the reproduceable results of experiments (to be overly symplistic). It describes our world, according to it's own rules and paradigm.
The principles do the same, though without an exactly similar method for "testing", because the paradigm presented by them somewhat precludes "experimental data". However I feel it still holds validity in "describing the world", both in MD and 'reality'. It may not answer all the questions, but then again, Science can not either.

But they both do a good job in the terms that they are good at. So Both are correct.
It is only when you add the (artificual) limitation that "There can be only one right answer" that makes the disctinction break down into an Either-or type of result. What's wrong with a both-And world? Some viewpoints or paradigms may be better at explaining things than others, but each at least presents a valid attempt to codify "The Real".

The flat earth, on infinite turtles watched the sun orbit around it quite well for a good long while, after all... so until we have a Grand Theory of Everything, I'll keep my options open.

Edited by Maebius
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Maebius' timestamp='1297198782' post='78653']
Hmm, see that distracting-with-insectoid-motion forum avatar there? What is it?

Is it a bug?
Is it a bunch of animated pixels?
Is it a series of digital data-values, translated by your computer software into a recognizable object?
Is it a forum avatar?
Is it a vague representation of apophys on this communcation-themed website?
Is it all of these?

I think yes.
[/quote]

Yes, different views. Let's have some more.

Is it a larval human?
Is it a sign to kill another 1000 virgins?
Is it going to pop off my screen and kill me?
Is it living inside my eyeball?
Is it the spawn of <insert deity here>?
Is it the spawn of <insert different deity here, who cannot be the same deity>?
Is it all of these?

I think not.

How do I know that these are wrong, and those are right? Logic, deduction; the basis of science. The principles wouldn't be able to tell me.

[quote]
It may not answer all the questions, but then again, Science can not either.

But they both do a good job in the terms that they [b]are good at[/b]. So Both are correct.
It is only when you add the (artificual) limitation that "There can be only one right answer" that makes the disctinction break down into an Either-or type of result. What's wrong with a both-And world? Some viewpoints or paradigms may be better at explaining things than others, but each at least presents a valid attempt to codify "The Real".

The flat earth, on infinite turtles watched the sun orbit around it quite well for a good long while, after all... so until we have a Grand Theory of Everything, I'll keep my options open.
[/quote]

For the purpose of argument, let's say I believe you are a two-headed cheeseburger with 107 tentacles.

You are the embodiment of all the problems on Earth. If I chopped you up into little pieces, for every piece I cook & eat, a problem would go away.
Is this belief equally as good at describing our world? Can this even be remotely "both-And" with having a logical viewpoint?

Now then, what makes this wrong and the principles right? Because I don't see a way to distinguish the correctness of the two.

Therefore, I don't believe anything that isn't directly proven to me, or to other people like me. Thus, in the real world, I believe science only, and anything inapplicable I use logic for deducing.
That pretty much covers everything, and I haven't put artificial limitations.


Your motive for holding alternate beliefs is to have an open mind. However, the same effect is achieved by just remembering to have an open mind.

To me, the principles are more of a way of looking at things than an actual attempt to describe the world, so they're not really comparable to science at all. I.e. a categorization of events, not an explanation.
But really, as far as I am concerned, you can have any beliefs you like as long as they don't tell you to kill me or otherwise impede on my life. :P


Edit: I attempted satire; seems I failed.

Edited by apophys
Link to post
Share on other sites

well actually science only shows you the most probable answer it does not prove anything. it just proves that the most probable answer is _______. That's why tectonic plate movement is stated as a theory and we use laws. We never say this is whats happening. We say this is what a theorize is happening.

In fact a hardcore scientist would dispute gravity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='apophys' timestamp='1297196164' post='78652']
By your logic, you should be a member of every religion and cult imaginable. Praise Cthulhu!

How you believe in everything without conflicting beliefs is beyond me.
[/quote]


Hmm... I don't know if that's an insult so...

I think I'll defend my answer but first here's some info about me:
1) I'm only 19 and clearly I don't close myself in a box yet like my mother who closes some ideas out(sorry mom but it's true).
2) I may have confused you by my lack of knowledge of the "English" language so I picked the wrong words or something.

So on to my defense:

I really don't actually believe in everything.
I don't believe that the world will end like in what the "Bible" has to say even if I'm a Christian but I do believe that some day our "world" or rather our norms would be changed like what happened when slavery was abolished(sorry if it's a bad example I apologize if anyone is hurt/affected).
What I do believe is that what was right long ago is wrong today so it isn't really wrong to say that maybe what's right today is wrong tomorrow.
"Nothing is true, everything is permitted" a quote from assassins creed which tells we will never exactly know what the correct answer is because there is no answer key in life(or is there?dun...dun...dun) but we give meaning to everything so that we may have our beliefs or science(I believe science is also a belief :P).

Let me give this example:

Our language came from whom? Of course from us(or rather our ancestors).
How did we know the elements like Oxygen? Of course from the teachings of our ancestors(or us).

So how are we to say that we are purely right? I only see that we(our ancestors) labeled those as truths but who really knows what truly is true?

P.S.
These are only my opinions I never said they were fact.
Like I said there's no answer key in life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kamisha' timestamp='1297217229' post='78665']
well actually science only shows you the most probable answer it does not prove anything. it just proves that the most probable answer is _______. That's why tectonic plate movement is stated as a theory and we use laws. We never say this is whats happening. We say this is what a theorize is happening.
[/quote]


That's actually rather misleading and misses the point of what science is all about. Science proves many things to be false. Many of the best scientific theories are known to be partially incorrect for example Newtonian gravity. BUT there isn't a more powerful description which can make predictions about how gravity works the majority of the time. The fact that it breaks down at speeds approaching the speed of light, near highly compact mass sources, and possibly on galactic scales doesn't diminish the fact that it is a description of the world that is amazingly accurate. What science allows us to do is have a theory about how the world should work which makes predictions that can be tested and either verified or disproved. The very strength of the scientific method is that it provides a methodology which continually improves our understanding of the universe because we are able to pose more and more pointed questions about exactly those parts of the universe we don't fully understand.

[quote name='Kamisha' timestamp='1297217229' post='78665']
In fact a hardcore scientist would dispute gravity.
[/quote]

Sorry to have to be harsh here but that is total rubbish. I invite anyone who would like to dispute gravity to go to your nearest tall building and step off.

Many people misunderstand that science isn't about absolutes, the fact that a theory isn't 100% correct doesn't mean that it is 100% wrong. The basic scientific understandings in most any field of science are for the most part both intuitive and backed up by scads of unrelated evidence. The whole point is that scientists (without which there would be no science) are working to understand the world around them. Unfortunately many people view some fields as scientific for example medicine or anthropology when they really are not at all.

Kamisha's post seemed to me to hit exactly the most mistaken opinions of science which are unfortunately widespread. So one last personal aside, back when I was working as a high energy particle theorist, the mathematics to describe the self-consistent theories of particle interaction at that time called string theories (or slightly thereafter m-branes) had progressed so far that there wouldn't be experimentally verifiable results for 50 to 100 years to disprove some of the theoretic ideas people were working on. At that point for me the field became mathematics and I completely lost interest and subsequently changed to a different field to pursue more verifiable ideas. But as a parting shot I published one final paper which showed that the theoretic foundation of almost all of the string theories (and the extensions from those) were inconsistent. Only the 6 and 10 dimensional theories (not 4) had any chance of being valid descriptions of the world. As anyone who followed the field is aware, the remaining consistent theories all turned out to be subcases of a single 11-dimensional brane theory, but until particle accelerators catch up with the theory nobody will know which if any is correct.

Science is a way to look at the world, as are religion, philosophy and MD. Chose which ever combination of those or any other worldview you most prefer, just be aware Kamisha you might be called out as being ignorant if you misrepresent the basics.

Cutler

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='cutler121' timestamp='1297267381' post='78691']
The whole point is that scientists (without which there would be no science) are working to understand the world around them. Unfortunately many people view some fields as scientific for example medicine or anthropology when they really are not at all.
[/quote]
That is a semantic issue imo. Medicine does not have as its main goal the purpose of understanding life; the pure science behind that is biology. Medicine is to biology as engineering is to physics. That does mean that people who practise medicine have to know a lot about biology and the line between applied and theoretical research can be quite thin, especially with people majoring in biomedicine. Pharmaceutical research uses, at least we hope it does, the same approach as 'pure' science: you generate a theory and then you test it with an experiment -> you make a new drug and then you test it on a subject (usually not immediately on humans though).

Maybe I'm too young for it, but I have never had high hopes for string theory to be validated by an experiment in this century. The one small conference I listened to as a physics student, a lot of theoretical string theorists were talking about their revolutionary new insights. One of them mentioned that at very high energies, energy would "leak to another dimension" and at that point I really failed to see how you could ever honestly try measure that. Apparently nuclear fusion reactions are not high enough energy for such a phenomenon or otherwise we would have tested it already. If only a small percentage of energy is leaked, you need either very very accurate detectors, very large energies or a very large quantity of data. A sustained fusion reaction seems a lot better to provide large quantities of large energy data than a single beam, at least to me.

As for gravity: All theories are indeed theories that might prove to be imperfect or even completely wrong. Given our current understanding of it though, the chances of gravity being completely wrong are negligible in my opinion. In this statement I am also rejecting Berkley and the matrix and similar theories, being a pragmatist: you just can't do anything interesting after accepting Berkley imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Being religious, I typically embrace debates like this. Science can't [b]prove[/b] anything, but the hurdle then becomes selecting a method or mechanic that can. Unfortunately, most science advocates will merely refer you to its track record and call it a day. Which is problematic for most debaters because the scientific method simply has a fantastic track record. Exhibited, of course, by the fact that we're no longer riding around on animals and murdering each other with sharp rocks. So, how many technological advances were born of religion or principles?

It would appear that there are few, if any, practical applications that require 100% proof and absolute certainty.

That said, you're left with answering life's ultimate questions - abstract quandaries relating to origin or purpose. Here's where debating with most science advocates becomes utterly impossible, because science by its very definition and nature simply can not approach an answer to any of these. Though most will fight you tooth and nail to the contrary. The origin of the universe is entirely beyond the scope of the scientific method, which relies solely on the existence and predictability of the laws of this universe. Anything that existed before, or currently exists outside, of our universe is supernatural by definition.

Edited by Malaikat Maut
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read all this thread, I still don't really know what you mean by "The Principles", so as to how this is set up in opposition to Science, I have even less of a clue. You surely are not talking about the MD game principles, are you....? Good Grief!

Science is a way of better understanding the scope and limitations of what I call principles...

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kafuuka' timestamp='1297274574' post='78695']
Medicine does not have as its main goal the purpose of understanding life; the pure science behind that is biology. Medicine is to biology as engineering is to physics. That does mean that people who practise medicine have to know a lot about biology and the line between applied and theoretical research can be quite thin, especially with people majoring in biomedicine. Pharmaceutical research uses, at least we hope it does, the same approach as 'pure' science: you generate a theory and then you test it with an experiment -> you make a new drug and then you test it on a subject (usually not immediately on humans though).
[/quote]

Exactly, science can be done in the medical field, but doctors aren't scientists. Unfortunately many doctors (MDs not PhD or MD/PhD) think that they are scientists which has ended up harming many people. Their mistakes are a perfect example of why just because something seems to make sense doesn't mean it is correct or a good idea (ie Hormone replacement therapy for menopause, cholestoral lowering meds, routine neonatal circumcision, etc).

[quote name='Kafuuka' timestamp='1297274574' post='78695']
Maybe I'm too young for it, but I have never had high hopes for string theory to be validated by an experiment in this century. The one small conference I listened to as a physics student, a lot of theoretical string theorists were talking about their revolutionary new insights. One of them mentioned that at very high energies, energy would "leak to another dimension" and at that point I really failed to see how you could ever honestly try measure that.
[/quote]

What they were describing is a prediction of multi-dimensional theories which would be detectable once collision energies reached high enough levels. That is why string theory is actually good science, it makes predictions which can be shown to be incorrect. The problem I had with the field was that those experiments are so far away (assuming no major unforeseen jumps in technology occur) that many string theorists began to feel the need to justify the theory because it is so amazingly consistent and it is the only theory that extends the known data. That isn't science it is mathematics or religion depending on whether you accept things completely on faith because it all makes so much sense or axiomatically with a few facts that just need to be proven. The science doesn't need those justifications, but the scientists did since the experimental verification was so far away.

[quote name='Kafuuka' timestamp='1297274574' post='78695']
As for gravity: All theories are indeed theories that might prove to be imperfect or even completely wrong. Given our current understanding of it though, the chances of gravity being completely wrong are negligible in my opinion. In this statement I am also rejecting Berkley and the matrix and similar theories, being a pragmatist: you just can't do anything interesting after accepting Berkley imo.
[/quote]

Lets say someone comes along tomorrow and makes a little device that is able to completely negate gravity in a small area. That would totally contradict every theory of gravity there is, but even in that case, the majority of the textbooks which teach about gravity (at the undergraduate and graduate levels) would at most change by a footnote. People would talk about how the theory of gravity was completely wrong, but anywhere that effect wasn't present would be just as well described after realizing gravity could be turned off by classical mechanics as before.

:P Now if your worldview is that we are living in the matrix ... cool.

Cutler

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='cutler121' timestamp='1297284139' post='78703']
What they were describing is a prediction of multi-dimensional theories which would be detectable once collision energies reached high enough levels. That is why string theory is actually good science, it makes predictions which can be shown to be incorrect.
[/quote]
Are you referring to the Higgs boson which they predicted? That is not what I was talking about. I'm not an expert on that field, but I thought the Higgs boson does not violate the law of conservation of energy. I seem to remember one string theorist proposed that law could be violated and not just for undetactable small time periods.


@Fyrd: why not 'the principles'? I think in a way it makes more sense even. Inside MD, if we were our characters instead of being players, then the principles could be regarded as the absolute truth. The thing that science is trying to discover in real life.
Of course you could consider science versus religion, exact science versus applied science, chemistry versus philosophy... All of these are related and they are all valid questions. What exactly is a principle anyway? (And don't give me a dictionary definition for this one.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, if we're talking game principles, you have this collection of ways that the universe might operate. Doing magic in fantasy, you selectively emphasize one while simultaneously ignoring the effects of the others. In real life, we are trying to figure out what the principles underlying the universe are with the assumption that they do NOT just switch on and off randomly, or at the beck and call of a wizard or a Mur. Obviously, in the game, they can and do. The rules change constantly. In real life, if something like that were to happen, we'd call it a Miracle, (or Hypnosis, or Inception, or the Matrix, or.....)

Do I believe Science works in MD? For times short compared to Rendril's programming cycle, yes. Do I believe Principles work in MD? Sadly, only in role play.

Edited by Fyrd Argentus
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fyrd Argentus' timestamp='1297302090' post='78714']
Okay, if we're talking game principles, you have this collection of ways that the universe might operate. Doing magic in fantasy, you selectively emphasize one while simultaneously ignoring the effects of the others. In real life, we are trying to figure out what the principles underlying the universe are with the assumption that they do NOT just switch on and off randomly, or at the beck and call of a wizard or a Mur. Obviously, in the game, they can and do. The rules change constantly. In real life, if something like that were to happen, we'd call it a Miracle, (or Hypnosis, or Inception, or the Matrix, or.....)

Do I believe Science works in MD? For times short compared to Rendril's programming cycle, yes. Do I believe Principles work in MD? Sadly, only in role play.
[/quote]

Ahh, yes, I was comparing Science and Principles in this "Malkuth" reality, not specifically the game-ream on MagicDuel. Much different answers there. In game, since it's all in our heads somewhat, Science doesn't work the same, so Principles win be default for me. IOn real life, I stand by my first reply above.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try to be brief.
Science deals with causality, implications, and reasoning. The goal is to be able to find explanation to observed phenomena based on as limited number of underlying fundamental laws as possible. For complex systems using effective theories and/ or degrees of freedom is a must. And very often sloppy scientist fails because of their effective theories or selected degrees of freedom blindly applied or ill-considered. As a consequence multiple disciplines may be called science from the basic definitions - but the rigorousness of everyday workshop can be seriously questioned.
MD is a dream world with multiple dreamers. Principles are supposed to be a basic denominator of influencing the realm and other players. And as dreams are often indistinct, blurry and with no clear causality, Principles are no sharply defined basic building blocks, but more like underlying concepts that set some perspective in gameplay, even if almost everybody I talked about them with have a bit different perception of Principles.
In real life science is the only valid description - and Principles or their equivalent may only be used in some dedicated effective models in relevant context to make any sense at all. In MD talking pure science makes no sense by the same token - one can only consider Principles and their meaning. Even cornerstone of science, causality, is not that obvious when talking Principles - different people think/ dream in different regimes and we are supposed to leave the box in MD :-P

Edited by xrieg
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Forum Statistics

    16,510
    Total Topics
    178,119
    Total Posts
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
  • Recent Event Reviews

×
×
  • Create New...