The thought that killed a "source of knowledge"
Posted by m082844 11 years, 2 months ago to Philosophy
Here is one of the most damning thought experiments regarding religion as a means to knowledge. If you were to start over today; take many infants and raise several different isolated colonies starting from complete ignorance. After several hundred generations in isolation and growth you'll have a unique religion per colony -- not one will be the same -- yet all the science and math they discover must be the same.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
When the photon is viewed as a wave, does it cease to be a particle? When it is viewed as a particle does it cease to be a wave? If no to both, then it's not a contradiction. If yes to both, is it observed at the same time to be both a particle and a wave? If yes, then by definition it's a contradiction and cannot physically exist. If no, then it's not a contradiction.
My guess is the observed is never a contradiction, but the ideas derived from it are -- making the ideas falsely derived, and therefore, false.
Error is possible and present, but not essential to the thought experiment. True scientific and mathematical concepts must be the same. False concepts may obviously be different, but this does not change the nature of true concepts.
2. None
3. Sure
4. I don't know. I would think it changes.
Sure start with hunting and gathering skills.
And so are sleeping theists — not to mention clouds, rocks, and chickens. Try not to be trivial, OK?
By "atheism" I mean the positive belief that all phenomena in the universe are explainable as material effects from material causes, and that a non-material First Cause (or Prime Mover) is redundant to such explanation and can therefore be dropped from consideration. You were the one who assumed that no colony would develop such a belief.
>If by natural you mean seems to just happen, then sure. It may be natural for people to place religion where they are ignorant, but it's still not a valid source of knowledge.
"Natural" does not mean "just seems to happen." "Natural" means "developing as a result of an entity's identity."
>There are many ways to be wrong, naturally. Yet at root many wrong ideas share one thing in common -- they are false.
There are many ways to be wrong, scientifically and mathematically. Yet at root many scientifically and mathematically wrong ideas share one thing in common — they are false.
>Notations are not essential -- they can be different -- to scientific discovery. A colony only able to count to three shares that much in common with all colonies able to count to higher numbers.
Religious practices and dress are not essential — they can be different — to the root religious experience. All colonies that share the insight that the universe required a First Cause or Prime Mover have, at least, that much in common.
>Regarding blood types, different colonies share ideas in common to the degree of their discovery.
But that isn't what you asserted previously. You asserted that ALL colonies — not just "different colonies" — would have identical science and math.
>The essential is that the mathematical/scientific concepts they do discover that are true . . .
A "true" mathematical/scientific concept is one that hasn't **yet** been put through a proof or an experiment rigorous enough to disprove it. Except for trivially true tautologies ("A is A"), no mathematical/scientific concept is true for all times and in all contexts.
>To clarify whether or not you're rational, do you mind answering a few questions?
It's a bit like the blind asking the sighted if they can really see by means of asking a few questions. But go ahead. I'll do my best to answer using as few polysyllable words as possible so that you'll grasp what I'm saying.
>Do you think reality is objective in the sense Objectivism means?
In what sense does Objectivism mean that reality is objective?
>Do you think we can form concepts that are consistent with reality?
Yep. Math, science, religion, art, etc., can all form concepts that are consistent with reality. No one single tool of inquiry — math, science, religion, art — has a monopoly on forming concepts consistent with reality.
>If yes to all the above, then why do you think it is possible to have two different ideas that are contradictory be true?
I have no idea what you're talking about. Neither do you. You've said nothing about ideas being "contradictory." You claimed that all of the mathematical/scientific concepts developed by each colony would be consistent with one another. That's false. The truth is that the mathematical/scientific concepts developed by any one colony need not be consistent with those developed by any other colony. In fact, the mathematical/scientific concepts developed by one colony at time X in its history need not be consistent with mathematical/scientific concepts developed by the same colony at time Y in its history.
Again: you said nothing about contradictory ideas in your thought experiment, so why bring it up now?
When a photon can act as a particle or a wave, depending on who is looking at it, but not both at one time, I see it as a contradiction in its defining properties, yet they are both realities of the observation. I have yet to clearly understand how that could be, but it can be demonstrated true over and over.
The rest of your post is similar so I repeat what I said to EconFree.
I'm not saying they'd all colonies would use the same language/notation or discover at the same rate or in the same categories of science or that they are impervious to error -- which are all likely to be false and most importantly they are all inessential to the thought experiment. The essential is that the mathematical/scientific concepts they do discover that are true are necessarily the same and could be demonstrated in reality.
I'll ask you the same questions, if you don't mind. Do you think reality is objective in the sense Objectivism means? Do you think we can form concepts that are consistent with reality? If yes to all the above, then why do you think it is possible to have two different ideas that are contradictory be true?
Wrong. The world is digital.
But if the children in that society held up their thumb and forefinger, wouldn't they be suspended in school for making a shape of a gun.
Load more comments...