If Science is not a Tool it is Nothing

Pavel's response to me (the first part of three) arguing against the definition of science as a tool. His point seemed to be that if we regard science as a tool it means we are putting something between ourselves (the subject) and reality (the object), and thus we can never know reality but only the tool used to view reality.

I would agree with this, but I don't think it challenges the definition of science as a tool to understand reality. The fact that we have a subjective and relative view of the absolute and objective reality neither indicates the non-existance of the absolute and objective reality nor the pointlessness of the subjective and relative view. In all paradigms the aim is to move the view closer to reality.

In this way if science demonstrates something we are forced to accept it, as I think Pavel said; however what we are forced to accept is not clearly defined. If something is demonstrated we accept that it happens, but why it happens and what that means is open to debate and interpretation.

It is unclear how Pavel proposes to know reality without using any tool or technique.

In the last paragraph Pavel asks for what does science serve; science serves to better understand reality by using the tool of science to answer a very specific type of question. In that sense science serves the same purpose as philosophy, economics, art, politics and a host of other paradigms -- the only difference is the type of question being asked and the method used to answer it.

As an aside, the technique was not previous to science. The scientific method was developed along with the notion of science; people described the technique and said "we shall call this science". And so it was.

Review: Paradise Lost

Paradise Lost by John Milton is an epic poem, written in free verse and in English. This was apparently the main aim of Milton, to write an epic poem for England and to do so in the Enlish language. That's the format, and if you're unwilling to read a free-verse poem published in 1667 give this a miss -- but if you're willing to have a go, it's a worthwhile effort, and not just because it's a much-referred-to classic.

The general theme is well known -- the Fall of Man, the sins of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden -- but it includes the history and creation of Earth and the fall of Satan and his cohorts as well, thanks to a fairly long-winded conversation between Adam and Eve and an angel who was sent to warn them against being tricked into eating the forbidden fruit.

It's interesting reading his particular theology (making sure you don't get sucked into the trap of thinking that's what all Christians thing/thought) and his explanations for the actions of the various participants in the great tragedy. Satan is portrayed as rallying his troops against the great oppression of God, although none of them seem to realise the obvious point that he's planning on replacing it with a great impression by himself. This book could very well be the source of the quote "better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n" (Book I, 263) and there are quite a few well-turned phrases, as you'd expect. Of Belial: "To vice industrious, but to nobler deeds/timorous and slothful", and the works of Sin and Death to create "a passage broad/Smooth, easy, inoffensive down to Hell". On that note, I particularly liked Milton's origin of Sin and Death, a quite deft allegory.

As befits an epic poem there are sections of great battle, brave derring-do, triumph and defeat. However, it also deals lengthily with the more mundane aspects of the tale; the tempting by the serpent and the eating of the fruit. To Milton the knowledge gained was of evil, and the ability to think and be evil. After falling prey to the wiles of Satan, "innocence, that as a veil/ Had shadowed them from knowing ill, was gone" (Book IX 1054), and "since our eyes/opened we find indeed, and find we know/Both good and evil, good lost, and evil got" (Book IX, 1070).

As a story it's quite compelling even if the format is a little strange, but for me the best part was an insight into Milton's mind, how he intepreted the beginning of Genesis. Or at least, how he wrote it down for the poem -- it's worth remembering that he wasn't writing an historical account nor a theological tract, but an epic poem, and it's quite possible he didn't follow his personal philosophy in the interests of the story.

One jarring aspect was the chauvinism/misogyny. Women are portrayed not only as vain and easily tempted, but also alarmingly good at tempting men who are reportedly powerless against their feminine beauty and wiles.

All in all, a worthwhile read if you're looking at getting acquainted with the literature that has had a significant effect on the world.

Paul the Precognitive Cephalopod

So, imagine you're an octopus...

One of the biggest stories to come out of the World Cup -- apart from Suarez's new "hand of God" -- was Paul the Octopus flawlessly predicting the result of every world cup game he was presented with. You can check Google New or Wikipedia if you're unfamiliar with the cephalapod, and pay attention to this paragraph: "Assuming Paul's predictions were no better than fair coin flips, the probability of 12 or more successful predictions in 14 attempts is ~0.65%, as given by the binomial distribution.[34] The probability for 8 out 8 successful predictions is ~0.39%"

So according to scientific standards the result is "significant", which means that it was unlikely to have occured by chance. So, proof of future-predicting powers if only in cephalopod mollusks? A skeptic will of course deride this as ridiculous, usually without giving any reason for the result apart from a vague "in an infinite universe anything can happen" statement.

Of couse, one might suggest retrospective bias, where only successes are remembered...but this falls down when you realise that Paul was preselected before the World Cup as being able to predict the outcome of matches, which he then went on to do with one hundred percent accuracy. You might suggest that the handler was somehow guiding the octopus, but that merely implies the handler can predict the future. What do you want, a double-blind test where neither the octopus nor the handler knows what is being predicted? That just doesn't make sense.


So the challenge is: Why should we not consider this as evidence of precognition? Try to think for yourself before heading to Google...

(Image is photoshopped and from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paul_the_Octopus.jpg)

What is Science? A Response to the Sara.

Science is as science does. Science is an attempt to understand the world as a purely materialistic entity. Although in and of itself science has no ideology it is generally driven by the intellectual descendants of the renaissance, who sought human dominion over everything else. For that reason many people treat science not as the tool that it is, but rather as the arbitrator of what is real and what isn't (see here).

Let's check Wikipedia, shall we? From its Scientific Method page: "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." Here is something interesting. Notice that the word "observable" is followed immediately by the word "empirical", even though the word "empirical" means "that which can be observed". Why this apparent redundancy? Is just incompetency with the english language? Not exactly...

The general method of science is to make observations, form a theory about them, test that theory by making further observations and changing the theory if need be. However, observations are based on our experiences of them, which opens the way to things like love, spiritual experiences, yearning and so on, which just doesn't seem "scientific" to the materialists. So they reduce what a person can observe through experience to the physical senses; sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch. Of these sight is the most important, followed by hearing, as it is for these senses that we have the most precise language. Hence, we begin to see the reason for the inclusion of the word "empirical", which can be taken to mean "observed by a large number of people".

Mind you, the Virgin of Guadalupe was observed by a large number of people so materialists dislike that definition also, so by "empirical" they mean "that which has been recorded by a machine". In doing this they are shirking their responsibility to understand the world by passing off all the detections thereof to a fairly sophisticated abacus.

Why would they do such a thing? Going back to Wikipedia we find that "observable" and "empirical" are followed immediately by "measurable", and we have the answer, which I started this piece with. If something can be measured it can be divided, and if it can be divided it can be controlled. It is this yearning for control over existance, and the corresponding fear of that which cannot be controlled, that leads materialists to refute the existance of anything that cannot be measured.

I seem to have drifted off-topic a bit, moving from science to materialism, but not really. Science is a tool for understanding the material world, and in that use it is supremely effective. Most people are happy to take the tool for what it is and what it is for. For others it is the only tool they have, and much like the idiom that if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail they insist that anything that can be whacked with the tool should be whacked with the tool (and only with that tool), and anything that can't be whacked with the tool is dismissed as an illusion.

I affirm that there is empirical science, and it is a useful tool, but it can't be used on everything and there are plenty of other tools that are just as useful.

El Principio De Mi Lobita Ragabash

Cuando era una lobita la vida era buena. Corríamos en el bosque y en las estepas, hablabamos con la luna y comíamos cuando queríamos.

Entonces llegaron los Corruptos de dos piernas, y casaron y mataron a la manada, aunque no por estatus, ni tierra, ni comida. La manada cayó de uno en uno, hasta que quedé solo yo, y fui correteado hasta un escondrijo del cual no había escapatoria.

La desperación me controlaba, y cambié a mi forma hominida. Cuando llegaron los cazadores encontraron una chica humana, apenas en edad fertil, y me miraron como el lobo alfa mira a la loba en celo, porque era atractiva a sus ojos.

Empezaron a pelear sobre quien me tomaría primero, pero surgió una facción guiada por la lujuria del oro y del poder. Propusieron llevarme con el lider de su manada, suponiendo que el regalo les traería favores.

Eso hicieron, y los ojos del lider de la manada brillaron con lujuria cuando observó mi forma joven y torneada, y babeaba. Me llevo a su cubil y lo cerró, para que estuviéramos solos. Cuando el lider de la manada vino hacia mi con intencion de cópula, me convertí en loba nuevamente, y razgué su garganta con mis jóvenes y afilados dientes.

La carne suave de su entrepierna fue lo primero que comí.

Cuando los Corruptos de dos piernas supieron que su lider estaba muerto se dispersaron, y yo los cazé de uno en uno en venganza mi manada. Ahora vago por el mundo buscando a los lideres de los corruptos -- un a vez que has arrancado la cabeza de la víbora, puedes comerte tranquilamente el cuerpo.

De todas maneras, es divertido.

Ampollas de Maíz

Ya planté mis semillas de maíz rojo, 3 lineas, y tengo ampollas por el clalacho. Pero creo que vale la pena ... en algunas meses vamos a tener maíz y frijoles y calabaza.

Viento de Cola

Había una vez, hace muchos años, un joven que decidió ver el mundo. Para decir la verdad, el vía el mundo antes de eso decisión, a pesar de que el había visto el mundo cada segunda que tenía sus ojos abiertos... entonces por razones de claridad vamos a decir que el quería ver mas del mundo que había visto hasta eso punto en su vida.

Estaba siendo un hombre de acción, hasta el segundo que el había hecho eso decisión el lo volviera en realidad. Estuvo comiendo muchos frijoles, pensando -- "con eso energía estare viendo todo el mundo en el mismo tiempo".

El día siguiente el muchacho salio de la casa, puestó en cuclillas, y brincó lo mas alta que fuera posible, lo mas alto que algien habia brincado antes. Eso no fue suficiente, pero apenas estaba en el punto mas alto los frijoles hicieron lo que los frijoles hacen, y el viento de cola resultante propulsó el joven cerca del cielo.

Con eso silla divina, el podría ver todo el mundo, hasta el mar brillante en las orillas del mundo a las lomas de su hogar debajo de el. Qué? No, el está bien, rodó cuando cayó en el piso, entonces todo es bien.