Philosophy of science

From Joseph Smith as scientist : a contribution to Mormon philosophy by Widtsoe, John Andreas, 1872-1952

 Referring to the above diagrams it will be observed that although each arrangement contains the same number of atoms, yet, because of the difference in arrangement, they are far from being identical. In fact, the difference in the properties of the sugars may be referred to the arrangement of the atoms in the molecules. This truth is one of the most splendid achievements of modern science. All the facts, here briefly outlined, are included in the atomic hypothesis, which is the foundation of the modem science of chemistry.

Science asks us to believe in the existence of particles, unknowable to our senses, the molecules; Science requires then to believe in still smaller particles, fn^"thrngs^not *^® atoms, which make up the molecules seen." but whose relative weights and general properties have been determined. Here, a faith is required in "things that can not be seen," and in the properties of these things. True, the scientist does not pretend to describe the atoms in detail, he does not need to do that to establish the certainty of their existence. He looks upon them as ultimate causes of effects that he may note with his physical senses. Does theology require more ? Does any sane man in asking us to believe in God, for iastance, attempt to describe him in detail ?

The scientist goes farther than this, however, for he asks us not only to have faith in the invisible, untasteable, unfeelable atoms, but also in the exact manner in which these atoms are arranged within the molecule. True, it is claimed, only, that the relative arrangement is known, yet the faith required still leads us far beyond the simple faith, in atoms. Has any man asked us to believe that he can describe the structure of God's dwelling? No principle taught by Joseph Smith requires a larger faith than this.

Not only in chemistry are such transcendant truths required. The fundamental conception of physics requires, if possible, a larger faith. The explanations of modern physics rest largely upon the doctrine Of the universal ether. This ether is everywhere present, between the molecules and atoms; in fact the things of the universe are, as it were, suspended in the ocean of ether. This ether is so attenuated that it fills the pores of the human body without impressing itself upon our consciousness, yet some of its properties indicate that its elasticity is equal to that of steel. As shown in chapter 5, the most eminent scientists of the day declare that the existence of this world-ether is one of the few things of which men may be absolutely sure. Yet the ether cannot be seen, heard, tasted, smelled or felt. To our senses it has neither weight nor substance. To believe the existence of this ether requires a faith which is certainly as great as the greatest faith required by Mormon theology..

Numerous other illustrations might be cited, without greatly emphasizing the truth that the great fundamental doctrines of science require a great faith in realities that are beyond the reach of our senses.

faith. physics rest largely upon the doctrine

of the universal ether. This ether is everywhere present, between the molecules and atoms; in fact the things of the universe are, as it were, suspended in the ocean of ether. This ether is so attenuated that it fills the pores of the human body without impressing itself upon our consciousness, yet some of its properties indicate that its elasticity is equal to that of steel. As shown in chapter 5, the most eminent scientists of the day declare that the existence of this world-ether is one of the few things of which men may be absolutely sure. Yet the ether cannot be seen, heard, tasted, smelled or felt. To our senses it has neither weight nor substance. To believe the existence of this ether requires a faith which is certainly as great as the greatest faith required by Mormon theology.

No up or down in space

 

No up or down in space

No Up or Down in Space

The concept of "up" and "down" is deeply ingrained in our everyday lives. On Earth, gravity provides a clear direction: down is towards the center of the planet, while up is the opposite. This orientation shapes our understanding of the world and influences how we navigate our environment. However, when we venture into space, this familiar framework begins to dissolve. In the vastness of the cosmos, the notions of up and down lose their meaning, presenting a fascinating challenge to our perception of reality.

In space, the absence of gravity creates a unique environment where traditional orientations become irrelevant. Astronauts aboard the International Space Station (ISS) experience microgravity, which allows them to float freely. In this state, they can rotate and move in any direction without the constraints of gravitational pull. This freedom can be disorienting for those accustomed to the fixed orientation of life on Earth. The experience of weightlessness transforms the way individuals interact with their surroundings, as they can push off surfaces and glide through the air, defying the expectations set by gravity.

The lack of a definitive up or down in space also has implications for navigation and communication. On Earth, we rely on landmarks and directional cues to guide us. In the vast expanse of space, however, these references are scarce. Astronauts must rely on instruments and technology to orient themselves. The stars, while beautiful, do not provide a consistent frame of reference. Instead, they serve as distant markers that can help with navigation but do not define a specific direction. This reliance on technology underscores the importance of adaptability and precision in space exploration.

Moreover, the absence of a clear up or down challenges our understanding of human behavior and psychology. In a microgravity environment, the body undergoes various changes. For instance, fluids in the body redistribute, leading to a puffy appearance in astronauts' faces. This physiological shift can affect mood and cognitive function, highlighting the intricate relationship between our physical environment and mental state. The experience of floating in a weightless environment can evoke feelings of exhilaration, but it can also lead to disorientation and discomfort. Understanding these effects is crucial for the well-being of astronauts during long-duration missions.

The philosophical implications of a space devoid of up and down are equally intriguing. It invites us to reconsider our place in the universe and the constructs we have built around our existence. The idea that orientation is a human construct challenges our perception of reality. If up and down are merely products of our planet's gravitational influence, what does that say about our understanding of space and time? This perspective encourages a broader exploration of how we define our experiences and the frameworks we use to interpret the world around us.

As humanity continues to explore the cosmos, the lessons learned from the absence of up and down in space will shape our future endeavors. The challenges of navigating a weightless environment, the physiological effects on the human body, and the philosophical questions raised by this experience all contribute to our understanding of what it means to be human in the universe. Embracing the complexities of space will not only enhance our exploration efforts but also deepen our appreciation for the intricate relationship between our planet and the vast, mysterious cosmos that surrounds us.

Marxism and Natural Sciences by Y.M. Uranovsky

 Natural science has to do with a relatively changeable nature ; on the one hand, as a result of the industrial activity of many generations, on the other hand (as the further development of science has shown) as a result of man's action upon it through the medium of investigation of observed processes.

The essence of the processes of nature cannot be understood without taking man's practical activity into account, which depends on the condition of productive forces and social construction. Only by starting from the practice of social life (industry, classes, social conditions) can human nature be understood as a part of nature as a whole, not only in the sense that man's psychology and ideas show their class essence, but in the sense of taking account of those natural (biological) changes to which he is subjected, when, in the process of changing reality, he also changes himself.

The method established by Marx spells the doom of naturalism in all its variations which looks on human society and man as an ordinary "child" of nature : the socio-power school (Podolinsky, Ostwald) ; the geo-political (Rutzel, G. E. Graf, etc.) ; every kind of bio-sociological school, starting with social-Darwinism, from Karl Kautsky's attempts to supplement Marx with a doctrine of the instincts as the starting-point for the analysis of social relationships, or the efforts of the Austro-Marxists to correct Marx by the teaching of Freud, explaining religion and culture by biological factors, right down to the philosophy of modern fascism (O. Spann) which tries to base itself on a biological theory of completeness and a doctrine of races in the organic world.

Marx breaks down all kinds of teaching on freedom of will by showing that social being determines social consciousness and in this way extends the objective method to the study of the most complex social phenomena.

In place of inconsistent, abstract, materialist monism (Spinoza, French eighteenth-century materialism, Feuerbach), Marx lays the firm foundations for a materialist monism which is not abstract, but concrete, dialectical, consistent, taking account of the specific nature of human society, of all the inner connections between nature and man in their historical development. Marx gives a method and an outlook in which the dialectic of nature and the dialectic of history are indissolubly connected together.

In Marx's views the historical primacy of nature is not in any way broken. Even before the triumph of evolutionist ideas Marx establishes the following premises : the theory of creation is destroyed, as is shown by the natural sciences (geognosis) ; nature develops, it is in process of becoming even before the appearance of man ; the development of nature goes spontaneously, is immanent, selfgenerated ; the organic world (and man) arose through generatio æquivoca ; life has not always existed as Thomson, Helmholtz and other representatives of the "absurd doctrine" of panspermy uphold. It follows that Marx understands this generatio æquivoca not as being the conception and birth of higher organisms without the intermediary of seed and parents (the mediæval form of this doctrine of generatio æquivoca, spontanea aut primaria), but in the sense of self-movement, selfdevelopment, i.e. in the sense which is in accordance with the chemical theory of the origin of life and the evolutionary theory of the origin of man, established within a decade and a half by Darwin's theory.

In a deep internal connection with these new views of the object of the natural sciences, of nature, Marx develops an absolutely new outlook on the science of nature, on natural science.

Even in the works belonging to the Holy Family Marx analyses, with greater power and depth than any of his predecessors (Bacon, Spinoza, the French materialists and philosophers of the age of enlightenment), the cultural-historical and social significance of natural science. Marx reproaches the philosophers for not taking into account the role and importance of the natural sciences. Natural science is not an external factor of usefulness for man or a chance factor of enlightenment. It is internally bound up with the most essential form of human activity, with practice, with industry, with the development of labour.

Industry is a practical relationship of man to nature, natural science, a "theoretical relationship". Industry is the basic form of practice, natural science, the foundation of human science. Industry discloses the real powers of man, and natural science is such a "real power", "a potential of production". Marx establishes the empirical origin and practical function of natural science and apportions a very important social role to natural science.

It follows that the power of Marx's analysis, surpassing all that had hitherto been written on the importance of the natural sciences, is determined by the fact that Marx knew how to generalise with genius the objective data of the epoch. Marx did not invent theories but summed up the experience of history and modern life. He often refers to the "gifts of science" which Davy, Liebig and others made to humanity.

O nature, nature, life will not perish!

 O nature, nature, life will not perish! Friends, Helena, life will not perish! It will begin anew with love; it will start out naked and tiny; it will take root in the wilderness, and to it all that we did and built will mean nothing — our towns and factories, our art, our ideas will all mean nothing, and yet life will not perish! Only we have perished. Our houses and machines will be in ruins, our systems will collapse, and the names of our great will fall away like dry leaves. Only you, love, will blossom on this rubbish heap and commit the seed of life to the winds. Now let Thy servant depart in peace, O Lord, for my eyes have beheld — beheld Thy deliverance through love, and life shall not perish!

Karel Čapek

Geometry dash

 

 

Americans losing faith in science and scientists, but still value gov't investment in field: study

By Leonardo Blair, Senior Features Reporter 

97

The Museum of the Bible opens its new exhibition titled “Scripture and Science: Our Universe, Ourselves, Our Place" on Jan. 19, 2023, in Washington, D.C. | The Christian Post/ Nicole Alcindor

While a majority of Americans still have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists and believe science has had a mostly positive impact on society, an increasing minority are expressing strong levels of distrust in scientists and the impact of their work on society, a new study from the Pew Research Center shows.

The study, which includes a survey of 8,842 U.S. adults, was conducted Sept. 25-Oct. 1. Researchers also found that despite the growing distrust of scientists and the impact of their work on society, a majority of Americans still value government investment in the field.

“Despite declines in ratings of scientists and science, a large majority of Americans continue to see government investments in science as worthwhile. And most place at least some importance on the United States being a world leader in scientific achievements,” Alec Tyson, associate director of Science and Society Research, and Brian Kennedy, a senior researcher at the Pew Research Center wrote.

Nearly 80% of Americans agree that government investments in scientific research are generally good for society.

A Message from Westside Christian Fellowship

The Breaking of America: What Hurts the Most

🚨Urgent & Dire: If you think salvation is coming in 2024, you’ll be gravely mistaken. God only knows the chaos that may ensue. The real question is, are you ready? READ MORE HERE

In general, though, only 57% of Americans say science has had a mostly positive effect on society. This share is 8 percentage points lower than it was in November 2021 and 16 points lower than it was before the dawn of COVID-19.

Some 34% of Americans believe the impact of science on society has been equally positive as negative, while another 8% say the impact of science on society has been mostly negative.

Even though 73% of U.S. adults noted that they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests, researchers noted that since the early stages of the pandemic, trust in scientists has fallen 14%.

The share of Americans who said they have a great deal of confidence in scientists fell from 39% in 2020 to 23% today.

The share expressing the strongest level of trust in scientists — saying they have a great deal of confidence in them — has fallen from 39% in 2020 to 23% today, while some 27% of Americans say they have not too much or no confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests. That share was 12% in April 2020.

Confidence in medical scientists and scientists has shown a general decline, but researchers found it to be more pronounced among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in recent years, researchers said.

Some 38% of Republicans “now say they have not too much or no confidence at all in scientists to act in the public’s best interests,” according to Pew.

While the study found the decline in confidence in scientists to be more pronounced in Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, the decline was also noticed among Democrats.

In November 2020, the share of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents who had a great deal of confidence in scientists was 55%. That share is now 37%.

“But unlike Republicans, a large majority of Democrats (86%) continue to express at least a fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests. The overall differences in partisan views remain much more pronounced today than they were prior to the coronavirus outbreak,” the researchers noted.

While 70% of Republicans said science had a mostly positive effect on society in 2019, less than half, or 47% of that group, now say the same. Some 69% of Democrats say science has had a mostly positive effect on society but that share is still 8% lower than it was in 2019.

Despite the declines in public confidence in scientists, 73%, and medical scientists, 77%, Americans still had more trust in them and their work than, public school principals, religious leaders, and police officers.

Among American adults, 69% expressed a great deal or fair amount of confidence in police officers, 65% in public school principals and 53% in religious leaders.

A majority of Americans also said they “have not too much or no confident at all” in journalists, business leaders and elected officials.

Contact: leonardo.blair@christianpost.com Follow Leonardo Blair

Said in 1929--But Still Applicable to Some "Official Scientists" Today

 

This very unphilosophical irruption [of a scientist] into philosophy was, however, in one way enlightening. It threw a light backwards on the speaker's previous proclamation on things on which he has more right to speak. Even in those things he betrayed a curious simplicity common among such official scientists. The truth is that they become steadily less scientific and more official. They develop that thin disguise that is the daily wear of politicians. They perform before us the most artful tricks with the most artless transparency. It is like watching a child trying to hide something. They are perpetually trying to bluff us with big words and learned allusions; on the assumption that we have never learnt anything--even of their own funny little ways. Every leader-writer who thunders "Galileo" at us assumes that we know even less about Galileo than he does. Every preacher of popular science who throws a long word at us thinks we shall have to look it up in the dictionary and hopes we shall not study it seriously even in the encyclopaedia. Their use of science is rather like the use made of it by the heroes of certain adventure stories, in which the white men terrify the savages by predicting an eclipse or producing an electric shock. These are in a sense true demonstrations of science. They are in a sense right in saying that they are scientists. Where they are perhaps wrong is in supposing that we are savages.

–G. K. Chesterton, “The Mask of the Agnostic.” 

War on science? Pardon me, while I laugh!

War on science? A war on science? Science requires questions! Science requires questions about questioning everything! What matters is reality! You think that you can understand reality. You think that you can understand truth. Get real! You can not understand reality. Reality involves questions! Do you ever question your beliefs? Do you ever question what society supports? Not all cultures acknowledge science! They are into tribal council things! How dare you judge them! You and your western vapor worship! Worship of reason is worship of vapor! Reason is vapor! You go after it, and it leaves! Question every thought! Question every idea! What matters is truth!

Stop Giving Power to People Who Don't Believe in Science? Hans Solo says

Harrison Ford: "Stop Giving Power to People Who Don't Believe in Science"

Rauf ahmed 22:09 0

"Celebrities typically use their platforms to unfold awareness on vital problems. But whereas several folks became numb to their warnings, there is one thing concerning Harrison Ford that creates folks stay awaken and listen.



Maybe it's the cult following he's acquired from playing heroic characters like Indiana Jones and Han Solo."

Excuse me, but since when do non scientists get to define how we live our lives? And isn't science something that you should question and re-question over and over? why do we have to worship the past?