Queerer than we can suppose: the strangeness of science.
In July, of 2005, Richard Dawkins gave a speech at TED. Mr. Dawkins opened with the following statement: "Queerer than we can suppose: the strangeness of science."
And moments later... Mr. Dawkins quotes J. B. S. Haldane (a biologist):
"Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. I have read and heard many attempts at a systematic account of it, from materialism and theosophy to the Christian system or that of Kant, and I have always felt that they were much too simple. I suspect that there are more things in heaven and earth that are dreamed of, or can be dreamed of, in any philosophy. That is the reason why I have no philosophy myself, and must be my excuse for dreaming."
Out of context, yes, but that is beside the point. I understand where Mr. Dawkins is coming from.
In your humble opinion, do you think Mr. Dawkins is placing a "limit" on scientific pursuit?
An Atheist's Call to Arms
Last edited by ushomefree on Jul 7th, 2009 at 05:07 AM
And no, he's not suggesting limits, the fact that we've figured out what we have already is proof of that. Also there's computers to help us and the continuing process of evolution.
The problem is that while there are (to our knowledge) no limitations on what we can learn through science there is a limit to what we can truly understand. Eventually, we will be more like Subblebine than Horatio, we will find ourselves confounded by our own intellectual knowledge not unable to move science forward.
Even modern science suffers from the Subblebine effect (dibs on that, btw). We are forced to rely on metaphor to describe the extremes of reality, forgetting to mention to people that the metaphors are less true than what we know. My favorite example comes from a show on quantum mechanics that noted "the thing to remember about parallel dimensions is that they are neither parallel nor dimensions". The more we learn about the truth the less we can explain it to those who don't (or even to ourselves) thanks to the Middle World problem Dawkins describes.
Or to place it in a context appropriate for this forum. We no more have the words to properly describe a religious experience to a lay person than to describe the Copenhagen Interpenetration to a child.
In essence we have no limits on what we can know but we may suffer from limits on what we understand.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
There is more evidence in science that the atheistic view is correct, than there is saying that theistic worldviews are on an equal footing, realistically.
Check out Christopher Hitchen's works also. He is an Anti-theist.
Gender: Unspecified Location: One for the other hand
That is a weird statement coming from you? How is being an Atheist a waste of time? I could see being an Atheist activist, but how is not believing in gods a waste of time?
I never quite understood the Dawkins stigma. He always seems like a reasonable guy to me, and his scientific work is brilliant. Hitchens-hate, that I get.
But yeah, basically it's just saying that our minds weren't evolved to handle the ultra-complex mathematics of modern physics. Can you imagine a 3-dimensional structure? Of course. 4 dimensions? Sure, since we have a working idea of time. 5 dimensions? 6? 10?! There are numerous mathematical models that suggest to us that these things are possible or even likely. But our minds literally cannot imagine them.
So there's the block. It's not that there's limits. It's that there's obstacles, and our current understanding is most likely skewed by those obstacles.
Also, shakya, nothing's a waste if you're happy. We all have to make some decision regarding a belief system, and stating one to be worthless is tantamount to damning them all.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 7th, 2009 05:05 AM
You have no idea what I was saying.
