Question Cyclical Universe

[dfjchem721]

There's nothing wrong with a scientist arguing philosophy but labels need to be applied properly, including ones that need the label "scientism".

"Scientism" has two distinct definitions.

One is defined by some as an "excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques."

So this clearly depends on the meaning of "excessive". If all that science does is verifiable and yields new insights that create new technologies, then it should not be considered excessive, but "realistic".

The term "excessive" should be relegated to the realm of science fiction. Of course there are the whacked out "scientists" who profess crazy ideas outside the mainstream of factual science (i.e. absolute truths, don't get me started again, re: nukes). You can throw them all in with the derogative term.

From wiki's secondary definition (This is its use in the above treatment of the word) :

"The term Scientism is generally used critically, implying a cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards. "

end quote

Wiki's primary definition :

"Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological* values."

end quote

(* relating to the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion.)

Depending on one's definition, Scientism works for palmists, card readers, etc. They should not be included in the definition of "methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion."

There are clearly two distinct definitions which must be clarified before one can accept any rational aspects for its use. But this might not sit well with those wanting to distort the real meaning of science.

There already exists a great term that most people recognize and use on a daily basis that best describes its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion. That definition is called simply "science", and for those of us where it really matters, it needs no definition.

It is its own definition.

 

[Catastrophe]

Catastrophe said:
"People, all of us, tend to believe what we want to believe."

I have been saying something similar for more than the last 60 years:

People believe what they need to believe.
Click to expand...

Indeed. This will be found in every foxhole.

My meaning is that there is the ignorance, typified by unwarranted beliefs, in every centre of unsubstantiated belief, which may be attributable to fear, begun and played upon by the organisers of such dogma - motivation? - personal gain and/or aggrandisement?

 

[rod]

In post #127, what *substantiated belief* shows the empirical universe measured in astronomy today, e.g. globular clusters, quasars, SMBHs, etc. evolved from a cyclical universe and that the First Cause for the origin of the universe we see today, was a *quantum mechanical fluctuation*?

For all the posts in this *tome*, I have not seen this yet. It all looks like circular reasoning and hand waving.

 

[Helio]

Wiki's primary definition :

"Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological* values."

But that's a definition for science itself. An "ism" is more about philosophy or religion (beliefs). It's not a belief that science works; it's demonstrable. That's what makes science unique and separate from philosophy and religion.

The other realms address those things that aren't found through "objective means".

Depending on one's definition, Scientism works for palmists, card readers, etc. They should not be included in the definition of "methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion."

I doubt those would qualify as scientism and their is little to no science that supports their claims.

Scientism, IMO, must begin with a respected scientific claim backed by mainstream science. Then it becomes an "ism" when this hard science gets extrapolated to take us into areas science has no knowledge of how to get there... yet. It's that "yet" part that seems to help justify many claims made by scientiism. If the "yet" seems reasonable and not silly, then it gets passed, unfortunately, as science itself. To argue for an infinite number of universes exist to favor our fine-tuned one isn't science but a belief that we just aren't there "yet".

There already exists a great term that most people recognize and use on a daily basis that best describes its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion. That definition is called simply "science"...

Agreed.

...and for those of us where it really matters, it needs no definition.

Science without definition isn't science. It is the boundaries that it has self-established that bring great efficacy. Once those boundaries get shoved into philosophy and religion, science will potentially become less effective. Suppositions should be treated as such. Some are the seeds of greatness, others are fodder.

 

[Helio]

Indeed. This will be found in every foxhole.

My meaning is that there is the ignorance, typified by unwarranted beliefs, in every centre of unsubstantiated belief, which may be attributable to fear, begun and played upon by the organisers of such dogma - motivation? - personal gain and/or aggrandisement?

Agreed. The difference between "need" and "tendency" are worth noting.

Those that are "played upon" because an abuser recognizes certain people's "need to believe", allow themselves to be vulnerable to that abuse. Those that recognize, however, this vulnerability can mitigate its effects by favoring, instead, a "tendency" viewpoint, and we all have that, IMO.

 

[Catastrophe]

rod

In post #127,
"in every centre of unsubstantiated belief"
your underquote disguises my intended meaning.
I was referring to geographical locations, such as those (not to be confused with 9 in the USA), at Lat 42 degree N Long 12 degrees 30"E.

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio

"Those that recognize, however, this vulnerability can mitigate its effects by favoring, instead, a "tendency" viewpoint, and we all have that, IMO."

Those who recognise such a vulnerability in themselves, you suggest (?), can mitigate fear, begun and played upon by the organisers of such dogma its effects by favoring, instead, a "tendency" viewpoint, towards what?

Sorry, you lost me?

 

[dfjchem721]

Science without definition isn't science.

Now you are distorting my position. That post closed by noting "science" is its own definition (aka self-defining). And that definition is clear to all who accept it as reality.

Those who need an alternate definition might consider looking for the answer on some other site. If they have not found it here yet, they never will. Not surprising they would grasp at semantics as a last refuge.

And in this regard, checking over the use of the term scientism, it is used by people on both sides of the science/theology debate. Not surprisingly, those of the latter prefer the negative aspects of the term as it applies to facts. This is understandable since they haven't a leg to stand on (i.e. no data), which is why the term crutch is often used to describe a faith-based belief.

Is this a site on space and science, or is it about philosophy?

 

[Helio]

Helio

"Those that recognize, however, this vulnerability can mitigate its effects by favoring, instead, a "tendency" viewpoint, and we all have that, IMO."

Those who recognise such a vulnerability in themselves, you suggest (?), can mitigate fear, begun and played upon by the organisers of such dogma its effects by favoring, instead, a "tendency" viewpoint, towards what?

Sorry, you lost me?

I was working with your valid viewpoint of how some have a "need to believe". As you say, this can be due to "ignorance, typified by unwarranted beliefs, in every centre of unsubstantiated belief, ..." If these same people could recognize their vulnerability to their own "need to believe" and substitute it for treating this as their own "tendency" instead, then they would be less likely to be preyed upon.

 

[Catastrophe]

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[Catastrophe]

I was working with your valid viewpoint of how some have a "need to believe". As you say, this can be due to "ignorance, typified by unwarranted beliefs, in every centre of unsubstantiated belief, ..." If these same people could recognize their vulnerability to their own "need to believe" and substitute it for treating this as their own "tendency" instead, then they would be less likely to be preyed upon.

OK. You mean that if they recognised their weakness they might be less likely to be preyed upon.
That is thankfully now possible without risk of being horribly murdered.

 

[IG2007]

Can we get back to Science from religion, metaphysics and philosophy talks? I guess, we are supposed to talk only Science here.

 

[Helio]

Now you are distorting my position. That post closed by noting "science" is its own definition (aka self-defining). And that definition is clear to all who accept it as reality.

Perhaps I misunderstand your meaning.

I suspect we may be disagreeing about degree, not kind. If the use of science draws a "distinction between justified belief and opinion", and certainly it does, then how do we apply it to those articles above that want to state, and do, that science has all the answers, though perhaps not "yet"? If this is opinion, would you say that it should be divided from science (ie metaphysics) given that such claims are, IMO, purely suppositional? If so, is it not scientism? I doubt any requirement for an infinite number of universes should do well in any epistemological review. Or am I wrong?

Those who need an alternate definition might consider looking for the answer on some other site. If they have not found it here yet, they never will. Not surprising they would grasp at semantics as a last refuge.

I don't see those people here. Explanations are appreciated and respected. We all seem to want to learn, and I'm no different.

Is this a site on space and science, or is it about philosophy?

Understanding the difference is always worth the debate, right?

 

[Catastrophe]

IG
Are you really banning forms of scientific enquiry which are not yet open to measurement? What you might call the philosophy of science.#I would include any mention of cosmology, universes and the like.
Even this thread would be banned: Cyclical Universe
How do you measure this?

 

[Helio]

Can we get back to Science from religion, metaphysics and philosophy talks? I guess, we are supposed to talk only Science here.

The problem is that we really can't do justice to the idea of cyclical models, "multi-universes", "parallel univreses", BBT, etc., if we don't appreciate those distinctions between science, metaphsysics, religion & philosophy, IMO. Adopting a position that a model is truly scientific when it may not be is similar to the old Geocentric model where the Earth was held to be the center of the universe. It was treated as a truth, but modern science treats such models as ones that can be falsified, and it was, eventually.

 

[Helio]

IG
Are you really banning forms of scientific enquiry which are not yet open to measurement? What you might call the philosophy of science.#I would include any mention of cosmology, universes and the like.
Even this thread would be banned: Cyclical Universe
How do you measure this?

Agreed, but we must hear all reasonable suppositions as they are the birth place for theories.

 

[dfjchem721]

Can we get back to Science from religion, metaphysics and philosophy talks? I guess, we are supposed to talk only Science here.

Thank you IG2007. Hopefully we will get back to that place where we can all get along, we should hope....

 

[IG2007]

I am not saying that this should be banned, Sir Catastrophe. I mean, we have passed days when only religion and philosophy could define the moment of big bang and before that (if a "before" really even exists). Science has really gone forward, we have theories defining a universe before big bang.

Have a look at this: https://www.space.com/truth-behind-nasa-mirror-parallel-universe.html

Although "Philosophy starts where Science ends", Science is not limited now. There are many mysteries in Physics about which Philosophy isn't much of help. So, we should get back to Science and theories. I hope that I am not sounding rude but I guess, I always say what I want to say and believe.

 

[dfjchem721]

There are many mysteries in Physics about which Philosophy isn't much of help. So, we should get back to Science and theories. I hope that I am not sounding rude but I guess, I always say what I want to say and believe.

You are not sounding rude in the least. Those you are addressing and failing to heed your sagely advice might be considered rude. You are merely asking that people stay on the right topic(s).

If people want to debate philosophies, they can start an independent conversation.

Sorry, don't mean to sound rude!

 

[Helio]

I am not saying that this should be banned, Sir Catastrophe. I mean, we have passed days when only religion and philosophy could define the moment of big bang and before that (if a "before" really even exists).

Yep, the standard model was the Static Theory, where the universe never changed and was probably infinite.

Science has really gone forward, we have theories defining a universe before big bang.

Do we? Understanding the differences between a true scientific theory and a likely one, can be very beneficial, especially in maintaining scientific integrity.

Have a look at this: https://www.space.com/truth-behind-nasa-mirror-parallel-universe.html

And it states, "We have no evidence that this reflected universe exists, Boyle said. " Is it junk? No, it's very interesting and if that neutrino hypothesis holds, it will be new evidence to help form new theories, perhaps even the mirror one.

I do disagree, however, with their claims that the universe is regarded as chaotic prior to the CMB. Inflation theory was introduced in the first nanosecond, actually much sooner, to help explain the amazing isotropy (smoothness) observed in the CMB, which necessarily would have had to exist prior to it.

Although "Philosophy starts where Science ends", Science is not limited now. There are many mysteries in Physics about which Philosophy isn't much of help.

In a very active science forum, a prof. of physics (PhD) kept addressing the importance in understanding the differences between science and other magisteria. He felt science itself would lose credibility as more scientists claimed their metaphysical views were equated with scientific theories. If the only thing I'm good for at this site is helping others understand those differences, then I will be pleased. I do think some of my puns aren't all that bad, but I've restrained myself as some here I suspect, respect Shakespeare.

So, we should get back to Science and theories. I hope that I am not sounding rude but I guess, I always say what I want to say and believe.

Your posts are a delight, IG! I wish I was as sharp as you when I was your age.

 

[Helio]

Sorry, don't mean to sound rude!

Your use of ad hominems aren't likely accomplishing what you think they are.

 

[IG2007]

Your posts are a delight, IG! I wish I was as sharp as you when I was your age.

Thank you, I am honoured.

You are merely asking that people stay on the right topic(s).

It's good that I am not sounding rude.

And also, what do you all think about the article I just posted?

 

[IG2007]

Your use of ad hominems aren't likely accomplishing what you think they are.

I agree and disagree at the same time.

 

[dfjchem721]

Your use of ad hominems aren't likely accomplishing what you think they are.

Time will tell.

 

[Catastrophe]

Please clarify for me:

Is it scientifically possible to discuss the BB? or BHs?

I know I want conversation about them, however you classify that conversation.

Cat