Science loses its privileged place at the center of the universe as a privileged knower.

Asked by: shakuntala
  • A new Copernican revolution

    This scholar points out Science loses its privileged place at the centre of the universe as a privileged knower- we now have a new Copernican revolution

    Man can not know the universe as his language used to know it only falsifies the universe. This results in the death of man i.E. The death of asserting a privileged observer of the universe.
    All we have is an endless free play of words trying to capture the universe but all these words are man’s own creation which in fact falsifies the universe. With the decentring of man from the universe we have no guaranteed facts or interpretations which are authoritive since the words we use for these facts or interpretations only falsify the referents. The universe is now seen as being that which is produced by man via his culturally arbitrary conventional systems of signs i.E. Language.

    As Zajak notes “particles and waves are macroscopic concepts which gradually lose their relevance as we approach the submicroscopic domain.H.Zajak,. Optics, Addison Wesly Publishing Company, New York., P. 449

    The very words physicists use to describe reality constrain their knowledge of it and scientists in every field will one day encounter this barrier to human understanding.” A. Wick, The Infamous Boundary, Birkhauser, Berlin, 1995 p.39

    Bohr said “ the role of theory is to predict what we see on the dails of our apparatus they say if the predictions are accurate the theory is god Answering these other questions about what is really going on -is a meaningless excersise.” V, Stenger The unconscious Quantum, Prometheus books, 1995, p 10

    “ [operationalism]To avoid the imprecision’s of ordinary speech [Bridgman] identified the meaning of a concept in terms of the set of operations used to measure it .. He considered the difference between laboratory physics and the cosmology of general relativity to be the difference between science and nonscience.” A. Bulock & O Stallybrass & S. Trombley, “Operationalism in The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, Fontana, 1988, p.609

    “Einstein’s famous rejection of the concept of absolute simultaneity on the grounds that the simultaneity of events is always relative to the frame of reference of the observer, who is assessing it, is operationalism in spirit.” P, Barry, Beginning theory, Manchester university press, 2002 p 113

  • But that doesn't invalidate it's use

    Knowledge is only as good as it serves a purpose. So this knowledge of particles and waves are very valuable and hold great promise for the future. There's no need to limit our understanding of reality to them and doing so is not necessary to use the knowledge and its fruits such as new technology.
    In the end knowledge is just another tool. And scientific knowledge has proven to be a very very useful tool at least as far as helping to perform tasks and create new things to perform tasks.

  • The title says it all

    I did not get past the title. It is unlikely that a person, who makes that fundamental mistake, would be able to write any sort of cohesive case. Aside from that, science is not a thing or person that has knowledge ("a knower"). Science is a process by which the physical world can be understood. It is s process that postulates and tests. As such the limitations are not with science, but with our ability to ask questions and design experiments to test possible answers to those questions. What surprises me is that the author is proud to display his ignorance in public.

  • Science is the only source of knowledge of the physical world.

    Postmodernists keep making fallacious "arguments" based on the denial of argument (logic) itself. Science works, is not contradictory, and other methods are either irrelevant or directly harmful. The postmodernist attacks on science are identical to the old religious nonsense, denying that human reason works. But it obviously does, planes fly and the light switch works.

  • What is knowledge?

    Science is not a fixed concept or even a set of fixed conclusions, although that is how it is mistakenly viewed by people on the losing end of scientific arguments, like creationists. They tend to superimpose their decision making process (I have a conclusion and want to argue it is right) with the scientific method (I have a question and want to find a measurable way of finding out what the answer is). To the extent there is any substance to the points the Yes side is trying to make, what is the most valid way to validate their substance? Observation, collection of data, reasoning what the case of the outcome is and maybe even extrapolating what another outcome may be, which would allow the same process to occur?

    Even things we now understand with mathematical precision were once hugely complex and "unknowable." Scientific inquiry has just chewed away at the little pieces that could be observed and measured, leading to deeper understanding and more meaningful measurement of other parts, until, in some cases (for example, the earth's rotation) were calculated.

    So, technically I guess the reason the answer to this question is "No" is probably because science has never claimed to be (1) privileged; (2) at the center of the universe; or (3) most importantly, a "knower." It is simply a toolbox for trying to figure out whether the universe has a center in the first place.

  • Science is becoming MORE prominent.

    Scientific fields and the scientific methods are our paramount way of knowing anything about the universe around us- it is the only methodological, objective, verifiable system. And with our technology and knowledge advancing every day (particularly in the fields of cosmology), it is obvious that science is our society's most useful and integral tool.

    The article at left here is just New Age baloney.

  • New Age BS

    This is a poorly written article from someone who may suffer from a schizotypal personality. It seems the person is some kind of New Age, Anti-Science person with a poor grasp of both science, logic and debate since quoting a few people doesn't make an argument. It's a huge Argument from Authority fallacy.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.