UK Census 2011

[worm]

sorry, I don't get you. Who is it who now has the power over western scientific method and is controlling our scientific belief on things? you've probably already said somewhere but as someone who really doesn't care much for philosophy I find your posts difficult to digest, so tend not to read them. So, please fill me in.

[worm]

The one after the argument is you, which is why you tried to start it with irrelevances.

[worm]

there's a question that's been bugging me... I can't remember...

how many does it take to tango...?

[Ed209]

Western culture.

It dictates to science by telling it where to go, to what end and why. I think the current belief in evolutionary theory is at its peak. It is without doubt at the height of theoretical fashion given that it's stylizing our approach to all things philosophical. Which is really quite amazing when you consider that its just an anthropomorphic analogy.

[feral chile]

Anyway, if God created the universe, wouldn't he have created all physical laws, including evolutionary process? A lot of people see evidence of intent in evolution, so conclude that there must be a being who planned it.

So I suppose God becomes a terraforming genetic engineer.

I love how he changes according to our developing theories regarding the natural world - he used to be a kind of mechanic.

[llcoolphil]

Anyway, if God created the universe, wouldn't he have created all physical laws, including evolutionary process? A lot of people see evidence of intent in evolution, so conclude that there must be a being who planned it.

So I suppose God becomes a terraforming genetic engineer.

I love how he changes according to our developing theories regarding the natural world - he used to be a kind of mechanic.

[worm]

OK, so I agree that western culture is the driving force behind much of what we research, and to what extent we research it, but are you actually saying the findings of modern western science are dependant on the fact western culture has inspired the endeavour?

[worm]

Anyway, if God created the universe, wouldn't he have created all physical laws, including evolutionary process? A lot of people see evidence of intent in evolution, so conclude that there must be a being who planned it.

So I suppose God becomes a terraforming genetic engineer.

I love how he changes according to our developing theories regarding the natural world - he used to be a kind of mechanic.

[worm]

He made it that way so your relationship with him wouldn't become tired and complacent, constantly evolving his role. An evolutionary god. Covers all bases!

[worm]

FAO Ed: Episteme's taken from wiki:

'While paradigm shifts are a consequence of a series of conscious decisions made by scientists to pursue a neglected set of questions, epistemes are something like the 'epistemological unconscious' of an era; the configuration of knowledge in a particular episteme is based on a set of fundamental assumptions that are so basic to that episteme so as to be invisible to people operating within it.'

Edited March 23, 2011 by worm

[Ed209]

That's correct.

For example, the western desire for medicine and cosmetics creates a need. Science looks into it, while philosophy looks to address what is going on because of it. Subsequently, philosophy informs science of better fitting methodologies, thus getting rid of the older methodologies and the knowledge that they would have constructed in the process.

It's known as epistemology. The production of knowledge via science is known as an episteme. It refers to the potential for knowledge, the knowledge that already exists as well as the knowledge that can no longer be attained.

For instance, one epistemologist famously said that we could no longer find evidence of God, not because he never existed, but because we no longer have the tools to sense him. Our minds and the direction that culture and science has taken has removed our access to him.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Ed209

[Ed209]

and also, back to the point, Why the f**k is big brother plastering adverts all over the tube network telling me to send back my census now or I'll get fined, when we're not supposed to fill it out till 27th March. Just seems like an exercise to confuse people.

[MrZigster]

That's probably even more pointless than writing 'Jedi' into the religion box. After all, it's not like it'll be collated and presented to anyone who is able to stop selling those arms.

[eFestivals]

Really. I thought automated cheque checkers worked via Optical Character Recognition (OCR)? That's why they use the font they use. That's what I was told in Robotics lectures anyway but that was a decade and a half ago mind.

it's 'magnetic ink', and they're read via that (or at least was, more recently than 15 years ago). Running a magnet across them is supposed to screw them up so they don't work.

The one test I've done with it certainly seemed to prove it true - the cheque reader couldn't read the numbers, and the cashier had to type them in manually.

[worm]

No offence, but this is why I never cared much for philosophy.

Edited March 23, 2011 by worm

[feral chile]

No offence, but this is why I never cared much for philosophy. So I just want to clarify, what you're saying includes scientific facts as well as theories. For example, can I trust western science when it tell me the speed of light is (approximately) 2.997*10^8 m/s? Because if the answer is 'no', that's total bullshit.

[llcoolphil]

how does science define time?

[Ed209]

No worries Chief, I don't care for (and aren't very good at) maths.

Yes it is, but the only way that abstract series of signs (i.e. 2.997*10^8 m/s) can come to represent something meaningful is through culture. As a truth, it is completely dependent on cultural apparatus, whereas the actual speed of light is not.

A fact external to language is a fact because it's empirical. So the speed of light is a fact. But saying that the speed of light is a fact, as I just have, is representative and completely subject to the cultural apparatus of language. The assertion is considered a fact on how well it denotes a fact, rather than it being a fact. Same for your equation, which depends on a specific language, that being western maths and physics.

[Ed209]

how does science define time?

[worm]

yeah ok. I agree with that. Phew! Thought you were going to get all hippy on me with shit like "light might not even exist man".

Nah that's cool.

[worm]

God is the most interesting analogy of all time because it embodies absolutely everything we know or may come to know and is limited by nothing, not even religion.

Evolution, on the other hand, is just a crude anthropomorphic analogy that's quite popular in, and extremely limited by, scientific circles.

Edited March 23, 2011 by worm

[Ed209]

Nah, subjective objective arguments are pointless. It's all about language.

So for example, we know the speed of light without knowledge that it's 2.997*10^8 m/s, but in a culture that denotes it this way we are told that we don't. So even though we do know the speed of light, we are told by scientific authorities that we do not.

Confused yet?

It's because 2.997*10^8 m/s is only an analogy of the speed of light according to a system of knowledge. It is not the actual speed of light; only an analogy of it. Neither, of course, is the phrase 'the speed of light'. That too is an analogy.

[worm]

but it is the closest we can get to a natural representation of something that is embedded into the very fabric of nature.

Edited March 24, 2011 by worm

[Ed209]

God is the most interesting analogy of all time because it embodies absolutely everything we know or may come to know and is limited by nothing, not even religion.

Evolution, on the other hand, is just a crude anthropomorphic analogy that's quite popular in, and extremely limited by, scientific circles.

[worm]

yeah, well I don't know about any of that. What I know is that complexity and diversity in life being a product of natural selection sounds pretty damn plausible to me.

Edited March 24, 2011 by worm