On 26/09/13 10:30, Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/09/13 15:13, Tim Streater wrote:
NB the science of gravity is still not settled.
You can say that again..
Another example, from, as it happens, an opinion piece on renewable energy:
"For example a physicist confronted with the proposition that it is possible
to build a perpetual motion machine, can, without actually having to
investigate the detail of the proposed project, declare with complete
certainty that it is impossible, since it would necessarily violate the
laws of known physics. The physicist does not need to build it and test
it in order to make that statement."
http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf
Now the author might be wrong to say "complete" certainty, since given
sufficient evidence the right answer really is to change the laws of known
physics. But surely you would agree that the laws of thermodynamics really
are settled, and the onus is on anyone claiming to break them to provide
that evidence?
There is an important philosophical point that really has extreme
practical implications.
We cannot in all honesty say we know the truth about anything in
absolute terms, truth is always interpreted according to the minds of
those discovering it, and is therefore culturally malleable to an
extent. Hence the statement 'the truth is what people believe it to be
in the terms in which they believe it'
BUT there are two massively important additional things.
1/. Either we are massively impressively overwhelmingly good at self
deception and are in fact Gods whose whims form reality except we don't
know we are doing it, or there is a reality beyond - and a truth beyond
- what we may conceive and believe it to be. That is, whilst our local
human truths and natural laws are totally human inventions they are
inventions that are NOT WHOLLY INCONSISTENT with whatever is the case -
what reality 'really is'.
2/. If we then say that such laws as we have invented appear to be
wholly consistent with a given worldview up to the point of predicting
with alarming accuracy and 100% repeatability certain results, we have
arrived at a CONTEXT in which that law is 'true'. And if we then WITHIN
that context attempt to say 'well its all context-dependent, therefore
perpetual machines could work because no law is inviolate' etc etc, then
we have stepped outside of the context in which that law - and indeed
the discussion itself was framed.
And that is where I get alarmed by the total hypocrisy - and its
seemingly unwitting hypocrisy - of those who claim to step into the
scientific context to use some basic physics to 'prove' that global
warming is happening, but then step completely outside the laws of
physics to claim that 'what counts is how many people believe global
warming is happening' and then 'saying perpetual motion - or renewable
energy - machines wont work is just something you BELIEVE and has no
substance in reality'.
You can't have it both ways. Either you are operating on faith, or
within a rational context, and in a rational context there are truths,
and you can't use them to both demonstrate a problem and then ignore
them to create a solution, IN THAT CONTEXT.
If on the other hand global warming is simply a faith, then its
perfectly well countered by another faith - that solar panels and
windmills will magically fix it.
Which is fine provided its adherents pay for it themselves. Its not fine
when it is rammed down my throat like Sharia Law.
--
Ineptocracy
(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.