Do you trust the senses for scientific examination of the external world?

[Agent Cooper]

It's impossible to have a perfect observer anyway. By observing you are directly affecting what you are observing - so what you end up observing is not the original object anyway.

Yeah, that's a pretty substantial part of quantum mechanics.

Sometimes, I feel like we haven't really advanced that much in our understanding of the marvel that is the Universe and our own existence in it. I feel like we are essentially not much different than the ape throwing a bone into the sky in Kubricks 2001 in a heureka moment.

 

[Ayn Rand]

The problem with disbelief in the senses is that it leaves nothing to believe, and therefore solipsism.

I agree with this - but only when it is disbelief, rather than doubt.


Man is not the measure of all things, rather it is measurement that is used to bring all things into the consciousness of man. Acquiring knowledge is done by using careful systems of measurement to analyse the World through human senses. The senses are always the final and ultimately only standard of knowledge of reality - we have no choice but to rely on them.

Hypothetical descriptions of what an alien may or may not perceive are irrelevant - we can expand our knowledge to include such perceptions if or when we ever acquire it. But even such knowledge and imagination is a product of the senses, so it only adds to knowledge provided by senses, it doesn't destroy it or invalidate the senses.

Carefulness in method is the way in which sensory information is checked for validity - metaphysics, epistemology, logic and so on are the methods and the senses are the instruments.

 

[Winner]

Yeah, that's a pretty substantial part of quantum mechanics.

Sometimes, I feel like we haven't really advanced that much in our understanding of the marvel that is the Universe and our own existence in it. I feel like we are essentially not much different than the ape throwing a bone into the sky in Kubricks 2001 in a heureka moment.

I think we've done well considering we haven't even left Earth yet. I mean, we have a pretty good idea how the Universe began, and we deduced that from observing the world around us.

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

I trust the senses for the scientific examination of the external world because of the built-in modesty inherent in the scientific method, not the precision of our senses. The iterative process that is science always leaves room open for re-examination and refinement of the study. So while there is an innate 'fuzziness' to our ability to comprehend any given phenomena due to our limited senses, a scientific examination will always leads us as close to the truth as we are able to comprehend.

 

[Kyriakos]

It's impossible to have a perfect observer anyway. By observing you are directly affecting what you are observing - so what you end up observing is not the original object anyway.

I am not sure if you are directly affecting it (in some way yes, but probably not that much) but you definately reconstruct it in your senses according to your mechanisms of observation and consciousness.
I could accept that people who believe in a god could claim that the perfect observer would be that god. As an agnostic i lean towards claiming that there is no true form in anything.

Also: is "Heureka" a combination of Hubris and Eureka?

 

[BasketCase]

How do you prove space? I'm not talking about outer space, I'm talking about the enormous space inside atoms, and yet we perceive solidness.

Here's a way: fire tiny particles at a thin sheet of gold foil and see what happens. If most of the tiny particles hit the foil, the foil is solid. If most of the tiny particles go right through it, then the foil must be mostly empty space. Why is it the tiny particles go through the foil but your hand doesn't? Because your hand is a lot bigger than the tiny particles--the tiny particles fit through the empty spaces but your hand doesn't.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is very easy to deceive the sense of sight. Here are some examples.

Are these spirals or circles?

MC Escher was a master of creating them in the form of art. I have 3 of his prints in my house. I love it when people comment they like the print but don't even see the illusion.

 

[Agent Cooper]

How do you prove space? I'm not talking about outer space, I'm talking about the enormous space inside atoms, and yet we perceive solidness.

You can try this in your kitchen:

Fill a glass to the absolute brim with hot tapwater. Now slowly pour sugur into the glass with a teaspoon. Repeat...

You'll observe that you can put a lot of sugar into the glass before the water begins to spill outside. What happens is that the sugar molecules dissolve into the water molecules, which have plenty of empty space between them.

 

[GoodGame]

The problem with disbelief in the senses is that it leaves nothing to believe, and therefore solipsism.

I see where you're going in that denying sense is like denying external existence, but....


No, we can believe in things that the senses can't detect, like individual electrons. Disbelief in the senses can be based on the natural limits of the senses (e.g. accuracy, precision, sensitivity limits, etc..).

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

Does a oar really bend when placed in a water? lol


The pre-socratics were very superstitious men. But very clever in their way of reasoning things to what we all now believe are irrelevant to the advancement of theoretical science.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

No, we can believe in things that the senses can't detect, like individual electrons.

I'm quite sure a cloud chamber is inspected with one's eyes.

 

[GoodGame]

I'm quite sure a cloud chamber is inspected with one's eyes.

Well sure I can inspect a vacuum in JJ Thompson's Mass Spec, but I really only infer the existence of the electron by the mark it left on the photographic plate. I still accept the existence of the electron though. And that doesn't have anything to do with soliphism, which was my point. I merely accept that my senses are limited, so I appreciate my Mass Spec can detect what I can't directly see.