Science and Senses?

[silver 2039]

Our senses tell us that that a table, for example, is a solid object; science tells us that the table is mostly empty space. Thus two sources of knowledge generate conflicting results. Can we reconcile such conflicts?

 

[Maimonides]

Read the Theory of Relativity.

 

[Leifmk]

Our senses tell us that that a table, for example, is a solid object; science tells us that the table is mostly empty space. Thus two sources of knowledge generate conflicting results. Can we reconcile such conflicts?

Um. "Yes."

In this specific case, by deepening our understanding of what a "solid object" is.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

The nature of senses is known by science also and there is not conflict.

And BTW remember that what we know as "common sense" is not always a good tool in science.

"Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before your reach eighteen."

Albert Einstein

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge"

Daniel Boorstinq

 

[El_Machinae]

Dawkins talks about this: our minds are not really designed to comprehend the universe at relativistic speeds or in the micrometer scale. But those things exist, and we can understand them.

You can choose to not accept the science, and live a perfectly functional life that contributes to your happiness and the good of the species. You might never contribute to the quantum computer project, but only a few people can anyway.

 

[Atticus]

Can we reconcile such conflicts?

It probably depends on how you want to see the world. Like you can tell people what happened in your dreams as if they were real while you all the time know that all the things happened only in your brains. I'd say that the word "solid" is used differently in daily talk than when we talk about atoms. Same goes inside physics also: if you state at the mechanics lecture that this table in the example really isn't solid, you will be considered trouble maker. You have to always consider the context. Another example: you are working as a road constructor and have done good job. Your supervisor asks you if the road is smooth, obviously you would be lying if you said that it isn't, allthough it surely has some visible unsmoothness.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Our senses tell us that that a table, for example, is a solid object; science tells us that the table is mostly empty space. Thus two sources of knowledge generate conflicting results. Can we reconcile such conflicts?

No need, there really isnt a conflict. Anyway, if a hard, solid seeming thing like a table is mostly empty space, what about our bodies? I thought most of the empty space was between our ears.

 

[Gothmog]

Ah, sweet philosophy...

This is a quote I paraphrased in another thread and later looked up...

Originally writen by nietzsche

Finally consider that even the seeker after knowledge forces his spirit to recognize things against the inclination of the spirit, and often enough also against the wishes of his heart - by way of saying No where he would like to say Yes, love, and adore - and thus acts as an artist and transfigurer of cruelty. Indeed, any insistence on profundity and thoroughness is a violation, a desire to hurt the basic will of the spirit which unceasingly strives for the apparent and superficial - in all desire to know there is a drop of cruelty.

Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Our Virtues (229, last paragraph)

 

[warpus]

Our senses tell us that that a table, for example, is a solid object; science tells us that the table is mostly empty space. Thus two sources of knowledge generate conflicting results. Can we reconcile such conflicts?

Our senses tell us that the sun revolves around the earth.. yet science tells us otherwise.

How do you make sense of that? Confusing, huh?

 

[Bill3000]

Our senses tell us that that a table, for example, is a solid object; science tells us that the table is mostly empty space. Thus two sources of knowledge generate conflicting results. Can we reconcile such conflicts?

By realizing that common sense is inherently worthless when talking about truth.

Common sense is overrated - it isn't worth anything when discussing the empirical, or even the nonempirical - the counterintuitive can deal with abstract objects, too. It can sometimes be a good approximation, but ultimately it fails miserably.

And this is why ultimately, the scholarly methods (of which the scientific method is one type) is superior to common sense.

 

[Masquerouge]

Well I don't see where the contradiction is.
Sure, the table might be made of mostly emptiness, but it's still able to carry plates and glasses and silverware.
A ballon is mostly empty space, also, yet I can play with it.
So I think the confusion arise when you assume that "mostly empty space" means inexistent or intangible. it does not.

 

[CartesianFart]

Our senses tell us that that a table, for example, is a solid object; science tells us that the table is mostly empty space. Thus two sources of knowledge generate conflicting results. Can we reconcile such conflicts?

These are not necessarily contradictions but are just two different of mode of explaining what the table is by our sense of what is 'empirical' and what is 'theoretical.'

 

[Truronian]

Our senses tell us that that a table, for example, is a solid object; science tells us that the table is mostly empty space. Thus two sources of knowledge generate conflicting results. Can we reconcile such conflicts?

Actually, science tells us solid objects are mainly empty space.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Our senses tell us that that a table, for example, is a solid object; science tells us that the table is mostly empty space. Thus two sources of knowledge generate conflicting results. Can we reconcile such conflicts?

I think you are confusing rigidity and density.

 

[Atticus]

And this is why ultimately, the scholarly methods (of which the scientific method is one type) is superior to common sense.

If there is such a thing as the scientific method, it is based on the common sense, it isn't just god given. Common sense is (I think) the ultimate ground for things. You just must be ready to revision your thoughts when they contradict each other.

 

[Bill3000]

If there is such a thing as the scientific method, it is based on the common sense, it isn't just god given. Common sense is (I think) the ultimate ground for things. You just must be ready to revision your thoughts when they contradict each other.

Logic is not the same thing as common sense. Common sense is basically intuitive logic, and logic isn't always intuitive.

It's common sense, for example, that a group of 5000 people out of 300 million is a biased sample. But statistically, assuming random selection, that sample size is more than enough to get within +/- 1.39 percentage points with a 95% confidence interval.

As well, the actual scientific method is quite complex. It takes more than 5 seconds to be a proper scientist!

 

[Atticus]

Logic is not the same thing as common sense. Common sense is basically intuitive logic, and logic isn't always intuitive.

Certainly you can conclude something unintuitive by logic, but that's just the case where you have to think things over. If you don't justify logic with the common sense, what makes those rules better than some others? I'm not saying that common sense is the ultimate truth, but it has to be the thing we start from.

As well, the actual scientific method is quite complex. It takes more than 5 seconds to be a proper scientist!

I'm just bothered about the expression, it reminds me of the naive conception that scientists have some machine they use, and after that they can tell the truth about everything. What counts as science has been (and still is) much debated, and it haven't been just nitpicking (which I presume you know, so I don't go further here).

 

[Bill3000]

Certainly you can conclude something unintuitive by logic, but that's just the case where you have to think things over. If you don't justify logic with the common sense, what makes those rules better than some others? I'm not saying that common sense is the ultimate truth, but it has to be the thing we start from.

Of course you can start things with some common sense, but it's not the end-all-be-all. Common sense has nothing to do with rationality - common sense is the type of reasoning done by the average person. Probably more than anything, it's the inuititive, and science has shown that the intuitive is rarely true with regards to the empirical.

But there's quite a difference between saying that the scientific method is based on common sense, and that the scientific method is tcommon sense.

I'm just bothered about the expression, it reminds me of the naive conception that scientists have some machine they use, and after that they can tell the truth about everything. What counts as science has been (and still is) much debated, and it haven't been just nitpicking (which I presume you know, so I don't go further here).

It's been quantified. See [wiki]Philosophy of Science[/wiki]. Of course it isn't a machine - but it is clearly a general set of scholarly methods used in the empirical sciences. And since it is an actual subject of Philosophy, I don't really think that it is based on common sense - rigorous treatment of a subject is generally the definition of something that is beyond "common sense".

 

[Irish Caesar]

Thus two sources of knowledge generate conflicting results. Can we reconcile such conflicts?

I fail to see the conflict.

 

[warpus]

If there is such a thing as the scientific method, it is based on the common sense, it isn't just god given. Common sense is (I think) the ultimate ground for things. You just must be ready to revision your thoughts when they contradict each other.

You really gotta throw common sense out the window when doing science. You don't want any bias at all, and "common sense" is the worst of them all.

Common sense = preconceptions.