[gareth]

There's nothing believable about the Easter Bunny. But if everyone on Earth was convinced of the Easter Bunny's existence, then I'm sure I would be too. Wouldn't you?

Have you ever thought that the things that might actually matter to furthering science are not verifiable or falsiable in empirical terms?

The reason I joined this forum is because I want to learn as much about the world as possible. I think we're sometimes cajoled into thinking that science has all the answers to understanding the world we live in. So far (perhaps with the exception of Darwinism), it hasn't done much to further my understanding of the world, compared to what religion and the arts have done.

A good start would be to encourage a more inter-diciplinary approach in science (but of course, it is not in the nature of a scientist to spread himself across multiple fields as this would mean he wouldn't get the recognition he craves in his specialised field, and there would also be problems with funding, etc). It can then branch out to embrace the humanities and possibly religion. So when we talk about a unified theory, we are not just talking about a unified theory of science, but a unified theory of everything (42!). Isn't that something to work towards?

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by gareth

There's nothing believable about the Easter Bunny. But if everyone on Earth was convinced of the Easter Bunny's existence, then I'm sure I would be too. Wouldn't you?

No, I would not. I would need to see the evidence supporting the claim.

Have you ever thought that the things that might actually matter to furthering science are not verifiable or falsiable in empirical terms?

No, I have not, because things which are not verifiable or falsifiable are not in the domain of science. They are the proper domain of the Humanities.

The humanities are academic disciplines which study the human condition, using methods that are largely analytic, critical, or speculative, as distinguished from the mainly empirical approaches of the natural and social sciences.

Humanities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reason I joined this forum is because I want to learn as much about the world as possible. I think we're sometimes cajoled into thinking that science has all the answers to understanding the world we live in. So far (perhaps with the exception of Darwinism), it hasn't done much to further my understanding of the world, compared to what religion and the arts have done.

I invite you to read the wiki article above...

A good start would be to encourage a more inter-diciplinary approach in science (but of course, it is not in the nature of a scientist to spread himself across multiple fields as this would mean he wouldn't get the recognition he craves in his specialised field, and there would also be problems with funding, etc). It can then branch out to embrace the humanities and possibly religion. So when we talk about a unified theory, we are not just talking about a unified theory of science, but a unified theory of everything (42!). Isn't that something to work towards?

Science can't embrace the Humanities. If it could, it wouldn't be science.

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by gareth

There's nothing believable about the Easter Bunny. But if everyone on Earth was convinced of the Easter Bunny's existence, then I'm sure I would be too. Wouldn't you?

Have you ever thought that the things that might actually matter to furthering science are not verifiable or falsiable in empirical terms?

The reason I joined this forum is because I want to learn as much about the world as possible. I think we're sometimes cajoled into thinking that science has all the answers to understanding the world we live in. So far (perhaps with the exception of Darwinism), it hasn't done much to further my understanding of the world, compared to what religion and the arts have done.

A good start would be to encourage a more inter-diciplinary approach in science (but of course, it is not in the nature of a scientist to spread himself across multiple fields as this would mean he wouldn't get the recognition he craves in his specialised field, and there would also be problems with funding, etc). It can then branch out to embrace the humanities and possibly religion. So when we talk about a unified theory, we are not just talking about a unified theory of science, but a unified theory of everything (42!). Isn't that something to work towards?

Avoid any discussion of God, or you will regret it. Stay out of the theology forum and don't mention God, and things will go just fine.

[gareth]

Overdog - of course you are right - Humanities and Science are two separate fields. What interests me is the overlap between them. By the way, have you ever seen a badger?

You must remember that moral philosophy (surely at the heart of humanities) is vital for steering science down the right path.

Would the discovery of alien life, for example, be best dealt with by experts in science or experts in the humanities?

Another example that interests me is the concept of 'fate'. Once upon a time, it seemed to me to be one of the most unscientific notions ever. With the advent of the mapping of the human genome, suddenly the idea of an inescapable fate doesn't seem so unscientific anymore, in fact, the whole concept of inescapable fate seems to have now been ripped out of the humanities and placed squarely at the door of science.

Nutronjon - I didn't mention the 'G word' - you did.
And how do you know I will regret visiting the theology forum - do you have any empirical evidence? Is there something sinister about the theology forum then?

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by gareth

Overdog - of course you are right - Humanities and Science are two separate fields. What interests me is the overlap between them. By the way, have you ever seen a badger?

You must remember that moral philosophy (surely at the heart of humanities) is vital for steering science down the right path.

Would the discovery of alien life, for example, be best dealt with by experts in science or experts in the humanities?

Another example that interests me is the concept of 'fate'. Once upon a time, it seemed to me to be one of the most unscientific notions ever. With the advent of the mapping of the human genome, suddenly the idea of an inescapable fate doesn't seem so unscientific anymore, in fact, the whole concept of inescapable fate seems to have now been ripped out of the humanities and placed squarely at the door of science.

Nutronjon - I didn't mention the 'G word' - you did.
And how do you know I will regret visiting the theology forum - do you have any empirical evidence? Is there something sinister about the theology forum then?

I think these are a lot of interesting questions, and this is a great site for discussing them. I think it would be better though to discuss them in seperate threads in the appropriate forums, rather than all right here....

I think you have only have three posts to go before you can start threads on them in the different forums.

In the mean time, here's a link you might find interesting....

Philosophy of Science

There is nothing sinister about the Theology forum, and people are free to express a belief in God if they want to.

But this is a science site, and folks who make unverifiable claims about or relating to God with no evidence to support those claims, are really claiming they have some special knowledge about God or the Universe...folks here just don't buy it, and will ask for evidence or proof. That's all.

Have fun, looking forward to your posts!

[gareth]

Thanks for the tips Overdog - I'm sure I can learn a lot from this forum.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by gareth

If you have no trouble understanding the concept of infinity, could you please explain* it to me (i.e. what it means to you PERSONALLY - not the dictionary definition).

You need a wide open imagination to visualize it. When you think of sets think of an endless set larger than the Universe itself. Think of an endless line that reaches the end of the Universe and keeps on going. Difficult? Yep, for most people anyhow.

Now think of a giant track, maybe the size of a whole state. It has two lanes with a line down the middle and a barren wall running along both sides so the scenery is the same all the way around. Now imagine driving that track for ever looking for the end that doesn't exist. Mentally this is like the same endless line that goes to the edge of the Universe and keeps on going.

Mathematically you can divide infinity into two basic types, countable infinities and uncountable infinities. The set of integers represents a countable infinity where you can make a one-to-one relationship with the set of integers and the infinite set. The set of real numbers is uncountable because it contains all of the integers and all of the points in between like all of the irrational numbers like pi and e which can't even be identified as specific points on the line, only points they lie next to.

Hopefully this will help a little with your visualization of infinity.

[gareth]

It's very difficult to imagine this, but your analogy does help a little.

By the way, I found the analogy of the ant and the balloon in 'a brief history of time' very helpful.

I am unable to get my head around the phrase relating to pi and e: 'can't even be identified as specific points on the line, only points they lie next to'.

If we are to visualize the uncountable infinity lane, it would also be interesting to see prime numbers placed along the side of the road as 'milestones', with their values corresponding to the value in miles. If we were to drive down the road very fast, I wonder if the prime numbers that flashed by would eventualy reveal a pattern to us.

I can understand how pi has properties that could be considered infinite, but perhaps the secret to getting a handle on infinity lies in identifying prime number patterns.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by gareth

I am unable to get my head around the phrase relating to pi and e: 'can't even be identified as specific points on the line, only points they lie next to'.

Think of it like this. Pi is a point between 3.14 and 3.15. More precisely it is a point between 3.14159 and 3.14160. Even more precisely it is a point between 3.1415926535897932384626433832795 and 3.1415926535897932384626433832796. You can go on like this forever identifying points that lie on each side of pi but you can never identify the one point that is pi. The same is true for e and all irrational numbers.