|
|
Post by gameboy on Jun 5, 2020 8:10:20 GMT
Interesting dichotomy. I like when fools are forced to work within a structure. For example, astrology is a science even if it's results are incorrect and superstitious. It still uses scientific method based on planetary movement. I think you're confusing pseudoscience with science. Pseudoscience can create systems and use technical-sounding terminology without ever subjecting itself to the kind of rigorous empirical testing that's necessary for something to qualify as genuine science, and that's precisely how astrology works. The fact that it utilizes some scientific facts, like planetary movement, in no way lends any scientific credence to the hypothesis that those movements affect people's personalities or futures. It's almost Zen to force yourself to use an illogical frame of reference. That was my point. I'm not confusing anything. I know astrology is bunk. We're only choosing between two options here. The Babylonians treated astrology as a science. You seem to be saying it's only science if it's correct. Many scientific theories even under current standards are proven wrong. Are they no longer science? |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 5, 2020 13:15:51 GMT
I think you're confusing pseudoscience with science. Pseudoscience can create systems and use technical-sounding terminology without ever subjecting itself to the kind of rigorous empirical testing that's necessary for something to qualify as genuine science, and that's precisely how astrology works. The fact that it utilizes some scientific facts, like planetary movement, in no way lends any scientific credence to the hypothesis that those movements affect people's personalities or futures. It's almost Zen to force yourself to use an illogical frame of reference. That was my point. I'm not confusing anything. I know astrology is bunk. We're only choosing between two options here. The Babylonians treated astrology as a science. You seem to be saying it's only science if it's correct. Many scientific theories even under current standards are proven wrong. Are they no longer science? I have no idea what's "zen" about being illogical, but OK I guess. The Babylonians were wrong, simple as that. Saying "X is science" when X has only ever been debunked by science (never supported) is a rather bizarre usage of the term, as generally the people who believe in astrology would only call it "science" if they think/believe science actually supports/proves it. All of our current theories have scientific support right now, meaning that they've been subject to rigorous empirical testing. If we manage to make some new discovery or discoveries that cast doubt on those theories and/or find another theory that is able to explain what the current theories cannot, then it's fine to still consider those debunked things science; but astrology never even had that initial rigorous empirical testing to begin with. Same as with something like phlogiston. It's not science if a hypothesis makes no unique predictions and if those predictions are never rigorously tested. |
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Jun 5, 2020 16:05:32 GMT
It's almost Zen to force yourself to use an illogical frame of reference. That was my point. I'm not confusing anything. I know astrology is bunk. We're only choosing between two options here. The Babylonians treated astrology as a science. You seem to be saying it's only science if it's correct. Many scientific theories even under current standards are proven wrong. Are they no longer science? I have no idea what's "zen" about being illogical, but OK I guess. The Babylonians were wrong, simple as that. Saying "X is science" when X has only ever been debunked by science (never supported) is a rather bizarre usage of the term, as generally the people who believe in astrology would only call it "science" if they think/believe science actually supports/proves it. All of our current theories have scientific support right now, meaning that they've been subject to rigorous empirical testing. If we manage to make some new discovery or discoveries that cast doubt on those theories and/or find another theory that is able to explain what the current theories cannot, then it's fine to still consider those debunked things science; but astrology never even had that initial rigorous empirical testing to begin with. Same as with something like phlogiston. It's not science if a hypothesis makes no unique predictions and if those predictions are never rigorously tested. I'm a Zen master who studied the Eightfold Path in a Tibetan lamasery and reached Nirvana. Not really  But my point is that the famous Zen koan the sound of one hand clapping is illogical, is it not? <<< [LGBT eyes] Lady, this great thread has parameters. The OP knew there would be many jackasses protesting with a lisp "Astrology is neither a Science or an Art!!! It's 'toooooooopid!!!" That's not the f*****g point!!! You were asked to choose between the two. Astrology is more a science because it has rules based on observation, the movement of the planets. So I suppose if you're not a complete jackass who refuses to work within the OP's parameters, you're saying Astrology is an art?  Can you support your theory as I supported mine?  |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jun 5, 2020 17:04:42 GMT
There's an awful lot of science to be found in art, music and cinema. Leonardo da Vinci studied a lot of anatomy, mathematics of perspective, and optics to practice his painting. Music also has a great mathematical underpinning, found in the tempered scale used by J. S. Bach, and in the design of musical instruments. And of course, the formal name of the organization that gives out the Oscars includes the word "sciences". I think there's "science" in pretty much everything to the extent that it can be studied empirically, and most everything can. The way I approached this is less about can something be studied/approached scientifically, and more about how much the doing of those things requires science. The creation of art, music, cinema, etc. more requires practice and honing one's instinct and intuitions as to what looks good, sounds good, etc. It's also still something of a mystery as to why some art (broad sense) moves us profoundly and some art does not. Is it possible to scientifically say why Veritigo is considered a masterpiece and The Room is considered so-bad-it's-good? I'm hoping neuroaesethetics will help to bring some scientific understanding to the issue, but it's a pretty young field. If we want to draw a line, we could categorize according to how important an "eye" (or in general a sense of aesthetics) play a role in the categories, and how important talent is in practicing those arts or sciences. At one end of the spectrum might be poetry and at the other end perhaps chemistry. Coming from a scientific background I'm always quick to appreciate the technical component of visual artists such as da Vinci, yet at the same time my musical appreciation is very intuitive and non-technical (I tend to get lost in technical discussions about the sonata form as used by Beethoven for instance). A strong mix of engineering skills and artistry was highly valued by the Florentine artists of the Renaissance. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 6, 2020 1:33:52 GMT
I have no idea what's "zen" about being illogical, but OK I guess. The Babylonians were wrong, simple as that. Saying "X is science" when X has only ever been debunked by science (never supported) is a rather bizarre usage of the term, as generally the people who believe in astrology would only call it "science" if they think/believe science actually supports/proves it. All of our current theories have scientific support right now, meaning that they've been subject to rigorous empirical testing. If we manage to make some new discovery or discoveries that cast doubt on those theories and/or find another theory that is able to explain what the current theories cannot, then it's fine to still consider those debunked things science; but astrology never even had that initial rigorous empirical testing to begin with. Same as with something like phlogiston. It's not science if a hypothesis makes no unique predictions and if those predictions are never rigorously tested. I'm a Zen master who studied the Eightfold Path in a Tibetan lamasery and reached Nirvana. Not really But my point is that the famous Zen koan the sound of one hand clapping is illogical, is it not? <<< [LGBT eyes] Lady, this great thread has parameters. The OP knew there would be many jackasses protesting with a lisp "Astrology is neither a Science or an Art!!! It's 'toooooooopid!!!" That's not the f*****g point!!! You were asked to choose between the two. Astrology is more a science because it has rules based on observation, the movement of the planets. So I suppose if you're not a complete jackass who refuses to work within the OP's parameters, you're saying Astrology is an art? Can you support your theory as I supported mine? I don't think Zen koan's are illogical, I think they're designed to tickle quirks in human intuition and thinking. Logic requires a proposition about reality, which most koans aren't really. Fair point, though, about working within the parameters of the OP, but if I were to start a thread called "animal or vegetable" and offered "doorknob" as an example, I don't know how you could argue it was either. It's simply NOT either. But, OK, if you're going to force me to make a choice between astrology being science or art, I'd say art because it's far more about imagination than making any rational conclusions based on empiricism. In the end, what the people who write horoscopes or make up "personality profiles" are doing is just using their imagination, which is far more in the realm of art. |
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Jun 6, 2020 3:49:05 GMT
I'm a Zen master who studied the Eightfold Path in a Tibetan lamasery and reached Nirvana. Not really But my point is that the famous Zen koan the sound of one hand clapping is illogical, is it not? <<< [LGBT eyes] Lady, this great thread has parameters. The OP knew there would be many jackasses protesting with a lisp "Astrology is neither a Science or an Art!!! It's 'toooooooopid!!!" That's not the f*****g point!!! You were asked to choose between the two. Astrology is more a science because it has rules based on observation, the movement of the planets. So I suppose if you're not a complete jackass who refuses to work within the OP's parameters, you're saying Astrology is an art? Can you support your theory as I supported mine? I don't think Zen koan's are illogical, I think they're designed to tickle quirks in human intuition and thinking. Logic requires a proposition about reality, which most koans aren't really. Fair point, though, about working within the parameters of the OP, but if I were to start a thread called "animal or vegetable" and offered "doorknob" as an example, I don't know how you could argue it was either. It's simply NOT either. But, OK, if you're going to force me to make a choice between astrology being science or art, I'd say art because it's far more about imagination than making any rational conclusions based on empiricism. In the end, what the people who write horoscopes or make up "personality profiles" are doing is just using their imagination, which is far more in the realm of art. But one hand can't clap? It will never be able to clap. I've pondered that koan before and it boggles the mind. That's why I said making these illogical choices is Zen-like. If forced to make a choice I'd say a doorknob is more vegetable because it's not sentient. And a doorknob can also be made of wood which is definitely vegetable. See how fun this can be when you suspend logic? Aristotle is credited with being the father of science because he was the first to use empirical methods. Yet Aristotle believed that spontaneous combustion created frogs out of trash heaps!!! Science has not always been correct. Even 20th century science was rife with errors. And actually astrologers follow historical rules which ascribe personality traits to planets and stars. They are not really using their imagination. They are following precedent. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 7, 2020 1:39:45 GMT
I don't think Zen koan's are illogical, I think they're designed to tickle quirks in human intuition and thinking. Logic requires a proposition about reality, which most koans aren't really. Fair point, though, about working within the parameters of the OP, but if I were to start a thread called "animal or vegetable" and offered "doorknob" as an example, I don't know how you could argue it was either. It's simply NOT either. But, OK, if you're going to force me to make a choice between astrology being science or art, I'd say art because it's far more about imagination than making any rational conclusions based on empiricism. In the end, what the people who write horoscopes or make up "personality profiles" are doing is just using their imagination, which is far more in the realm of art. But one hand can't clap? It will never be able to clap. I've pondered that koan before and it boggles the mind. That's why I said making these illogical choices is Zen-like. If forced to make a choice I'd say a doorknob is more vegetable because it's not sentient. And a doorknob can also be made of wood which is definitely vegetable. See how fun this can be when you suspend logic? Aristotle is credited with being the father of science because he was the first to use empirical methods. Yet Aristotle believed that spontaneous combustion created frogs out of trash heaps!!! Science has not always been correct. Even 20th century science was rife with errors. And actually astrologers follow historical rules which ascribe personality traits to planets and stars. They are not really using their imagination. They are following precedent. If you define "clap" as two hands coming together forcefully to make a sound then one hand can't clap and thus the sound produced is nothing. I don't know what's supposedly "mind-boggling" about this koan. It has something of the logic of a joke in that it's setup ("what's the sound...") sets up the expectation of things that make sound only to deliver a punchline ("...of one hand clapping") of something that doesn't/can't make a sound, while referencing the sound the thing can't make, at least by itself. It's clever, but not particularly difficult to understand. Eh, I just don't see the point in a game of classifying things like X as Y or Z when X is clearly not Y or Z, but OK. Aristotle was the first to emphasize empiricism, but the kind of rigorous empirical hypothesis testing didn't happen until the advent of modern science in the late Renaissance to The Enlightenment. Before that you still had a lot of reliance on philosophy and folk-ish ideas about how things worked, and something like spontaneous combustion was certainly never empirically observed. So all you're doing is showing that people have the capacity to, on the one hand, emphasize empiricism when it comes to knowledge but, on the other hand, believe silly/wrong things without any empirical evidence. It doesn't make the latter stuff science just because those people used science to believe some other things! Yes, scientists have plenty of wrong ideas, hypotheses, and theories, but the method exists to help weed them out over time as more is discovered. However, you need to make the distinction between things people used to think (or sometimes still do) which didn't/doesn't and never had any kind of scientific support (rigorous, empirical hypothesis testing), and things like Newtonian physics that had lots of evidence, but were superseded by General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. |
|
