Existentialism does not play nice with others

Just a brief thought: if it's true that we define our own realities, then I think that conflict with others must be unavoidable. It's difficult to live harmoniously with others if everything that is true or good is merely relative. How can we learn to live in harmony with one another if my judgment of what is moral differs from my neighbors?

Debating consistency between rationality and God

On my drive home from Myrtle Beach last night I finally listened to the full debate "Does Science Refute God?" a debate that has been replayed on NPR multiple times in the last few months.

I think that the question in the debate can be better stated as "Is the idea of God incompatible with reason?" This is important, because it seems that most debates over God's existence usually entail making God work consistently with science, but I always get the impression that the word "science" is being misused. People arguing for the existence of God probably appeal to science because of a perception that science is more important and perhaps fundamental than reason.

However, science is based on a structured and rational background, so it seems to me that the two camps are fighting to either keep reason and God separate or to integrate God into the existing rational world-view. (Here, I by rationality I mean the exact same thing as reason.)

Kuhn on the cost of intellectual pursuits

"Anyone who has wrestled with a project like mine will recognize what it has occasionally cost them."
-Thomas S. Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," p. xii.

Equality and ability

I've lately been coming to terms with the idea that not all people are created equal. By this I mean that some people have certain aptitudes that may make them "successful" by the measures of our society, while others may not possess these abilities.

This idea is certainly not in agreement with traditional American values. A common theme in our culture is that hard work will earn someone success. That is, everyone has the capability to be successful. Of course, I don't think that anyone would argue against the idea that success is most commonly achieved through hard work. So, the idea that every person is created equally would imply that those who are not successful did not work hard enough to achieve success.

I find it dubious to believe that the difference between a homeless person on the street and a successful corporate executive is simply their willingness to work hard. So many differences between the two people's pasts exist that their current plight can't be correlated entirely to work-ethic.

The reason this is important is because success is typically equated with money. Now, of course I understand that money can get us what we want, but beyond that, money is a means of security. In America, those with large sums of money can afford very good health care and need not worry about how to support themselves in retirement. In some sense, money frees one from the anxiety felt by a lot of people struggling to earn an income. This anxiety is towards an unknown future: poor health, a broken vehicle, fires and natural disasters, etc.

I did not make an attempt in this writing to be rigorous. Instead, I wanted to clarify some ideas that have remained muddled inside my head. I should make an effort in the future to expand upon what success means, and whether or not a division of people into rich and poor classifications is fair or useful. I should also attempt to address the maxim "money cannot buy happiness."

Responding to bias

I wrote a reply to a comment on a very good article discussing cycling social norms concerning road use. I think it was a good exercise in responding to an argument that was founded on a few unstated and questionable assumptions.


The article may be found here: http://iamtraffic.org/2013/03/the-stories-we-tell-part-one/. I am ResponsibleRiderInOrlando. (Originial, huh?)

Feynman on Science and Morality

"The sciences do not directly teach good or bad."
from The Value of Science, by Richard P. Feynman

Feynman on Unpolarized Light as a Limitation of Measurement

"...light is unpolarized only if we are unable to find out whether the light is polarized or not."
-Richard Feynman, from "The Feynman Lectures on Physics: Volume 1," p. 33-2.

On the dichotomy of science

In the introduction to Part III of "The History of Western Philosophy," Bertrand Russell notes that there exist two types of science: theoretical and practical. Theoretical science

"...is an attempt to understand the word. Practical science, which is an attempt to change the world, has been important from the first,and has continually increased in importance, until it has almost ousted theoretical science from men's thoughts."

I find this dichotomy of science to be absolutely fascinating. What's more, I'm at this moment suspicious that this dichotomy may actually be different from the common division of science into basic and applied realms, as I will now explain.

First, I'll define basic and applied science as I understand them. Importantly, the definitions that I will present are, I think, what most scientists would agree on. Basic, or fundamental, science is a means for establishing modes of thought or logical frameworks for arriving at predictive models of natural phenomena.  According to Wikipedia, "basic science is development and establishment of information to aid understanding." Applied science, however, seeks to alter the course of natural events and achieve some purpose.

Now consider the mantra espoused by many scientists and professional organizations that is argued before governments and funding agencies: basic science and fundamental research often leads to important discoveries that are translated into new technologies. Importantly, technology and economic prosperity go hand-in-hand. In this argument, it is therefore assumed that basic science is linked to applied science in some kind of linear chain which ends with technology and prosperity. Indeed, some current business models are capitalizing on the apparent gap between academic research and industry by creating a business for translating information from the former to the latter.

In this line of reasoning, basic science and applied science are both means to the same end: new technologies and their resulting economic stimulus. The goals of Russell's two types of sciences are different, however. Theoretical science increases our understanding of the world, whereas practical science provides us with more of something tangible, whether it be electricity, airplanes, or smart phones. Practical science encompasses both basic and applied science. As Russell points out:

"The triumph of science has been mainly due to its practical utility, and there has been an attempt to divorce this aspect from that of theory, thus making science more and more a technique, and less and less a doctrine as to the nature of the world."

Even CERN, which at first glance is a triumph of theoretical science, is touted for its technological contributions to applied science. If it were otherwise, I doubt the European Union would have funded it.

The point I'm trying to make is that Russell saw in theoretical science something wholly different from most scientist's understanding about what science is and lies outside of their definitions of basic and applied. I think his theoretical science is more akin to how children see science. Working scientists, however, are forever having to justify their work to governments and funding agencies, which eventually erodes the role that the theoretical aspect plays on their conception.

What good would an awareness of theoretical science provide? Does the general public, i.e. non-scientists or government workers, even need to understand that this dichotomy exists? To a layman, applied science contains just as much wonder and insight as theoretical science does.

Socrates on allegiances

"Gentlemen, I am your grateful and devoted servant, but I owe a greater obedience to God than to you; and as long as I draw breath and have my faculties I shall never stop practicing philosophy"
Socrates, from Plato's The Apology

Ernest Rutherford on statistics

"If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment."
Ernest Rutherford

Socrates on death

"Some one will say: And are you not ashamed, Socrates, of a course of life which is likely to bring you to an untimely end? To him I may fairly answer: There you are mistaken: a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong--acting the part of a good man or of a bad..."
Socrates, from Plato's The Apology