1. Luke 4:16 in the Latin Vulgate reads: et venit Nazareth ubi erat nutritus et intravit secundum consuetudinem suam die sabbati in synagogam et surrexit legere
I was curious about the word, nutritus, which one translation renders "brought up." The morphological form nutritus in Latin is a participle singular perfect passive masculine nominative of nutrior, which is a deponent verb.
According to the Dictionary of the Vulgate NT (page 80), the word in Luke 4:16 (Vg) could mean "nurse, rear" in this context.
2. "Isotropic" denotes "exhibiting properties (as velocity of light transmission) with the same values when measured along axes in all directions."
— isot·ro·py \ī-ˈsä-trə-pē\ noun
Origin of ISOTROPIC
International Scientific Vocabulary
First Known Use: 1856
From Merriam-Webster Online
The universe is said to be isotropic.
3. Black box functionalism-"The mind is a black box, to be explained solely in terms of inputs and outputs. The internal workings of the mind, the black box, that transform the input into the output are internal, hidden from our view, and they are of no concern to the theory. Mental phenomena, such as pain, are reducible to the abstract information-processing functions of a black box. (Input-output plus internal information processing)."
See https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/users/philosophy/courses/100/eb9mich00n.htm#:~:text=Black%20Box%20functionalism%20(e.g.%20David,no%20concern%20to%20the%20theory.
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
Sunday, April 29, 2018
Scientific Limitations, Theoretical Hypotheses, and Christianity (Draft Version)
Clearly science just like religion believes there are certain premises which function as starting points--these are basic axioms, hypotheses or working assumptions (archai). Scientists who militate against these conventional premises usually are castigated and anathematized as it were; science's guild does not allow wayward dissent. The paradox of this situation is that scientific progress has often transpired because an inquiring mind was willing to go against the paradigmatic grain (e.g., the Copernican Revolution); paradigms in science usually shift when a courageous individual becomes unafraid to swim against the tide. But when paradigm shifts occur, this does not necessarily mean that a total discontinuity with past ideas has to occur.1
After the momentous work of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s, other significant developments took place in science, many of which attempted to modify or subvert Einstein's view of the universe. But I have not seen anyone completely accomplish that task yet. Granted, quantum physics did yield new aspects of "reality" and Einstein apparently was mistaken about particle physics as shown by the two-slit experiment; however, Einstein has not been toppled. To the contrary, relativity theory still has immense explanatory power. This is not to say that one day, the paradigm will not shift again. We likely will find out more about the nature of black holes, the second law of thermodynamics, the "twin paradox," the two-slit experiment and the notion of simultaneity. Nevertheless, although our paradigm might shift once more, we will not wholly disassociate ourselves from past ideas in toto.
Despite the progress that science has made, as we can see, she is not without her limitations. Paradigmatic changes are common in science and science just like religion works from a given set of presuppositions. Science has made a clean break with religion, and it has endeavored to eschew metaphysics, but without much success. What accounts for metaphysics rearing its head in scientific discussions? One reason has been due to the fact that science has its own inherent limitations. For instance, science can tell us how a particular planet or star moves, but science cannot tell us why a celestial body moves (its final cause). Empirical investigation cannot tell us why out of all the vast reaches of space, we as minute earthlings are here on this specific rock. What is the purpose of life? Why do we die? Paul Davies has indicated that science frequently runs into "turtle trouble" when it delves into metaphysics. In other words, science has an epistemological boundary when it comes to explaining things; it cannot answer the infinite regress of questions that arise from reflection on sensory experience.
Eventually we get to a point where it's no longer possible to empirically investigate certain questions any further. The problem of infinite regression inevitably arises. As one woman reportedly told Bertrand Russell, the earth is not just hanging in space, but "it's turtles all the way down." We may chuckle at such an idea since we know that the earth is not supported by turtles. Yet while we may ridicule an infinite regression of turtles, we find that science runs into the same "turtle trouble" whenever it tries to explain, for instance, the origin of life. There are obvious limitations to science, yet this paper about science is not meant to polemicize empirical investigations. Rather, the point has been 1) to show that science has inherent limitations; (2) to demonstrate that science, when kept in its proper sphere is good, but becomes less utile when one tries to make it an explanatory tool for all things related to human existence; it can become the proverbial knife that cuts the hand of its wielder; (3) to illustrate how rightly utilized science can enhance our view of the cosmos.
Personally, I love science, but know its limitations. I do not believe that we should put complete trust in science when interpreting the Bible--nor should it be ignored. A vital balance is needed: both scientism and its converse should be avoided.
"A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it." - Rabindranath Tagore, Stray Birds
The classic statement on paradigm shifts was made by Thomas Kuhn. See his reflections on that important work here: https://eu.pravo.hr/_download/repository/Second_Thoughts_on_Paradigms.pdf
After the momentous work of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s, other significant developments took place in science, many of which attempted to modify or subvert Einstein's view of the universe. But I have not seen anyone completely accomplish that task yet. Granted, quantum physics did yield new aspects of "reality" and Einstein apparently was mistaken about particle physics as shown by the two-slit experiment; however, Einstein has not been toppled. To the contrary, relativity theory still has immense explanatory power. This is not to say that one day, the paradigm will not shift again. We likely will find out more about the nature of black holes, the second law of thermodynamics, the "twin paradox," the two-slit experiment and the notion of simultaneity. Nevertheless, although our paradigm might shift once more, we will not wholly disassociate ourselves from past ideas in toto.
Despite the progress that science has made, as we can see, she is not without her limitations. Paradigmatic changes are common in science and science just like religion works from a given set of presuppositions. Science has made a clean break with religion, and it has endeavored to eschew metaphysics, but without much success. What accounts for metaphysics rearing its head in scientific discussions? One reason has been due to the fact that science has its own inherent limitations. For instance, science can tell us how a particular planet or star moves, but science cannot tell us why a celestial body moves (its final cause). Empirical investigation cannot tell us why out of all the vast reaches of space, we as minute earthlings are here on this specific rock. What is the purpose of life? Why do we die? Paul Davies has indicated that science frequently runs into "turtle trouble" when it delves into metaphysics. In other words, science has an epistemological boundary when it comes to explaining things; it cannot answer the infinite regress of questions that arise from reflection on sensory experience.
Eventually we get to a point where it's no longer possible to empirically investigate certain questions any further. The problem of infinite regression inevitably arises. As one woman reportedly told Bertrand Russell, the earth is not just hanging in space, but "it's turtles all the way down." We may chuckle at such an idea since we know that the earth is not supported by turtles. Yet while we may ridicule an infinite regression of turtles, we find that science runs into the same "turtle trouble" whenever it tries to explain, for instance, the origin of life. There are obvious limitations to science, yet this paper about science is not meant to polemicize empirical investigations. Rather, the point has been 1) to show that science has inherent limitations; (2) to demonstrate that science, when kept in its proper sphere is good, but becomes less utile when one tries to make it an explanatory tool for all things related to human existence; it can become the proverbial knife that cuts the hand of its wielder; (3) to illustrate how rightly utilized science can enhance our view of the cosmos.
Personally, I love science, but know its limitations. I do not believe that we should put complete trust in science when interpreting the Bible--nor should it be ignored. A vital balance is needed: both scientism and its converse should be avoided.
"A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it." - Rabindranath Tagore, Stray Birds
The classic statement on paradigm shifts was made by Thomas Kuhn. See his reflections on that important work here: https://eu.pravo.hr/_download/repository/Second_Thoughts_on_Paradigms.pdf
Monday, November 07, 2016
The Natural Limits of Science (Work in progress)
The Natural Limits of Science
Pivotal scientific discoveries have taken place in the last four hundred years. For example, Copernicus' heliocentrism (the sun being the center of the universe), Johannes Kepler's three laws of motion, Newton's constant of universal gravitation (G) and his three laws of motion, Albert Einstein's theory of relativity (special and general), and twentieth-century quantum mechanics are just some of the scientific developments that characterize what has been called a "revolution." Science has contributed a great deal to human knowledge and technological progress: it also has been able to challenge many long-standing religious ideas that were strongly entrenched for millennia (e.g., the existence of an immortal soul, miracles, creatio ex nihilo, and free will). Of course, there are persons who adamantly refuse to accept these empirical innovations or they show an unwillingness to embrace these concepts wholesale; some continue to propagate their own faith-stance without addressing or paying much attention to the innovative and probative evidence from science.
For example, there are certain "believing souls" now professing that the earth was created six thousand years ago. But science indicates that this belief in all likelihood is not true. Yet the notion continues to persist along with the belief that the earth is flat. The interesting thing about these convictions is that the Bible never says when God created the earth; nor does it teach that our planet is flat (Isaiah 40:22). In view of such conflicting ideas, theology and science remain on opposite sides of the ideological fence and in many cases (e.g., evolution), theologians have relinquished the battle and proclaimed science the clear victor. However, it seems important to examine how the breach between science and religion possibly developed and what it means for us today.
Pivotal scientific discoveries have taken place in the last four hundred years. For example, Copernicus' heliocentrism (the sun being the center of the universe), Johannes Kepler's three laws of motion, Newton's constant of universal gravitation (G) and his three laws of motion, Albert Einstein's theory of relativity (special and general), and twentieth-century quantum mechanics are just some of the scientific developments that characterize what has been called a "revolution." Science has contributed a great deal to human knowledge and technological progress: it also has been able to challenge many long-standing religious ideas that were strongly entrenched for millennia (e.g., the existence of an immortal soul, miracles, creatio ex nihilo, and free will). Of course, there are persons who adamantly refuse to accept these empirical innovations or they show an unwillingness to embrace these concepts wholesale; some continue to propagate their own faith-stance without addressing or paying much attention to the innovative and probative evidence from science.
For example, there are certain "believing souls" now professing that the earth was created six thousand years ago. But science indicates that this belief in all likelihood is not true. Yet the notion continues to persist along with the belief that the earth is flat. The interesting thing about these convictions is that the Bible never says when God created the earth; nor does it teach that our planet is flat (Isaiah 40:22). In view of such conflicting ideas, theology and science remain on opposite sides of the ideological fence and in many cases (e.g., evolution), theologians have relinquished the battle and proclaimed science the clear victor. However, it seems important to examine how the breach between science and religion possibly developed and what it means for us today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)