|
|
|
|
|
|
by bubblyworld
715 days ago
|
|
|
Yeah, I agree with you on the truth front. It's a pretty slippery concept, and indeed our best "model" of truth has changed many times, even in realms like mathematics where you'd think that stuff would have been nailed down by now. But I also think you're making a bit of a map/territory conflation. I think what "is" has nothing to do with human culture - you drop a rock from head height, it's going to hit your foot, and this is "true" (observable maybe a better word) regardless of who you are (and more importantly, regardless of what you claim!). This is what I meant by the stories matching over time in some domains. The ontological claims (the "map") change all the time in science, as they must! But I don't think reality (the "territory") does, in the same way that the ocean doesn't manifest dragons if I draw one on a seafaring chart. Completely agree that science may not be the best epistemic theory possible. In fact, I'd stick my neck out and say that the scientific habit of reductionism seems to be floundering for things like complex biological systems (brains/ecologies/controversially even consciousness?) and maybe even understanding machine learning models. Perhaps we'll see some interesting developments in the next few decades =) |
|
|
Right....but:
- what is that has nothing to do with human culture (or consciousness, or the machines we build) is only a subset of the larger set of what is
- quite often, humans drop rocks and other things onto the heads of other humans - religion has always got a lot of blame for this phenomenon, but a lesser known fact is that science plays a massive role in it as well: giving us the technology to do it in ever more powerful and affordable ways
> This is what I meant by the stories matching over time in some domains.
Some stories match, some do not. Religion also has plenty of each.
> But I don't think reality (the "territory") does, in the same way that the ocean doesn't manifest dragons if I draw one on a seafaring chart.
Dragons may not exist in The Universe, but that doesn't mean they can't can exist in reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popper%27s_three_worlds
If you don't believe me, go do a survey of the general public about things that "don't exist" and see what kind of results you get. For bonus results, try disagreeing with some people and see how that goes over.
> Completely agree that science may not be the best epistemic theory possible.
You and I are members of an exclusive group!
> that the scientific habit of reductionism seems to be floundering for things like complex biological systems (brains/ecologies/controversially even consciousness?) and maybe even understanding machine learning models.
Also: Reality.
> Perhaps we'll see some interesting developments in the next few decades =)
Yes...perhaps we will!