Weirdness

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Interesting and slightly topical

https://johnhorgan.org/cross-check/the-weirdness-of-weirdness

[Outrider]

Interesting and slightly topical

https://johnhorgan.org/cross-check/the-weirdness-of-weirdness

I find it difficult to agree with some of his premises - in particular:

"Science has revealed that the origins of the universe, of life and of consciousness are all highly improbable. "

I'm not aware that science has 'revealed' anything of the sort. So far as I can tell, science can't give us any sort of indication of the likelihood of those events beyond it's absolutely certain that it's happened once, but we don't know if that was inevitable or likely or unlikely or if there have been untold billions of chances for it to work out.

He is keying emotion to his response to that conclusion, but I feel like his emotional response to the science has led HIM to that conclusion, which the science itself doesn't support. Then he wanders off into mysticism and spirituality which I'm not sure I've got a take on besides I don't really see a need for it.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

The End of Science was pish, and so is this.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I find it difficult to agree with some of his premises - in particular:

"Science has revealed that the origins of the universe, of life and of consciousness are all highly improbable. "

I'm not aware that science has 'revealed' anything of the sort. So far as I can tell, science can't give us any sort of indication of the likelihood of those events beyond it's absolutely certain that it's happened once, but we don't know if that was inevitable or likely or unlikely or if there have been untold billions of chances for it to work out.

He is keying emotion to his response to that conclusion, but I feel like his emotional response to the science has led HIM to that conclusion, which the science itself doesn't support. Then he wanders off into mysticism and spirituality which I'm not sure I've got a take on besides I don't really see a need for it.

O.

I think your post contradicts the falsifiability aspect of science which make probabilities part and parcel of science.

Certainly the probabilities of certain values in science are accessible.

[Nearly Sane]

I think your post contradicts the falsifiability aspect of science which make probabilities part and parcel of science.

Certainly the probabilities of certain values in science are accessible.

So your existence is only a probability?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The End of Science was pish, and so is this.

https://johnhorgan.org/cross-check/my-doubts-about-the-end-of-science

[Nearly Sane]

https://johnhorgan.org/cross-check/my-doubts-about-the-end-of-science

And?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

.And?

Horgan recognises a "pish"(sic) element in his book.
I don't have you down in the cult of scientism. Am I wrong?

[Nearly Sane]

Horgan recognises a "pish"(sic) element in his book.
I don't have you down in the cult of scientism. Am I wrong?

As always. It's a badly written book with a crap premise trying to join in on millennial nonsense. Have you read it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

as always. It's a badly written book with a crap premise trying to join in on millennial nonsense. Have you read it?

My point is Horgan acknowledges, partially, your poi t that his book contains "Pish". I commented only on an article which mentions the book so me having read it is neither hear nor there.
I think Horgan relates what he terms weirdness to wonder, something scientists bandy about with zero controversy.

[Nearly Sane]

My point is Horgan acknowledges, partially, your poi t that his book contains "Pish". I commented only on an article which mentions the book so me having read it is neither hear nor there.
I think Horgan relates what he terms weirdness to wonder, something scientists bandy about with zero controversy.

So you haven't read it  Lucky you.

I think Horgan tries to be a contrarian badly.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you haven't read it  Lucky you.

I think Horgan tries to be a contrarian badly.

Anyone contrary to scientism can't be all bad.

[Nearly Sane]

Anyone contrary to scientism can't be all bad.

Well given you haven't read the book how would know what he thinks?

[Aruntraveller]

Anyone contrary to scientism can't be all bad.

Really?

Laurence Fox?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well given you haven't read the book how would know what he thinks?

I have read his articles, some in Scientific American where he has blasphemed against some of the notions of L. Krauss, SM Carroll, CR Dawkins and Daniel Dennett.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Really?

Laurence Fox?

Laurence Fox? Where does he come in?

[Nearly Sane]

I have read his articles, some in Scientific American where he has blasphemed against some of the notions of L. Krauss, SM Carroll, CR Dawkins and Daniel Dennett.

I look forward to you putting up the details of the ones you like. This one though is reminiscent of a night on dope with the bloke from The Fast Show who thought everything was brilliant.

[Outrider]

I think your post contradicts the falsifiability aspect of science which make probabilities part and parcel of science.

My post in no way contradicts the falsifiability of science - if it weren't falsifiable, in principle, it wouldn't be science. It does question the possibility, at the current time, of having sufficient information to falsify particular scientific claims, but that's a qualitatively different think, not just  quantitatively.

Certainly the probabilities of certain values in science are accessible.

Certain values, yes. Not, however, the ones that would need to be relied on in order to make a judgement about the improbability of the universe, let alone about phenomena which are barely understood and not even particularly clearly defined yet, like life and consciousness.

O.