Replies

You assign the name “science” to the methodology that has developed over the past four hundred years as if it were the key to all knowledge and will never be superceded by a different, more fruitful
paradign. No doubt our science is highly utilitarian, but so was the science of the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians. It was surpassed by the science of the Greeks, who put knowledge on a more theoretical basis, one which was not surppassed until modern times. If you do believe in scientific progress, consider what science fiction writers have proposed: a “mega-science” that is as superior to our own as ours is to Aristole’s because it introduced principles as yet undiscovered by us. One only has to reflect on the way we discovered the limitation’s of Newton’s science and the “invention” of relativity and quantum physics as we encounter phenomenon beyond explanation by the old principles. I have the feeling that if we ever creat AI, it will NOT be as the result of extrapolating what we know now, but because we are suddenly faced by the unknown and must rethink our approach.

You assign the name “science” to the methodology that has developed over the past four hundred years as if it were the key to all knowledge and will never be superceded by a different, more fruitful paradign. No doubt our science is highly utilitarian, but so was the science of the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians. It was surpassed by the science of the Greeks, who put knowledge on a more theoretical basis, one which was not surppassed until modern times. If you do believe in scientific progress, consider what science fiction writers have proposed: a “mega-science” that is as superior to our own as ours is to Aristole’s because it introduced principles as yet undiscovered by us. One only has to reflect on the way we discovered the limitation’s of Newton’s science and the “invention” of relativity and quantum physics as we encounter phenomenon beyond explanation by the old principles. I have the feeling that if we ever creat AI, it will NOT be as the result of extrapolating what we know now, but because we are suddenly faced by the unknown and must rethink our approach.

So science has improved from primitive beginnings, and continues to grow more accurate in its methods and findings.

OK, I can live with that.

Do you see any evidence that science will, or needs to turn to, magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff?

Or will science keep on exploring the natural world and exploring reality, as it has for the past several hundred years -- in spite of the deprecations of the anti-science folks (generally believers in one or more of the above list)?