ter>Sam Vaknin’s Psychology, Philosophy, Economics and Foreign Affairs Web Sites The debate between realism and anti-realism is, at least, a century old. Does Science describe the real world or are its theories true only within a certain conceptual framework? Is science only instrumental or empirically adequate or is there more to it than that? Jose Ortega y Gasset said (in an unrelated exchange) that all ideas stem from pre-rational beliefs. William James concurred by saying that accepting a truth often requires an act of will which goes beyond facts and into the realm of feelings. Maybe so, but is there is little doubt today that beliefs are somehow involved in the formation of many scientific ideas, if not of the very endeavour of Science. After all, Science is a human activity and humans always believe that things exist (=are true) or could be true. A distinction is traditionally made between believing in somethings existence, truth, value of appropriateness (this is the way that it ought to be) and believing that something.
The latter is a propositional attitude: we think that something, we wish that something, we feel that something and we believe that something. Believing in A and believing that A – are different. It is reasonable to assume that belief is a limited affair. Few of us would tend to believe in contradictions and falsehoods. Catholic theologians talk about explicit belief (in something which is known to the believer to be true) versus implicit one (in the known consequences of something whose truth cannot be known).
The Term Paper on The Sciences And The Arts As Intellectual Discipline
... creation and existence of the world. The problem with this belief that science is unquestionable fact and can be treated in a ... of being unquestionably correct. As I have already explained, the truth of science or the correctness or otherwise of a given theory ... ways to conduct science. In short, western science has arrogantly given the impression that there is only one true scientific method, that ...
Truly, we believe in the probability of something (we, thus, express an opinion) or in its certain existence (truth).
All humans believe in the existence of connections or relationships between things. This is not something which can be proven or proven false (to use Poppers test).
That things consistently follow each other does not prove they are related in any objective, real, manner except in our minds. This belief in some order (if we define order as permanent relations between separate physical or abstract entities) permeates both Science and Superstition. They both believe that there must be and is a connection between things out there. Science limits itself and believes that only certain entities inter-relate within well defined conceptual frames (called theories).
Not everything has the potential to connect to everything else.
Entities are discriminated, differentiated, classified and assimilated in worldviews in accordance with the types of connections that they forge with each other. Moreover, Science believes that it has a set of very effective tools to diagnose, distinguish, observe and describe these relationships. It proves its point by issuing highly accurate predictions based on the relationships discerned through the use of said tools. Science (mostly) claims that these connections are true in the sense that they are certain not probable. The cycle of formulation, prediction and falsification (or proof) is the core of the human scientific activity. Alleged connections that cannot be captured in these nets of reasoning are cast out either as hypothetical or as false. In other words : Science defines relations between entities as relations between entities which have been established and tested using the scientific apparatus and arsenal of tools.
This, admittedly, is a very cyclical argument, as close to tautology as it gets. Superstition is a much simpler matter: everything is connected to everything in ways unbeknown to us. We can only witness the results of these subterranean currents and deduce the existence of such currents from the observable flotsam. The planets influence our lives, dry coffee sediments contain information about the future, black cats portend disasters, certain dates are propitious, certain numbers are to be avoided. The world is unsafe because it can never be fathomed. But the fact that we limited as we are cannot learn about a hidden connection should not imply that it does not exist.
The Term Paper on Curriculum Guide in Science
It integrates science and technology in the civic, personal, social, economic, and the values and ethical aspects of life. The science curriculum promotes a strong link between science and technology, including indigenous technology, keeping our country’s cultural uniqueness and peculiarities intact. Whether or not students pursue careers that involve science and technology, the K to 12 science ...
Science believes in two categories of relationships between entities (physical and abstract alike).
The one is the category of direct links the other that of links through a third entity. In the first case, A and B are seen to be directly related. In the second case, there is no apparent link between A and B, but a third entity, C could well provide such a connection (for instance, if A and B are parts of C or are separately, but concurrently somehow influenced by it).
Each of these two categories is divided to three subcategories : causal relationships, functional relationships and correlative relationship. A and B will be said to be causally related if A precedes B, B never occurs if A does not precede it and always occurs after A occurs. To the discerning eye, this would seem to be a relationship of correlation (whenever A happens B happens) and this is true.
Causation is subsumed by a the 1.0 correlation relationship category. In other words : it is a private case of the more general case of correlation. A and B are functionally related if B can be predicted by assuming A but we have no way of establishing the truth value of A. The latter is a postulate or axiom. The time dependent Schrodinger Equation is a postulate (cannot be derived, it is only reasonable).
Still, it is the dynamic laws underlying wave mechanics, an integral part of quantum mechanics, the most accurate scientific theory that we have.
The Research paper on Entity Relationship Modelling
Definitions Entity an aggregation of a number of data elements each data element is an attribute of the entity Background Introduced by Peter Chen in ‘75 now widely used You’ll find them in: Structured Systems Analysis and Design Methodology (SSADM) Information Engineering (IE) Multiview Yourdon/DeMarco. Entity type a class of entities with the same attributes Relationship an association between ...
An unproven, non-derivable equation is related functionally to a host of exceedingly precise statements about the real world (observed experimental results).
A and B are correlated if A explains a considerable part of the existence or the nature of B. It is then clear that A and B are related. Evolution has equipped us with highly developed correlation mechanisms because they are efficient in insuring survival. To see a tiger and to associate the awesome sight with a sound is very useful. Still, we cannot state with any modicum of certainty that we possess all the conceivable tools for the detection, description, analysis and utilization of relations between entities. Put differently: we cannot say that there are no connections that escape the tight nets that we cast in order to capture them.
We cannot, for instance, say with any degree of certainty that there are no hyper-structures which would provide new, surprising insights into the interconnectedness of objects in the real world or in our mind. We cannot even say that the epistemological structures with which we were endowed are final or satisfactory. We do not know enough about knowing. Consider the cases of Non-Aristotelian logic formalisms, Non-Euclidean geometries, Newtonian Mechanics and non classical physical theories (the relativity theories and, more so, quantum mechanics and its various interpretations).
All of them revealed to us connections which we could not have imagined prior to their appearance. All of them created new tools for the capture of interconnectivity and inter-relatedness. All of them suggested one kind or the other of mental hyper-structures in which new links between entities (hitherto considered disparate) could be established.
So far, so good for superstitions. Todays superstition could well become tomorrows Science given the right theoretical developments. The source of the clash lies elsewhere, in the insistence of superstitions upon a causal relation. The general structure of a superstition is: A is caused by B. The causation propagates through unknown (one or more) mechanisms. These mechanisms are unidentified (empirically) or unidentifiable (in principle).
For instance, al the mechanisms of causal propagation which are somehow connected to divine powers can never, in principle, be understood (because the true nature of divinity is sealed to human understanding).
The Essay on Creation Science 2
Creationism is a religious metaphysical theory about the origin of the universe. It is not a scientific theory. Technically, creationism is not necessarily connected to any particular religion. It simply requires a belief in a Creator. Millions of Christians and non-Christians believe there is a Creator of the universe and that scientific theories such as the the theory of evolution do not ...
Thus, superstitions incorporate mechanisms of action which are, either, unknown to Science or are impossible, as far as Science goes. All the action-at-a-distance mechanisms are of the latter type.
Parapsychological mechanisms are more of the first kind. The philosophical argument behind superstitions is pretty straightforward and appealing. Perhaps this is the source of their appeal. It goes as follows: There is nothing that can be thought of that is impossible (in all the Universes) There is nothing impossible (in all the Universes) that can be thought of. Everything that can be thought about is, therefore, possible (somewhere in the Universes) Everything that is possible exists (somewhere in the Universes) If something can be thought of (=is possible) and is not known (=proven or observed) yet it is most probably due to the shortcomings of Science and not because it does not exist. Some of these propositions can be easily attacked.
For instance: we can think about contradictions and falsehoods but (apart from a form of mental representation) no one will claim that they exist in reality or that they are possible. These statements, though, apply very well to entities, the existence of which has yet to be disproved (=not known as false, or whose truth value is uncertain) and to improbable (though possible) things. It is in these formal logical niches that superstition thrives..
