Archive for February, 2012

skepticism & psuedo-skepticism

A certain extent of skepticism is quite healthy. The difficulty comes when the skeptics believe they are ipso facto correct. And/or when the skeptical inquiry does not come from a rational basis. Parapsychologist and noted skeptic Susan Blackmore said, “there are some members of the skeptics groups who clearly believe they have the right answer […]

Leave a comment

A few problems of science

Science has a number of funny problems. This post examines a few. Expert opinion weighs too heavy, for example. Lavoisier thought that heat was caused by caloric, a weightless substance. His view became the dominant paradigm. This was a regression in scientific view because previously the movement of molecules, the current idea, had been the […]

Leave a comment

Physics needs metaphysics

‘I have no problem with the idea of metaphysics. We attach ‘meta’ to logic and math. Why is it anathema in physics? It merely suggests we are asking questions bearing on fundamental concepts of a particular discipline. Why ever should we not be able to ask such questions in physics? In all such discussion what […]

,

1 Comment

Natural Laws are metaphysical

Scientific materialists have a serious problem with the Laws of Nature. They believe that the entire universe is mass-energy and that metaphysics is entirely false. But the Laws of Nature are a metaphysical construction. Metaphysical has two meanings – beyond the physical and beyond the scientific understanding of physics. The laws are metaphysical in both […]

1 Comment

Is truth better?

There is a missing debate in the world of philosophy, science and religion. Is it better to know the truth and be miserable or live a happy delusion? Let’s assume for this argument that the truth would make you unhappy. It’s easy enough to concoct a situation – your child died in agony, but you’ve […]

,

Leave a comment