(Close Window)
Topic: What is the "deepest" question in all of science?
Message: Posted by: panlives (Oct 19, 2011 08:10AM)
Thank you for all the great content in this section!
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Oct 19, 2011 08:30AM)
The deepest question of all, I think, is how to live a good life. And science just can't touch it. That's what's wrong with science. We get DVD players and aspirin and cool gizmoes and spend billions on particle accelerators and rocket launches, but those nerdy guys and gals can't tell me what a good life is, can they?

That's why I can run around arrogantly making fun of those nerdy guys and gals. They get the billions, but they don't have a frigging clue what's really important.

Not saying that I do, of course. But at least I know how truly worthless those particle accelerators are in the larger scheme of things.
Message: Posted by: critter (Oct 19, 2011 09:18AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-19 09:30, stoneunhinged wrote:
The deepest question of all, I think, is how to live a good life. And science just can't touch it.
[/quote]

I think you need to do more research on Behavioral and Social sciences ;)
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Oct 19, 2011 09:23AM)
Maybe.

Then again, maybe you should start reading Plutarch. LOL!
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Oct 19, 2011 09:24AM)
You do use pomade, right?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 19, 2011 10:22AM)
Though not really a scientific question, I think the deepest question is Why are there things, and not nothing?
Message: Posted by: HerbLarry (Oct 19, 2011 10:27AM)
The deepest question in all of science?
How low can you go?
Message: Posted by: critter (Oct 19, 2011 11:01AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-19 10:24, stoneunhinged wrote:
You do use pomade, right?
[/quote]

Keep it on my chifferobe.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 19, 2011 04:17PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-19 09:10, panlives wrote:
Thank you for all the great content in this section!
[/quote]

? deep is sentimental.
Science: To find the best model that conforms to what is known and also offers the best predictions about what one might find ...
is IMHO not so much about deep but extensive/expansive.

It's like the difference between a portrait that may affect the viewer and a rainbow that just is and affects you in its own way even though you know about refraction etc... IMHO.
Message: Posted by: critter (Oct 19, 2011 04:51PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-19 17:17, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-19 09:10, panlives wrote:
Thank you for all the great content in this section!
[/quote]

? deep is sentimental.
Science: To find the best model that conforms to what is known and also offers the best predictions about what one might find ...
is IMHO not so much about deep but extensive/expansive.

It's like the difference between a portrait that may affect the viewer and a rainbow that just is and affects you in its own way even though you know about refraction etc... IMHO.
[/quote]

There's some stuff in social psych about how attempting to explain why you like something causes you to make different choices than you normally would. The idea being that this sort of introspection doesn't work so well on intangibles.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Oct 19, 2011 05:15PM)
I don't know, but these things are cooool


http://www.nikon.com/about/feelnikon/universcale/index_f.htm


https://7chan.org/fl/src/Scale_of_Our_Universe.swf
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 19, 2011 05:37PM)
I guess we could go looking for topics like "How does that number make you feel?" or "Does this color have an opinion?" - though to be serious ... there are many awkward and difficult questions to explore in science. From matters of consent, self knowledge all the way to "how close to what I call human is that thing?" type topics.

42
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Oct 19, 2011 05:51PM)
The deepest: WHY?
(also the deepest in philosophy--and in the minds of 4-year-olds)
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Oct 19, 2011 06:10PM)
Jonathan, when I ask my iphone 4s "what is the meaning of life", it (depending on how Siri is feeling that day) says "42".


Thanks for all the fish.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 19, 2011 06:53PM)
Wow that package got there fast! Who says the USPS can't deliver? :D

Enjoy Siri. Are they opening up the API so you can have Homer Simpson do the talking in the same way as TomTom did?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 19, 2011 07:03PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-19 09:30, stoneunhinged wrote:
The deepest question of all, I think, is how to live a good life. And science just can't touch it. That's what's wrong with science.
[/quote]

That's not what's wrong with science. Most scientists KNOW that they can't touch that question. Smarmy undergraduates are another matter altogether...
Message: Posted by: critter (Oct 19, 2011 08:00PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-19 20:03, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-19 09:30, stoneunhinged wrote:
The deepest question of all, I think, is how to live a good life. And science just can't touch it. That's what's wrong with science.
[/quote]

That's not what's wrong with science. Most scientists KNOW that they can't touch that question. Smarmy undergraduates are another matter altogether...
[/quote]

***! My jokes about Canada are coming back to bite me on the ass! ;)


Plutarch... That's the dog from the Disney cartoons, right?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 19, 2011 08:14PM)
Deep: Why do people keep seeking sentimental answers from a subject that's designed to [i]only[/i] address matters of measurement?

Pavlov was measuring salivation, not how much the dogs "liked" the food.

Do you really imagine you'd feel comfortable in a universe where a candle would light or a proton would decay depending on how deeply you were experiencing a desire to push a red button on the wall?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 19, 2011 09:07PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-19 21:00, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-19 20:03, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-19 09:30, stoneunhinged wrote:
The deepest question of all, I think, is how to live a good life. And science just can't touch it. That's what's wrong with science.
[/quote]

That's not what's wrong with science. Most scientists KNOW that they can't touch that question. Smarmy undergraduates are another matter altogether...
[/quote]

***! My jokes about Canada are coming back to bite me on the ass! ;)


Plutarch... That's the dog from the Disney cartoons, right?
[/quote]

You know I love you critter.

John
Message: Posted by: critter (Oct 19, 2011 10:27PM)
You too man.

I've realized the answer to what is the deepest question in all of science! And I know the answer to the question!
The deepest question in all of science is:
"What is the pressure at the deepest part of the Mariana Trench?"

Answer:
8+ tons psi.
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Oct 19, 2011 11:14PM)
The existence of God. I honestly believe this question is on their minds.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Oct 20, 2011 12:27AM)
Did anyone look at the links?


Siri is a girl, I think if I set to UK it might be a British man. But that would mess up other functions. But you can have her call you what ever you want. "sir" is my current title, the other day it was "my lord".
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Oct 20, 2011 02:11AM)
What is the "deepest" question in all of science?

Why? :ohyes:
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 20, 2011 05:41AM)
There is no "why" in science. Just how much, where and when - with some models that illustrate tentative "how".
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Oct 20, 2011 05:44AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-20 06:41, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
There is no "why" in science. Just how much, where and when - with some models that illustrate tentative "how".
[/quote]

I see... ;)

But he was asking about the "deepest" question.

I postulated "Why does this happen?".
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 20, 2011 06:02AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-19 21:14, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Deep: Why do people keep seeking sentimental answers from a subject that's designed to [i]only[/i] address matters of measurement?

Pavlov was measuring salivation, not how much the dogs "liked" the food.

Do you really imagine you'd feel comfortable in a universe where a candle would light or a proton would decay depending on how deeply you were experiencing a desire to push a red button on the wall?
[/quote]
You are confusing the desire to answer a question with the methodology of science.
Our desire for answers [i]is[/i] indeed sentimental, as all desire is. The questions we ask are those we [i]feel[/i] we need to be answered. Our [i]tool[/i] is the non-sentimental methods of science for some of those answers. We desire, sentimentally, to build a house; the building has a non-sentimental methodology.

Why was Pavlov looking at dogs in the first place?
Message: Posted by: critter (Oct 20, 2011 08:55AM)
[quote]

"What is the pressure at the deepest part of the Mariana Trench?"

Answer:
8+ tons psi.
[/quote]

FYI, I was using the abbreviation psi here to simply mean "per square inch." I was too tired last night to type out "over 8 tons per square inch."
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Oct 20, 2011 12:49PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-20 07:02, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-19 21:14, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Deep: Why do people keep seeking sentimental answers from a subject that's designed to [i]only[/i] address matters of measurement?

Pavlov was measuring salivation, not how much the dogs "liked" the food.

Do you really imagine you'd feel comfortable in a universe where a candle would light or a proton would decay depending on how deeply you were experiencing a desire to push a red button on the wall?
[/quote]
You are confusing the desire to answer a question with the methodology of science.
Our desire for answers [i]is[/i] indeed sentimental, as all desire is. The questions we ask are those we [i]feel[/i] we need to be answered. Our [i]tool[/i] is the non-sentimental methods of science for some of those answers. We desire, sentimentally, to build a house; the building has a non-sentimental methodology.

Why was Pavlov looking at dogs in the first place?
[/quote]

Good perspective. :ohyes:
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 20, 2011 04:21PM)
There is no evidence to date
That ones desire however great
To use a tool however plain
Will help them measure what we call vain.

Is it deepest?
Can there be nothing deeper?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 20, 2011 05:41PM)
He who is a true philosopher, shall remain unknown.