Philosophical/Religious Ponderings

[The Fool]

Just wanted to start a thread about some astronomers philisophical beliefs. First off I want to ask if anyone has read Carl Sagan's Varities of Scientific Experience. I think that this is a very good book and it helped me to find myself even though that sounds kinda cheezy. But I was just wondering about some people's thoughts on this book. Also I wanted to know what people think about Objectvism. Personally I think that it has some very unique and interesting points. Really I just want to know what other science-centered, logical astronomers believe in, or don't believe in.

Thanks,

The Fool

[ToSeek]

As already evident in the first reply (now deleted by the poster), this thread has considerable potential to veer off into inappropriate territory. Please remember that discussions of religion are to be avoided unless very closely tied to legitimate scientific issues. Philosophy is tolerable so long as the discussion stays friendly, but please keep it that way.

ToSeek
BAUT Forum Moderator

[Disinfo Agent]

Also I wanted to know what people think about Objectvism. Personally I think that it has some very unique and interesting points. Really I just want to know what other science-centered, logical astronomers believe in, or don't believe in.Hello.

Well, I'm not an astronomer, but I would like to know more about what you mean by "objectivism". Are you following a definition made by Carl Sagan? (I haven't read the book you mention.)

[ToSeek]

Hello.

Well, I'm not an astronomer, but I would like to know more about what you mean by "objectivism". Are you following a definition made by Carl Sagan? (I haven't read the book you mention.)

Since it's capitalized, I'd assumed the reference was to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosophy).

[Disinfo Agent]

Oh, thanks! From what I've seen on other message boards, Ayn Rand is a controversial author. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Gillianren]

Ugh. I read one Ayn Rand book, and that was more than enough.

[mike alexander]

I managed to get through about 0.5 of her 'Toward the New Intellectual' before my brain went flat. While Rand may have been a serious thinker, she was a stultifying writer in my opinion. My son did read 'Atlas Shrugged' last year and gave me a running interpretation as he went along. I'll be forever grateful.

While there are some points in her Objectivist ideas I could agree with, the overall package just seems so joyless that I have a hard time seeing how anyone can really connect with it. I imagine her ideal world as populated by millions of Rudy Guilianis. If it works for you...

There's a line in Asimov's novel 'Fantastic Voyage' where Grant looks at Cora and thinks, "If you could only frivol." Rand definitely could not frivol.

[HenrikOlsen]

<snip>I imagine her ideal world as populated by millions of Rudy Guilianis.<snip>
Or Alan Greenspans:)

[mike alexander]

Which reminds me of an old cartroon caption: Would you rather be from a terrible place or be presently suffering from a small wound?

[The Fool]

Well I would say that overall I wouldn't agree with Rand's ideas but I do think that a few of her ideas such as the idea that productive achievement is man's noblest activity, and reason is his only absolute. But anyway I just wanted to hear some ideas about it. And to those who haven't read Sagan's Varities of Scientific Experience I highly reccomend it if you are curious about a great astronomers view of the cosmos.

The Fool

[The Fool]

And to go along with ToSeek's first post, this discussion isn't to hurt anyone's feelings or beliefs, it is just to talk openly about interesting topics.

[mike alexander]

One of my problems (maybe just mine) is that I don't necessarily see productive achievement as man's noblist activity (depending upon how productive achievement is defined, of course), or reason his only absolute. If I want pure reason, I'll hire a Vulcan.

This time of year is rainbow season in Oregon, when I'll pull off the road and watch one form and disappear; quite nonproductive, but very pleasing. I might say the same about staying up until 3AM to look at smudges through the telescope.

It's not that I necessarily find Rand's form of Objectivism essentially wrong (I happen to believe in an external reality, for instance), but it just feels so crabbed. There's an underlying survival of the fittest theme that ignores a lot of the socialization that makes life worth living.

[Noclevername]

If you make other people happy, is that a productive achievement? It certainly seems like a positive accomplishment to me.

[Disinfo Agent]

Only if they pay you for it. :p

Sorry for goofing around in your thread, The Fool. I don't know if the folks here are in the mood to get philosphical right now, but here are some earlier discussions you might like to read:

Is there such a thing as fact? (http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/34317-there-such-thing-fact.html)
When do neutrinos, black holes, quarks, dark matter, and dark energy become real? (http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/60665-when-do-neutrinos-black-holes-quarks-dark-matter-dark-energy-become-real.html)
Physics Made for Reality, or the Converse? (http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/53128-physics-made-reality-converse.html)

[KaiYeves]

I saw it in the bookstore and skimmed it, but I could only get one book and I really wanted Fantastic Four: The Ultimate Guide. In the comments at the back, he stated his opinion about the Loch Ness Monster, which was something I was wondering about.

[The Fool]

Well Mike I forgot to include the idea that man's own happiness is the moral purpose of his life, but even this I don't really agree with. I really like some of the points of Objectvism but as you said the overall "theme," for lack of a better word, seems pretty unfeeling or insensative. Though after reading The Fountainhead it seemed to become much more palatable.

The Fool

[Delvo]

What I don't understand about Rand is how she ever became famous. Her "philosophy" is nothing special, just a bunch of common sense that anyone can think of and most people probably have, especially in late childhood or early adulthood (but most of us then just moved along because it wasn't worth making a big deal about, whether we agreed with the ideas or not). And everyone, even her fans and dedicated Objectivists, seems to agree that that "philosophy", as empty and substanceless as I find it, is the only supposedly redeeming quality of her awful writing, in which every event is simplified down to the dry bones of an overplayed stereotype and all of the characters are just puppets reciting speeches that are rather transparently either her own thoughts or the straw-man representations she puts up of others' opposing thoughts (just like in Chick Tracts (http://www.chick.com/catalog/tractlist.asp)).

It's not that I have any objections to her or dislike her, but I just don't get what's supposed to be special about her in any way. She's discovered/revealed no new information, imagined no new ideas, and said/done/thought nothing that particularly stands out from everyone else.

[HenrikOlsen]

She had a strong influence on Alan Greenspan's philosophy, echonomical and otherwise, which might be said to be a fairly large contribution to the US echonomical status over lots of years.
I didn't pick him in my previous post by accident.

[mike alexander]

HenrikOlsen wrote:
She had a strong influence on Alan Greenspan's philosophy, echonomical and otherwise, which might be said to be a fairly large contribution to the US echonomical status over lots of years.
I didn't pick him in my previous post by accident.

I was quite sure it was on purpose. I thought of the same guy.

Delvo wrote:
What I don't understand about Rand is how she ever became famous.

One guess is historical contingency; she was in the right place at the right time. I see her ideas as a counterpoint to collectivist philosophies she saw as a young woman, along with the fear of worldwide Soviet dominance. She went full-throttle the other way, celebrating the individual over everything else. She also seemed to have a thing about railroads.

Many years after I read the it, I wondered if Theodore Sturgeon's short story 'Brownshoes' was a ten-page refutation of her philosophy.

[Gillianren]

She also seemed to have a thing about railroads.

Yeah, what was that? I read We the Living, and while it was nearly fifteen years ago, I still remember the interminable train sequence at the beginning.

She herself was apparently quite an unpleasant person, but even if she weren't, I wouldn't've been able to get into a philosophy espoused in such dreadful books.

[Ronald Brak]

She had a strong influence on Alan Greenspan's philosophy, echonomical and otherwise, which might be said to be a fairly large contribution to the US echonomical status over lots of years.

I have no special insight into the inner workings of Alan Greenspan's mind, but I can say that he could have made exactly the same decisions he did as Chairman of the Federal Reserve without being objectionable.

[RalofTyr]

My philosophy is, get out into space. Live on the Moon. If America just wants to plant a flag and "Win" the space race, so what. I'm thinking of Japan, Brazil etc. My goal is to get people out into space, estabilish a colony and establish a way to make a living and the rest will follow.

[mugaliens]

Ugh. I read one Ayn Rand book, and that was more than enough.

LOL. Yeah. I think I may know what you mean, though I never finished the book.

[KaiYeves]

I always get Ayn Rand and Ann Rice mixed up. Which one is the one who writes about monsters?

[Noclevername]

I always get Ayn Rand and Ann Rice mixed up. Which one is the one who writes about monsters?

...Well, that depends what kind of monster you mean... :whistle:

Anne Rice = vampires
Ayn Rand = demonized Commies

[mike alexander]

Ann Rice = vampires
Ayn Rand = John Galt, commies, socialists... they're all pretty monstrous in their own ways.

[KaiYeves]

Okay, thanks for clearing that up.

[Van Rijn]

...Well, that depends what kind of monster you mean... :whistle:

Anne Rice = vampires
Ayn Rand = demonized Commies

Well, she was generally against government, not just what were then called Communist. By the way, I think some of her non-fiction essays are quite readable, but there was no way I could get through Atlas Shrugged. She wasn't writing a story so much as preaching a point of view, and it showed.

[Celestial Mechanic]

I have little use for either religion or philosophy. In other threads I do battle (metaphorically, of course!) with people who believe that the physics and astronomy of the last 400 years must be thrown out because questions we haven't even been able to formulate until 40 years ago have not been answered in the last 4 years. And yet religion and philosophy have not solved a single one of their questions in 4 thousand years!

[mugaliens]

You know, To Seek, you admins might be out of a job.

I think this thread is prime evidence of the maturity and ability of the members herein to diffuse potentially threatening threads.

It appears the Internet is growing up.

Unfornuately, only it's senior members, as a recent visit to the banned posters thread shows me that we still have much work to do.

Well, progress on at least some fronts is still progress.

Still, I can appreciate your allowing this to continue with just a warning. It's an interesting experiment, and you can't tell me that you weren't interested in what the outcome might be...

[mugaliens]

Addendum.

Growing up.

I've had a lot of growing up to do, too, even recently (and I'm half way between life and death).

So?

So, life is. Life does. It's time to live it, staying within all laws (actually, I've done that except for a couple of speeding tickets that I've long since paid for).

Take the time to hold your child's hand. Say "Hi." Mean it. Give them a hug.

I blew the mind out of a friend of mine downstairs just because I decided to spend ten minutes with his son.

His son was tickled pink.

Yet retro that back to when my 5th grade math teacher showed up at my model rocket launch site. Yeah, my Dad was there. But my math teacher? He meant 50 times as much. Not because he wasn't my Dad. But because my Dad has always been there for me. Because he was someone else, who showed up anyway.

[Infinity Watcher]

I have little use for either religion or philosophy. In other threads I do battle (metaphorically, of course!) with people who believe that the physics and astronomy of the last 400 years must be thrown out because questions we haven't even been able to formulate until 40 years ago have not been answered in the last 4 years. And yet religion and philosophy have not solved a single one of their questions in 4 thousand years!

That's a little harsh, I generally agree with you in having little time for philosophy but Ethics is a branch of philosophy and frankly a rather important one, which has some fairly major implications for the world, whilst it can't be said to have been "solved", in some cases you could think of it that way.

[Disinfo Agent]

Yes, I think that people who have no patience for philosophy tend to have a rather limited view of what philosophy is. They think it's all unintelligible word salad, like Hegel or Heidegger. But that's just one kind of philosophy, and a rather poor one, I would say.

[HenrikOlsen]

I think it's exactly because things are stopped hard when they get really out of hand, that the members here are motivated to help prevent that.
Actually many of the reported posts are not about that post being against the rules, but about the thread heating up and needing watching, which is good since the moderators can't read everything.

Another symptom of things working is that this is just about the only board I know of where people has shown the maturity to stand back and apologize to each other.

[Gillianren]

Ann Rice = vampires
Ayn Rand = John Galt, commies, socialists... they're all pretty monstrous in their own ways.

Sadly, I find it much easier to get through Rice. Not that she's a good writer, but the books of hers that I've read seldom make me want to throw them across the room. Just stop reading.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Yes, I think that people who have no patience for philosophy tend to have a rather limited view of what philosophy is. They think it's all unintelligible word salad, like Hegel or Heidegger. But that's just one kind of philosophy, and a rather poor one, I would say.
So what would you say is the "good stuff", something substantive and meaty instead of so much word salad? Which philosophers would you credit with actually solving some question/problem of philosophy?

[Noclevername]

So what would you say is the "good stuff", something substantive and meaty instead of so much word salad? Which philosophers would you credit with actually solving some question/problem of philosophy?

Those are two separate questions. Philosophers aren't in the business of solving those problems for us; at best, they clearly define the problems in ways that make it easier for those who read or hear them to solve for themselves as applied to their own personal situations.

[Infinity Watcher]

So what would you say is the "good stuff", something substantive and meaty instead of so much word salad? Which philosophers would you credit with actually solving some question/problem of philosophy?
As noclevername said but I'm going to refer again to ethics, making ethical decisions on gut feeling can be very dicey at times if you don't think very deeply about what right and wrong are in a particular case you can end up doing more harm than good with "the road to hell being paved with good intentions", there are obviously the extremes which are easy to see but what about the harder cases e.g. a man in a coma on full life support with declining probability of reviving but if he revives will recover and can be supported inefinitely on life support: when do you switch off the machine and allocate the resources to someone else: wehn they have a better probability of survival? is a 1% difference in recovery rates enough? these aren't easy decisions and they aren't abstract either these have real effects, people live and die on the basis of ethics.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Those are two separate questions. Philosophers aren't in the business of solving those problems for us; at best, they clearly define the problems in ways that make it easier for those who read or hear them to solve for themselves as applied to their own personal situations.
Oddly enough, if you substitute "astrologers" for "philosophers" in the above quote you also get a reasonable facsimile of the way astrologers describe their racket. ;)

[Celestial Mechanic]

As noclevername said but I'm going to refer again to ethics, making ethical decisions on gut feeling can be very dicey at times if you don't think very deeply about what right and wrong are in a particular case you can end up doing more harm than good with "the road to hell being paved with good intentions", there are obviously the extremes which are easy to see but what about the harder cases e.g. a man in a coma on full life support with declining probability of reviving but if he revives will recover and can be supported indefinitely on life support: when do you switch off the machine and allocate the resources to someone else: wehn they have a better probability of survival? is a 1% difference in recovery rates enough? these aren't easy decisions and they aren't abstract either these have real effects, people live and die on the basis of ethics.
I would like to point out that neither religion nor philosophy is required in order to have ethics and/or morality. Good philosophy is also found amongst the bricks of the Highway to Hell.

So what do Aristotle, Kant, and Sartre have to say about cutting off a comatose patient's life-support? :think:

[Infinity Watcher]

I would like to point out that neither religion nor philosophy is required in order to have ethics and/or morality. Good philosophy is also found amongst the bricks of the Highway to Hell.

So what do Aristotle, Kant, and Sartre have to say about cutting off a comatose patient's life-support? :think:
I have to confess I don't know as I havn't read much of any of them, I'm no philosopher, I'm just a student who has sat through several hours worth of lectures and seminars on medical ethics but I'm pointing out that ethics is a part of philosophy.

As far as I'm aware the philosophers you mention didn't really go in much for ethics, you might want to take a look at the wikipedia articles on utilitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism), Deontology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology) and virtue theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_theory) for a start, effectively these philosophies ask the question "what is good?", why is any given act good or bad, once you have a working definition of these you can start to make rational arguments for less obvious cases, you still ahve to pick a side and bat for it and I doubt anyone exclusively follows any one philosophy but most people tend to follow one without putting words to it but like I say once you start getting into the grey areas you need some sort of basis for a logical arguement otherwise you're back in the realm of gut feeling and tha can lead you off down the garden path if you aren't careful, some things which seem inherently unpleasant or worng can be actually the best decision similarly what seems right can actually be cruel: DNR orders in hospitals can be an example of this, you might feel that doing everything you can to keep someone alive is the best thing to do but if someone is beyond help, putting them through a full resuscitation attempt is actually a rather unkind thing to do since you can break ribs, inflict needle sticks and so forth and after all that you still havn't actually helped anyone, you've just put them through a whole lot of pain for no benefit, again this might seem obvious but whether someone is beyond help is not often clear cut and obviously the patient would have final say in what is done (medical ethics again as to why the patient has final say, something else that might seem obivous but drawing lines gets complicated: the four pillars, to be precise: autonomy).

If nothing else there's a pragmatic reason for this: a doctor who makes a decision like that could be asked if there was any doubt about how things were done to justify his or her actions before the professional governing body of the country who over here can do things like revoke license to practice and so on, a response of "professional judgement" alone won't cut much ice, you need a rational arguement as to why that decision was made.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!] If nothing else there's a pragmatic reason for this: a doctor who makes a decision like that could be asked if there was any doubt about how things were done to justify his or her actions before the professional governing body of the country who over here can do things like revoke license to practice and so on, a response of "professional judgment" alone won't cut much ice, you need a rational argument as to why that decision was made.
But how is "Flying Spaghetti Monster sez" or "Schoepenhauer sez" any better as an argument than "professional judgment"?

[Ronald Brak]

Looking on the bright side, philosophy has given us string theory.

[Gillianren]

But how is "Flying Spaghetti Monster sez" or "Schoepenhauer sez" any better as an argument than "professional judgment"?

I think philosophy is different than just what any one philosopher says. And simply put, there are issues were hardly anyone has "professional" judgement. What you have is your own thoughts on a subject; to me, that is philosophy. The thought process of deciding how to interact with the world. Maybe that isn't anyone else's definition, but to me, all philosophy is just a certain way of thinking. There's nothing wrong with it; I think it drives a lot of other things. If your philosophical judgement is that the only way to really know the world is to study it, that means your philosophy is driving science. It could be art or literature--or, yes, all sorts of bad things as well. In short, philosophy is a tool of your mind, and only doing what, say, Aristotle says (as was the state of Western science for longer than we'd like to consider) is just lazy.

[CodeSlinger]

Speaking of philosophy, and (over-) dependence on "Aristotle sez...", Paul Graham (a major figure in software engineering who was a philosophy major in college) has a really great essay on the topic:

http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html

[Infinity Watcher]

But how is "Flying Spaghetti Monster sez" or "Schoepenhauer sez" any better as an argument than "professional judgment"?
T
hat doesn't sound to me like a philosophical arguement to me, if you were to sit in on one of my (or I suspect most peoples ethics seminars) you'd hear something more along the lines of this hypothetical discussion on doctor patient confidentiality: "We generally accept that each persons life has value and if we take a utilitarian perspective then breach of confidentiality is justified in many cases involving infectious disease since substantial harm will result if you don't perform contact tracing "then someone else will chime in and say "ah yes but have you considered that in so doing you run the risk that someone won't consult out of embarrassment" and the discussion will then spiral off into weighing up the pros and cons of each position according to percieved harm, benefit and required actions and their impact on principles, as well as looking at it from other perspectives (see my post above for a couple of the larger alternatives to utilitarianism) if they're relevant of course its possible that someone else might have devoted quite some time to thinking about a general class of problem in which case they will be cited and any flaws in their argument (real or perceived) then discussed.

Now none of the above quotes are real I just made them up to illustrate a point but I think I managed to get across what actually happens, that's ethics, if you're doing things on the basis of "Sartre says" (is it just me or does that sounds like a kids' game?) you may very well be doing it wrong.

[Gillianren]

. . . "Sartre says" (is it just me or does that sounds like a kids' game?) . . . .

Not one I'd want my kid to play! (But yes. Yes, it does.)

[Disinfo Agent]

So what would you say is the "good stuff", something substantive and meaty instead of so much word salad? Which philosophers would you credit with actually solving some question/problem of philosophy?While most people don't realise it, we're living in an extraordinary period of human history. Much of the world is composed of democratic states today. Throughout 99.9% of its existence, mankind was ruled by unelected tyrants. How did this change come about, against all odds? There were several reasons, but a major one was the Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment).

And, before you dismiss the Enlightenment as a European frivolity, take a look at this sampe of thinkers who were members of this movement:


Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson (political documents like the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution are solidly grounded on the egalitarian and rationalist philosophy of the Enlightenment)
Thomas Paine
Adam Smith