Brilliantly said. And entirely contrary to the trite, pointless phrase, "Follow the science."
I studied engineering in college for two years, and switched to an English major. Two different worlds. Besides having been and earth science teacher, I am also unabashedly highly skilled architectural woodworker, and created and ran a woodworking business for many decades. (Retired now). I can call myself an artist in wood.
So, I've covered some bases, and Heather is spot on in what she says.
Some are familiar with Newton's three laws of motion. What many don't realize is that Newton didn't really discover those laws, he created them. Nature doesn't even know his laws exist, but manages to get by anyway. Newton's laws are his own creation, for the use of scientists in evaluating nature.
No, the sun isn't the center of the solar system. Unless you want it to be. Or if you prefer, the earth is the center of the universe. Nature doesn't care, either way. It's up to people to determine their own perspective. Certainly, to a scientist, the heliocentric model is preferable.
I won't bore everyone with more examples. I just get upset with the people who try to pervert science into some sort of autocratic, bureaucratic mind-numbing set of rules.
Go back and watch your -and Bret's- talk with Bishop Barron.
"Black boxes" and "I don't know"
"Gaps" and what "to do with the gaps you can't fill in"
"We are permanently -and permanently will be- stuck without the ability to see what's in all of those gaps... the gaps are inherent to us being stuck in a place in space and time and stuck with an incomplete library of knowledge and noisy data sets"
"You start anywhere and, by some metrics I guess, you end up with the math, but you could also equally end up at God."
Openness and wonder live in there. In the gaps.
I remember both of you saying once that you're comfortable with the gaps.
The hole is hole-shaped. "God" evolved to fit the hole, like an opioid to a neuro-receptor. We need to figure out what better keys that hole so's we have an actual truth as opposed to Bret's metaphorical truth.
Sickle Cell and window screens are better than nought to deal with endemic malaria; but neutering Anopheles to extinction is an actual solution. Better sciences evolved to deal with some of religion's burdens; but gods seem to be an accidental outcome. Is it cephalopods that evolved a better eye? A research programme to find the telos that religion and we are co-evolved; co-selected; and co-adapted to solve is called for and pdq - this particular 'Chesterton's Fence' is well on the way to being taken down at this juncture.
Imre Lakatos concluded that ‘science’ can be defined as a ‘research program’.
I’ve used this insight for decades. Avoids some pitfalls.
Also, the description of study of nature, was entitled ‘natural philosophy’.
Think of the book that changed the world - Newton’s “Mathematical principles of natural philosophy”.
‘Science’ in the modern sense is recent use of that word/concept.
Theology was for centuries the “Queen of the Sciences”.
Modernity is wanting to sneak a secular theology back into academia.
Also, there is clearly numerous‘ ‘research projects’ - physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc.,
But, where is the ‘science’?
As Maxwell asked - “what if nature is not like a book, based on one theme with various chapters, but, is like a magazine with separate , disconnected articles.’
‘Natural philosophy’ seems a much more revealing description of what this study really is.
All human thought, all human conclusions contain much fundamental assumptions - some acknowledged, most not recognized.
The people who began modern ‘science’ understood they were doing ‘natural philosophy’.
Human beings were created to create. The more creativity we can bring to our jobs, no matter how apparently mundane, the better humans we become. The worst job situations are those of the "shut up and do what I tell you" variety. Sadly, we've gone so far down that road that many people seem to prefer it, not only in employment but in life: in everything from parenting to education to health to voting, "Just tell me what to do and I'll follow the script."
"It is a common mistake,... to believe science does not require creativity."
I could not agree more and I've experienced this in my own life. I'm a musician, teacher and artist. I spent most of my life believing that I was 'bad' at science and that science had nothing to do with what I was doing in the 'creative' realm. About five years ago I realized how wrong I was and actually went and got a Master's degree in science. You won't be surprised to learn that my degree has significantly helped my art!
1) I wanna suggest a missing creative aspect of engineering. As I see it, you know what you want [to make], but you don't know how to do it (or at least don't know a practical or best way). Answering the "how" can require a lot of creativity.
2) The pivot to God needs to be better developed. I don't disagree, but I'm not clear how Heather ties the two topics (creativity, God) together.
PS. As an example of the former, I'm currently (mostly for fun) trying to build a gas meter to determine a tenant's use of propane heat. Installing a real gas meter would require a lot of re-routing of gas lines, so I'm looking for a cheaper solution. I'm trying to address the question: What instrumentation can I retrofit to an existing gas heater to determine gas usage? If I don't want to just shop around for an off-the-shelf solution, there's a fair amount of creativity involved in figuring out (then building) the "best" solution.
Few of the technically minded ever seem to see the (necessary) similarities between themselves and "artists". Even as I pursued concrete goals, I had questions that could only be answered in part by designing an experiment to answer them. Building a machine that has never existed or one that does what it's predecessors have never done involves a lot of trial-and-error, and an openness to what one may find. Art, science, craft and engineering the pursuit of which has more similarities than most realize, are all attempts to fill a hole in reality. It seems like I must agree with Pascal (if not his "wager") that humans have a God-shaped-hole that must be filled with something. It will be filled, if only with the wrong things: a lust for power or material goods. The self-lie that is atheism (a faith that there is no Deity, little different than faith that there is one). Desire for things of this world because the person cannot believe in another one. Agnostics acknowledge this hole, while atheists try to fill it with the garbage that is "self-esteem". To desire to know all the answers is understandable, but a foolish waste of a person's limited supply of wonder. "Why?" and "How?" are valid. "Do as I say" is a statement AGAINST any sense of wonder and usually invalid.
It's funny to hear that. As a religious person who's a bit of an oddball, I have enough experience with it to say it looks exactly the same. Mostly unthinking dogma, and some exploring the wonder with humility. I think if you get enough people together, all systems start to look the same. Human nature and variation take over.
Brilliantly said. And entirely contrary to the trite, pointless phrase, "Follow the science."
I studied engineering in college for two years, and switched to an English major. Two different worlds. Besides having been and earth science teacher, I am also unabashedly highly skilled architectural woodworker, and created and ran a woodworking business for many decades. (Retired now). I can call myself an artist in wood.
So, I've covered some bases, and Heather is spot on in what she says.
Some are familiar with Newton's three laws of motion. What many don't realize is that Newton didn't really discover those laws, he created them. Nature doesn't even know his laws exist, but manages to get by anyway. Newton's laws are his own creation, for the use of scientists in evaluating nature.
No, the sun isn't the center of the solar system. Unless you want it to be. Or if you prefer, the earth is the center of the universe. Nature doesn't care, either way. It's up to people to determine their own perspective. Certainly, to a scientist, the heliocentric model is preferable.
I won't bore everyone with more examples. I just get upset with the people who try to pervert science into some sort of autocratic, bureaucratic mind-numbing set of rules.
Please credit the fascinating photo. It’s quite fabulous .
Go back and watch your -and Bret's- talk with Bishop Barron.
"Black boxes" and "I don't know"
"Gaps" and what "to do with the gaps you can't fill in"
"We are permanently -and permanently will be- stuck without the ability to see what's in all of those gaps... the gaps are inherent to us being stuck in a place in space and time and stuck with an incomplete library of knowledge and noisy data sets"
"You start anywhere and, by some metrics I guess, you end up with the math, but you could also equally end up at God."
Openness and wonder live in there. In the gaps.
I remember both of you saying once that you're comfortable with the gaps.
Thank you.
https://youtu.be/DbwXe5LhNNA?feature=shared&t=888
The hole is hole-shaped. "God" evolved to fit the hole, like an opioid to a neuro-receptor. We need to figure out what better keys that hole so's we have an actual truth as opposed to Bret's metaphorical truth.
Sickle Cell and window screens are better than nought to deal with endemic malaria; but neutering Anopheles to extinction is an actual solution. Better sciences evolved to deal with some of religion's burdens; but gods seem to be an accidental outcome. Is it cephalopods that evolved a better eye? A research programme to find the telos that religion and we are co-evolved; co-selected; and co-adapted to solve is called for and pdq - this particular 'Chesterton's Fence' is well on the way to being taken down at this juncture.
Helen
Keen insight.
I’ve pondered on this theme . . .
A few gems I’ve found.
Imre Lakatos concluded that ‘science’ can be defined as a ‘research program’.
I’ve used this insight for decades. Avoids some pitfalls.
Also, the description of study of nature, was entitled ‘natural philosophy’.
Think of the book that changed the world - Newton’s “Mathematical principles of natural philosophy”.
‘Science’ in the modern sense is recent use of that word/concept.
Theology was for centuries the “Queen of the Sciences”.
Modernity is wanting to sneak a secular theology back into academia.
Also, there is clearly numerous‘ ‘research projects’ - physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc.,
But, where is the ‘science’?
As Maxwell asked - “what if nature is not like a book, based on one theme with various chapters, but, is like a magazine with separate , disconnected articles.’
‘Natural philosophy’ seems a much more revealing description of what this study really is.
All human thought, all human conclusions contain much fundamental assumptions - some acknowledged, most not recognized.
The people who began modern ‘science’ understood they were doing ‘natural philosophy’.
A real loss.
Thanks
Clay
indeed
well done
Human beings were created to create. The more creativity we can bring to our jobs, no matter how apparently mundane, the better humans we become. The worst job situations are those of the "shut up and do what I tell you" variety. Sadly, we've gone so far down that road that many people seem to prefer it, not only in employment but in life: in everything from parenting to education to health to voting, "Just tell me what to do and I'll follow the script."
"It is a common mistake,... to believe science does not require creativity."
I could not agree more and I've experienced this in my own life. I'm a musician, teacher and artist. I spent most of my life believing that I was 'bad' at science and that science had nothing to do with what I was doing in the 'creative' realm. About five years ago I realized how wrong I was and actually went and got a Master's degree in science. You won't be surprised to learn that my degree has significantly helped my art!
Two comments:
1) I wanna suggest a missing creative aspect of engineering. As I see it, you know what you want [to make], but you don't know how to do it (or at least don't know a practical or best way). Answering the "how" can require a lot of creativity.
2) The pivot to God needs to be better developed. I don't disagree, but I'm not clear how Heather ties the two topics (creativity, God) together.
PS. As an example of the former, I'm currently (mostly for fun) trying to build a gas meter to determine a tenant's use of propane heat. Installing a real gas meter would require a lot of re-routing of gas lines, so I'm looking for a cheaper solution. I'm trying to address the question: What instrumentation can I retrofit to an existing gas heater to determine gas usage? If I don't want to just shop around for an off-the-shelf solution, there's a fair amount of creativity involved in figuring out (then building) the "best" solution.
Few of the technically minded ever seem to see the (necessary) similarities between themselves and "artists". Even as I pursued concrete goals, I had questions that could only be answered in part by designing an experiment to answer them. Building a machine that has never existed or one that does what it's predecessors have never done involves a lot of trial-and-error, and an openness to what one may find. Art, science, craft and engineering the pursuit of which has more similarities than most realize, are all attempts to fill a hole in reality. It seems like I must agree with Pascal (if not his "wager") that humans have a God-shaped-hole that must be filled with something. It will be filled, if only with the wrong things: a lust for power or material goods. The self-lie that is atheism (a faith that there is no Deity, little different than faith that there is one). Desire for things of this world because the person cannot believe in another one. Agnostics acknowledge this hole, while atheists try to fill it with the garbage that is "self-esteem". To desire to know all the answers is understandable, but a foolish waste of a person's limited supply of wonder. "Why?" and "How?" are valid. "Do as I say" is a statement AGAINST any sense of wonder and usually invalid.
It's funny to hear that. As a religious person who's a bit of an oddball, I have enough experience with it to say it looks exactly the same. Mostly unthinking dogma, and some exploring the wonder with humility. I think if you get enough people together, all systems start to look the same. Human nature and variation take over.