Science is not special. Science is observation and simple logic. And yes, animals can do it too. (OR: Philosophy vs. Science 1-0)

Advertisements

14572803_690800777744421_4662180316353572642_n

Scientists found out that cats could be comprehending laws of physics. The study was published in the journal Animal Cognition.

The experiment involved observing the reactions of 30 cats — eight house cats and 22 cats that reside in cat cafes — to a series of four scenarios involving a container with an object inside that could rattle around.

Half the time, researchers manipulated the container and the object inside it so they obeyed the basic laws of physics. That means they shook the cup so that the object rattled around, then turned it over and the object fell out. Or, they shook the container with no sound, then turned it over and nothing came out.

The other half of the time, researchers made the object and container appear to defy laws of basic physics. They shook the container with the object rattling around, then turned it over and nothing came out. Or, they shook the container with no sound, then when they turned it over, the object fell out. (They were able to accomplish this using magnets and switches that controlled compartments within the cup)

Researchers randomized the order in which each cat encountered these conditions. What they found was the cats spent more time staring at the container during the weird scenarios than they did during the ones that supposedly made sense. The researchers interpreted this as meaning the cats were confused by the nonsensical scenarios. (1)

Science is not special. Science is observation and simple logic. And yes, animals can do it too. A simple conclusion which may hurt the feelings of many, but true whatsoever.

We used to have philosophy and religion. Then stupid people came along. And we started having science. We used to trust our instinct. We used to see without our eyes. And now we have eyes which we believe in. Now we have data. Now we have scientific models.

But is this something special? Or is it something any animal can do too? Animals observe the cosmos. Animals derive conclusions and use them to improve their lives (science). Animals create tools (technology).

Animals do not ponder while watching the stars.

We used to be humans.

We have become animals.

Grrrrrrr!!!

Laws of movement. Ignorance of everything. [Religion -> Science. Science -> Nothing]

Advertisements

When we look things in the details, it is easier to find laws which describe what we see. But when you go to the macro-level, things get harder.

We know the details of the planetary movements. We do not know why they move and what created the universe in the first place. We know how particles behave. We do not know what particles are in the first place.

But the macro-level is what actually describes everything. And one should start from that in order to build a solid understanding of all things. How can you describe the behavior of something you do not know what it is? What is the point in describing the movement of something you do not understand why it is here?

In the old days people started with religion. And they ended up with science.

Now people start from science. And they end up with dead-ends.

Frankenstein.

Advertisements

The story of Frankenstein is not just a horror story.

It is the story of a scientist who converses only with his own conscience.

And such a story can never have a happy ending.

In the midst of Romanticism, the era when the love for the “logical” and the “scientific” were at their heights, a woman saw through the fake illusions of grandeur and tried to warn us.

Do not practice science just for science.

Do not seek the limits without knowing your foundations.

Do not try to be god without understanding you are a human…

Science: NOT explaining. Being: NO reason.

Advertisements

Several exploding stars have been found outside the cozy confines of galaxies, where most stars reside. These wayward supernovae are also weird because they exploded billions of years before their predicted detonations. Using archived observations from several telescopes, astronomers have developed a theory for where these doomed stars come from and how they arrived at their current homes. (1)

Everything can be explained.

Because we actually explain nothing.

We just reproduce what we see. And describe it.

But it takes more to understand.

It takes an empty mind to grasp the meaning of everything.

A mind ready to accept without understanding, without explaining.

It actually takes nothing to understand.

And that is why it is so hard…

Everything can be explained.

And that is why explaining means nothing.

Nothing can be explained.

Everything is without reason.

Existence itself is the reason.

Self-replicating.

Self-referencing.

Being.

Saturn rings. Predicting models. And the (philosophical) uselessness of science. [Predicting models: An autoanaphorical lie]

Advertisements

Why do Saturn’s rings look like that?

New research from the University of Leicester finally confirms why the planet’s iconic rings look the way they do — and the answer might allow us to make predictions about other planetary rings in the universe.

Saturn’s rings are made of chunks of ice and rock that range in size from a few inches wide, to 10-feet long. It has long been a mystery as to whether this size distribution occurred for just Saturn’s rings, or other planetary rings, such as those surrounding Uranus or Neptune.

“Our study revealed that this form of the size distribution is not occasional, but dictated by simple mechanisms of aggregation and fragmentation of particles at their collisions,” Dr. Nikolai Brilliantov, a math professor at the university and the study’s lead investigator, told The Huffington Post in an email. “Furthermore, we proved mathematically that the form of the size distribution is universal, that is, it is not specific for planetary rings of Saturn”. (1)

Of course the Saturn rings obey the scientific model for aggregation and fragmentation of particles at their collisions.

Because you know what?

If it did not, then the model would change in order to incorporate the new evidence and then… it would!

Describing the world is what science does.

Useful as a kitchen.

Worthless as philosophy.