The Perimeter of Ignorance

[Zygote]

Interesting article from our favorite astrophysicist,
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/z_Projects_in_progress/050418_Einstein/050321_neil_tyson_bcol_9a.standard.jpg

article (http://research.amnh.org/users/tyson/essays/PerimeterOfIgnorance.html)

[CallMeIshmael]

Very well written article.

I await Sharkey's reply.

[guesswest]

Yes great article - thanks for sharing.

A minor point though: I highly doubt it was Newton's belief in god that saw him stop short on that subject. As a personality type, to get as far as he did he must have had an insatiable drive to understand and explain his world.

[J. Stew]

Are the proponents of intelligent design really saying, 'don't think about stuff you don't understand,' tho? I thought intelligent design, God of gaps, was saying that if we don't have the scientific answers to something, that that gap is in some way filled by the ultimate Truth, that is God, that is the underlying pervading current/Suchness of Reality.

If you're depressed you have a certain energy level to you and you will suck down other people in your presence. If you are clear, sharp, naturally focused, conscious, you will bring up other people's intrinsic energy level, if they are open to it. Whatever this energy level is has something to do with the vibrancy of this underlying current of Reality, which in my opinion has something to do with God. Mystics sit and meditate for a hell of a long time and they all come to the same conclusion, there is a God, It is all-pervading, and 'It' is You, or your pure consciousness that becomes defiled by Your separate self's repression and attachment of/to thought(s). It makes sense to me that this underlying groundedness of pure consciousness is the key to unlocking the mysteries of the Universe, mysteries that can only be known directly and from which comes the conceptual understanding. You can't explain things first and then really experientially 'get' them. It's like someone telling you a story, it's not as real, it's conceptual hearing it second-hand. But if intelligent design is saying something different like don't think and leave all the scientific advancement that could increase standard of living out, then I like his argument.

[hmkpoker]

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/z_Projects_in_progress/050418_Einstein/050321_neil_tyson_bcol_9a.standard.jpg


[ QUOTE ]
Very well written article.

[/ QUOTE ]

He writes so well! He writes so well! He's so well-written, I mean he writes so well! He really, really writes well.

(I don't mean to make fun of you, Ishmael, I just had to make a Chris Rock joke there /images/graemlins/grin.gif)

[pilliwinks]

An interesting article. I think I disagree with many of his theses, while agreeing with his objective (to promote science in the face of the unknown).

I agree with guesswest that Newton was most unlikely to have stopped researching anything because it encroached on God's domain. He was exceptionally devout, not to say wierd, but he felt it was a testament to God's faithfulness that he should be able to expound the regularities of nature.

I would also dispute that Newton believed in a god of the gaps. He was far more like a panentheist as far as I can make out.

I'm not overwhelmed by his argument for stupid design either. I think that argument can be made, but not by the examples he gives, which could be readily refuted by the ID folk. Our bodies may be frail, but the designer may have wanted them that way. Darwin gave better examples, and there are still better examples from cell biology of systems that are both complex and stupid.

[MidGe]

Good article. A+. I specially enjoyed reading the last paragraph. Thinkers like this are sorely needed.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with guesswest that Newton was most unlikely to have stopped researching anything because it encroached on God's domain. He was exceptionally devout, not to say wierd, but he felt it was a testament to God's faithfulness that he should be able to expound the regularities of nature.

I would also dispute that Newton believed in a god of the gaps. He was far more like a panentheist as far as I can make out.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I got from the article is that Newton hit a wall which he couldnt get over. Because of this he decided that It must be regulated by God. It wasn't that he stopped because of some reverence to God, it was that he couldn't get any farther, thus God had to have a hand in it.

[chrisnice]

"And what comedian designer configured the region between our legs—an entertainment complex built around a sewage system?"

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
What I got from the article is that Newton hit a wall which he couldnt get over. Because of this he decided that It must be regulated by God. It wasn't that he stopped because of some reverence to God, it was that he couldn't get any farther, thus God had to have a hand in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has anyone on here read enough by Newton or on Newton to resolve this chicken-egg situation. Judging be the amazing distance he moved us, it's hard to think he had a pre-set limit to where he was going because he didn't know where he was going. The Wall and invoking the Gap makes more sense, but that's without reading him or anything indepth on him.

luckyme

[guesswest]

I'm not a great expert on Newton, but having read a reasonable amount of biographical material: It'd certainly be in keeping with his religious beliefs to conclude that where an explanation wasn't forthcoming that it could be the work of a mysterious god - and consequently unknowable. I wasn't taking issue with that interpretation.

But it's a whole other thing to say that he'd then stop trying to find out if it was knowable. From everything I've read about him, the idea of him dismissing enquiry when there was something to discover/examine/understand would be anathema to every shred of his being.

I also know he expressed regret over a great many things he wrote in the Principia at various points in his subsequent life - so it's entirely possible he addressed this passage himself.