12/21/2012

[Wyes]

I don't understand why people who are asked about the end of the world always analyze the science involved and then conclude it's not going to happen. As if our knowledge of science is complete, and as if the only way it could happen would be via an entity or happening observable by us or our technology prior to the event. The Mayans didn't make their prediction using the same assumptions about the world as we have. I'm not an expert on Mayan culture but I'm pretty sure they had a vastly different view of the world from us, with a different notion of being. We can't assume their knowledge about an End would be capable of being apprehended by us.

It's kind of like measuring the temperature of water with a ruler.

I'm certain given enough time I could find a way to measure the temperature of water with a ruler.

As for why we use science to conclude that it's (very very very very) unlikely to happen (anybody who tells you something is 100% unlikely probably isn't a scientist) - currently the sum total of human knowledge is unimaginably larger than it has EVER been. This doesn't mean that it's impossible that the Mayans knew something we didn't (astronomically speaking), just very unlikely.

Another point which very nicely debunks the whole Mayan calender is that it didn't account for leap years, so the world should've ended a while ago.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

I don't understand why people who are asked about the end of the world always analyze the science involved and then conclude it's not going to happen. As if our knowledge of science is complete, and as if the only way it could happen would be via an entity or happening observable by us or our technology prior to the event. The Mayans didn't make their prediction using the same assumptions about the world as we have. I'm not an expert on Mayan culture but I'm pretty sure they had a vastly different view of the world from us, with a different notion of being. We can't assume their knowledge about an End would be capable of being apprehended by us.

It's kind of like measuring the temperature of water with a ruler.

I'm certain given enough time I could find a way to measure the temperature of water with a ruler.

As for why we use science to conclude that it's (very very very very) unlikely to happen (anybody who tells you something is 100% unlikely probably isn't a scientist) - currently the sum total of human knowledge is unimaginably larger than it has EVER been. This doesn't mean that it's impossible that the Mayans knew something we didn't (astronomically speaking), just very unlikely.

Another point which very nicely debunks the whole Mayan calender is that it didn't account for leap years, so the world should've ended a while ago.

The ruler example was to show you can't measure knowledge on a linear scale. Comparing intercultural knowledge is not quantitative. Clearly, the ancient greeks had a different kind of knowledge from us, as did the Chinese, Native Americans. And I'm not one who thinks that having access to ancient texts of a culture gives us their knowledge; just an interpretation of it.

True our scientific knowledge in the sense of knowledge founded upon western i.e. Newtonian/Einsteinian, Aristotelian, Darwinian (etc.) principles is larger than any other culture in history. But what does that mean? We still have to remember that it is a perspective, and no perspective can encompass all.

 

[Wyes]

The ruler example was to show you can't measure knowledge on a linear scale. Comparing intercultural knowledge is not quantitative. Clearly, the ancient greeks had a different kind of knowledge from us, as did the Chinese, Native Americans. And I'm not one who thinks that having access to ancient texts of a culture gives us their knowledge; just an interpretation of it.

True our scientific knowledge in the sense of knowledge founded upon western i.e. Newtonian/Einsteinian, Aristotelian, Darwinian (etc.) principles is larger than any other culture in history. But what does that mean? We still have to remember that it is a perspective, and no perspective can encompass all.

I was aware of the purpose, I just felt like poking fun (also totally thought of a way, it's pretty simple too - you use the ruler to measure changes in volume).

Of course there are different types of knowledge, but ultimately knowledge is knowledge. The sum total of our knowledge today is certainly not all from Western cultures (the concept of 0 and huge parts of algebra came from the Middle East, if you want a particular example). The modern Scientific enterprise has contributors from every culture that's part of a developed nation. Each of these cultures brings a unique perspective to table; the methodology is the same, but it's done in a different context. Of course this doesn't encompass every culture that is and ever has been, but it doesn't need to - you can get to the same knowledge in an infinite number of ways (e.g. measuring the temperature of water with a ruler, rather than a thermometer, which is not really the best example because both tools use a change in volume...).

I'm not saying that Science is infallible, and that we already have all the knowledge (if we did, we wouldn't still need Scientists), but it does mean that we've got a pretty good chance of knowing more about any event that's likely to suddenly destroy life as we know it on 21/12/12 than the Mayans did.