For the triumphant final video in the Biggest Ideas series, we look at a big idea indeed: Science. What is science, and why is it so great? And I also take the opportunity to dip a toe into the current state of fundamental physics — are predictions that unobservable universes exist really science? What if we never discover another particle? Is it worth building giant expensive experiments? Tune in to find out.
The Biggest Ideas in the Universe | 24. Science
Thanks to everyone who has watched along the way. It’s been quite a ride.
So glad I’m not the only one who would like to “savor” these important ideas (I.e. really understand them); so I bet if more of us pushed for the idea of a BOOK, Sean would do it; not to mention the other reason, mentioned above, is that we all could buy it and pay him back for all his effort!
Bummer! Loved this series. Can I erase my brain and re-watch it all over?
Gonna need a therapist with whom I can weekly interact.
I”m starting a campaign to get Sean to turn these important lectures into a book; wouldn’t it make a great book, with each lecture being a new chapter? So add your weight to this argument if you agree. Wasn’t it neat to get to know him and his cats better; sure helped to get thru this tough summer! If he writes a book on this, your wish will come true; well, at least mine will, because by the time he finishes the book, I will need a refresher course, anyway!
I know I already said I am in favor of a book, but I want to add my support to Chris(tine) as well. YES! Please do the book.
Dear Randy ( and Sean):
Yes. I opined that a book might be good. Also offered some notions of how it might be developed….
If I could write the book, I would.
You’re an (inter)national treasure, Sean. But I want to point out a small error. Euclidian geometry requires the parallel postulate as an axiom. It cannot be derived as a theorem. The various ways in which an axiom can state that “parallel lines meet” define the various kinds of non-euclidian geometry.
Thank you, Dan. In other messages to other sources, my contention has focused on the philosophical bugbear of truth/belief. I have pointed out that philosophy chases ‘truth’, or claims to do so. Part of my remarks included notions about truth vs. philosophy vs. science vs. theology—and so on…
Having contended that ideology smothers truth; philosophy suffers from a syndrome of truth, minus proof, as do theology and others,;truth is, uh, ‘shady’, as Dewey has asserted on the matter of belief. Also, being the skeptical pragmatist I am, I have pointed out the changability of science : not immutable. Far from it.
Being equanimous, I pointed out that mathematics and physics are also subject to change, and that no one has a lock on truth. And so, my public intellectual friends, I’ll now focus on a different problem:
Whether to secure and install a slip washer in a sink drainer connection, or, do a plumbers tape wrap of the leaking joint? Decisions, decisions…
Thank you Professor Carroll for hosting these amazing talks. You have not only opened up worlds of physics that were formerly opaque but done so in a way that is universally accessible.
There is no way to express how meaningful these have been only to say, if you have the means and energy, turning this into a continuing series incorporating your other work and the work of your Mindscape guests could prove to be an enduring milestone in our social and cultural appreciation of science.
Insofar as, everything is connected, I offer the following—consistent ( I hope) with my overall position. Science follows other rudiments. Astronomy.Physics. Mathematics. Biology .Archeology. Paleontology. There are many more examples possible, including geometry. Thing is, they—including geometry—are branches of one another, astronomy and geometry being off-shoots of mathematics. Or maybe, the other way ’round.? This interconnectedness is consistent with the ‘oneness’ set forward in several theological/ideological beliefs. Truth, in its’ essense, is only valuable to sentient beings such as ourselves. It is not pragmatic for animals who only exist for survival and procreation.. Unless, of course, one might equate survival with truth? Uh….maybe…maybe too deep? Or absurd, on its’ face… Philosophy says it seeks truth…question is does it mean it? Or?
Everything we now know, then, depends on what we did not know before.. How ironic is that? Or, is it merely contingent? Rorty is not around to ask. Maybe, someone else?
Indeed. I think he understands the good work he is doing but it’s always nice to acknowledge it! Richard Feynman was an early pioneer… and many others.
I am fondly reminded of a previous coworker’s remark. She is an attorney, so the manner of the question posed was cohesive with her response, within the context of her profession. Asked if a certain thing was ‘legal’ within the meaning of law, she replied: it depends. It was easy to recall this exchange. By now, iconic— it is heard in many conversations about legality.. The overall content of either/or questions and answers extends to realms beyond the legal profession. We know this through experience. It is just one more example of our preposterous world. A world, likely more preposterous than the universe it inhabits…