The conundrum is this: dogs see only in black and white. Ergo, early on in their hypothetical scientific history, they could not so much as observe the effect of a prism in splitting "white" light into different colors. Not knowing about different colors of light, their eventual forays into astronomy would not reveal the fact that the light from distant galaxies is redshifted; and that is the great clue upon which Big Bang cosmology hinges. So I propose that it is extremely likely that dog scientists would've devised a different theory which fit all the facts they were capable of observing... as, of course, humans have done and continue to do.
The point of this example is to ask, "How sure can we be that our observations lead us towards the True Nature of the universe?" For, after all, all of our scientific instruments and techniques are designed to amplify the senses that we have, not senses which we haven't got. Dog scientists would have no idea that they lacked a particular sort of sight. How can we be sure that there aren't species somewhere that have additional senses beyond our accustomed five -- senses which allow them to perceive the universe more accurately than we do?
Obviously our senses allow us to construct a working model of reality -- one that is functional and sufficient for all practical questions of what "reality" is. But how much further can we go? Just by becoming aware of our own potentially limited vantage point, where in the discussion of grand and cosmic things does one draw the line between physics and metaphysics, between science and faith?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
The conundrum is this: dogs see only in black and white. Ergo, early on in their hypothetical scientific history, they could not so much as observe the effect of a prism in splitting "white" light into different colors. Not knowing about different colors of light, their eventual forays into astronomy would not reveal the fact that the light from distant galaxies is redshifted; and that is the great clue upon which Big Bang cosmology hinges. So I propose that it is extremely likely that dog scientists would've devised a different theory which fit all the facts they were capable of observing... as, of course, humans have done and continue to do.
The point of this example is to ask, "How sure can we be that our observations lead us towards the True Nature of the universe?" For, after all, all of our scientific instruments and techniques are designed to amplify the senses that we have, not senses which we haven't got. Dog scientists would have no idea that they lacked a particular sort of sight. How can we be sure that there aren't species somewhere that have additional senses beyond our accustomed five -- senses which allow them to perceive the universe more accurately than we do?
Obviously our senses allow us to construct a working model of reality -- one that is functional and sufficient for all practical questions of what "reality" is. But how much further can we go? Just by becoming aware of our own potentially limited vantage point, where in the discussion of grand and cosmic things does one draw the line between physics and metaphysics, between science and faith?
While I get your point, I don't think the "dog scientist" hypothetical plays out that way. There are ways to detect different wavelengths of light which don't involve seeing the visible spectrum. We can know about x-rays and gamma rays and radio waves and so on despite the fact that we can't see them. The dog scientists might have had a harder time figuring it out, or they might have taken a different route, but their different perception wouldn't have given them a different conclusion.
While I get your point, I don't think the "dog scientist" hypothetical plays out that way. There are ways to detect different wavelengths of light which don't involve seeing the visible spectrum. We can know about x-rays and gamma rays and radio waves and so on despite the fact that we can't see them.
Perhaps; but we only started looking for energy in the non-visible spectrum once we realized that there was a spectrum to visible energy. That's a huge first step and a huge hurdle to overcome if you're not physiologically able to take it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
Obviously our senses allow us to construct a working model of reality -- one that is functional and sufficient for all practical questions of what "reality" is. But how much further can we go? Just by becoming aware of our own potentially limited vantage point, where in the discussion of grand and cosmic things does one draw the line between physics and metaphysics, between science and faith?
Why not draw the line exactly where it is? If I make an assertion that is supported by the senses that I do have and filtered for correctness by the scientific techniques that are known to me -- whether I be dog or man -- then call it physics. If my assertion is not so supported, call it metaphysics.
Indeed, the hypothetical scenario you've posed involving the dogs (passing over Tiax's very important objection) is merely a canine version of the Cartesian demon, is it not?
The conundrum is this: dogs see only in black and white. Ergo, early on in their hypothetical scientific history, they could not so much as observe the effect of a prism in splitting "white" light into different colors. Not knowing about different colors of light, their eventual forays into astronomy would not reveal the fact that the light from distant galaxies is redshifted;
Wait... you really think dogs wouldn't discover that stuff because they can't observe beam splitting in prisms?! That's a really simplistic view of how science works. Before I continue I'll ignore the fact that dogs CAN observe a spectrum, albeit roughly as RG color blindness, less skillfully than most humans.
Wouldn't discover red shift? Balderdash! I'm certain dogs would notice the Doppler effect for sound waves! The train or emergency vehicle example using sound is the analogy given in every physics class ever! Precisely because it's really difficult for humans to observe distinctions in red shift, but the sound example is something we've all experienced before. Sound waves were a huge inspiration for the entire wave theory of light.
And then what about reflection? Refraction? Image warping? Diffraction? Studying the spectrum is only really important once you have a wave theory of light, but the particle theory of light came way earlier. Once you have a base theory, the progression of light theory really depends only on how many "Great Scientists" are born, and all other things being equal, I'd assume a dog civilization would have the same as we had.
Perhaps; but we only started looking for energy in the non-visible spectrum once we realized that there was a spectrum to visible energy. That's a huge first step and a huge hurdle to overcome if you're not physiologically able to take it.
Sure, but it's not like that's the singular possible path to that discovery.
Why not draw the line exactly where it is? If I make an assertion that is supported by the senses that I do have and filtered for correctness by the scientific techniques that are known to me -- whether I be dog or man -- then call it physics. If my assertion is not so supported, call it metaphysics.
All right, that works for me. I suppose I've got nothing further... perhaps you know how it is, when in a peculiar state of mind (possibly late at night) you have an idea with implications that seem really "big" -- and then by the clear light of day it turns out to be "meh"? Oh well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
I mean, we have to build machines to "translate" data signals into something we can perceive. Since, obviously, we can neither see distant galaxies nor their red-shift with our unaided eyes.
I expect dogs would make much greater use of radio telescopes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
You're assuming dogs would naturally evolve to be as intelligent as we are given the time. Human intelligence happened to be selected for; that doesn't mean that it would happen to have been selected for in dogs. Evolution isn't linear like that. Keep in mind that many species, like the cockroach and jellyfish, have been around for billions of years longer than Homo sapiens and are much less intelligent.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
2UURRniv mizzet, the firemind endless fiery mind wheels of death 3WRjor kadeen, the prevailer weenies and extra combat forever 3RRzirilan of the claw dragons and damage doublers 4:SymRG::SymRG:wort, the raidmother burn is now EDH viable 2WUkangee, aerie keeper birds 1UBRjeleva, nephalia's scourge spellslinger/storm
here are the mana costs of generals i no longer play: 2BR3BB3UBG4UB:SymUB::SymUB:2URRG3WWU2UU2GGUUBGG
You're assuming dogs would naturally evolve to be as intelligent as we are given the time. Human intelligence happened to be selected for; that doesn't mean that it would happen to have been selected for in dogs. Evolution isn't linear like that. Keep in mind that many species, like the cockroach and jellyfish, have been around for billions of years longer than Homo sapiens and are much less intelligent.
What is the point of this post? The question is not whether or not dogs would ever become intelligent, it is whether or not dogs would make the same scientific discoveries as us IF they were intelligent.
As Quine puts it, if Julius Caesar was in charge during the Korean War, he would have used catapults. The truth condition of counterfactuals are unclear at best. The one you present is even more unclear.. would they even called be dogs if they could be scientists?
For what it's worth, in our actual world, we postulate the existence of entities we cannot perceive (anything that we can't perceive with an electron microscope for example).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The point of this example is to ask, "How sure can we be that our observations lead us towards the True Nature of the universe?" For, after all, all of our scientific instruments and techniques are designed to amplify the senses that we have, not senses which we haven't got. Dog scientists would have no idea that they lacked a particular sort of sight. How can we be sure that there aren't species somewhere that have additional senses beyond our accustomed five -- senses which allow them to perceive the universe more accurately than we do?
Obviously our senses allow us to construct a working model of reality -- one that is functional and sufficient for all practical questions of what "reality" is. But how much further can we go? Just by becoming aware of our own potentially limited vantage point, where in the discussion of grand and cosmic things does one draw the line between physics and metaphysics, between science and faith?
While I get your point, I don't think the "dog scientist" hypothetical plays out that way. There are ways to detect different wavelengths of light which don't involve seeing the visible spectrum. We can know about x-rays and gamma rays and radio waves and so on despite the fact that we can't see them. The dog scientists might have had a harder time figuring it out, or they might have taken a different route, but their different perception wouldn't have given them a different conclusion.
Perhaps; but we only started looking for energy in the non-visible spectrum once we realized that there was a spectrum to visible energy. That's a huge first step and a huge hurdle to overcome if you're not physiologically able to take it.
Why not draw the line exactly where it is? If I make an assertion that is supported by the senses that I do have and filtered for correctness by the scientific techniques that are known to me -- whether I be dog or man -- then call it physics. If my assertion is not so supported, call it metaphysics.
Indeed, the hypothetical scenario you've posed involving the dogs (passing over Tiax's very important objection) is merely a canine version of the Cartesian demon, is it not?
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Wait... you really think dogs wouldn't discover that stuff because they can't observe beam splitting in prisms?! That's a really simplistic view of how science works. Before I continue I'll ignore the fact that dogs CAN observe a spectrum, albeit roughly as RG color blindness, less skillfully than most humans.
Wouldn't discover red shift? Balderdash! I'm certain dogs would notice the Doppler effect for sound waves! The train or emergency vehicle example using sound is the analogy given in every physics class ever! Precisely because it's really difficult for humans to observe distinctions in red shift, but the sound example is something we've all experienced before. Sound waves were a huge inspiration for the entire wave theory of light.
And then what about reflection? Refraction? Image warping? Diffraction? Studying the spectrum is only really important once you have a wave theory of light, but the particle theory of light came way earlier. Once you have a base theory, the progression of light theory really depends only on how many "Great Scientists" are born, and all other things being equal, I'd assume a dog civilization would have the same as we had.
Sure, but it's not like that's the singular possible path to that discovery.
Dogs do not see in black and white. Dogs are Red/Green Colorblind and aren't as efficient at differentiating shades of gray as humans.
A graph of the dog visual spectrum versus humans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Auge_Hund_Diagramm_engl.jpg
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
All right, that works for me. I suppose I've got nothing further... perhaps you know how it is, when in a peculiar state of mind (possibly late at night) you have an idea with implications that seem really "big" -- and then by the clear light of day it turns out to be "meh"? Oh well.
I expect dogs would make much greater use of radio telescopes.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
3WR jor kadeen, the prevailer weenies and extra combat forever
3RR zirilan of the claw dragons and damage doublers
4:SymRG::SymRG: wort, the raidmother burn is now EDH viable
2WU kangee, aerie keeper birds
1UBR jeleva, nephalia's scourge spellslinger/storm
here are the mana costs of generals i no longer play: 2BR3BB3UBG4UB:SymUB::SymUB:2URRG3WWU2UU2GGUUBGG
3UWR numot, the devastator of [the spirit of edh]
Spam Warning issued ~r_0
What is the point of this post? The question is not whether or not dogs would ever become intelligent, it is whether or not dogs would make the same scientific discoveries as us IF they were intelligent.
For what it's worth, in our actual world, we postulate the existence of entities we cannot perceive (anything that we can't perceive with an electron microscope for example).