ruffledfeather
Epistemology vs. Ontology
The seed of inspiration for this science ATC was a picture of Einstein with bright red and blue hair and the teaser “quantum weirdness” on the cover of the March Scientific American. Here is the convoluted thought process that ultimately produced this piece: The article was about the counter intuitive nature of quantum mechanics and the problem the quantum effect of entanglement poses to Einstein’s theory of special relativity. The problem, the article posited, is not epistemological rather it is ontological. This made me think of Sister Anselm Mary from whom I took a philosophy class in college. She took the name because she believed Anselm’s Ontological Argument was proof positive of the existence of God. I made the mistake, on a mid-term, of supporting Guanilo’s objection to the “that which nothing greater can be conceived” argument, wherein he replaces Anselm’s superlative being with a superlative island. My powers of logic were no match for Sister Anselm and needless to say, I did not fare too well on that portion of the exam. Which brings me to the point of this piece and its relevance to science--What can we know?
Epistemology vs. Ontology
The seed of inspiration for this science ATC was a picture of Einstein with bright red and blue hair and the teaser “quantum weirdness” on the cover of the March Scientific American. Here is the convoluted thought process that ultimately produced this piece: The article was about the counter intuitive nature of quantum mechanics and the problem the quantum effect of entanglement poses to Einstein’s theory of special relativity. The problem, the article posited, is not epistemological rather it is ontological. This made me think of Sister Anselm Mary from whom I took a philosophy class in college. She took the name because she believed Anselm’s Ontological Argument was proof positive of the existence of God. I made the mistake, on a mid-term, of supporting Guanilo’s objection to the “that which nothing greater can be conceived” argument, wherein he replaces Anselm’s superlative being with a superlative island. My powers of logic were no match for Sister Anselm and needless to say, I did not fare too well on that portion of the exam. Which brings me to the point of this piece and its relevance to science--What can we know?