I grew up on a farm, and had always enjoyed growing different sorts of plants, and my first interest in science was biology, but that soon gave way to chemistry. I think because chemistry was more precise and dramatic than biology. In biology, there were not as many impressive experiments or quick results to be had as there were in chemistry. Also, I soon realised that biology was very largely a product of chemistry: all of organic chemistry and life science in general depended on chemicals. For example, DNA, the basis of evolution, is a chemical. The reactions that power life are all chemical reactions. The fixing of energy from the sun by photosynthesis is a chemical reaction.
Perhaps not surprisingly, my interests continued to change, and by my fourth year of high school, it was physics and mathematics that most excited me, and in my final years, sat the leaving exams in mathematics, physics and chemistry. I also sat for English, economics and histoty, but they did not interest me very much. However, my phsics teacher had got me interested in the deeper philosophical questions behind both physics and mathematics, so I started reading philosophy when I was around fifteen years of age.
After high school, I began a science degree with majors in mathematics and physics, but I continued to read philosophy, and ended up changing to the faculty of Arts, graduating with a major in philosophy. Along with that I continued to study pure mathematics, which went well with the logic courses I took in philosophy, and I also studied a couple of classical languages.
These days, I continue to read philosophy, though mainly in ethics and epistemology rather than metaphysics or logic. However, via epistemology and metaphysics I have come back to a stronger interest in biology, especially the theory of evolution and the genetic or other material determinants of human nature, which also leads to an interest in a several related areas of psychology. These interests are reflected in a couple of my favourite magazines: New Scientist and Scientific American.
Your biography is interesting. You start with science; at last, your interest is philosophy. That means, you are very good in 2 sides of brand, math and art. Not much people can use the brand effective, but you can! When I studied at university, second year, I learned philosophy too. I’m not too interested in it. However, now, I usually read philosophy books because I want to try to understand humans thinking. But, philosophy books in the bookstore can’t answer my question. Until, I read about Buddhist books. I found that many part of books related with science. so it might be truth, but the scientist can’t proof in this time. That is a reason that I’m also interested in Buddhism.
ReplyDeleteMark,
ReplyDeleteThe philosophy we are going to read this week might not answer your questions either, but it will probably also remind you of a connection with Buddhism.
There was another line in your comment that was interesting, where you write, "it might be truth, but the scientist can’t proof in this time." If it cannot be proved scientifically, does that mean we should not believe it because there is no solid evidence?
It might be true that there are intelligent aliens living under the surface of Saturn, but that certainly has not been proved, so would it be at all reasonable for anyone to believe that it was true when there is zero solid evidence to support it, even though it logically could be true?
And thanks for the stimulating comment.