Does anybody believe in Physics?

[poker-penguin]

I don't mean the really basic ideas that people can pretty much see are true - things fall down, etc. That stuff seems pretty obvious, and any fairly intelligent person can probably work out for themselves that momentum = Mass * Velocity (or whatever it actually is).

I don't even mean fairly advanced physics involving "lasers" (doctor evil moment there). Stuff we can see the results of (the CD player is pretty good proof that lasers can read information from a properly encoded disc) is either science or magic, and in lieu of any evidence to the contrary, I'm sticking with science for now.

I'm talking about the quantum astro-physics that Steven Hawkings and maybe a few dozen other people in the world claim to understand. You know, academic papers that start "quasinova black holes invert quarks under small universe theory" and then have eight pages of math that makes my brain hurt before stating "QED".

Really, this stuff has no effect on our lives and has no possibility of empirical proof. By that I mean that outside of the mathematical system "they" have established, advanced astro-physics we have no way of proving or disproving anything.

Does anyone outside the little Math Role Playing Game really believe that these guys are explaining anything? If so, why?

[Hellmouth]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mean the really basic ideas that people can pretty much see are true - things fall down, etc. That stuff seems pretty obvious, and any fairly intelligent person can probably work out for themselves that momentum = Mass * Velocity (or whatever it actually is).

I don't even mean fairly advanced physics involving "lasers" (doctor evil moment there). Stuff we can see the results of (the CD player is pretty good proof that lasers can read information from a properly encoded disc) is either science or magic, and in lieu of any evidence to the contrary, I'm sticking with science for now.

I'm talking about the quantum astro-physics that Steven Hawkings and maybe a few dozen other people in the world claim to understand. You know, academic papers that start "quasinova black holes invert quarks under small universe theory" and then have eight pages of math that makes my brain hurt before stating "QED".

Really, this stuff has no effect on our lives and has no possibility of empirical proof. By that I mean that outside of the mathematical system "they" have established, advanced astro-physics we have no way of proving or disproving anything.

Does anyone outside the little Math Role Playing Game really believe that these guys are explaining anything? If so, why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Furthermore, if some guy hadn't been playing around with point contacts in 1948 then we wouldnt be conversing right now because there would be no computers and no solid state transistors right now. At that time very few people understood anything about solid state physics. Do you understand Bloch's theorem, Enegy band bending, or the basis of a PN junction? Does that mean that it was unimportant? Does that mean that it was useless? Physicists out on the edge cared and thats why we have computers.

I would submit that it is more likely that you are closed minded to things that you don't understand.

People study physics because understanding things like Astrophysics helps us to understand our origins and the world around us. Physics helps us to explain the world around us. Better knowing what makes the world tick can come out in some very suprising and usefull ways, ie, computers, cars, cell phones. Dont knock something just because you dont see the immediate impact right now.

Greg

[gulebjorn]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about the quantum astro-physics that Steven Hawkings and maybe a few dozen other people in the world claim to understand.
Really, this stuff has no effect on our lives and has no possibility of empirical proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true. The Manhattan project was just a crapload of TNT. Nuclear Power Plants don't exist, except in the Simpsons. Electricity is actually being produced by thousands of monkeys riding small bicycles. They do not want us to know because animal rights hippies would go mad.

[fnord_too]

You do understand that physics is a science, and that scientific theoies are not proven, merely supported or not supported by experimentation, right?

From you post, it really does not sound like you understand the basic scientific method.

You may be blurring math and science in your head. Math is not science. It assumes certain axioms and derives implications given that the axioms are true. For example, you probably know that the interior angles in a triangle sum to 180 degrees. You may not know that is a result of Euclids fifth postulate. (An equivalent of Euclid's fifth postulate is "Given a line A and a point P not on A, there is exactly one line through P that is parallel to A in the plane defined by A and P"). Even Euclid was a bit leary about this postulate and put off including any proofs that depended on it in his books of proofs as long as he could. (The Elements are not his original proofs by the way, he collected the proofs and edited and arranged them in the books, but I digress). At any rate, if you ignore Euclids fifth postulate, you get some interesting results. Two consistant geometries, spherical and hyperbolic, do not have triangles whos interior angles sum to 180 degrees. (On a small scale, these two and Euclidean geometery all look the same). As far as I know, the actual geometry of the universe is an open question.

At any rate, when you ask "do you believe in Physics," I am not quite sure what you are asking, and I don't think you are sure, either. I will say that if you think there is no empirical evidence to support a lot of the generally accepted theories, you are wrong.

[PairTheBoard]

poker_penguin -

"Does anyone outside the little Math Role Playing Game really believe that these guys are explaining anything? If so, why? "

The key word here is "EXPLAIN". Science provides "models" which organize experimental data. The models can be worked on mathematically and extended independently of experimental data. Models are most valuable when their theoretical extensions inspire new experiments whose new results confirm the predictions of the extensions. When this happens the models give us a "sense" that they are "explaining" reality. This is as far as most people go in their understanding of what science does.

The problem with viewing the scientific model as an explanation arises when the model is superceded by a better one. For example, consider the old model of the Solar System constructed centuries ago which consisted of a clockwork miniature of the Sun with Planets revolving around it. This was a valid scientific model. It could predict with some accuracy where planets would be in the near future. It wasn't a very good model. It could not be easily extended theoretically. But it did organize data and gave some sense of explaining what was going on in the sky - at least to people with a flat earth mentality. But did the model really "explain" things?

When Newton came out with his Theory of Gravity the Old Model was suddenly exposed as naive. Gravity explained why the planets moved as they did. His theory also had greater predictive powers and could be worked on mathematically. But did it really "explain" things?

Einstein came along and superceded Newton with a theory for why gravity works. But did Einstein really "explain" things? And is his model the only one that can give such a nice explanation for gravity?

Quantum Physics has arose to explain How things work at subatomic levels. imo, it is at a similiar stage as the old clockwork miniature solar system. It organizes data but does little to explain why things are happening as they do. Some think String theory will provide such an explanation.

Here's the thing. These models give us a "sense" of understanding, a "sense" that things are being explained. But I don't think they really explain things. Suppose an Alien race developed entirely different concepts which did even an even better job of organizing data and predicting new results? Where does that leave us with our "explanations". imo, we should see science for what it is, a valuable tool. But it's not worth making a religion out of.

PairTheBoard

[Bodhi]

Sure, lots of people do. They're called Realists in the philosophy of science. Realism entails two claims: 1. that there is referential continuity across theory change over the history of science; 2. that our theories are becoming more and more approximately true.

I don't believe #1, and I don't think #2 is knowable. Still, science does great things and gives great explanations. You needn't take what it says about theoretical entities to be litterally true in order to appreciate science and its methods, which is called Instrumentalism.

First and foremost, any anti-realist or instrumentalist must defeat the No Miracles Argument, which says that there are no miracles and consequently science must getting darn near the truth in order for there to be so many practical successes. Think about it.

P.S. I don't think it's obvious that the Scientists you speak of are Realists.

[Bodhi]

Your reply to the OP is naive. There are lots and lots of physicists who don't Believe (with a capital "b") in the theoretical entities they postulate. Read Duhem for some historical perspective.

[Bodhi]

Right, but there are lot of theories that have empirical equivalents, and there's not always a way to decide which theory is better. The OP is waxing philosophical, and for some reason I'm the only one here who seems to understand that.

[PairTheBoard]

bodhi -
"First and foremost, any anti-realist or instrumentalist must defeat the No Miracles Argument, which says that there are no miracles and consequently science must getting darn near the truth in order for there to be so many practical successes. Think about it."

Could you explain this a little more bodhi? I don't see why there must be "miracles" in order to argue that theoretical entities are not literally true.

Edited to include bodhi's later statement:

In fact, isn't your statement in a later post that there can be empirically equivalent theories a sufficient argument in itself against realism?

PairTheBoard

[poker-penguin]

[ QUOTE ]
The OP is waxing philosophical, and for some reason I'm the only one here who seems to understand that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am guilty of waxing philosophical (although it all started with a vaguely amusing idea stemming from my mis-read of the Psychics thread title).

Any misunderstandings are probably my fault, my opening post was not exactly well written. I've also been reading some Philip Dick stories (particularly the one in which maths is proved to have no basis in reality) and The Onion articles (fictionolgy) recently.

For the record, I never intended to say that hard-science isn't useful. I was interested more in people who believe in science - especially since these are usually the people who think that believing in a deity is foolish.

PTB has caught my general drift with his comments on our need to explain things to impose a sense of order on the universe. It's present in human society as far back as I know of. Questions like "Where did the universe come from?" have preoccupied people for a long time.

In some ways, "First there was nothing, then it exploded" only makes sense in the same way that "In the begining the was the word..." or "Under Ymir's left arm grew a man and a woman and one of his legs begot a son with the other, and this is where ogres came from". It makes sense because we need it to.

Sure, saying that the universe started in some sort of Big Bang sounds more rational than talking about a giant frost orge's armpit. But only to us.

I think it was Arthur C Clarke who had some sort of saying that sufficiently advanced technology was effectively magic. I also think that hard-science has progressed to this point.

In other words, the increase in the complexity of what scientists think they understand about the world has outpaced the increase in complexity of what the general public think they understand, and this is producing a close to magical effect.

Or something.

I think I need to get stoned, and sit around talking about how maybe we're a tiny atom in a giant's toenail, and maybe there's a universe in our toenail.

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
In some ways, "First there was nothing, then it exploded" only makes sense in the same way that "In the begining the was the word..."

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a problematic 'in some ways.' At the very least, we have empirical evidence to theorize that a big explosion was the beginning of our universe. We have no evidence of a supernatural power. In light of this difference, big bang theory is light-years ahead of religion on the scale of knowledge.

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why there must be "miracles" in order to argue that theoretical entities are not literally true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without claiming truth, there is no explanation for the huge practical successes of science. At least, no explanation outside of miracles. If science isn't somewhere close to the truth, or in some way mapping out reality and its laws, then it's a big miracle that it's gotten us this far.

Most philosophers don't believe in miracles, so they take that as an argument for the truth and progress of scientific theory.

Lastly, you are right that I don't identify as a scientific realist. The other important anti-realist argument is the pessimistic induction, which is a historical examination of scientific theory and its revisions (not Kuhn). It proceeds to say that all sorts of theories have predicted well in their domains of application, and sometimes even made novel predictions, but still turned out to be false or in error later on. Consequently, our claim that we know the truth now can never be taken for granted.

As for the no miracles argument, I can't remember the major arguments, but maybe I'll go look it up to jog my memory.

[poker-penguin]

[ QUOTE ]

That's a problematic 'in some ways.' At the very least, we have empirical evidence to theorize that a big explosion was the beginning of our universe. We have no evidence of a supernatural power. In light of this difference, big bang theory is light-years ahead of religion on the scale of knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is true, but similarly, I'm fairly sure that a Viking in 1000AD believed that he had empirical evidence for the armpit theory.

Ahh crap, I'm getting post-modern again.

The paralell I'm trying to make is that a lot of us believe in the big bang because we're told it is the best explanation of how the universe started, in the same way that Big Eric the Viking was told to believe in Ygir's armpit because it was how the universe started.

Ignorance is ignorance (and yes I'm aware of the irony of me posting that).

[Bodhi]

I took a few courses in astronomy, so I suppose the whole topic looks different to me. Post-modernists are always pretending not to be impressed by the [censored] they can't do. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[PairTheBoard]

Bodhi -
"Without claiming truth, there is no explanation for the huge practical successes of science. At least, no explanation outside of miracles. If science isn't somewhere close to the truth, or in some way mapping out reality and its laws, then it's a big miracle that it's gotten us this far. "

How can Science possibly fail? It produces competing models which organize existing data and make competing predictions. Whichever predicts the best is adopted as the new theory of the day until its predictions run out and another competing set of models are created. It's a no lose game for science. Heads I win, Tails I win. There's no miracle in that.


Consider this thought experiment. Suppose we are all part of a Matrix like in the movie. All world history occurs just as we have experienced it. We develop science which does a great job "mapping out" how things are working. All the time we think we are living in 3 dimensions, gravity attracts the planets, there's such a thing as light which experiments show has a constant speed, Einstein develops his theories which work pretty good, etc. Our "reality" in the Matrix has been "explained" by science. Yet in actual reality, all the scientific theories have absolutely nothing to do with what's really going on.

PairTheBoard

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet in actual reality, all the scientific theories have absolutely nothing to do with what's really going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

And thus the "actual reality" is completely meaningless, since we can't in any way see it or experience it - it's totally pointless to talk about.

Say we have a nice long discussion about living in a "Matrix" and we come to some conclusions with which we are satisfied for one reason or another, and then someone who overhears our conversation says "but what if that Matrix is in another Matrix?" What are we going to do - make fun of him? His idea is no less ridiculous than ours!

Could it be true? Sure. But if you stipulate at the very beginning that there's absolutely no way we could ever see or test this "Matrix", then it's absolutely pointless to discuss. It'd be like assuming that an omniscient brother and sister lord over the universe controlling everything and never allowing themselves to be seen or their presence known, and then trying to have a debate about what they look like (and pretending to be serious the whole way, too).

Science explains phenomena in an evolutionary manner; the longer the scientific method operates, the closer and closer it gets to describing the phenomena which we experience, by definition. It does not explain cute little philosophical chewing gum exercises, because they lack proveability (this is the same reason why you can't debate in a scientific framework with people who believe in God)

[Hellmouth]

[ QUOTE ]
Your reply to the OP is naive. There are lots and lots of physicists who don't Believe (with a capital "b") in the theoretical entities they postulate. Read Duhem for some historical perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry. You are wrong. I have a very well developed sense of the history of physics. Furthermore, I have never met a physicist that did not believe in physics. In march I was at one of the largest physics conferences in the world for condensed matter physics, so I have met quite a few physicists. I believe that it is unlikely that a single one of them did not believe in the "entities" that they postulate.

However I will look into this Duhem character.

Greg

[Hellmouth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yet in actual reality, all the scientific theories have absolutely nothing to do with what's really going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

And thus the "actual reality" is completely meaningless, since we can't in any way see it or experience it - it's totally pointless to talk about.

Say we have a nice long discussion about living in a "Matrix" and we come to some conclusions with which we are satisfied for one reason or another, and then someone who overhears our conversation says "but what if that Matrix is in another Matrix?" What are we going to do - make fun of him? His idea is no less ridiculous than ours!

Could it be true? Sure. But if you stipulate at the very beginning that there's absolutely no way we could ever see or test this "Matrix", then it's absolutely pointless to discuss. It'd be like assuming that an omniscient brother and sister lord over the universe controlling everything and never allowing themselves to be seen or their presence known, and then trying to have a debate about what they look like (and pretending to be serious the whole way, too).

Science explains phenomena in an evolutionary manner; the longer the scientific method operates, the closer and closer it gets to describing the phenomena which we experience, by definition. It does not explain cute little philosophical chewing gum exercises, because they lack proveability (this is the same reason why you can't debate in a scientific framework with people who believe in God)

[/ QUOTE ]

Reality is subjective. Eg. someone who is blind experiences reality differently from someone who can see. However, physics is not subjective. That is the point. Physics is objective, and the observations made do not change. (If you want to argue that observation of a quantum system changes it you are still incorrect because a quantum system always has the same probability of an event occuring.)

Greg

[Bodhi]

This "Duhem Character" was only a physicist and one of the most influential philosophers of science, ever. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Anyway, there is so much controversy over this topic, I am genuinely surprised that it has missed you. My apologies for calling your reply naive.

Also see if you can find the authors Larry Lauden, Van Fraasen, Ian Hacking $ Nancy Cartwright, and Arthur Fine. Not all of these authors are realists or antirealists in the philosophy of science, but some are currently experimental physicists (Hacking and Cartwright) and believe the issue is important and controversial enough to warrant their attention.

And in case you didn't see it in another reply of mine, most people who consider themselves scientific realists back off from the label when they learn what it entails, referential continuity over theory-change + greater and greater approximate truth (whatever that is).

[Bodhi]

Ok, you still didn't quite understand my explanation of the NMA, but you stated it perfectly here:

[ QUOTE ]
Consider this thought experiment. Suppose we are all part of a Matrix like in the movie. All world history occurs just as we have experienced it. We develop science which does a great job "mapping out" how things are working. All the time we think we are living in 3 dimensions, gravity attracts the planets, there's such a thing as light which experiments show has a constant speed, Einstein develops his theories which work pretty good, etc. Our "reality" in the Matrix has been "explained" by science. Yet in actual reality, all the scientific theories have absolutely nothing to do with what's really going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, so it would be a MIRACLE if science were completely wrong but still making the great predictions it does.

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
It does not explain cute little philosophical chewing gum exercises, because they lack proveability

[/ QUOTE ]

Get with the times. Physicists and philosophers are actively debating the epistemological issues of theoretical physics as we speak.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It does not explain cute little philosophical chewing gum exercises, because they lack proveability

[/ QUOTE ]

Get with the times. Physicists and philosophers are actively debating the epistemological issues of theoretical physics as we speak.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not on research-grant time they aren't! Like I said, those are subjects that lack proveability, and anything that lacks proveability is essentially worthless to science.

And oh yeah, more to the point: philosophers aren't exactly scientists. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Bodhi]

You take yourself to be the spokesman for science and you use "proveability" as a criterion for it? I can't take you seriously. I'm sorry.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
You take yourself to be the spokesman for science

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't.

[ QUOTE ]
...and you use "proveability" as a criterion for it? I can't take you seriously. I'm sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey it's alright - someday I'll realize that all "real" scientists don't consider proveability as a requisite criterion for what they study. I guess all those scientific papers titled "Does God Exist?" must have been kept under wraps by The Man. /images/graemlins/smile.gif (and no, philosophical missives about the nature of the universe don't qualify as "scientific papers").

Proveability is the first thing you need when you're talking about something in a scientific manner. If a hypothesis cannot be proven or disproved, then it's simply unfit for scientific inquiry (again, these are questions like "Is there a God?" or "are we in the Matrix?" Since these both involve assumptions that there's no way we could see/touch/in any way test God and/or "the matrix", they aren't proveable or disproveable, and having a "scientific" discussion about them is worthless).

I, personally, can't take the opinions of someone who insists that something does not have to be able to be proven or disproven to be a scientifically valid issue seriously. I'm sorry. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Edit: in case you still don't believe me on this matter, here's a bit from a cute little webpage (http://www.epa.gov/maia/html/scientific.html) designed to introduce children to science: "A hypothesis must be stated in a way that can be tested by the scientific method." Hey, what do you know? They teach the idea of proveability to kids! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Double-edit: Or better yet, maybe you could just show me one hypothesis that lacks proveability yet is scientifically valid instead of just saying you can't take me seriously? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Bodhi]

You're really misunderstanding the issues at hand here. This isn't about some guy sitting in his favorite armchair and spinning off philosophical theories to say that science is wrong or whatever. There are very real dilemmas in deciding what degree of belief we wish to grant the theories of science. Just take this one example, and if it doesn't click for you then I give up.

If two theories make the same predictions, and stipulate the same number of entities, how are you to choose between them when both are equally confirmed by your experiments?

[Little Fishy]

[ QUOTE ]
They do not want us to know because animal rights hippies would go mad.

[/ QUOTE ]

animal rights hippies are already mad (in the crazy kinda way).

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, you still didn't quite understand my explanation of the NMA, but you stated it perfectly here:

[ QUOTE ]
Consider this thought experiment. Suppose we are all part of a Matrix like in the movie. All world history occurs just as we have experienced it. We develop science which does a great job "mapping out" how things are working. All the time we think we are living in 3 dimensions, gravity attracts the planets, there's such a thing as light which experiments show has a constant speed, Einstein develops his theories which work pretty good, etc. Our "reality" in the Matrix has been "explained" by science. Yet in actual reality, all the scientific theories have absolutely nothing to do with what's really going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, so it would be a MIRACLE if science were completely wrong but still making the great predictions it does.

[/ QUOTE ]


I guess I still don't get the miracles thing. As I said earlier in that post, science can't help but find theories that make accurate predictions. They just throw out all the ones that don't and keep the ones that get lucky and do. My matrix scenario was meant to show how science can be describing HOW natural laws are working yet show us nothing about what's really behind them. Maybe future science will show us more about what's behind the natural laws it's describing. And maybe there's infinite depth to what's behind them and science will never do more than scratch the surface.

PairTheBoard

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
If two theories make the same predictions, and stipulate the same number of entities, how are you to choose between them when both are equally confirmed by your experiments?

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have a specific example? The only example of this that springs to my mind is Bohmian mechanics. Does anyone know to what degree Bohmian mechanics is taken seriously in the physics community?

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
If two theories make the same predictions, and stipulate the same number of entities, how are you to choose between them when both are equally confirmed by your experiments?

[/ QUOTE ]

Occam's Razor - until further evidence comes in, you prefer the theory which requires the fewer assumptions. And of course you do further experiments to help differentiate between the two. But what you don't do is sit around flapping your gums over how meaningless it all is because these two theories seem to describe the same thing equally well.

And you still didn't give me an example of a question that lacks proveability yet is a valid scientific hypothesis, but at least you gave me an example. Of some sort. (this question you gave me doesn't have proveability and it's therefore not a scientific question - the scientific questions are the hypotheses which arise from the 'competing theories' your question describes).

Also aside from the fact that I have never heard of anything remotely resembling such a situation in science where two different theories are precisely equal at describing the same phenomena and yet it's a huge debate over which one is correct. Usually it's just a matter of a bit more experimentation to see which one is more accurate (and in the case of something like relativity and quantum mechanics where the task is to reconcile them, the theories very obviously do not explain things in exactly the same way [they explain some things in exactly the same way, but not all - thats kinda why physicists are working to reconcile them]). And if this incredibly unlikely scenario isn't a matter of a bit more experimentation, then it's much more likely that one or both of the theories that are in contention with each other are incapable of being proven or disproved, and thus not scientific to begin with.

So yeah, to conclude for the umpteenth time, philosophical mental chewing-gum questions aren't science. They aren't able to be proven or disproven (which is kinda sorta why people debate about them endlessly - people usually don't have intense coffeeshop discussions over whether a ball is going to fall to the floor when they release it from their hand).

I wish I could please you by telling you you're correct, but you're not. I guess you'll just have to "give up on me" (pretty clever rhetorical tactic for pretending to take the 'high road', btw)

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
Occam's Razor - until further evidence comes in, you prefer the theory which requires the fewer assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You beg the question.

[ QUOTE ]
And you still didn't give me an example of a question that lacks proveability yet is a valid scientific hypothesis

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because I never said there was such a thing, nor do I believe that there is. The questions I pose about science have to do with being a rational believer, not experimentation.

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
And if this incredibly unlikely scenario isn't a matter of a bit more experimentation, then it's much more likely that one or both of the theories that are in contention with each other are incapable of being proven or disproved, and thus not scientific to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]
As far as I know, Bohm's interpretation and the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics both yield exactly the same algorithm for predicting probabilities of quantum events. They are indistinguishable from an experimental standpoint. So this is one example. However, I do not know how much thought/effort professional physicists put into the question of which one is "correct." My impression from discussions with some physicists is that they typically reject Bohm's interpretation, perhaps because it came second chronologically and adds nothing new to the existing theory.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
You beg the question

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Begging the Question
( petitio principii )
Definition:

The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.
Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a
slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise is
a consequence of the conclusion.

Examples:

(i) Since I'm not lying, it follows that I'm telling the truth.

(ii) We know that God exists, since the Bible says God exists.
What the Bible says must be true, since God wrote it and
God never lies. (Here, we must agree that God exists in order
to believe that God wrote the Bible.)

Proof:

Show that in order to believe that the premises are true we
must already agree that the conclusion is true.

References:

Barker: 159, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 144, Copi and Cohen: 102, Davis: 33

[/ QUOTE ]

So now that you have some idea of what "begging the question is", here's what "Occam's Razor" is:

[ QUOTE ]


Occam's Razor (also Ockham's Razor or any of several other spellings), is a principle attributed to the 14th century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham that forms the basis of methodological reductionism, also called the principle of parsimony or law of economy.

In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. A charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The questions I pose about science have to do with being a rational believer, not experimentation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then they're not scientific questions, they're philosophical ones. It's occasionally worthwhile to amuse oneself with the "Dude, what if our whole world was just a giant video game?" questions, but they are simply not scientific. They're philosphical.

[PairTheBoard]

Quoted by Jodan O.
PTB -
"Yet in actual reality, all the scientific theories have absolutely nothing to do with what's really going on."

Jordan O. -
"And thus the "actual reality" is completely meaningless, since we can't in any way see it or experience it - it's totally pointless to talk about."

Getting away from the Matrix and back to the world as we know it, Maybe we do exerience it. Maybe when you are awestruck by the beauty of a sunset you Are experiencing it. Maybe when you find yourself giddy in love you Are experiencing it. Maybe when you find yourself risking your own life to save that of a friend you Are experiencing it. Maybe when you find yourself changed forever by the death of a loved one you Are experiencing it. Maybe there are Qualities to Reality that cannot be Quantified and are thus out of the reach of science but not out of our experiential reach. Just because they are useless to science doesn't mean they are useless nor pointless to talk about.

PairTheBoard

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Getting away from the Matrix and back to the world as we know it, Maybe we do exerience it. Maybe when you are awestruck by the beauty of a sunset you Are experiencing it. Maybe when you find yourself giddy in love you Are experiencing it. Maybe when you find yourself risking your own life to save that of a friend you Are experiencing it. Maybe when you find yourself changed forever by the death of a loved one you Are experiencing it. Maybe there are Qualities to Reality that cannot be Quantified and are thus out of the reach of science but not out of our experiential reach.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can't test it, then it's pointless to talk about scientifically. I'm genuinely baffled at what about that simple concept is so hard to understand.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because they are useless to science doesn't mean they are useless nor pointless to talk about.

[/ QUOTE ]

From a scientific standpoint they are most certainly useless and pointless to talk about. They might be worth something to you from a philosophical or emotional viewpoint, and that's fine, whatever blows your hair back; it's just not science.

[Bodhi]

Your going to make me get out my undergrad notes!

First example: Heisenberg vs. Schroedinger

The realist notion of theoretical equivalence is that observational equivalence between theories means they're the same theory (this move is obligatory, otherwise empirical equivalence undermines realism).

Now, the two theories were proved to be mathematically identical, but is that sufficient for symantic identity or structural isomorphism? I think not.

Another example:

The Brans-Dicke 'scalor tensor' theory of gravitation (1961). In general relativity you have a tensor field GUV, and a value for it at every point of space-time. In scalor-tensor theory you have a tensor field plus a scalor field. Brans-Dicke thought they oculd satisfy Mach's principle by adding the scalor field, and then get Newton's gravitational constant G. But the scalor field is not a constant, and so the value of G is not constant with the expansion of the universe. A numerical coefficient 'omega' was needed to couple the tensor field to the scalor field, but Brans-Dicke left its value open.
So here we have two emprically adequate theories, general relativity and the Brans-Dicke theory; the latter even satisfied Mach's principle, and showed how G can change. The Brans-Dicke theory was abandonned, for empirical equivalency was just that (no one cared to fund further research).

---from my notes for Philosophy of Science, Fall 2000 taught by T.A. Ryckman at UC Berkeley.

[Bodhi]

I am so, so sick of you're saying the same thing over and over and over. Anyone says a peep about epistemology and you're the kid at the front of the class who says 'But it's not science! It's not proveable!' So be quiet for a moment and go back over this whole thread and see if anyone said otherwise.

God forbid, I don't know why someone with a PHD in physics would ever think epistemology had something to do with physics, at least my f*cking professor must not have realized that he couldn't prove constructive empiricism, or instrumentalism. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

Now, the two theories were proved to be mathematically identical, but is that sufficient for symantic identity or structural isomorphism? I think not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you find an area where the two theories predict a different outcome and test that outcome. If theory A's prediction is correct, then it would seem that theory A is the more accurate of the two. If theory B's prediction is correct, then vice versa. If you can't find any area where the two theories predict something different, then theyre equivalent.

The funniest thing is you're getting into a heated debate about the nature of science and bringing out notes for which you paid thousands and thousands of dollars, and all science is (or ever was or ever will be) is common sense with the volume turned up.

But hey, what do I know? You used the word 'isomorphism'.

[Triumph36]

You really have no idea what Bodhi is talking about. It seems as though you've never considered epistomology as relevant at all. Scientific questions have become philosophical questions with the development of quantum mechanics. Consequently, how we know anything comes into question. This isn't 'Matrix'-style speculation like 'what if everything we know is true is a lie' or Hume-style skepticism, but it challenges the absurd and unproveable concept of science being 'common sense with the volume turned up.'

[Jordan Olsommer]

PairTheBoard said "what if we live in a Matrix - then science wouldn't be describing anything about the true nature of the universe!" I replied to this by saying that on the contrary, science doesn't make any claim about describing the "true nature of the universe", but rather the phenomena we can see. Then you chimed in by saying that epistemological issues regarding the laws of physics are science. I said they were not. Then you said you couldn't take seriously anyone who said proveability was a necessary criterion for scientific inquiry (which pretty much means you can't take any scientist on the planet seriously).

So I guess it technically qualifies as "saying the same thing over and over" when people spout different braindead opinions and I repeat "You're wrong" /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

You really have no idea what Bodhi is talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, right off the bat with the fallacy - I like where this is headed.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems as though you've never considered epistomology as relevant at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

To science it's not. Science is the evolution of the process of observation, experiment, and refactoring - considering the nature of what we know is philosophy's department, not science. Please read the excellent introduction of Bertrand Russell's "The History of Western Philosophy" where he explains how philosophy is essentially a bridge between science and religion.

[ QUOTE ]
Scientific questions have become philosophical questions with the development of quantum mechanics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Philosophical questions can be (and for the most part are) based on scientific questions, but that does not in any way imply that philosophical questions are scientific. Particles don't give a rip what you think about what they mean in the grand scheme of things, or what they reveal about the nature of knowledge; they behave in certain ways when you mash them together in certain ways, and the job of science is to figure out what framework explains their behavior.

[ QUOTE ]
Consequently, how we know anything comes into question.

[/ QUOTE ]

...to philosophers. Not to scientists, because that's a question that cannot be tested. Or maybe there's some other reason why the question of "how we know anything" hasnt gotten any significant progress as far as an answer in the past 2,000+ years /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't 'Matrix'-style speculation like 'what if everything we know is true is a lie' or Hume-style skepticism.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not 'what if everything we know is true is a lie' type skepticism? Funny, because that's what I always thought epistemology was ('how do we know something is true or not?'). And even funnier because that's exactly what you said it was in the sentence right before this one.

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
The Brans-Dicke theory was abandonned, for empirical equivalency was just that (no one cared to fund further research).

[/ QUOTE ]
I think Bohmian mechanics has suffered or is suffering a similar fate, though I'm not certain about it. If so, it's a shame, since Bohm's interpretation really is fascinating. Thanks for the examples.

[Triumph36]

No, it isn't.

"Consequently, how we know anything comes into question." Not skepticism, I am not saying "we do not know anything.", I am saying "we know things. how do we know them?" I'll admit it was poorly worded, but I am not talking about speculations regarding the 'real essence' of phenomena or something like that.

Particles behave in uncertain ways when the perspective is small enough. It therefore becomes a question of science to ask how much uncertainty we are willing to admit in scientific investigations. When a suitable framework does not explain the phenomena in the way we are used to 'knowing', science must ask questions about frameworks in general.

I don't really see the necessity for categorizing scientific and philosophical into two absolutely separate groups, except to inflate one or deflate the other.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

Particles behave in uncertain ways when the perspective is small enough. It therefore becomes a question of science to ask how much uncertainty we are willing to admit in scientific investigations. When a suitable framework does not explain the phenomena in the way we are used to 'knowing', science must ask questions about frameworks in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Scientists get angry when laymen misunderstand, for example, the uncertainty principle. In an age of great uncertainties it is easy to mistake science for banality, to believe that Heisenberg is merely saying, gee, guys, we just can't be sure of anything, it's all so darn uncertain, but isn't that, like, beautiful? Whereas he's actually telling us the exact opposite: that if you know what you're doing you can pin down the exact quantum of uncertainty in in any experiment, any process. To knowledge and mystery we can now ascribe percentage points. A principle of uncertainty is also a measure of certainty. It's not a lament about shifting sands but a gauge of the solidity of the ground."
- Salman Rushdie

[Triumph36]

Rushdie has a point, but it still is at odds with fundamental presumptions of physics. Heisenberg claims we can predict the locations of particles within a certain range, but only within a certain range, even if we knew the particle's entire history. This is not so with particles with a magnitude well above Planck's constant. So Heisenberg brought uncertainty directly into a framework; this is not a regular feature of scientific investigations. The uncertainty is therefore 'knowable', but only within certain ranges.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Rushdie has a point, but it still is at odds with fundamental presumptions of physics. Heisenberg claims we can predict the locations of particles within a certain range, but only within a certain range, even if we knew the particle's entire history. This is not so with particles with a magnitude well above Planck's constant. So Heisenberg brought uncertainty directly into a framework; this is not a regular feature of scientific investigations. The uncertainty is therefore 'knowable', but only within certain ranges.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, but the point I was trying to make by including Rushdie's quote was that the introduction of the 'spooky' behavior of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty involved doesn't immediately degenerate scientific progress into a coffeshop epistemology discussion. Philosophers and epistomologists (I know it seems like I'm bagging on them pretty hard in my posts, but I'm not - I'm just differentiating philosophy and epistemology from the scientific method) come in where experiment is impossible and then they try to figure things out in that corner of the universe and can possibly help science. But what they do still isn't science. Granted, there's not always 100% of the time a clear line here (i.e. someone who leans more toward the philosophy side of things won't cling to his 'vocation' with such tenacity that he'll avoid experiment, and scientists of course are prone to epistemological speculation from time to time), so it's not a case of "you either are a scientist or you aren't, and that's that", but what they do in a specific instance can be categorized.

[David Sklansky]

"How can Science possibly fail? It produces competing models which organize existing data and make competing predictions. Whichever predicts the best is adopted as the new theory of the day until its predictions run out and another competing set of models are created. It's a no lose game for science. Heads I win, Tails I win."

That's ridiculous. Specifically your statement that whichever model predicts the best is adopted. No model is adopted simply because it predicts better than the competition. It has to predict amazingly well. Do you think Newton's laws would have been adopted if there were obvious exceptions even one percent of the time? When no model measures up to this criterian, scientists do admit, at least temporary, defeat.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
PTB -
"How can Science possibly fail? It produces competing models which organize existing data and make competing predictions. Whichever predicts the best is adopted as the new theory of the day until its predictions run out and another competing set of models are created. It's a no lose game for science. Heads I win, Tails I win."


David Sklansky -
"That's ridiculous. Specifically your statement that whichever model predicts the best is adopted. No model is adopted simply because it predicts better than the competition. It has to predict amazingly well. Do you think Newton's laws would have been adopted if there were obvious exceptions even one percent of the time? When no model measures up to this criterian, scientists do admit, at least temporary, defeat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ridiculous? I beg to differ.

What about the Wave and Particle Dual Theories of Light? Not only does neither produce good predictions all the time but both are retained for the types of experiments they do describe well.

Also, consider Bodhi's example above of Empirically Equivallent Theories. Both organize existing data and make the same predictions. Yet one is popular and the other is not for whatever reasons - elegance, simplicity, fashion. Which one do you integrate into your conceptual framework as the "correct" metaphor for what's being described?

PairTheBoard

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]


Also, consider Bodhi's example above of Empirically Equivallent Theories. Both organize existing data and make the same predictions. Yet one is popular and the other is not for whatever reasons - elegance, simplicity, fashion. Which one do you integrate into your conceptual framework as the "correct" metaphor for what's being described?

[/ QUOTE ]

If two theories make the same predictions about everything, it doesn't matter one whit which one you choose.

[AnyTwoCanLose]

Its absolutely true that Newtonian physics is accurate almost all the time.

I think what "science always wins" means is that it is a continual process of refinement.

We are understanding more and more about the way the universe works at an astounding rate and the more we learn the more we realize that we know very little.

I suspect in 50 years we will look back on our theories today like we currently look back at the science of the 1850's.

[David Sklansky]

Except in cases like this scientists fully admit the theory is flawed. Contrast that to religions that try to squirm out of it when their flawed theories are brought to light.

"Ridiculous? I beg to differ.

What about the Wave and Particle Dual Theories of Light? Not only does neither produce good predictions all the time but both are retained for the types of experiments they do describe well"

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Also, consider Bodhi's example above of Empirically Equivallent Theories. Both organize existing data and make the same predictions. Yet one is popular and the other is not for whatever reasons - elegance, simplicity, fashion. Which one do you integrate into your conceptual framework as the "correct" metaphor for what's being described?

[/ QUOTE ]

If two theories make the same predictions about everything, it doesn't matter one whit which one you choose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what you're saying and pretty much agree Jordan. Although it may make some practical difference if one is more easy to work with than the other. More to my point though is that it may make a psychological difference. People tend to think of things as Being the Model rather than realizing that the model is a metaphor for the thing.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

DS -
"Except in cases like this scientists fully admit the theory is flawed. Contrast that to religions that try to squirm out of it when their flawed theories are brought to light."

I believe we're talking about science here rather than religion. The point we are on was raised by Bodhi that for science to be so successful there must be something inherently true about it or else it's like a miracle for it to work so well.

My contention is that there's nothing more inherently true about science than there is a good cookbook. Certain recipes are known to work and a good cook can even predict what ingrediants are likely to work well together in new ones.

Science basically provides a framework for organizing existing data - like a filing system. The new data that comes in is likely to be closely related to the old data, so continues to fit well in the filing system's organization. When data gets So new that it gets far afield from the orignal set of data it begins to not fit so well. The implied extrapolations science provided from the original data no longer fit.

At this point new models are invented. Sometimes the new models make a huge conceptual break with the old ones - eg. quantum physics. Is science providing Truth or just another filing cabinet? According to the nature of Science there's no reason that a Thousand new models might not be created, All of them empirically equivallent with respect to existing data. The lucky one then will be best in organizing the newest data that comes in. Is the reason this hasn't actually happenned yet because science somehow provides us the knack for hitting on the good one right away? Or is the reason that we've just been knocking over the easy ones so far?

At any rate, I hope you can now see that when a Scientist once told his students that Light is a Wave, it was a metaphor for light not the reality.

PairTheBoard

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
Then you chimed in by saying that epistemological issues regarding the laws of physics are science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quote me.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then you chimed in by saying that epistemological issues regarding the laws of physics are science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quote me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here you go:

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
It does not explain cute little philosophical chewing gum exercises, because they lack proveability



Get with the times. Physicists and philosophers are actively debating the epistemological issues of theoretical physics as we speak.


[/ QUOTE ]

I said philosophical chewing gum exercises weren't science, you attempted to retort. You have been quoted. Happy?

[Bodhi]

See? I didn't say that epistemology was science. No one has said that. Thank you for proving it to yourself.

[poker-penguin]

[ QUOTE ]
Except in cases like this scientists fully admit the theory is flawed. Contrast that to religions that try to squirm out of it when their flawed theories are brought to light.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science is a religion whose high priests are more receptive to change than most. The Pope is allowed / required to change the ideas of the Catholic church but that doesn't mean the old ones were wrong, just that they were right based on the evidence they had at the time - just like science.

The reason that religions "squirm out of it" when their theories are flawed is because they are a cult of the status quo (Marxian analysis of established religion's role in keeping down the workers is pretty obvious, I'll let others elaborate). Science on the other hand is a cult of progress.

I would say that this is because Science (with a big S - so that's the formalised academic system, I think) is relatively new, while religions are relatively old.

Back in the day, the Church was a major agent of social change, and a tool of the working class. But like all working class movements, its leaders sold out.

There are interesting parallels between the evangelistic revival in Victorian England (Methodists and all that mob) and the explosion of interest in scientific study.

The reason for John Smith reading the bible / collecting plants was not to deepen humanity's understanding of God and the universe, it was to make John Smith a "better" person.

There was also bitter infighting amongst Scientists and Religionists as people tried to make sure they were in control of the movement (again, paralels with Communism).

Etc,

Sure, this is history (with a strongly Marxian slant because, well, it's fun that way) and definately not science, it's barely even epistemeology, but I wanted to make the comparisons.

I guess one of my original thoughts was that science is serving a very similar role to religion, and perhaps should be best viewed as a new religion. A better one? Perhaps.

Yes, I'm aware of scientists who are also Christian (there are apparantly a bunch of high powered physicists and stuff who believe in God) so we need to allow for some syncretism (a blending of loyalties to several different Gods). But this is common in the early stages of any religion.

Sorry, way to seize on a couple words of one post and go off on a rant. Hope someone finds this interesting.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
See? I didn't say that epistemology was science. No one has said that. Thank you for proving it to yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Boy, you're about as sharp as a sack of wet mice. It is clear to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together that you were retorting my claim that "philosophical chewing gum exercises are not science". (your first sentence after quoting my statement that philosophical exercises were not science was "Get with the times.") To put it another way, you can't reply to "epistemology isn't science" with "you're wrong" and then later say "but I never said 'epistemology is science'!". Well, you can't say that and then expect not to be thought a complete dolt, anyway. Either you were intending to retort what I said and made some non-sensical statement which failed to accomplish this (this is most likely the case), or you didnt even intend to say that epistemology was science (like you claim here), in which case what you said after you said "Get with the times" was a total non-sequitur.

So if you intended to retort my statement, then what you said was wrong. If you didn't intend to retort my statement, then what you said was completely meaningless. Which way do you care to have it? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[kiddj]

"I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me."

John Lennon

[PokerProdigy]

Why you trying to copy/steal my post/question, huh? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[poker-penguin]

[ QUOTE ]
Why you trying to copy/steal my post/question, huh? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I misread your thread title the first time I saw it.

2) I had some thoughts (or brain farts if you ask Jordan), about that topic.

3) A thread was born.

[Hellmouth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Brans-Dicke theory was abandonned, for empirical equivalency was just that (no one cared to fund further research).

[/ QUOTE ]
I think Bohmian mechanics has suffered or is suffering a similar fate, though I'm not certain about it. If so, it's a shame, since Bohm's interpretation really is fascinating. Thanks for the examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or possibly because it has serious conceptual flaws.

However, Bohm's rewriting of Schrödinger's equation in terms of variables that seem interpretable in classical terms does not come without a cost. The most obvious is increased complexity: Schrödinger's equation is rather simple, not to mention linear, whereas the modified Hamilton-Jacobi equation is somewhat complicated, and highly nonlinear -- and still requires the continuity equation for its closure. The quantum potential itself is neither simple nor natural. Even to Bohm it has seemed "rather strange and arbitrary" (Bohm 1980, p. 80). And it is not very satisfying to think of the quantum revolution as amounting to the insight that nature is classical after all, except that there is in nature what appears to be a rather ad hoc additional force term, the one arising from the quantum potential. The artificiality suggested by the quantum potential is the price one pays if one insists on casting a highly nonclassical theory into a classical mold.

Moreover, the connection between classical mechanics and Bohmian mechanics that is suggested by the quantum potential is rather misleading. Bohmian mechanics is not simply classical mechanics with an additional force term. In Bohmian mechanics the velocities are not independent of positions, as they are classically, but are constrained by the guiding equation. In classical Hamilton-Jacobi theory we also have this equation for the velocity, but there the Hamilton-Jacobi function S can be entirely eliminated and the description in terms of S simplified and reduced to a finite-dimensional description, with basic variables the positions and the (unconstrained) momenta of all the particles, given by Hamilton's or Newton's equations.

It can be argued that the most serious flaw in the quantum potential formulation of Bohmian mechanics is that it gives a completely false impression of the lengths to which we must go in order to convert orthodox quantum theory into something more rational. The quantum potential suggests, and indeed it has often been stated, that in order to transform Schrödinger's equation into a theory that can, in what are often called "realistic" terms, account for quantum phenomena, many of which are dramatically nonlocal, we must add to the theory a complicated quantum potential of a grossly nonlocal character. It should be clear that such sentiments are inappropriate, since the quantum potential need not be mentioned in the formulation of Bohmian mechanics and in any case is merely a reflection of the wave function, which Bohmian mechanics does not add to but shares with orthodox quantum theory.

quoted from a google search. First link.

Greg

[Hellmouth]

[ QUOTE ]

At any rate, I hope you can now see that when a Scientist once told his students that Light is a Wave, it was a metaphor for light not the reality.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

What the [censored] does this mean? This is just a nonsensical statement. This is like saying, well there is an godlike being out there pulling all the strings. What is the "Reality?" I'll tell you.

Energy makes up matter. The universe is essentially full of energy. Matter moves around due to energy. Fields of it. It is totally governed by laws that as Scientists we are stuggling to find mathematical models for. In doing so we can gain basic insight into the fundemental innerworkings of the Universe, ie How energy evolves.

We make theory's. We test them. IF they hold up we refine them. We gain insight. We do not claim to test philosophical things.

However if you insist on exploring epistomoligical issues (and there is nothing wrong with doing so) do not confuse it with science. It seems that you somehow think that becaue we can't know everything, that somehow what we do know is not valid. In that you are simply wrong.

Greg

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You take yourself to be the spokesman for science

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't.

[ QUOTE ]
...and you use "proveability" as a criterion for it? I can't take you seriously. I'm sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey it's alright - someday I'll realize that all "real" scientists don't consider proveability as a requisite criterion for what they study. I guess all those scientific papers titled "Does God Exist?" must have been kept under wraps by The Man. /images/graemlins/smile.gif (and no, philosophical missives about the nature of the universe don't qualify as "scientific papers").

Proveability is the first thing you need when you're talking about something in a scientific manner. If a hypothesis cannot be proven or disproved, then it's simply unfit for scientific inquiry (again, these are questions like "Is there a God?" or "are we in the Matrix?" Since these both involve assumptions that there's no way we could see/touch/in any way test God and/or "the matrix", they aren't proveable or disproveable, and having a "scientific" discussion about them is worthless).

I, personally, can't take the opinions of someone who insists that something does not have to be able to be proven or disproven to be a scientifically valid issue seriously. I'm sorry. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Edit: in case you still don't believe me on this matter, here's a bit from a cute little webpage (http://www.epa.gov/maia/html/scientific.html) designed to introduce children to science: "A hypothesis must be stated in a way that can be tested by the scientific method." Hey, what do you know? They teach the idea of proveability to kids! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Double-edit: Or better yet, maybe you could just show me one hypothesis that lacks proveability yet is scientifically valid instead of just saying you can't take me seriously? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Very well said sir!

[Bodhi]

I didn't mean to retort your statement verbatim. What I was suggesting is that epistemology is important enough to physcists that they still practice it themselves and sometimes consult 'specialists,' i.e. philosophers of science, on the topic. All you care about is your science/philosophy distinction and how clever you think it is (yes, most of us do remember it from 5th grade, but learned many new and interesting things that go beyond your platitudes). The irony of this whole story is that your criterion for science must be philosophical, as no possible experiment could ever prove that a question must be proveable in order to be scientific.

I am refraining from personal attacks here because my better judgement tells me it would only weaken my own arguments (though my worse half really wants to dish them out!) /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

I'm sure you're a reasonable fellow and that we might even get along in regular life. If you read more about the history of knowledge and science, you will learn a lot of fascinating things that go way beyond the point you insist on and are convinced no one else understands.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
The irony of this whole story is that your criterion for science must be philosophical, as no possible experiment could ever prove that a question must be proveable in order to be scientific

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it can; given the assumption of the algorithm of the scientific method (create a scientific hypothesis->test it->refactor hypothesis), a question which is not proveable cannot be tested, thus the scientific method cannot be applied to it, thus the question (however interesting or clever it may be) isn't science.

As far as proving the assumption in the realm of science in the first place, you can't - it's an assumption. I don't want to bring Godel into this, seeing as how you still haven't chosen whether you wanted your retort to be wrong or just meaningless. Read this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465026567/).

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

At any rate, I hope you can now see that when a Scientist once told his students that Light is a Wave, it was a metaphor for light not the reality.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

What the [censored] does this mean? This is just a nonsensical statement. This is like saying, well there is an godlike being out there pulling all the strings. What is the "Reality?" I'll tell you.

Energy makes up matter. The universe is essentially full of energy. Matter moves around due to energy. Fields of it. It is totally governed by laws that as Scientists we are stuggling to find mathematical models for. In doing so we can gain basic insight into the fundemental innerworkings of the Universe, ie How energy evolves.

We make theory's. We test them. IF they hold up we refine them. We gain insight. We do not claim to test philosophical things.

However if you insist on exploring epistomoligical issues (and there is nothing wrong with doing so) do not confuse it with science. It seems that you somehow think that becaue we can't know everything, that somehow what we do know is not valid. In that you are simply wrong.

Greg

[/ QUOTE ]

First you claim my statement is nonsense. Then you put a lot words in my mouth that I didn't say and claim I am wrong.

This is partly psychological and partly philosophical. One week you teach students how Light behaves Like a Wave and give the ElectroMagnetic equations for it. The next week you teach them how Light behaves like a Particle and give examples of experiments that fit this model. You will invariably be met by a number of befudled and nearly distraught people saying things like, "First you tell us Light is a Wave. Then you tell us Light is a Particle. Well which is it? That can't be right."

My point is that we conceptually internalize scientific models metaphorically and come to think of them as the reality rather than the model. In this example it's easy to see how that is a mistake. But the tendency is ubiquitous and less obvious cases get argued by smart people much like the distraght students above. For example, David insists that the Mathematical Construct of "Dimension" is Not acting as a metaphor when used in scientific models.

PairTheBoard

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure it can; given the assumption of the algorithm of the scientific method (create a scientific hypothesis->test it->refactor hypothesis), a question which is not proveable cannot be tested, thus the scientific method cannot be applied to it, thus the question (however interesting or clever it may be) isn't science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me restate this just to make sure you're not being intentionally dense. If your criterion for science is provability, then there is the question as to whether the criterion of science itself is proveable, whether it is scientific. But you admit it is not scientific, and henceforth, as provability is the only criterion you accept for any statement to count as knowledge (rather than gum chewing), your criterion for science is self-referentially incoherent.

[ QUOTE ]
as how you still haven't chosen whether you wanted your retort to be wrong or just meaningless

[/ QUOTE ]

But you haven't even bothered to respond to my response:

I am arguing with a character from monty python. Shame on me. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Seriously, we can go on and on and on, but whatever you say still sounds like cheap sloganeering.

[Shakezula]

I still am somewhat wondering about the implications of what I saw in my first and only year of Calculus. In the textbook, as I tried to fight the boredom of the slow pace with which it was being taught, I browsed through some later sections as usual and saw a small proof, about a page and a half, that caught my attention. It began with some simple statement, maybe something like 1=1, and with supposedly valid mathematical substitutions and some formulas that I didn't understand, the page and a half proof, it ended up being shown that 1=2. Maybe this is inaccurate work, or maybe it is so basic that it is not even worthy of consideration. If it was a valid proof, to me the implications (if 1 can be shown to equal 2) when applied to other areas of thought can be far-reaching indeed...

Anyone well-educated in higher mathematics please feel free to response.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me restate this just to make sure you're not being intentionally dense. If your criterion for science is provability, then there is the question as to whether the criterion of science itself is proveable, whether it is scientific. But you admit it is not scientific, and henceforth, as provability is the only criterion you accept for any statement to count as knowledge (rather than gum chewing), your criterion for science is self-referentially incoherent.

[/ QUOTE ]

No axiomatic system is self-consistent and "self-referentially coherent". Again, read Godel.

[evil_twin]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone well-educated in higher mathematics please feel free to response.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen many "proofs" that 1=2 or 1=-1 (or whatever) and they have all been flawed in some way. The most common one involes a square then a then (incorrectly) ignores the negative solution to a subsequent square root. Post one if you want, I'm sure there plenty of people here can show you where is flaw lies.

[Shakezula]

That was my question, whether or not what was in the textbook in school was valid or not. Like I say, I didn't understand all the work involved in the proof. That was many years ago, and the idea came to me to ask someone here. Thanks for responding...

[Bodhi]

Surely you're not implying that science is axiomatic?? If that were the case, it would be on the same ground as philosophy. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Godel has nothing to do with this discussion. You should know better than to name drop philosophers with whom you have surface familiarity.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Surely you're not implying that science is axiomatic??

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course science is axiomatic.

[ QUOTE ]
If that were the case, it would be on the same ground as philosophy. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

And mathematics and even religion to a great extent (the reason people can jerk themselves off trying to prove things about religion is by taking certain axioms ["Jesus is the son of God", "there's the father, the son, and the holy spirit"] and trying to construct a logical argument from them. The problem with their arguments, of course, is that the axioms are absurd to begin with). That doesn't mean science is equivalent to religion, or that science is equivalent to philosophy except in this very superficial sense, so saying that "science and philosophy are both axiomatic" is pretty much meaningless. It's like saying that human beings are equal to helium because we're both made up of the same sub-atomic particles.

[ QUOTE ]
Godel has nothing to do with this discussion. You should know better than to name drop philosophers with whom you have surface familiarity.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, Kurt Godel was a mathematician, not a philosopher. Secondly, he proved (mathematically, not philosophically) that axiomatic systems, no matter how well and how thoroughly they are designed, can never be totally "self-referentially coherent". That's what he has to do with this discussion. You're saying "but you can't prove the axioms!" No sh*t, Sherlock - that's why they're axioms. But this is all meaningless anyway; if you really thought that science and philosophy were exactly equal, then you'd put your money where your mouth is and ask for Plato rather than penicillin the next time you're in a hospital /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

So I say this with as little personal offense meant as possible, but you have no idea what you are talking about.

[PairTheBoard]

Jordan -
""self-referentially coherent"."

What does this mean?

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

Proofs like this that I've seen have involved dividing by zero someplace. The misstep is hidden in a bunch of algebraic mumbo jumbo.

PairTheBoard

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Jordan -
""self-referentially coherent"."

What does this mean?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

He means that you can't prove everything having to do with science (e.g. the assumptions and axiomatic basis) with science. I mentioned Godel because he proved that there is no axiomatic system (not one now, nor will there ever be one) where all the truths in that system can be proven within that system (i.e. even if you had an infinite amount of time, energy, and intelligence, it's simply not possible). Asking science to prove its own axioms is silly, and saying that because both philosophy and science are axiomatic that they are therefore equivalent is sillier yet.

[reubenf]

[ QUOTE ]
People tend to think of things as Being the Model rather than realizing that the model is a metaphor for the thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which people?

[PairTheBoard]

ok thanks. I guess that's not too suprising; The assumed axioms can't be proved by the inferences drawn from them. Godel's actual proof of that must have been a feat though.

PairTheBoard

[Bodhi]

Logician, mathematician, philosopher, he was all 3.

You are basically conflating formal systems of deduction with an a priori criterion for empirical knowledge. Self-referential incoherence was a factor in the death of verificationism (the view of empirical knowledge you espouse), and everyone had the good sense to know that Godel had nothing to do with it. For that matter, I can't think of anyone (any scholar) who is a dogmatic verificationist in the way you are.

I don't believe that science is axiomatic. I think some philosophy is axiomatic, but not all of it.

You nearly make me choke on my own pity for your arrogant and bombasitc disregard for education and real scholarship.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Self-referential incoherence was a factor in the death of verificationism (the view of empirical knowledge you espouse)

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh noes!!!11!!1! Somebody forgot to tell the scientists!

That was quite honestly the most idiotic thing I have ever read. But you're right, reality is totally subjective - science has just been getting ridiculously lucky all these years. And coffeeshop or UC Berkeley philosophers add as much to the world as Jonas Saulk (UC Berkeley Unix hackers, on the other hand, I respect /images/graemlins/smile.gif). It's funny how you'll perform the most exhaustive and ingenious semantic gymnastics, but you're never called to task on the question of "wait a minute, how come when I get an MRI, there aren't philosophers in the booth controlling it? Why aren't philosophers the ones who are making breakthroughs all the time in our understanding of the world?" Well, you never respond coherently when you're called to task, anyway.

Like I said, I think you're full of it and that you don't even believe that crap yourself unless I see you put your money where your mouth is and eschew medicine in favor of some other subjective treatment when you are very sick. Until then, don't embarrass yourself any further.

By the way, I've noticed you're pretty well taken with the strategy of using large words to essentially say nothing when you are cornered. Very clever. You have a long and prosperous career in academia ahead of you.

As for this conversation, however, you can continue your linguistic floor routine if you like, but I've given you way too much time and credence thus far, and I'd be even more a dolt than I already am if I went any further.

[poker-penguin]

I'll lay 3-1 that Jordan replies to Bodhi's next post. Actual odds are probably 5-1, but I'm a greedy bookie.

Ahem, anyway. Philosophers have made a number of breakthroughs in our understanding of the world. I would almost say that Philosophy has done more for the world than science.

One quick example:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."

Oh but wait, the Declaration of Independance (praticularly the ideas expressed within it, and the Constitution which followed on from it) aren't science and didn't come from science. They must be foolish and bad.

I guess Jordan doesn't like the idea of being created equal, or having inalienable rights or having freedom of speech (no wait, he definately does like that one /images/graemlins/tongue.gif )

[David Steele]

Godel's actual proof of that must have been a feat though.

He proved that you can not axiomize arithmetic.

The proof was contructive in that he made a system to contruct an example of an arithmetic truth given the axioms but one that is not a consequence of the axioms.

Some of the conjectures about what can and can't be proven and what people and machines can and can't do, based on his proof, are not too solid.

D.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh but wait, the Declaration of Independance (praticularly the ideas expressed within it, and the Constitution which followed on from it) aren't science and didn't come from science. They must be foolish and bad.

I guess Jordan doesn't like the idea of being created equal, or having inalienable rights or having freedom of speech (no wait, he definately does like that one )

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, looks like you're a big fan of philosophy.

Also looks like you're not too big a fan of logic. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Man, your post was a complete trainwreck of fallacies. I don't even know where to begin!

Or I could just ask you to read my other posts, particularly the ones where I said if you believe philosophy is equally as valuable as science, then put your money where your mouth is and head to the philosophy department if your kid breaks his arm or you get cancer. Until then.... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

*edit: oh wow, you're a Marxist too? So I guess the fallacies weren't just reserved for me...I feel so unloved /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Triumph36]

But this too is fallacious and presents once again the flawed categorization of science and philosophy into two absolutely distinct boxes.

Science did not arise in a vacuum, and the first 'scientists' were very concerned with what have come to be known as solely 'philosophical' questions; there's a reason why the discipline now known as 'science' was once called natural philosophy.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
But this too is fallacious and presents once again the flawed categorization of science and philosophy into two absolutely distinct boxes.

Science did not arise in a vacuum, and the first 'scientists' were very concerned with what have come to be known as solely 'philosophical' questions; there's a reason why the discipline now known as 'science' was once called natural philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. All I'm trying to say is to keep in mind (like with the Rushdie quote) that science doesn't degenerate into some kind of bongwater-stained dorm-room BS session simply because you can't prove every assumption and axiom, and that anyone who puts the two on equal terms now is just trying to sound clever, because they sure as hell don't believe it (unless they've added an ER entrance to the philosophy department at most universities since I've been to college - I really don't know).

Did I mention how much I love the Sokal affair? It's so delightfully hilarious and enlightening at the same time /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[David Sklansky]

The difference that seperates math, and usually science, from other fields including philosophy, is that practitioners can get it wrong in those other fields and not get caught. Pretty sweet.

[poker-penguin]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, looks like you're a big fan of philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that supposed to be an insult?

[ QUOTE ]

Also looks like you're not too big a fan of logic. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

That definately was supposed to be an insult. I guess that's what scientists do when they can't prove something :P

[ QUOTE ]
Or I could just ask you to read my other posts, particularly the ones where I said if you believe philosophy is equally as valuable as science, then put your money where your mouth is and head to the philosophy department if your kid breaks his arm or you get cancer. Until then.... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

So the only measure of value in this world is how well something cures cancer? What a sad world you must live in.

[ QUOTE ]
*edit: oh wow, you're a Marxist too? So I guess the fallacies weren't just reserved for me...I feel so unloved /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really like being any called any sort of "ist", but if quoting the Declaration of Independence makes me a Marxist, then I guess I am.

My point remains that philosphers have done their bit to improve the world. Little ideas like freedom of speech, that human beings shouldn't own other human beings, that the law should apply to everyone, and so on, nothing important really, especally when we compare it to important things like MRI scans!

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Little ideas like freedom of speech, that human beings shouldn't own other human beings

[/ QUOTE ]

Thomas Jefferson: Hey there, how are you?

Slave: Uh...not too bad, I mean the brutal beatings and incessant hard labor kinda suck, but you know, can't complain.

Thomas Jefferson: Well, I had an idea the other day while I was sitting on the porch drinking lemonade. Why do you have to be in shackles, owned by somebody else? Why shouldn't you be free!

Slave: ...I never thought of that! That is an amazing idea - Thank you, good sir!

Thomas Jefferson: Hey, no problem. Now get back to work; my fields aren't going to till themselves, boy.


What a great man /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

*edit: just for the record, I wanted to state (again) that I have no problem with philosophy; in fact, I would personally be pleased to no end if every religious fundamentalist would read Kirkegaard, or if every professor who taught Nietzsche were punished by hard labor for perpetuating myths about what he said - philosophy provides great things to think about, and was obviously incredibly important in the development of civilization; however, what I am saying is that as important as philosophy was, science is much more valuable.

And it seemed from your other posts that you were either a Marxist or rather inclined to that interpretation (usually people have no interest in Marxist interpretations unless they are, well, Marxist, pretty much), not because of your quoting Jefferson.

[poker-penguin]

[ QUOTE ]

what I am saying is that as important as philosophy was, science is much more valuable.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess that depends on what we consider valuable, and I doubt that's ever going to come to a resolution.


[ QUOTE ]
And it seemed from your other posts that you were either a Marxist or rather inclined to that interpretation (usually people have no interest in Marxist interpretations unless they are, well, Marxist, pretty much), not because of your quoting Jefferson.

[/ QUOTE ]

I enjoy playing with theories, I also enjoy being a Devil's advocate. Unfortunately, this can lead to conversations with me being a bit of a "trainwreck" of ideas.

There's a lot of interesting ideas in the Marxian models of history / society. If nothing else, they are great for getting a rise out of people.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
If nothing else, they are great for getting a rise out of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough - far be it for me to deprive a man of his Inalienable Right to Mess With People /images/graemlins/smile.gif