Does anybody believe in Physics?

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

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. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ 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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]). 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.