Does anybody believe in Physics?

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

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

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.