|
|
#51
05-18-2005, 10:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Does anybody believe in Physics?
[ 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 
|
|
#52
05-18-2005, 11:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Does anybody believe in Physics?
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
|
|
#54
05-19-2005, 02:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Does anybody believe in Physics?
[ 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?
|
|
#56
05-19-2005, 12:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Does anybody believe in Physics?
[ 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.
|
|
#57
05-20-2005, 06:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Does anybody believe in Physics?
[ 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? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#59
05-20-2005, 10:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Does anybody believe in Physics?
Why you trying to copy/steal my post/question, huh? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
|
#60
05-20-2005, 10:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Does anybody believe in Physics?
[ QUOTE ]
Why you trying to copy/steal my post/question, huh? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [/ 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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
