Semi-Scientists

[Les Sleeth]

let's pick up our weapons and fight those semi-scientists

Okie dokie, let’s get it on.


I think medals for math, physics and other EXACT sciences are a very good thing. . . . Every EXACT scientist is a philosopher to some extent... philosophy ain't no science on itself...

Regarding this idea of “exactness,” do you think there is a way that inexactness could be of benefit to exactness? Godel, a celebrated mathematician, suggested that the greater truths are arrived at primarily through intuition, after which we apply our exacting methods to make sense of them or ready them for practical use. Of course, his theorem also demonstrated there is no formal system in which every mathematical truth is provable. So maybe ultimately there is no such quality as perfect “exactness” in reality (which seems confirmed by quantum behaviors).

So here we are, and we have a website where we can trade ideas and learn. Your suggested criterion for types of forums is “exactness.” Why is that? Is it that inexact methods of thinking have no place in the world of science? Or is it that you personally like things neat and tidy, decided, without openings, without variation . . . ? If so, is that because that’s what’s best for being a good thinker, or is it because precision helps you feel more secure or competent or some other personal-comfort preference?

It is common for people who've specialized in an area of knowledge to evaluate egocentrically. Sometimes they justify their views by giving a brilliant account of their own position juxtaposed against some superficial account (at best) of what they are viewing with disdain. Tell the truth, how much exactly do you know about philosophy, or even how it has shaped the practice of science which you esteem? Maybe you've only been exposed to poor philosophy. If I got my science from my friends at my racquetball club, I'd think science was everything from psychic phenomena to time travel.


A medal for philosophy would not be justified since knowledge of this subject is open to a lot of possible discussions. I mean, although you can consider it to be a science, there are no hard facts, like in math. Philosophy can be disputed based upon personal interpretations and opinions and subsequently it will be very hard to judge in a crystal clear manner who is who in philosophy-land.

It seems strange to me that you are concerned about philosophy being “open to a lot of possible discussions.” If you step out of your world of physics and look around, you can see the vast majority of people are engaged in activities other than science. But I'd bet you would agree that most people would be better off, and the world too, if they did know more science. How do we get science more infused into the general population? I think two things are needed. The first is that people need to see the relevance of science to their everyday lives. Toward this end our growing dependence on technology, as well as efforts by the media for the last decade, have been helping substantially. Some of the Nova, National Geographic, Discovery Channel etc. specials, along with newspaper and magazine articles, help to make science both more palatable and demonstrate its relevance to our everyday lives.

The second thing I believe that needs to happen is where philosophy can play a role, and that is people need to understand how to reason with an empirical mind. Just being realistic about this, most people are not going to study science much beyond what’s required to graduate from school, or think about it as much as they do what it takes to live. In everything they do, and that includes work, raising children, diet and exercise, religious issues, socializing, voting, etc., they have to think. How do they make decisions? Do they know how to think about the variety of issues in their lives using facts and reason together? Do they know how to decide what is genuine evidence? Do they understand the force their own psychology, social conditioning, competitive pressures, etc. can have on objectivity?

We have the scientists busy in their laboratories, and we have a world population roaring along using what science discovers but without the intellectual skills that were employed to develop those tools. We can take that technology and decimate a country in months or even days, but have we employed good thinking in deciding to do so?

Getting back to philosophy, in the past philosophy has been rationalistic, meaning people believed one could arrive at truth by reason alone. They thought some truths were self-evident, and that just by virtue of existing we could understand reality if our reason was correct. When empirical concepts hit the philosophy world, the fate of the old rationalistic approach was sealed. IMO it never contributed much to human knowledge to begin with (other than logic and to practice thinking “outside the box”), so the contrast to achievements through empirical methods exposed rationalism’s impotence.

There are still plenty of “formally” rationalistic believers around, they show up at PF periodically (if you want to see a site packed with them, try philosophyforums.com). Also, I believe the average person is “informally” rationalistic in that they think too much with what’s in their head, and without sufficient reference to reality. It has been my personal goal (unauthorized to be sure) to fight it here because I think it is a dead end. I think we have an opportunity at PF to elevate philosophy to new standard, one where philosophies are linked to evidence. I admit my standard for evidence is broader than most scientists. I’d allow any consistently reported experience to serve as the empirical aspect from which to philosophize (e.g., certain “inner” experiences), while scientific empiricism is based solely on sense experience.

You are right, that is far from the “exactness” of the practice of science, but so what? Don’t you want to see people’s ideas for this planet more influenced by evidence-based thinking? I am suggesting that the clannish empirical thinkers at PF come out of their “exact science” cave and join humanity with all its inexact issues which nonetheless need (in some cases, desperately) clearer thinking and better decision-making.

[jcsd]

Marlon's point about medals is that philoisophy is subjective and anyone is equally qualifed to make philosophical statements in the general sense (obviously iof we are talking about somenithng like formal logic this does not hold true)whether they are a professor of philospohy or if they have never read book on the subject.

[Les Sleeth]

Marlon's point about medals is that philoisophy is subjective and anyone is equally qualifed to make philosophical statements in the general sense (obviously iof we are talking about somenithng like formal logic this does not hold true)whether they are a professor of philospohy or if they have never read book on the subject.

Well, I am saying Marlon's view is incorrect. Philosophizing can be subjective in the sense that a person can live in their own little world and profess beliefs without properly examining the nature of the reality they are giving opinions about. That doesn't characterize the formal field of philosophy or any other scholarly field. That's just a freewheeling exchange of opinions, and has little to do with the solid thinking people are capable of with a disciplined and informed mind. Your attitude is like me being afraid you are going to welcome pseudoscientists into PF because you are inviting scientific thinking. Might I not recognize that you can decide the sorts of discussions that will be allowed, and can discourage nonsense?

As I said to Marlon, I also think the implications of science go beyond the actual practice of science itself. Why not let -- hell encourage! -- people to think about what science might mean to their lives, how they view the universe, what it might mean to their beliefs about God, etc. It can only make people smarter to incorporate into their understanding what science is discovering to be true about the nature of reality.

Beyond that there is the question of if having philosophy here at PF helps or hurts. I say it helps because it offers a "softer" place to land in the midst of a robust science realm for those who don't really understand enough science to participate in the "hard" areas. Unless you want to have just a little elite club here, I cannot understand why every science lover in the world wouldn't want to attract as many people as possible, however peripherally or elementarily, to science. :confused:

[jcsd]

hhm I'm still skeptical as objectiev thinking is something I have simply not seen at all in modern philosophy, thoguh don't forget this is coming from someone who advocates rounding up all the philosophers and forceing them to push a big wheel like the one in Conan the Babarian.

[Les Sleeth]

hhm I'm still skeptical as objectiev thinking is something I have simply not seen at all in modern philosophy, thoguh don't forget this is coming from someone who advocates rounding up all the philosophers and forceing them to push a big wheel like the one in Conan the Babarian.

Healthy skepticism is a good thing, but there is a bit of contradiction in your doubt. If you are concerned about improving objectivity, that is area where traditionally philosophy has had something useful to say.

Beyond that, I am sure you realize that ultimately all conscious experience is subjective, so even the practice of objectivity is a subjective activity. So, do you think being a science enthusiast or scientist automatically makes one objective? If so, check out some of the political discussions around here. If science training guaranteed perfect objectivity, it seems to me everyone would agree. Scientists are human, and like everyone else their views are subject to having been conditioned by their upbringing, society, etc.

In a thread at the old PF, I remember endearing myself I'm sure to hard core empiricists around here with my very sensitive thread "Why Materialists Can't Think Properly." :biggrin: My point was that the practice of externalization science requires could orient a person away from certain inner experiences that might give one a broader perspective of reality, and thereby could affect conclusions one comes to about reality. Just a thought. :cool:

[ZapperZ]

Well, I am saying Marlon's view is incorrect. Philosophizing can be subjective in the sense that a person can live in their own little world and profess beliefs without properly examining the nature of the reality they are giving opinions about. That doesn't characterize the formal field of philosophy or any other scholarly field. That's just a freewheeling exchange of opinions, and has little to do with the solid thinking people are capable of with a disciplined and informed mind.

Oh no? Post-modernism isn't a "formal field of philosophy or any other scholarly field"? You have people like Irigaray who would spew things like

"Is E=Mc^2 a sexed equation? Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possibly sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged what goes the fastest...." (Irigaray in "Sens et place des connaissances dans la societe" p.110).

.. and there are more nonsense from where this came from so much so that Alan Sokal decided upon himself to reveal that these people are really not wearing any clothes.

So tell me how this is "helpful" for the general public "to think about what science might mean to their lives"?

As I said to Marlon, I also think the implications of science go beyond the actual practice of science itself. Why not let -- hell encourage! -- people to think about what science might mean to their lives, how they view the universe, what it might mean to their beliefs about God, etc. It can only make people smarter to incorporate into their understanding what science is discovering to be true about the nature of reality.

Sheldon Glashow, in his essay "Immanuel Kant versus the Princes of Serendip:...." ended his discussion in a way that I think correctly reflects a current practice of science:

So what should you conclude from these disjointed incidents of travel through the history of science? Perhaps you may begin to understand why modern scientists rarely consult the classical philosophers. Whereas Kant believed that "reason must not approach Nature in the character of a pupil who listens to everything the teacher has to say, but must act as an appointed judge who compels the witness to answer questions that he himself has formulated," we would put it somwhat differently: "Although reason may sometimes act as an appointed judge and compel Nature to answer well-posed questions, reason must always listen carefully to everything Nature has to say."

NOw don't get this wrong. This is NOT a debunking of the whole field of philosophy. However, it is acutely misleading to espouse the fallacy of what you just said that philosophical discussion of science, even within strict academic guidelines, does not do any harm and only do good! Postmodernism IS taught in schools, and the bastardization of science DOES occur, and people ARE told these garbage!

So you will understand if I do not buy your claim that such a discussion can only "help" people to understand science and scientific methodology.

Zz.

[chroot]

Umm, hello folks -- can we keep this on topic? This is obviously not the right place to discuss philosophy. Do I need to split all this philosophy stuff to a new thread?

- Warren

[Nereid]

Umm, hello folks -- can we keep this on topic? This is obviously not the right place to discuss philosophy. Do I need to split all this philosophy stuff to a new thread?

- WarrenYes please, into HPS, and a good discussion it will be too! :smile: :approve:

[Chronos]

Les, you have more length than substance. Skepticism is not a philosophy, it is the art of weighing facts against imagination. When in doubt, go with the facts. Arguing subjectivity is irrelevant. All observations are subjective. In science, that is called Quantum Theory.

[Les Sleeth]

Les, you have more length than substance. Skepticism is not a philosophy, it is the art of weighing facts against imagination. When in doubt, go with the facts. Arguing subjectivity is irrelevant. All observations are subjective. In science, that is called Quantum Theory.

Did I suggest skepticism is philosophy? I said that objectivity, which was JCSD's concern about having philosophy at PF, is traditionally a subject of philosophy. I went on to point out that science experts are not necessarily free from bias (i.e., from being influenced by up bringing). Just resorting to facts does not free one from bias because facts are always embedded in an interpretative foundation.

I see bias incessantly from the science enthusiasts here the second they venture outside talking pure science. Look at Zapper's emotional outburst above and tell me being a scientist ensures one is perfectly objective at all times. Responses like that is why I asked Marlon a couple of posts earlier if some people here ". . . like things neat and tidy, decided, without openings, without variation . . . because that’s what’s best for being a good thinker, or is it because precision helps you feel more secure or competent or some other personal-comfort preference?"

In other words, DON'T TALK ABOUT ANYTHING THAT TAKES ME OUT OF MY COMFORT ZONE! It's called "projection" in psychology, where one projects one's fears, shortcomings, etc. into reality, and then often as a follow-up behavior has opinions about the way things should be in shared situations (like PF) based on that projection. Instead of realizing it is themselves they should be developing, they want to stifle things for everyone, just so they feel safe, or competent, or whatever.

So my point to JCSD was that we cannot escape our humanity. Sometimes people try to escape by burying themselves in books or the lab, and then when you talk to them they have little understanding about their own lives. Over and above that, I have also been saying that bad philosophy isn't REAL philosophy, just like bad science isn't real science. Also, I have suggested that a science site that encourages people to see what empirical thinking can do for one in everyday life issues might be a positive thing both for the general population and for science. I mean, is it a good idea to imply to people that science is only for the very, very smartest people? Is it just for elitist geniuses, or do you think maybe there's a way to make science approachable by everyone?

[ZapperZ]

Did I suggest skepticism is philosophy? I said that objectivity, which was JCSD's concern about having philosophy at PF, is traditionally a subject of philosophy. I went on to point out that science experts are not necessarily free from bias (i.e., from being influenced by up bringing). Just resorting to facts does not free one from bias because facts are always embedded in an interpretative foundation.

I see bias incessantly from the science enthusiasts here the second they venture outside talking pure science. Look at Zapper's emotional outburst above and tell me being a scientist ensures one is perfectly objective at all times. Responses like that is why I asked Marlon a couple of posts earlier if some people here ". . . like things neat and tidy, decided, without openings, without variation . . . because that’s what’s best for being a good thinker, or is it because precision helps you feel more secure or competent or some other personal-comfort preference?"

In other words, DON'T TALK ABOUT ANYTHING THAT TAKES ME OUT OF MY COMFORT ZONE! It's called "projection" in psychology, where one projects one's fears, shortcomings, etc. into reality, and then often as a follow-up behavior has opinions about the way things should be in shared situations (like PF) based on that projection. Instead of realizing it is themselves they should be developing, they want to stifle things for everyone, just so they feel safe, or competent, or whatever.

So my point to JCSD was that we cannot escape our humanity. Sometimes people try to escape by burying themselves in books or the lab, and then when you talk to them they have little understanding about their own lives. Over and above that, I have also been saying that bad philosophy isn't REAL philosophy, just like bad science isn't real science. Also, I have suggested that a science site that encourages people to see what empirical thinking can do for one in everyday life issues might be a positive thing both for the general population and for science. I mean, is it a good idea to imply to people that science is only for the very, very smartest people? Is it just for elitist geniuses, or do you think maybe there's a way to make science approachable by everyone?

I noticed that rather than address the points that I made against your suggestion that philosophical discussion can only do tremendous good to science, you decided to attack my.... what... perceived psychosis from your perspective? I didn't know you also have a licence to practice psychoanalylsis on the internet.

Take note that I NEVER, ever mentioned that scientists are objective! I challenge you to find where I actually said something like this. So your gleeful attack on me was completely unwarranted.

Again, established, mainstream philosophy contains many aspects which not only misrepresents science (I was given The Tau of Physics to read IN a philosophy of science class), but also outright bastardization of science, as taught in many postmodernism classes throughout the world. I was not the one who said scientists are always objective. However, YOU are the one who want the rest of us to believe that established philosphical discussion can't do any harm. This is as accurate as Irigaray's view that E=mc^2 is nothing more than a phallic symbol!

Zz.

[arildno]

"This is as accurate as Irigaray's view that E=mc^2 is nothing more than a phallic symbol!"
1)Wasn't she the one who retracted her statement that "Principa Mathematica" was a "rape manual"?
2) I also think she was the one who meant that the reason why the mechanics of solids was so more developed than fluid mechanics, was simply that solid objects are phallic, whereas fluids are more feminine?

[Les Sleeth]

Oh no? Post-modernism isn't a "formal field of philosophy or any other scholarly field"? You have people like Irigaray who would spew things like "Is E=Mc^2 a sexed equation? Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possibly sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged what goes the fastest...." (Irigaray in "Sens et place des connaissances dans la societe" p.110)... and there are more nonsense from where this came from so much so that Alan Sokal decided upon himself to reveal that these people are really not wearing any clothes.

So tell me how this is "helpful" for the general public "to think about what science might mean to their lives"?

I didn't answer you earlier because events here have kept me from getting to it. I'll answer your other post next.

Why do you assume it is the fault of philosophy that such dribble exists? Are you trying to blame all the stupidity in the world on philosophy? I don’t know for certain, but it sounds like you are saying we should suppress free thinking out of fear of someone proposing something stupid.

Let me ask you something. Do you think there is a scientific basis for freedom? Can humans live under any psychological conditions and thrive, or is there something in the nature of consciousness that needs freedom to flourish? When American colonists started talking seriously about designing a government which included greater freedoms, they had no scientific studies to consult, to guide them. What they had was a feeling, and they had reason with which to translate that feeling into a governing system which helped preserve the feeling. Now today, tests done confirm that humans do have psychological needs, but I for one am very happy that American patriots trusted their feeling and reason even if there were no scientific studies to confirm that they were correct.

If this world ever becomes a place where all we do it wait for science to okay every damn thing, or where the only discussion about life issues allowed are those dependent solely on “facts,” I hope it’s after I am dead so I don’t have live in such a bleak zombie habitat.


Sheldon Glashow, in his essay "Immanuel Kant versus the Princes of Serendip:...." ended his discussion in a way that I think correctly reflects a current practice of science:

So what should you conclude from these disjointed incidents of travel through the history of science? Perhaps you may begin to understand why modern scientists rarely consult the classical philosophers. Whereas Kant believed that "reason must not approach Nature in the character of a pupil who listens to everything the teacher has to say, but must act as an appointed judge who compels the witness to answer questions that he himself has formulated," we would put it somewhat differently: "Although reason may sometimes act as an appointed judge and compel Nature to answer well-posed questions, reason must always listen carefully to everything Nature has to say."

Now don't get this wrong. This is NOT a debunking of the whole field of philosophy. However, it is acutely misleading to espouse the fallacy of what you just said that philosophical discussion of science, even within strict academic guidelines, does not do any harm and only do good! Postmodernism IS taught in schools, and the bastardization of science DOES occur, and people ARE told these garbage!

So you will understand if I do not buy your claim that such a discussion can only "help" people to understand science and scientific methodology.

Honestly? No, I do not understand your logic at all.

I like Glashow’s take on things, I too think we have to pay attention to nature (if that means reality) over what our preconceptions tell us “must” be true. Of course, as I’ve debated here extensively, it seems to me that most people only want to look at those aspects of reality that confirm their personal theories, and that is every bit as true for, say, the physicalist scientist as it is for anyone. The person with a truly broad education and an open, objective mind is very rare find indeed.

My problem is I don’t see in your attitude a practical option for how we get from where people in general are intellectually, to that point where they are good thinkers. No matter how much science discovers, it still has to be absorbed by humanity. You aren’t going get most people to delve into science to the extent you have, that is simply not a realistic expectation. And you can’t instantly make people stop believing and imagining all the nonsense they do, or thinking as clearly as Socrates.

So how do one get the message out? Well, I say we involve people in dialogue about the issues that affect their lives, what they think and care about daily. In my opinion, the reason Dr. Phil is so successful is because he takes the most result-oriented factors of psychology and shows people how it applies to their everyday lives. Rather than making someone get a PhD in psychology, he’s taking psychology to them, in terms they can understand. It’s strange to me that some of my friends with grad degrees in psych at first complained Dr. Phil’s psychology was watered down pop stuff. I said, “well, don’t you think people need to understand their own psychology better? So isn’t it a good thing he’s helping people who’s had no exposure to psychology do that?” Funny too is that later I found out none of them had actually watched the show!

Anyway, it isn’t up to me whether there is a philosophy area at PF. If Greg and others decide it is to be, then it is. If it is to be, then I don’t know why you wouldn’t want the commitment of people who believe in the value of empirical thinking to help steer PF’s philosophy section in that direction. At least I care about it enough to stick my neck out so some of you guys can take turns bashing it. It’s not like I have nothing other to do with my time. You are making me feel like telling you to have your little playpen just the way you want it.

[ZapperZ]

"This is as accurate as Irigaray's view that E=mc^2 is nothing more than a phallic symbol!"
1)Wasn't she the one who retracted her statement that "Principa Mathematica" was a "rape manual"?
2) I also think she was the one who meant that the reason why the mechanics of solids was so more developed than fluid mechanics, was simply that solid objects are phallic, whereas fluids are more feminine?

Yup, she's the one!

Zz.

[ZapperZ]

I didn't answer you earlier because events here have kept me from getting to it. I'll answer your other post next.

Why do you assume it is the fault of philosophy that such dribble exists? Are you trying to blame all the stupidity in the world on philosophy? I don’t know for certain, but it sounds like you are saying we should suppress free thinking out of fear of someone proposing something stupid.

Again, where I did I do such a thing?

I was addressing ONE very specific thing that you did - spewing the idea that philosophical discussion can do nothing but ENHANCE one's understanding of science. Your argument was that all these so-called crackpot ideas are not part of mainstream philosophy as a subject matter and does not represent it and any other field. I disagre by bringing up one very specific area of philosophy (postmodernism) and a very specific incident (Sokal hoax). These clearly shows where you are wrong - where in fact a large and promient branch of philosphy does nothing but twists, misinterprets, bastardizes, and outright LIES about science, and physics in particular. I clearly asked you how this would "help" others in their understanding of what science is, or how it is practiced?

Somehow, from this, you took it upon yourself to analyze my ability (or inability) to interact with others outside my field? Or that I am blaming the whole of philosophy for all the faults of the world? Or that I believe science can explain all the problems of human civilization? What kind of an induced coma that allowed you to make such a leap?

Being a physicist is one of the most HUMBLING profession one can ever undertake, because we know what we can and cannot be certain of, and that boundary between the two must ALWAYS be double checked since it moves! It is why physics does NOT deal with "consciousness" and "intelligence" and the likes, because it is BEYOND what it can talk about. Heck, these things are not even unambiguously defined! Asked 20 experts in the field and you get almost 20 different definitions for what a "consciousness" is! Such ambiguity is meaningless to be address in physics. Yet, it never stops any philosophers from tackling such a thing.

My point? You can speculate, extrapolate, philosophize, metaphysicize, etc. all you want. But don't fool yourself and others into thinking that by doing so, you can't do no wrong and in fact, doing science a favor. You may, in fact, be doing the opposite thing.

Zz.

[hypnagogue]

I was addressing ONE very specific thing that you did - spewing the idea that philosophical discussion can do nothing but ENHANCE one's understanding of science. Your argument was that all these so-called crackpot ideas are not part of mainstream philosophy as a subject matter and does not represent it and any other field. I disagre by bringing up one very specific area of philosophy (postmodernism) and a very specific incident (Sokal hoax). These clearly shows where you are wrong - where in fact a large and promient branch of philosphy does nothing but twists, misinterprets, bastardizes, and outright LIES about science, and physics in particular. I clearly asked you how this would "help" others in their understanding of what science is, or how it is practiced?

While this may be a valid concern about the relationship between philosophy and physics at large, I think we have created the kind of environment at PF where issues like this one need not be a concern at all. Some group of people who call themselves philosophers might consider the question of 'sexed' equations seriously, but you can bet such an idea would be locked or deleted on sight if it were to make its way to one of PF's philosophy forums (or anywhere else on PF, needless to say).

So long as we enforce the ideal that philosophical discussion be logically consistent with the findings of science, and furthermore respect various aspects of what science is and how it is conducted and so on, I think the kind of harm you are worrying about will be mitigated to a large extent if not eliminated entirely, and thus productive philosophical discussion can take place.

[Les Sleeth]

Again, where I did I do such a thing?

I was addressing ONE very specific thing that you did - spewing the idea that philosophical discussion can do nothing but ENHANCE one's understanding of science. Your argument was that all these so-called crackpot ideas are not part of mainstream philosophy as a subject matter and does not represent it and any other field. I disagre by bringing up one very specific area of philosophy (postmodernism) and a very specific incident (Sokal hoax). These clearly shows where you are wrong - where in fact a large and promient branch of philosphy does nothing but twists, misinterprets, bastardizes, and outright LIES about science, and physics in particular. I clearly asked you how this would "help" others in their understanding of what science is, or how it is practiced?

Somehow, from this, you took it upon yourself to analyze my ability (or inability) to interact with others outside my field? Or that I am blaming the whole of philosophy for all the faults of the world? Or that I believe science can explain all the problems of human civilization? What kind of an induced coma that allowed you to make such a leap?

Being a physicist is one of the most HUMBLING profession one can ever undertake, because we know what we can and cannot be certain of, and that boundary between the two must ALWAYS be double checked since it moves! It is why physics does NOT deal with "consciousness" and "intelligence" and the likes, because it is BEYOND what it can talk about. Heck, these things are not even unambiguously defined! Asked 20 experts in the field and you get almost 20 different definitions for what a "consciousness" is! Such ambiguity is meaningless to be address in physics. Yet, it never stops any philosophers from tackling such a thing.

My point? You can speculate, extrapolate, philosophize, metaphysicize, etc. all you want. But don't fool yourself and others into thinking that by doing so, you can't do no wrong and in fact, doing science a favor. You may, in fact, be doing the opposite thing.

Get a grip, do you think you are talking to all those postmodern guys? The last thing I need is a lecture from a disrespectful, opinionated you about the stupidity found in people's theories, whether they are "major" or not. I am here, participating in the philosophical area, very specifically because it is sheltered, or at least constrained by, science principles. Your emotional, self-absorbed, dreadfully over-generalized opinions are insulting.

So there's lots of dumb ideas floating around in the world? It's not my goddamn fault. Get over it, it’s going on and you can’t stop it. What you could do is support a more empirical brand of philosophy here at PF, except you are so consumed by hatred for things outside your little world you can’t manage to talk like a human being. I don’t know where you learned your skills for trading ideas with others you might not agree with, but I can say it’s been a most unpleasant experience interacting with such a mean-spirited debater.

[hypnagogue]

Please, let's try to keep the discussion calm, respectful, and focused on the issues instead of getting upset.

[metacristi]

It is unrealistic to downgrade science at the same level with miths (only that an elaborated one).I'm afraid Quine thesis is not enough,the possibility of strong underdetermination irrespective of data certainly exist but there are no sufficient reasons to think that it is a fact.

It is true now that we have to make sometime the difference based entirely on nonempirical facts.In fact science does it from the good beginning when preferring as the standard of knowledge at least a form of weak realism,by rejecting both epistemological and ontological variants of idealism.We simply have more 'positive' reasons to prefer the realist position (there exist an external reality independent of Mind which we can percieve using the senses and understand it,at least partially).

It is true also that further (after accepting at least a weak form of realism) we cannot grant to a (minimal) scientific method based on falsificationism (it has also manifest weaknesses) a perpetual epistemological privilege.Duhem's thesis,the 'weak' underdetermination,is more than enough to justify this (observation itself comes with auxiliary assumptions).

Still it is clear that,overall,we have more 'positive' reasons to back the 'progress' stance of science and to grant to a minimal scientific method an fallible epistemological privilege.Even if the acception of realism is basically an axiom of science.Unfortunately there are too many now who jump from the existing epistemological limitations of science (Feyerabend is very good at pointing them) directly to pure relativism.

This step is totally unjustified,the existing difficulties at most can be the base of a rational skepticism but they do not count as sufficient reasons against the fallible epistemological privilege of science.So far,at least,science and a minimal scientific method (going well beyond the 'naive' empiricism of Popper anyway) has proved to be our best 'tool' to make sense of the observed facts.

On the other hand we have (too many) 'quasi religious' scientists who believe that science is some sort of enclave,totally separated from the philosophy of science,considered inferior.Even if they are a small minority the reality is that many scientists believe that we have sufficient reasons to think that science is a continuous,always 'upward',acqusition of knowledge,building over previous knowledge with some minor changes,and that we are left only with some minor details to fix,if possible.In short that the strong version of scientific realism is the default and that a rigid scientific method has a perpetual epistemological privilege,granting us 'the right path'.

Unfortunately there are no sufficient reasons now to grant the epistemological privilege for a falsificationist scientific method at all further times,the philosophy of science has clearly rejected this view.That is we simply are not in a position now to grant it a perpetual epistemological privilege.If we were then no one would still bother now to try to give justification to induction (probabilistic one included).

Popper's proposal involve a choice based on the common sense,logical,expectation that a good model of the universe must have internal unity and coherence,must make novel,testable,predictions and to resist severe attempts at potential falsification ('corroboration' of the theory).

Though he does not talk of the individual truth or approximative truth of our particular physical theories he sees in the degree of 'corroboration' a clear sign that we have sufficient reasons to prefer the stance that there is progress in science,in the sense that fallibilistic science do,overally,approach truth.

Unfortunately as other philosophical accounts showed well there are problems with 'corroboration',with 'naive' empiricism in general (as Lakatos labeled it).Mere fecundity does nor suffice since weak underdetermination is a fact,strong underdetermination is possible (there are no sufficient reasons against) and that we can only interpret facts (even the results of experiments).

At most we are entitled,as Lakatos' said well (having more positive,entirely logical,reasons),to consider that the fecundity and the capacity of new paradigms to unify facts,previously considered as unconnected,is enough to warrant the further pursue of such scientifc programmes.

We can extend this to the entirety of fallibilistic science (including other epistemological, methodological aspects),the method of deciding what is objective knowledge,having at base fallibilism,is still 'progressive'.

Its fecundity and the previous success of Mill's methods,as the norm,the absence of other serious methodologies (it is our best 'tool' so far to make sense of phenomenological aspects of reality) still warrant pursuing it,we can still grant to a fallibilistic method a provisional epistemological privilege (that is we have for the moment more,logical,'positive',reasons to prefer the 'success' stance of science).

Empiricism alone is not enough indeed to make the difference but in conjunction with purely logical arguments we are in a position to grant a fallible epistemological privilege to a minimal scientific method.And to the stance (also fallible) that,overall,science does approach the truth in spite of the fact that non trivial changes do occur sometimes.

Of course we should choose a variant of the fallibilistic methodology which is the most open to possible 'progress' (fecundity) doing also justice to scientifc practice.I do not think this is Popper's methodology.

As a side note it is exactly this inability of the fallibilistic methodology,as a whole,to grant an 'absolute' epistemological privilege to a scientific method (that is to provide sufficient reasons to think that science do at least approach truth) which brought about the revival of interest for finding a sufficient justification for a general inductive method.Not successful so far.

Thus in the absence also of any (proper,counting as a sufficient reason) justification of induction we cannot grant an absolute epistemological status to a scientific method.

I label the stance that a scientific method (inductive or not) has an absolute epistemological privilege 'dogmatic scientism' for we do not have yet proper justification for such a hard line.

[Les Sleeth]

As a side note it is exactly this inability of the fallibilistic methodology,as a whole,to grant an 'absolute' epistemological privilege to a scientific method (that is to provide sufficient reasons to think that science do at least approach truth) which brought about the revival of interest for finding a sufficient justification for a general inductive method.Not successful so far.

Thus in the absence also of any (proper,counting as a sufficient reason) justification of induction we cannot grant an absolute epistemological status to a scientific method.

I label the stance that a scientific method (inductive or not) has an absolute epistemological privilege 'dogmatic scientism' for we do not have yet proper justification for such a hard line.

I agree, and that's why I believe we still need to be exploring inductive avenues. It is too soon to close the door on the subject of what might give us knowledge, or what sort of model would explain all the facets of creation. But I also think that since we do have a method, empiricism, which we know works quite well, we should strive to interface with it whatever new inductive techniques are developed or new information that might be included with models.

[Les Sleeth]

Please, let's try to keep the discussion calm, respectful, and focused on the issues instead of getting upset.

Sorry. :redface:

[marlon]

I’d allow any consistently reported experience to serve as the empirical aspect from which to philosophize (e.g., certain “inner” experiences), while scientific empiricism is based solely on sense experience.

You are right, that is far from the “exactness” of the practice of science, but so what?

This is exactly what i was talking about...sorry for my late response but i did not realize my view on philisophy-medals would raise an entire discussion. the fact that it did DOES mean something, wouldn't you say???

I just wanted to point out that we cannot assign medals based upon someone's "inner experiences". I admit i am misusing your words just a little bit but i think the idea is set. You keep on talking about exactness of science and how you have none of that. Don't think that free and creative thinking is NOT allowed in science. It is the very source of math and physics,... In exact science there is a lot of discussion between scientists on many subjects like the mass-gap in QFT, String theory versus LQG or even the Information paradox. These discussions, however, are based upon facts and FACTS are used to make a point, not some "inner"-experience or whatever.

It is common for "beta"-sciences to critisize the way math or physics works, because they say : there is no room for a creative mind and all is determined by formula's. You say that in your branche there is plenty of room for "free thinking". Well, though this is an illusion, don't confuse this free thinking with good thinking. Just look at the facts : mankind benefits most from exact sciences what so ever. Philisophy will never build bridges, take us to the moon or perform organ-transplantations. Besides, like i said philisophy is something that belongs to the exact sciences because it is gonna be the astrophysicists that will think "freely" about the structure of our universe. I have no problem with philisophy because it belongs to math and physics and all other exact sciences. I DO have a problem with people that say they are philisopher but who have never been educated in exact science. This is like saying I am a surgeon but i do not know how to perform surgery.

I just don't see how someone can study philisophy at college for four years and then say he or she is master in philisophy??? Where is the exact science??? They are the reason that philisopy exists. All the other stuff is just personal opinions and interpretations that have nothing to do with the way alpha-sciences work.

You ask me whether i know what philisophy is and what i know about it ??? Ofcourse you can ask that, just as i can ask to you what you know on quantum field theory or general relativity, yet i am convinced that anyone with a profound scientific background is entitled to question the non-scientific part of what you call philisophy. Someone without a scientific background cannot be a philisopher and you sure as hell cannot just take out your personal view on things and call it science...

marlon

[Les Sleeth]

This is exactly what i was talking about...sorry for my late response but i did not realize my view on philisophy-medals would raise an entire discussion. the fact that it did DOES mean something, wouldn't you say???
I just wanted to point out that we cannot assign medals based upon someone's "inner experiences". I admit i am misusing your words just a little bit but i think the idea is set. You keep on talking about exactness of science and how you have none of that. Don't think that free and creative thinking is NOT allowed in science. It is the very source of math and physics,... In exact science there is a lot of discussion between scientists on many subjects like the mass-gap in QFT, String theory versus LQG or even the Information paradox. These discussions, however, are based upon facts and FACTS are used to make a point, not some "inner"-experience or whatever.

It is common for "beta"-sciences to critisize the way math or physics works, because they say : there is no room for a creative mind and all is determined by formula's. You say that in your branche there is plenty of room for "free thinking". Well, though this is an illusion, don't confuse this free thinking with good thinking. Just look at the facts : mankind benefits most from exact sciences what so ever. Philisophy will never build bridges, take us to the moon or perform organ-transplantations. Besides, like i said philisophy is something that belongs to the exact sciences because it is gonna be the astrophysicists that will think "freely" about the structure of our universe. I have no problem with philisophy because it belongs to math and physics and all other exact sciences. I DO have a problem with people that say they are philisopher but who have never been educated in exact science. This is like saying I am a surgeon but i do not know how to perform surgery.

I just don't see how someone can study philisophy at college for four years and then say he or she is master in philisophy??? Where is the exact science??? They are the reason that philisopy exists. All the other stuff is just personal opinions and interpretations that have nothing to do with the way alpha-sciences work.

You ask me whether i know what philisophy is and what i know about it ??? Ofcourse you can ask that, just as i can ask to you what you know on quantum field theory or general relativity, yet i am convinced that anyone with a profound scientific background is entitled to question the non-scientific part of what you call philisophy. Someone without a scientific background cannot be a philisopher and you sure as hell cannot just take out your personal view on things and call it science...

[EDIT] Forget what I said if anyone saw it. I've said what I think would be a way philosophy could be beneficial, and although I don't believe either Zapper or Marlon spoke to my meaning, they are entitled to their opinions.

[marlon]

[EDIT] Forget what I said if anyone saw it. I've said what I think would be a way philosophy could be beneficial, and although I don't believe either Zapper or Marlon spoke to my meaning, they are entitled to their opinions.

ok, Les Sleeth, we are thinking the exact same thing about you...

regards
marlon

[Les Sleeth]

ok, Les Sleeth, we are thinking the exact same thing about you...

regards
marlon

:mad: clip clip clip clip (sound of Les stapling his mouth shut) :cool:

[Aquamarine]

Again, where I did I do such a thing?
Being a physicist is one of the most HUMBLING profession one can ever undertake, because we know what we can and cannot be certain of, and that boundary between the two must ALWAYS be double checked since it moves! It is why physics does NOT deal with "consciousness" and "intelligence" and the likes, because it is BEYOND what it can talk about. Heck, these things are not even unambiguously defined! Asked 20 experts in the field and you get almost 20 different definitions for what a "consciousness" is! Such ambiguity is meaningless to be address in physics. Yet, it never stops any philosophers from tackling such a thing.

There have been many careful studies done on intelligence and consciousness. Search Medline.

The soft sciences have great difficulty in determining causality and designing good experiments. This doesn't mean it cannot be done. And economics and psychology are certainly not unimportant subjects when making decisions.

[ZapperZ]

There have been many careful studies done on intelligence and consciousness. Search Medline.

I didn't say there aren't. I specifically said that these areas cannot be studied by physics since these concepts are undefined, and they are especially undefined within what is required in physics in which every concept and ideas must have an underlying mathematical description. Physics simply just doesn't study "what goes up, must come down". Physics must include "when and where it comes down". The quantitative aspect of it is as important, if not more.

However, you will note that even when there are "careful" studies done on these things, you will still get different definitions for each of these concepts. Biological studies will define "intelligence" and "consciousness" differently than sociologists, and differently from philosophers. No matter how much one studies "IQ" and "IQ tests", no one can clearly define what "intelligence" is in such a way that it is universally accepted. I could, on the other hand, simply refer to the time dependent Schrodinger Equation, and physicists and physicist students, irregardless of their background, culture, language, race, etc. automatically know unambiguously what I mean and what it can and cannot do.

The soft sciences have great difficulty in determining causality and designing good experiments. This doesn't mean it cannot be done. And economics and psychology are certainly not unimportant subjects when making decisions.

Again, I never said they are not. And the fact that these things ARE more complex and not easily defined are the very nature of these subjects - saying such a thing is not meant to demean or trivialize these areas. However, one must also keep that in mind when one makes comparisons to subject areas that require more "definite" determination and with higher degree of certainty. To me, it feels rather odd to apply the "soft science" (your terminology) to understand and explain the "hard science", when it should be the other way around. That is like subjecting physicists to polygraph tests during the Los Alamos security lapses of the late 90's. Robert Park of the APS pointed out that subjecting physicists to a pseudoscience is a cruel and unusual punishment.

Zz.

[Aquamarine]

If mathematics must be used for something to be called science, statistics is almost invariably used in all studies in psychology and economics.

Regarding intelligence, among those who actively study it, there seems to be consensus about what it is. Look at threads about intelligence. That those that are not really studying it, like philosophers and sociologists, is uninteresting. Trying to group all people not physicists into a common group is wrong.

Polygraphs may or not be pseudoscience. But if it is not, the 70-90% claimed accuracy can certainly be a help among other uncertain clues.

That something has less probability than is common in physics doesn't mean it is not science. And it doesn't mean it is worth less. Calculating the speed of a nut falling to ground may give an exact answer, but this doesn't mean that this is worth more than more inexactly knowing if communism gives happiness.

[ZapperZ]

If mathematics must be used for something to be called science, statistics is almost invariably used in all studies in psychology and economics.

However, there is a distinct difference here between that kind of mathematics, and the mathematics used in physics. There is the ability to form logical/mathematical derivation from one formulation to another in physics that has connection with physical measurements. In other words, it isn't just a matter of "stamp-collecting", to paraphrase Ernest Rutherford.

Regarding intelligence, among those who actively study it, there seems to be consensus about what it is. Look at threads about intelligence. That those that are not really studying it, like philosophers and sociologists, is uninteresting. Trying to group all people not physicists into a common group is wrong.

Take note that I'm not the one here who is dismissing "philosophers and sociologists" in this part. Just to make sure I don't get dissed for saying something that I didn't! :) :)

Polygraphs may or not be pseudoscience. But if it is not, the 70-90% claimed accuracy can certainly be a help among other uncertain clues.

There has been no scientifically documented evidence of any validity of polygraphs at "truth-telling". The most recent comprehensive review of this was done by the National Academy of Sciences in 2003 and reported in their finding titled "The Polygraph and Lie Detection" (NAS Press, 2003).

That something has less probability than is common in physics doesn't mean it is not science. And it doesn't mean it is worth less. Calculating the speed of a nut falling to ground may give an exact answer, but this doesn't mean that this is worth more than more inexactly knowing if communism gives happiness.

There are two separate issues here. First is that, again, I am NOT arguing about the "worth" of something. I am, however, arguing the rationality or validity of using a "soft science", as you have stated, to describe and "explain" a hard science. That is what started all this. I have never indicated that there is no worth in "knowing if communism gives happiness". If this is what you wish to talk about, more power to you. However, I do question the rationality of things like "communism disproves Einstein's special relativity" or "energy isn't real because it is epistemiologically undefined"(?).

Secondly, calculating the speed of a nut falling to the ground is not important, but the skill and principle behind the ability to calculate the speed of a nut falling to the ground is. We don't make students to solve these problems because we want them to calculate projectile motion. We want them to do this so that they have the skill to analytically look at a problem, decipher what is important, set up a strategy to solve it, and most importantly, recognize the underlying principle and how that principle works. If you realize that the principle involving the speed of a nut falling to the ground is the identical principle that built your house, allows for your safety when you fly in an airplane or cross a bridge, etc., then you would not think it is that trivial.

Zz.

[Aquamarine]

For an example of science using self-reported inner experiences, no underlying theoretical understanding required, no derivation from mathematical formulas and eminently useful:

Apply pain, for example from a needle. Let the subject rate the intensity of his pain on a scale. Administer local anesthetic in gradually increasing dosage. The prediction is a decrease in self-reported pain. Note that medications have been used successfully long before any theoretical understanding of how they worked.

[ZapperZ]

For an example of science using self-reported inner experiences, no underlying theoretical understanding required, no derivation from mathematical formulas and eminently useful:

Apply pain, for example from a needle. Let the subject rate the intensity of his pain on a scale. Administer local anesthetic in gradually increasing dosage. The prediction is a decrease in self-reported pain. Note that medications have been used successfully long before any theoretical understanding of how they worked.

I'm not sure how this applies to what we have been discussing. Also note that a "scientific evidence" isn't the same as an "anecdotal evidence". There have been many anecdotal evidence that, homeopathy, for example, works. But there are no clinical evidence for such things. Your limited example makes no distinction between the two from the way you described it.

For it to be a valid science, there have to be a systematic gathering of data, frequently in a double-blind scenario, and have it scrutinize by experts in the field. It is what makes fields that depend quite a bit on statistical sampling more difficult and more tedious to be certain of. Anything that deals with human actions and interactions are intrinsically that way.

Zz.

[Aquamarine]

It seems that a main objection is that postmodernism have had a great influence on philosophy. But there are reasons for their influence, their critique cannot be automatically dismissed. I agree that it have also done a great deal of damage but hopefully this will lead to a philosophy of science that is stronger than before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science_of_mathematics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_Mathematics_Comes_From

I think that information theory will contribute greatly to a new improved philosophy of science. For example by improved versions of Occam's razor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_message_length

Chaitin has written several interesting articles on the philosophical foundations of mathematics and science:
http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/

[ZapperZ]

It seems that a main objection is that postmodernism have had a great influence on philosophy. But there are reasons for their influence, their critique cannot be automatically dismissed. I agree that it have also done a great deal of damage but hopefully this will lead to a philosophy of science that is stronger than before.

Actually, no. My main objection isn't the influence of postmodernism on philosophy (that's a separate issue entirely). My objection was the idea that any kind of philosophical discussion can only "help" the understanding of the sciences, and physics in particular. If you read back from the start of this, you will notice that I have tried several times to stress that point.

As you have noted, it IS a noticeable part of philosophy, with active rate of publications. I brought it out to show that a big portion of "academic philosophy" engages in concept that cannot help one understands science. In fact, it can only muddies and causes confusion. Metaphysical texts such as The Tao of Physics (which isn't a part of the postmodernist movement, or at least I don't think so) makes claims that even physicists would cringe. I know I did when it was one of my reading assignment. Thus, it is false that any kind of philosophy of science discussion can only help the understanding of science. Can it make the philosophy of science "stronger"? I don't know what "stronger" means. I would simply settle for it being more "accurate".

Zz.

[arildno]

Just somewhat off-topic on the trend of postmodernism-bashing here:
When disregarding those statements within this trend which purport to show that science is "just another great tale", it is in fact a rather healthy scepticism in-built in post-modernism against the great cultural tales of "salvation".
(Examples: Religious dogmas, Marxism, Nationalism and so on).

Basically, I think the positive evaluation of sub-cultures&"small discourses" in PM is an important and valuable feature, which should be embraced by most true individualists.

That this should have little, if any, significances for the procedures of science, is rather obvious, IMO.

[Aquamarine]

Thus, it is false that any kind of philosophy of science discussion can only help the understanding of science. Can it make the philosophy of science "stronger"? I don't know what "stronger" means. I would simply settle for it being more "accurate".
http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/dijon.html

[Les Sleeth]

My objection was the idea that any kind of philosophical discussion can only "help" the understanding of the sciences, and physics in particular. If you read back from the start of this, you will notice that I have tried several times to stress that point.

I want to try once more to get a little understanding going. One thing I’ve seen happen at forums is how easily the written word can be misinterpreted. If we were talking in person and you misinterpreted my meaning, I’d stop you immediately before you developed lengthy arguments against what you thought I meant. Words can be ambiguous, and of course none of us are perfect, so we can be less than clear. So I want to explain how this interpretation of yours “My objection was the idea that any [my emphasis] kind of philosophical discussion can only ‘help’ the understanding of the sciences . . .” is a misunderstanding. I am not saying my communication was perfect, or that you “should” have understood what I meant, but it is not what I meant nonetheless.

Much of what you said you dislike about philosophy is how I feel about it, so let’s not argue about that unnecessarily (part of my outrage, in fact, was feeling that I was being associated with it). I have said in my posts here at PF many times how much I like the empirical slant of the philosophy area, and I’ve tried to contribute to making it more so.

On the other hand, there are a lot of intelligent, educated people, including some scientists (and myself), who believe science can only answer the physical questions, and that there’s “something more” to existence than physicalness, and for which science is useless. Yet there are also plenty of people here who believe science can answer all answerable questions (clarification: I am saying they believe if a question actually can be answered, science is the only certain avenue to it). Metacristi earlier spoke of that as the dogma of scientism.

I’d say there is probably a higher percentage of “something more” believers participating in the philosophy area than in the pure science areas. That is why in the philosophy area at PF there is more “brainstorming” going on than in the exact sciences areas. That’s the nature of philosophical thinking, to wonder, to question, etc. So one thing about having a philosophy area is that it is going to attract people who are not 100% lined up with physicalism. That means debate, and some of it gets pretty passionate.

Now let’s consider what the general population is doing. Just last night at my (very social) racquetball club somebody had heard about nonlocal effects and had combined that with what he’d read about uncertainty to say it meant physics is in fact an inexact science. He tried to say that God was at work in all those places in physical processes that science cannot explain. When I tried to get him to stop merging physical and spiritual ideas, the discussion got pretty heated. It isn’t that I don’t think there is something spiritual, it’s just that sticking it into physics never seems to work for either side.

Well, when someone comes to PF and tries that, we have a lot of people ready to correct their misconceptions about the physical side. And you have someone like me who may think there’s “something more” but wants to keep from mixing up physical principles with it because I really do think they operate under different rules. Further, I also am quite empirical, in the sense that I don’t believe something is known until it is experienced, and that includes “something more.” If you read my debate in the Logic area with Rainer, you can see that I am pretty conservative about the experience-knowledge link.

So now we are at last back to what I meant by “any.” Although I don’t recall using that word, reading my posts I can see how it might seem I am implying it. But the “any” I implied doesn’t refer to talking about any old subject any old way. What I meant was, if someone comes here to think about things, and if we have the right staff, then we have an opportunity to reason with them about their beliefs and assumptions. In that sense, “any” way we can get them to be more careful about their science, their logic, and in general encourage them to think more empirically (i.e., based on what can be/has been experienced) would be beneficial.

Does it mean that we aren’t going to get kooks telling us they are a messenger from God? No (we’ve already got at least one, which has been affectionately tolerated so far). And I am pretty sure there are hard core physicalist types who don’t want ANY discussion of “something more,” no matter how carefully it’s done. To me that is at least part of what’s behind this debate (maybe not you, but others). As I said before, whether or not there’s going to be a philosophy area is not my decision, but if there is one, I don’t know why you wouldn’t it want to be as I’ve suggested.

[cogito]

Actually, no. My main objection isn't the influence of postmodernism on philosophy (that's a separate issue entirely). My objection was the idea that any kind of philosophical discussion can only "help" the understanding of the sciences, and physics in particular. If you read back from the start of this, you will notice that I have tried several times to stress that point.

As you have noted, it IS a noticeable part of philosophy, with active rate of publications. I brought it out to show that a big portion of "academic philosophy" engages in concept that cannot help one understands science. In fact, it can only muddies and causes confusion. Metaphysical texts such as The Tao of Physics (which isn't a part of the postmodernist movement, or at least I don't think so) makes claims that even physicists would cringe. I know I did when it was one of my reading assignment. Thus, it is false that any kind of philosophy of science discussion can only help the understanding of science. Can it make the philosophy of science "stronger"? I don't know what "stronger" means. I would simply settle for it being more "accurate".

Zz.

Are you claiming that The Tao of Physics is, in any way, representative of academic philosophy? Fritjof Capra isn't a trained philosopher, nor is he associated with any academic program in philosophy. His work is psuedo-mystical mumbo-jumbo, not academic philosophy (and certainly not analytic philosophy). Out of curiousity, what has been your exposure to academic philosophy? Have you ever taken a philosophy of science class at a university? Normally, we academic philosphers discuss things like the the nature of inference to the best explanation, different models of theory confirmation, inductive inference and Bayesian epistemology, different interpretations of QM, the Bell experiments and their relationship to hidden variable theories, the metaphysically robust notion of randomness (i.e., uncaused), the nature of causation, etc.

You, and others here, should be wary of drawing inferences about philosophy generally based upon the sample of posts you read in the threads here. I've seen very few posts here that seem to have been written by people trained in analytic philosophy, and even fewer posts that seem to have been written by people with advanced training.

[marlon]

You, and others here, should be wary of drawing inferences about philosophy generally based upon the sample of posts you read in the threads here. I've seen very few posts here that seem to have been written by people trained in analytic philosophy, and even fewer posts that seem to have been written by people with advanced training.

???????????????????????????
Nobody here would draw inferences about philosophy based upon the posts here...we are not that courageous :uhh:
Besides, you CANNOT judge some writing based upon these socalled analytic philosophy-skills... What is that??? It does not exist. This was my whole point : you take some name (analytic philo...) and you make it seem like that is a science??? I wonder : by what right and by what justification???

marlon

[cogito]

???????????????????????????
Nobody here would draw inferences about philosophy based upon the posts here...we are not that courageous :uhh:
Besides, you CANNOT judge some writing based upon these socalled analytic philosophy-skills... What is that??? It does not exist. This was my whole point : you take some name (analytic philo...) and you make it seem like that is a science??? I wonder : by what right and by what justification???

marlon

Interesting. First you ask what skills are taught in analytic philosophy, and in the next breath you assert they don't exist. That sort of unfounded speculation isn't characteristic of science, is it? Don't worry, I won't judge your discipline based on the content of your posts...

Anyway, I'm not claiming that philosophy is science. I think that good science and good philosophy are continuous with each other, and their boundaries are not distinct. Good science is constrained by good epistemology, good philosophy of mind is constrained by cognitive science, good physics is constrained by formal logic, etc. etc. etc.

Cheers.

[Les Sleeth]

???????????????????????????
Nobody here would draw inferences about philosophy based upon the posts here...we are not that courageous :uhh:
Besides, you CANNOT judge some writing based upon these socalled analytic philosophy-skills... What is that??? It does not exist. This was my whole point : you take some name (analytic philo...) and you make it seem like that is a science??? I wonder : by what right and by what justification???

marlon


Hmmmmmm, so I'm wondering if this your idea of good analytic skills:

Philisophy will never build bridges, take us to the moon or perform organ-transplantations. Besides, like i said philisophy is something that belongs to the exact sciences because it is gonna be the astrophysicists that will think "freely" about the structure of our universe. I have no problem with philisophy because it belongs to math and physics and all other exact sciences. I DO have a problem with people that say they are philisopher but who have never been educated in exact science. This is like saying I am a surgeon but i do not know how to perform surgery.

I just don't see how someone can study philisophy at college for four years and then say he or she is master in philisophy??? Where is the exact science??? They are the reason that philisopy exists. All the other stuff is just personal opinions and interpretations that have nothing to do with the way alpha-sciences work.

It is amazing to me that anyone claiming to be educated would post that bit of reasoning in public. Loving your children won't build bridges either, so does that mean it's valueless? How does one look at all that's going on in the world, from social and political issues to personal development concerns, and judge the worth of something by if it can build a bridge?

And then to imply anyone's PhD is inferior to yours because it's not in the exact sciences seems incredibly self centered to me. If I've learned anything in life, it is to respect others expertise. Just because you know nothing about philosophy, and because your are enthralled with your own subject matter, doesn't mean there aren't other topics relevant to human existence.

[marlon]

[QUOTE=Les Sleeth Loving your children won't build briges either, so does that mean it's valueless? How does one look at all that's going on in the world, from social and political issues to personal development concerns, and judge the worth of something by if it can build a bridge?

[/QUOTE]

hahaha, nice try...

loving your children is NOT a science!!! I never said it was irrelevant. Philisophy is not a science and i can assure you that loving your children is much more beneficial for mankind then some self-proclaimed "semi-scientist" waisting our time and oxygène while making useless thoughts...

Ofcourse any PHD in physics is totally SUPERIORISSIMO to a PHD in philosophy. It seems to me you have a memory-problem since you keep on using the same false and illusive arguments to make your point. A PhD in philosophy SHOULD NOT exist because you do not have to do anything for it. It is just a gift from someone with the same view...There is no research to be done...No theorems to be proved or no problems to be solved.

The things you do are : inventing your own problem and then state that you solved it... WHAT A JOKE, haha...

If all these semi-scientists would spend some more time on loving their children, the world would be a much better place. Leave the science for the REAL scientists who solve REAL problems...

marlon :wink:

[marlon]

I know a guy who did his master thesis in philosophy on NINTENDO-games,... he sure sucked at playing them,...what a joke...

marlon

[cogito]

Ofcourse any PHD in physics is totally SUPERIORISSIMO to a PHD in philosophy. It seems to me you have a memory-problem since you keep on using the same false and illusive arguments to make your point. A PhD in philosophy SHOULD NOT exist because you do not have to do anything for it. It is just a gift from someone with the same view...There is no research to be done...No theorems to be proved or no problems to be solved.

The things you do are : inventing your own problem and then state that you solved it... WHAT A JOKE, haha...



I didn't think that those trained in physics were prone to make assertions like these without evidence to back them up. According to your assumptions about philosophy, my dissertation on the epistemology of inference to the best explanation and theory confirmation will require no research (what a relief!). I didn't think an empiricist would hold forth on another discipline about which he is ignorant. Then again, I wouldn't expect someone trained solely in the "exact" sciences to understand this epistemological point. After all, you are merely a mechanic with a diploma (well, not quite, an actual mechanic can fix your car). Apparently, where you come from, you can get a Ph.D. in physics merely for being an arrogant jackass. :smile:

Cheers!

[marlon]

Interesting. First you ask what skills are taught in analytic philosophy, and in the next breath you assert they don't exist. That sort of unfounded speculation isn't characteristic of science, is it? Don't worry, I won't judge your discipline based on the content of your posts...


Sorry, I think you did not get the point. Indeed i state that they do not exist. This is exactly the reason why i asked what skills are thaught in analytic philosphy??? Basically i mean : what are they ??? name me a few ???

Now i am sure you will give me a long list of answer that are valid in your opinion. Then i will disagree by saying they are no skills or they are general concepts that apply to anything and nothing at the same time...You know : anything and nothing at the same time = useless and non-existing in terms of having some real value...

Just try me...

regards
marlon

[marlon]

I didn't think that those trained in physics were prone to make assertions like these without evidence to back them up. According to your assumptions about philosophy, my dissertation on the epistemology of inference to the best explanation and theory confirmation will require no research (what a relief!). I didn't think an empiricist would hold forth on another discipline about which he is ignorant. Then again, I wouldn't expect someone trained solely in the "exact" sciences to understand this epistemological point. After all, you are merely a mechanic with a diploma (well, not quite, an actual mechanic can fix your car). Apparently, where you come from, you can get a Ph.D. in physics merely for being an arrogant jackass. :smile:

Cheers!
Wow, i am really blown away here. Such strong arguments you have here...So anyone who thinks that philosophy is no science, basically does not understand it??? mmm, in some sick philisophical way i may appear to be arrogant to you, but you sure as hell seem out of arguments to me... I am sure your great dissertation should be rewarded with the Nobel prize for Philisophy... congrats man...

marlon, the arrogant jackass to you BUT real scientist to all others...

[marlon]

After all, you are merely a mechanic with a diploma (well, not quite, an actual mechanic can fix your car).

Cheers!

What ???

Do you even know what QFT is ???
It is a little bit more then epistemolgy bla bla bla...

regards
marlon

[cogito]

Sorry, I think you did not get the point. Indeed i state that they do not exist. This is exactly the reason why i asked what skills are thaught in analytic philosphy??? Basically i mean : what are they ??? name me a few ???

Now i am sure you will give me a long list of answer that are valid in your opinion. Then i will disagree by saying they are no skills or they are general concepts that apply to anything and nothing at the same time...You know : anything and nothing at the same time = useless and non-existing in terms of having some real value...

Just try me...

regards
marlon

Interesting. So, formal logic applies to anything and nothing at the same time? The logic of inductive inferences applies to anything and nothing at the same time? Will these two counter-examples to your assinine claim suffice, or you would like to continue looking like an idiot? I don't mind, if you'd like to thoroughly convince the readers of this thread that you don't know what you're talking about. Any Ph.D. specializing in philosophy of science or epistemology would know more about the way science works, and the way scientific theories are justified, than a mere technician like you. :smile:

Cheers!

[cogito]

Wow, i am really blown away here. Such strong arguments you have here...So anyone who thinks that philosophy is no science, basically does not understand it??? mmm, in some sick philisophical way i may appear to be arrogant to you, but you sure as hell seem out of arguments to me... I am sure your great dissertation should be rewarded with the Nobel prize for Philisophy... congrats man...

marlon, the arrogant jackass to you BUT real scientist to all others...

Is that what I claimed? Apparently your training didn't include the relatively rudimentary skill of comprehensive reading. I didn't claim that philosophy is a science, I claimed that science and philosophy were distinct disciplines that were continuous with one another (in that the boundaries between them are fuzzy). To take a clear example, the boundaries between neurophysiology, cognitive science, and philosophy of mind are not distinct, even though they tend to focus on different questions.

Don't despair at your inability to read well and thoroughly. An introductory course in philosophy may be just what you need! :smile:

Cheers!

[marlon]

Interesting. So, formal logic applies to anything and nothing at the same time? The logic of inductive inferences applies to anything and nothing at the same time? Will these two counter-examples to your assinine claim sufficife, or you would like to continue looking like an idiot? I don't mind, if you'd like to thoroughly convince the readers of this thread that you don't know what you're talking about. Any Ph.D. specializing in philosophy of science or epistemology would know more about the way science works, and the way scientific theories are justified, than a mere technician like you. :smile:

Cheers!
Don't cheat man, you are making yourself look incredibely stupid now, sorry. Formal Logic belongs to the mathmaticians.

We know at best how theories work since we are the ones that make them. Stop being such a big baby about this. What philisopher created GTR or the Standar Model. Would you call the Friedman models to be mechanic??? I think you need to brush up your physics courses.

And what is this stuff about "convincing the other readers...". Any real scientist will be able to see that YOU are the one with lack of REAL scientific knowledge. Don't bring in other people just because you ain't got nothing else to say. It makes you look quite "out of philosophical inspiration"

marlon

[marlon]

I claimed that science and philosophy were distinct disciplines that were continuous with one another


Now what a clear anwser...distinct yet continuous...The examples you gave all refer to real medical and physical sciences. Where exactly does this philisophy-thing come into play. I still don't see the use of your "disipline"


Please, do try to be more clear in stead of replying with vague answers and then say that people did not get it. A course in exact science may be just what you need.


marlon

[marlon]

Don't despair at your inability to read well and thoroughly. An introductory course in philosophy may be just what you need! :smile:

Cheers!

hahahahahaha, again nice one, this is really funny. Some words of advice to you, my dear friend.

explaining something difficult in a difficult way is easy...
explaining something difficult in an easy way is difficult...

Learn from this, man

marlon

[cogito]

Don't cheat man, you are making yourself look incredibely stupid now, sorry. Formal Logic belongs to the mathmaticians.

We know at best how theories work since we are the ones that make them. Stop being such a big baby about this. What philisopher created GTR or the Standar Model. Would you call the Friedman models to be mechanic??? I think you need to brush up your physics courses.

And what is this stuff about "convincing the other readers...". Any real scientist will be able to see that YOU are the one with lack of REAL scientific knowledge. Don't bring in other people just because you ain't got nothing else to say. It makes you look quite "out of philosophical inspiration"

marlon

You're on crack. Formal Logic is taught by both philosophy and mathematics departments across the country (and in far more philosophy departments than mathematical departments in subjects like modal logic, and almost exclusively in philosophy departments in subjects like first-order predicate calculus). Frege was a philosopher, Russell was a philosopher, as were Carnap and Quine and Putnam. Seriously, you look like a chump when you make claims like this.

And, again, please learn to read closely. I didn't say that philosophers constructed current scientific theories, I claimed that philosophers of science and epistemologists understand better than you (and, in general, better than practicing scientists) how scientific theories are confirmed. I bet you don't know the first thing about inferences to best explanation, or the debates about the purported criteria for justified inferences to the best explanations (i.e., simiplicity, elegance, explanatory depth, predictions, fecundity, coherence with established theory, etc.). So, what do you know about the different models of scientific theory confirmation? What's the hypothetico-deductive model, and what its criticisms? What is the deductive-nomological account of scientific explanation? You don't know a damn thing about the normative dimension of scientific practice; about how it justifies belief, and how theories are themselves confirmed. This is why you are nothing more than a glorified mechanic. Perhaps you should spend a day researching what philosophers actually do, and what the areas of expertise are for philosophers of science, before you toss off your allegations concerning something of which you know not what.


Cheers!

[cogito]

Now what a clear anwser...distinct yet continuous...The examples you gave all refer to real medical and physical sciences. Where exactly does this philisophy-thing come into play. I still don't see the use of your "disipline"


Please, do try to be more clear in stead of replying with vague answers and then say that people did not get it. A course in exact science may be just what you need.


marlon

Do you not understand the terms 'distinct' and 'continuous'? Washington state is a distinct state from Oregon state, and yet they are continuous with one another in that they have a boundary where they intersect (in the Columbia river, as a matter of fact...). Similarly with the disciplines I mentioned above. Neurophysiology doesn't particularly focus on questions of intentionality or the qualitative character of experience or with the nature of cognitive architecture and mental representations (though defintely more on the latter two than the former). Philosophers of mind focus on these questions. If you want to check out the work of some top-notch philosopher's of mind, check out the online papers of Jerry Fodor, Ned Bloch, David Chalmers. That way, you will know a bit about the subject before you spout off, a priori, your nonsense.

Cheers!

[hypnagogue]

I appreciate that this is a contentious discussion, but that doesn't give license for personal jabs. Let's keep this on the level of an academic discussion without descending into a flame war.

[cogito]

hahahahahaha, again nice one, this is really funny. Some words of advice to you, my dear friend.

explaining something difficult in a difficult way is easy...
explaining something difficult in an easy way is difficult...

Learn from this, man

marlon


How would you know? When has anything been successfully explained to you? :biggrin:

[marlon]

And, again, please learn to read closely. I didn't say that philosophers constructed current scientific theories, I claimed that philosophers of science and epistemologists understand better than you (and, in general, better than practicing scientists) how scientific theories are confirmed. I bet you don't know the first thing about inferences to best explanation, or the debates about the purported criteria for justified inferences to the best explanations (i.e., simiplicity, elegance, explanatory depth, predictions, fecundity, coherence with established theory, etc.). So, what do you know about the different models of scientific theory confirmation? What's the hypothetico-deductive model, and what it's criticisms? What is the deductive-nomological account of scientific explanation? You don't know a damn thing about the normative dimension of scientific practice; about how it justifies belief, and how theories are themselves confirmed. This is why you are nothing more than a glorified mechanic.


Cheers!

Again a mathmatecian is far more apt in formal logic then any philisopher will ever be...regardless of whose names you recite...

Your theory on "theories" really makes me laugh my *** off. We construct the models and we understand them the best. I find it very self-centered to say that some philosopher understands the "mechanics" of theories better then the actual constructers of such theories. Again what you do is invent some field of knowledge and then say that you are the best in it. Sorry, this way of philisophical thinking will never be approved by any real scientific community what so ever, regardless of what you say. Do you know what dynamical mass generation is ? What is the Higgs-mechanism or what are the main differences between loop quantum gravity and string theory...stop making a fool out of yourself and name me some real things you are able to do with your field of amuzement, in stead of picking on the real knowledge that shapes our contemporary society.

Again i ask you : what is this weak argument of being mechanic, does this apply to all fysics??? If it doesn't then stop using it, otherwise join the group of failed wannabe-scientist-peole... Start making some real usefull statements.


marlon
marlon

[marlon]

I appreciate that this is a contentious discussion, but that doesn't give license for personal jabs. Let's keep this on the level of an academic discussion without descending into a flame war.


Ok, no problem...if will be more aware of my choise of words in the process of bringing a lost collegue back to reality...oopppss there goes gravity...we only get one shot...

regards
marlon

[marlon]

How would you know? When has anything been successfully explained to you? :biggrin:


Hey, do try to be more polite man...
In the long run, you will see that i am only helping you out here...

regards
marlon

[marlon]

Do you not understand the terms 'distinct' and 'continuous'? Washington state is a distinct state from Oregon state, and yet they are continuous with one another in that they have a boundary where they intersect (in the Columbia river, as a matter of fact...). Similarly with the disciplines I mentioned above. Neurophysiology doesn't particularly focus on questions of intentionality or the qualitative character of experience or with the nature of cognitive architecture and mental representations (though defintely more on the latter two than the former). Philosophers of mind focus on these questions. If you want to check out the work of some top-notch philosopher's of mind, check out the online papers of Jerry Fodor, Ned Bloch, David Chalmers. That way, you will know a bit about the subject before you spout off, a priori, your nonsense.

Cheers!

This is exactly what i mean. It is easy to talk in vague terms and then say that someone knows nothing about it. This is just as easy as inventing a certain field of knowledge and then say you are a specialist. Where is your science advisor medal ??? :wink:

marlon

[cogito]

Again a mathmatecian is far more apt in formal logic then any philisopher will ever be...regardless of whose names you recite...

Your theory on "theories" really makes me laugh my *** off. We construct the models and we understand them the best. I find it very self-centered to say that some philosopher understands the "mechanics" of theories better then the actual constructers of such theories. Again what you do is invent some field of knowledge and then say that you are the best in it. Sorry, this way of philisophical thinking will never be approved by any real scientific community what so ever, regardless of what you say. Do you know what dynamical mass generation is ? What is the Higgs-mechanism or what are the main differences between loop quantum gravity and string theory...stop making a fool out of yourself and name me some real things you are able to do with your field of amuzement, in stead of picking on the real knowledge that shapes our contemporary society.

Again i ask you : what is this weak argument of being mechanic, does this apply to all fysics??? If it doesn't then stop using it, otherwise join the group of failed wannabe-scientist-peole... Start making some real usefull statements.


marlon
marlon


I asked you some questions above about the scientific theories. Are you going to answer them? What do you know about the way scientific theories are justified. Why do they give us reasons for belief. Given that almost all scientific theories have been shown to contain false statements, why should be have any confindence in the current set of scientific theories? Of course, the response will involve reference to abduction, or inference to the best explanation. But how is that supposed to work? What are the criteria for such an inference? Come on now, if you're so intimately familiar with scientific theories, you should be able to answer this simple question, shouldn't you?

Further, do you even know who Frege is? Or Russell, or Quine, or Benson Mates, for that matter? These are philosophers and top-notch logicians. Logic was not only invented (or discovered, depending on how you feel about that topic) by philosophers, it was formalized by philosophers. The major advances have, by and large, come from philosophers. It is currently taught widely (and, for some forms of logic, universally) by philosophers. Yet you claim it falls under the category 'mathematics', as though every deductive discipline is mathematics. Guess what? You don't know what you're talking about.

When I call you a mechanic, I mean that you are a technician. You don't understand the normative dimension of your own field of study. You don't understand what it takes to confirm a scientific theory, nor do you know what explanation consists in, nor how such an explanation could justify belief. You are completely divorced from the relationship science has with rationality and belief. I'm sure you are able to regurgitate that which you've been spoon fed by your professors. Perhaps you can take measurements. Maybe you understand enough to set up your own experiments. You are technically proficient, though ignorant of the epistemology that undergirds your discipline.

Cheers!

[cogito]

This is exactly what i mean. It is easy to talk in vague terms and then say that someone knows nothing about it. This is just as easy as inventing a certain field of knowledge and then say you are a specialist. Where is your science advisor medal ??? :wink:

marlon

The terms will seem vague to anybody that doesn't know what mean. The term 'abduction' for instance, refers to a type of inference. If you think the term is vague, then you are unfamiliar with the type of inference to which it refers. If you would like the term to be less vague (that is, if you would like to be less ignorant about philosophy); if you are interested in knowing what philosophy is about, you should try reading some philosophy, or taking a class on the subject. As to your medal, congratulations! You are a science advisor on the internet! :tongue:

[marlon]

I asked you some questions above about the scientific theories. Are you going to answer them? What do you know about the way scientific theories are justified. Why do they give us reasons for belief. Given that almost all scientific theories have been shown to contain false statements, why should be have any confindence in the current set of scientific theories? Of course, the response will involve reference to abduction, or inference to the best explanation. But how is that supposed to work? What are the criteria for such an inference? Come on now, if you're so intimately familiar with scientific theories, you should be able to answer this simple question, shouldn't you?

Further, do you even know who Frege is? Or Russell, or Quine, or Benson Mates, for that matter? These are philosophers and top-notch logicians. Logic was not only invented (or discovered, depending on how you feel about that topic) by philosophers, it was formalized by philosophers. The major advances have, by and large, come from philosophers. It is currently taught widely be philosophers. Yet you claim it falls under the category 'mathematics', as though every deductive discipline is mathematics. Guess what? You don't know what you're talking about.

When I call you a mechanic, I mean that you are a technician. You don't understand the normative dimension of your own field of study. You don't understand what it takes to confirm a scientific theory, nor do you know what explanation consists in, nor how such an explanation could justify belief. You are completely divorced from the relationship science has with rationality and belief. I'm sure you are able to regurgitate that which you've been spoon fed by your professors. Perhaps you can take measurements. Maybe you understand enough to set up your own experiments. You are technically proficient, though ignorant of the epistemology that undergirds your discipline.

Cheers!
Pfff, this is getting a bit boring...
Let me give you this example : The Standard Model does the best job up till now when it comes to explaining the behaviour of all elementary particles and the fundamental interactions, except gravity which is described by General Relativity. The accuracy of QED is this good that if you were to measure the distance between your head and the moon, you would not be able to tell whether you measured from the top of your head or the bottom...

The way exact science works is NO science on itself, hence philisophy is useless in that respect. I am sure i stated this before, but obviously you have a problem with memorizing previously said information. I can see now, why you ain't no real scientist since you do NOT appear to have the brains for it...don't worry, this is not an insult, just don't try to invent your own science as some form of personal confort...

When experimental data are available, we try to set up some modell that describes these data. I mean, we try to find laws with which we are able to reproduce these data in different conditions, ofcourse everytime backed up with the experimental evidence. Ofcourse models are never totally right. That is why we work with regimes in physiscs. Newtonian mechanics does a great job in explaining friction, gravity on this planet, motion of cars and falling objects. When the scale of distance is very small, things are wrong. That is where Quantumechanics come into play... If we enlarge things like speed, Special and General relativity comes in...We know exactly when we need to apply these models.

When a certain model does not predict the right data. I mean, when experiments give other data then theoretical models we can do two things : we can change the model and adapt it to match the data or we can write an entire new theory. The laws of conservation where not given up in the advent of QFT. What we did is postulate the existence of new particles and wrote models for them, like the standard model. This is how new concepts are created.

Did you see me making any use what so ever of your philisophy-stuff. Indeed no. Keep in mind that physics describes nature : it does not tell how nature works the way she works. We describe gravity, yet we do not explain why it is there...we create usefull things for mankind and that is why we are the most usefull...

And no, formal logic is a disipline of mathematics since this way if thinking is inherent to math and not to what you call philosophy. Can't you see you are redundant ???

marlon

[marlon]

As to your medal, congratulations! You are a science advisor on the internet! :tongue:

and you are NOT :biggrin:

marlon

[Les Sleeth]

This is exactly what i mean. It is easy to talk in vague terms and then say that someone knows nothing about it. This is just as easy as inventing a certain field of knowledge and then say you are a specialist. Where is your science advisor medal.

That's what I suspect your problem is, you think that medal has made you a genius about everything. Our illustrious mentor (:smile: no sarcasm intended) has asked for civility. But what about the expectation that someone trusted with Advisor status will debate with facts, will honestly respond to challenges, and will be respectful of others' expertise?

My opening comment of this thread "let's get it on," was not an invitation to an ad hominem melee. I assumed you knew I meant a debate of the sort that characterizes intelligent, respectful, educated people. But you have debated like a thug rather than a gentleman and scholar, which is very difficult to tolerate by anyone who's put conscientious effort into mastering some specialty.

Maybe the philosophy area and the science area needs to come to some sort of understanding that's long overdue, I don't know. But that doesn't excuse you from making your case with facts and logic, and it doesn't justify your shallow and mocking retorts.

[marlon]

That's what I suspect your problem is, you think that medal has made you a genius about everything. Our illustrious mentor (:smile: no sarcasm intended) has asked for civility. But what about the expectation that someone trusted with Advisor status will debate with facts, will honestly respond to challenges, and will be respectful of others' expertise?

My opening comment of this thread "let's get it on," was not an invitation to an ad hominem melee. I assumed you knew I meant a debate of the sort that characterizes intelligent, respectful, educated people. But you have debated like a thug rather than a gentleman and scholar, which is very difficult to tolerate by anyone who's put conscientious effort into mastering some specialty.

Maybe the philosophy area and the science area needs to come to some sort of understanding that's long overdue, I don't know. But that doesn't excuse you from making your case with facts and logic, and it doesn't justify your shallow and mocking retorts.

Excuse me dear sir, but your collegue was not exactly as polite as needed to be. Besides i never heard no real argument from him and he never answered my questions.

In the end, i have a problem with people that stand by the side and hop in from time to time to say that we are not discussing in "the right way".

With all due respect, who are you to say all this??? Please, only post when you have something usefull to say. Apparently this is a common property of all you philisophers. Just read my previous posts and look at how a talk about things in other boards, then judge me.

About the medal, that was meant to be a joke...seems to me someone is a bit unhappy whith the fact he has none. Do you recall how this thread was started or do i need to refresh your memory??? Why o why do all philosophers have such a bad memory? Is it to forget rapidly what nonsense you guys produce on a day ??? :smile:

marlon

[Les Sleeth]

Excuse me dear sir, but your collegue was not exactly as polite as needed to be. Besides i never heard no real argument from him and he never answered my questions.

His ire is at your arrogance and rudeness. You started it, not him. He's given you arguments so "real" that any intelligent person would be apologizing for exhibiting the kind of disrespect you've shown. The problem is, you really don't know what you are talking about, yet you are acting like you do.

With all due respect, who are you to say all this??? Please, only post when you have something usefull to say.

This was designated MY thread. Do you know the meaning of arrogance? It is derived from the word "arrogate," which essentially means to assume control or power over a situation one is not entitled to or qualified for.


Apparently this is a common property of all you philisophers.

More sarcastic crap. Talk logic, state facts, make your case.


Just read my previous posts and look at how a talk about things in other boards, then judge me.

This ain't about other boards. No one is challenging your science competence, it is your depth and breath of education, along with your respect for other perspectives that's in question.


About the medal, that was meant to be a joke...seems to me someone is a bit unhappy whith the fact he has none. Do you recall how this thread was started or do i need to refresh your memory???

Only an unaccomplished 24 year old would think something like that. Live awhile and come back to tell me all the successes you've had. If I have any concern about that medal, it has to do with hoping the potential of philosophy will be recognized here for helping orient philosophically-minded people toward empirical thinking. In a way I do hope to have more power to guide PF's philosophy in that direction, and away from the sort crazy stuff that scares Zapper and others.

[marlon]

In my opinion, no one of the two of you answered my questions. Instead you repley with insults...especially you Lee...

Don't mix competence with arrogance and incompetence with philosophical knowledge...


regards
marlon

[hypnagogue]

In case anyone missed the message, ad hominem attacks are unacceptable. I've said this twice already in this thread, and I meant it. If you cannot show some level of respect for your fellow PF members, don't bother posting.

[RetiredMD]

In case anyone missed the message, ad hominem attacks are unacceptable. I've said this twice already in this thread, and I meant it. If you cannot show some level of respect for your fellow PF members, don't bother posting.


A stroke prevents me from using a keyboard comfortably and has kept me a lurker at Physics Forums for something like two years. I made the exertion to join today because there is something I want to say.

I don’t understand why mentors didn’t warn Marlon for writing false information, and for the discourteous deportment he assumed early on in the debate. In other areas of Physics Forums mentors are quick to correct or even censure such blatant disregard of facts and impolite pomposity. Yet when Marlon openly misrepresented philosophy, and made it clear he didn’t respect Les and Cogito enough to even manage sincerity, the silence was deafening from Physics Forums supervisors. Moreover, when comments turned angry you treated both Les and Marlon the same, when in reality Marlon was far more responsible.

In my opinion you left Les hanging out to dry. I’ve read LWSleeth’s thoughts from the days of your previous format. I believe he is the best natural philosopher there and courageous too. He is consistently real, not just a book philosopher like so many are. Without him Physics Forums would not be as interesting.

[Fliption]

Yet when Marlon openly misrepresented philosophy, and made it clear he didn’t respect Les and Cogito enough to even manage sincerity, the silence was deafening from Physics Forums supervisors. Moreover, when comments turned angry you treated both Les and Marlon the same, when in reality Marlon was far more responsible.

In my opinion you left Les hanging out to dry. I’ve read LWSleeth’s thoughts from the days of your previous format. I believe he is the best natural philosopher there and courageous too. He is consistently real, not just a book philosopher like so many are. Without him Physics Forums would not be as interesting.

Amen to that.

[hypnagogue]

RetiredMD, thanks for your concern. You may be right that more immediate moderator action was warranted here. If anything, I felt that letting the conversation take its course was productive.

The kind of anti-philosophy sentiment expressed in this thread seems to be somewhat common attitude among 'hard-nosed' scientist types, and as this is first and foremost a science site, I imagine there are a number of such people here. So perhaps it is of more value to let them air out their views against philosophy and then make the case for philosophy, or even in some instances point out where their conceptions are outright false, than to squash the argument before it begins. I readily acknowledge that some of marlon's ideas about philosophy are not just disparaging but outright false. However, I think that they may be common misconceptions about philosophy, especially at a site such as this. If that is the case, then Les and cogito have done a great service to battle against such ignorance of the discipline, a service which could not have been fully realized had the conversation been immediately halted. That said, I fully recognize your concerns here and fully accept the brunt of any criticisms you might have.

I apologize if it appears as if I've left Les or anyone else out to dry. I agree with you that Les is a valuable member of PF, and that our community is better off for having him. While none of the recent posters in this thread are entirely without fault in terms of how they have conducted themselves, I don't mean to give the impression that they are all equally to blame either (although I can see how it might appear that way). Les's last post in this thread has been deleted in an effort to remove any trace of marlon's unacceptable ad hominem attack more than anything else. Suffice it to say that appropriate action has been taken behind the scenes.

[marlon]

Les's last post in this thread has been deleted in an effort to remove any trace of marlon's unacceptable ad hominem attack more than anything else. Suffice it to say that appropriate action has been taken behind the scenes.


mmmm

Suffice it to say that this is a very philosophical statement... :uhh: :uhh: :uhh:

marlon

[Les Sleeth]

I believe he is the best natural philosopher there . . . .

Thank you for your kind and supportive words, I'll try to get back to my old self! :cool: At first I thought when you described me as a "natural philosopoher" that those familar with naturalism might not agree. But after thinking about it I realized that I really do believe everything has come about throught natural principles, and that would include a creator if there is one. I think where I'd vary from most naturalists is that I don't believe all natural principles that exist are necessarily embodied in physics. Hey you might have given me an idea for a new thread, so thanks for that too! :smile:

[Les Sleeth]

While none of the recent posters in this thread are entirely without fault in terms of how they have conducted themselves, I don't mean to give the impression that they are all equally to blame either (although I can see how it might appear that way). Les's last post in this thread has been deleted . . .

I do regret my over the top and inappropriate anger at Zapper, and that I prepared that last bit of dripping sarcasm for Marlon you deleted. Now everyone knows I sometimes do take things personally, which is a trait I have been trying to eliminate from my psychology. As RetiredMD hinted, I did feel like I was under personal attack, but I should have handled it better. Now I wish I'd had only been mildly sarcastic (at most! :smile: ).

[Tom Mattson]

Why philosophy?

While philosophical views and methods may vary widely, most of what is regarded as professional or academic philosophy makes careful, rigorous use of logic, and this is where its credibility comes from, at least to me. The "exactness" of philosophy resides in the standards imposed by logic.

Humans have a desire to pose questions whose answers are not accessible to scientific inquiry. This will always be the case, and pretending that the questions do not exist is not a realistic option. Therefore, it becomes necessary to distinguish between those who address these questions well, and those who address them poorly. Those people who have dedicated themselves to addressing such questions well are philosophers.

Just take a look at a few articles which come from reputable sources in philosophy. Note the insistence on valid logic in each case.

Actualism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/actualism)
Category Theory (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/category-theory)
Bayesian Epistemology (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian)
Logic and Ontology (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ontology)

[Bystander]

(snip)Humans have a desire to pose questions whose answers are not accessible to scientific inquiry.

Check.

This will always be the case, and pretending that the questions do not exist is not a realistic option.

Check.

Therefore, it becomes necessary to distinguish between those who address these questions well, and those who address them poorly.

How?

(snip)Just take a look at a few articles which come from reputable sources in philosophy. Note the insistence on valid logic in each case.

Actualism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/actualism)

" -- everything that can be said to exist in any sense -- is actual. Put another way, actualism denies that there is any kind of being beyond actuality; to be is to be actual. Actualism therefore stands in stark contrast to possibilism, which, as we've seen, takes the things there are to include possible but non-actual objects. " :bugeye: :eek: :bugeye: :zzz: Uhh --- not "check."

Category Theory (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/category-theory)

Check.
Bayesian Epistemology (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian)

Check.
Logic and Ontology (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ontology)

Check.

Physics: the standards of "quality" are consistency with conservation principles, GR to Newtonian mechanics, thermo, QM. Philosophy: the standards of quality are consistency with principles of logic, and what else? Seriously, how much effort is the clarification of "actualism" vs. "possibilism" worth?

[Tom Mattson]

Tom: Therefore, it becomes necessary to distinguish between those who address these questions well, and those who address them poorly.

Bystander: How?


By insisting on well-defined terms, valid logic where applicable, and experiential confirmation where applicable.


" -- everything that can be said to exist in any sense -- is actual. Put another way, actualism denies that there is any kind of being beyond actuality; to be is to be actual. Actualism therefore stands in stark contrast to possibilism, which, as we've seen, takes the things there are to include possible but non-actual objects. " :bugeye: :eek: :bugeye: :zzz: Uhh --- not "check."


My post asked the reader to note the insistence on good logic, and to accept that good logic is a measure of the "exactness" of philosophy.

Determining whether the subject matter is deemed important or interesting is outside the scope of what I asked.


Philosophy: the standards of quality are consistency with principles of logic, and what else?


Philosophy is not pure logic of course. All philosophical schools of thought actually take a position on certain matters, which means that premises have to be explicitly given. These premises are evaluated according to how well-defined their logical and non-logical vocabularies are, and whether they are consistent with what we observe. The proceeding inferences are evaluated according to the rules of logic.


Seriously, how much effort is the clarification of "actualism" vs. "possibilism" worth?


It's worth however much effort you are willing to spend on it. As for me, it's not of much interest. I selected the article because it makes explicit use of symbolic modal logic.

Incidentally, my favorite topics in philosophy are formal logic and the metaphysics of space and time, so I concentrate on those.

[Les Sleeth]

Incidentally, my favorite topics in philosophy are formal logic and the metaphysics of space and time, so I concentrate on those.

It would be interesting to hear some of your thoughts on the metaphysics of space and time. They are also very interesting to me. Any chance of you starting a thread to explore that?

[Moonbear]

I've only skimmed much of this thread, but I get the impression that many here don't appreciate why philosophy is included as a part of a science forum site. As Les has been pointing out, logical argument is one of the hallmarks of philosophy. Although there are a lot of nuts attracted to philosophy, just as there are nuts attracted to science, they are not representative of the field of study. Indeed, all fields of science are branches of philosophy, and the origin of scientific method can be credited to philosophy. The highest degree offered for a scientist is the Ph.D., or Doctor of Philosophy.

When there are facts available for an argument, they must be used, and philosophers are aware of this. However, as much of those fields of philosophy have branched off into the other sciences, philosophers continue to seek explanations for those things that do not come with easy to observe, factual data. Their theories then can either be studied in more detail, as tools become available, by one of the existing sciences, or perhaps will form the basis of a new field of scientific inquiry. There's no way to predict this.

If you read the works of real philosophers, the rigor for logical arguments is even stronger than in some of the other sciences; they leave no room for skipping a step or making an assumption without explicitely stating it as an assumption.

While I know philosophy professors who truly hate teaching the course, because they think it's boring, I loved my course in formal logic. It was quite an eye-opener and while it was a bit bizarre to learn the symbols, it has turned out quite useful to hone my writing skills and improve my ability to present a convincing argument to other scientists, as well as to present an easily understood explanation of topics to my students.

[Nereid]

I've not had the time to read all this lately, but just to add a small comment to Moonbear's excellent post: just as in science, so too in philosophy there are terms which have narrow and precise meanings (well known to those active in the field). Sometimes, too, some terms look like ordinary (English) words, just as in physics or other sciences (think of 'work', or 'energy'). This can lead the unwary reader to read a solid piece of good philosophy and conclude that it's just waffle (OK, some bits of philosophy come across as waffle even after you understand the terms!); but that's the case in some areas of science too, esp where the mathematical (model) bases haven't yet been well established (fewer good examples today than, say, 50 years ago).

[metacristi]

I myself feel sometimes (much more stronger feeling in the past) that philosophers just waste our time in their quest to find justification for virtually everything.Something which,of course,scientists never do since we observe that we can proceed from a certain point on with some axioms,empirical observations and a methodology (having both logical and empirical aspects;settling also the situation of unobservables in science) from which to build a harmonious,internally coherent and simple,system providing us the so called 'objective' knowledge.

To use one of Popper's examples,when trying to determine the speed of a sand dune a scientist will never waste time by trying to answer questions like 'how many grains of sand are there?' or 'what really is a grain of sand?' how philosophers tend to do.Science does not need to answer all questions in order to deal with observable effects,to find conjectures 'working' for all our practical purposes at a certain moment at least.More or less pure pragmatism,in other words.But this in no way amount to say that they (philosophers) are wrong.I thought myself after graduating from university,deh 'scientistic' indoctrination is a reality,that we have reasons beyond all reasonable doubt to grant to science an absolute (forever) epistemological privilege.But after reading some philosophy (only after a graduation unfortunately,no link to Internet during my universitary years) I realized that my belief is unjustified.

Now I really wonder why have I considered once,not so many years ago by the way,philosophy as being without any value...Still this does not mean that pure relativsm or feyerabendism (with the claim that science has no epistemological privilege) are the only rational paths remaining.For we still have more logical reasons,nonwithstanding that empiricism alone might not be enough,to grant an epistemological privilege,openly accepted as fallible however,at least to a minimal scientific method.

Thus the real problem I see is not that science has its roots in philosophy,it's clear that those who think that science is a sort of enclave and lead us always to the 'right way' are wrong.The problem is not even that philosophical ideas could not be of help for science itself,for example I do not think that a certain variant of dualism is impossible to become the first choice programm,it's still perfectly possible that sometime it will have epistemological privilege.

The problem is that some philosophers (philosophy of mind is a very good example) think that they have solved some 'puzzles',problems (of mind for example) once and forever NOW,already claiming epistemological privilege if no certitudes,for their view.Or this is inacceptable,their theoretical arguments are,still,not sound.Finally,as I've already argued in this thread,it is unrealistic to downgrade science at the level of an elaborated mith,as so many like to believe.Science has,still,epistemological privilege,nonwithstanding that only a fallible one,the necessity to rema[i]n,basically,open to all possibilities in no way subminate this,we merely have more 'pro' reasons (purely logical ones included).

As of now at least science and a (minimal) minimal scientific method is our best 'tool' to make sense of the observed facts.Sure not even the scientific method is 'set in stone',it should be able to 'evolve',the problem is that for a change to take place we need very,very,good reasons.Not the case now,this is why I think the approach of some in the philosophy of mind for example is wrong (though maybe in absolute they are right).The reality is that the actual emergentist conjecture of mind is still theoretically and empirically evolving and basically there is no good reason to change the method now (this in no way amounts to a claim that this will be forever the case as,unfortunately,enough many hardcore supporters of scientism like to believe).

[misogynisticfeminist]

I don't know why do people like certainty so much? Can we even accept for once that the thing facilitating discourse is uncertainty, and that uncertainty is a fact not only in science, but in life.

Why should philosophy arrive at definite answers to things? to me, philosophy is nothing more than a religion, I give you what a palette of theories, you go believe what you want, and argue on th validity of each. To me, saying that philosophy is inherently uncertain and thus it is a "sub" science, is like saying that just because sushi is raw, it is only fit for consumption by dogs.

Ongoing discourse is necessary so as to provide interpretations to new changes resulting from the evolution in both culture, society and even the physical sciences. Thus, you cannot expect philosophy to close its books,say ok, that's done, we have arrived at something definite, discussion's over.

I like to see philosophy as a more logical counterpart of religion. And perhaps to a theist, you would be able to understand if I related philosphy to religion.