Does this make any sense?

  • Thread starter omagdon7
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the intersection of philosophy and science, specifically in regards to the concept of "twoness." The idea of twoness, which suggests that everything in the universe conforms to a binary state, is a philosophical concept that cannot be proven or disproven by current scientific methods. While scientific principles are used in the explanation of twoness, there is no direct evidence linking the two. Additionally, there are questions raised about the applicability of twoness to various molecules and particles, highlighting the need for further discussion and exploration by philosophers.
  • #1
omagdon7
95
0
I read this thread and it looked like a bunch of people who are interested in philosophy just making stuff up about the nature of the universe. Are they just making assertions or does what they say agree with physics?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=103874"

Thanks in advance
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Philosophers are free to discuss science in the same way that they are free to discuss any idea or possibility really. If your question is, "is this philosophy or is it science?" then I think you already know the answer. It is philosophy.

There is no experimental evidence to support this "twoness" idea. That doesn't mean that it isn't true necessarily, it means that at present we cannot test the idea to see *for ourselves* whether or not it is true (and no method is provided for us to test the idea from the theorist).

As an example of what I mean, I can say that the gravitational field on the Earth is created by a spinning turtle located at the core of the earth. I can talk about gravity in my explanation of the "turtle field" theory and use all the correct measurements and descriptions from the body of Physics, but that does not mean that I have proof that gravity is *caused* directly by a turtle shell. While I am apparently basing my ideas on scientific fact, in reality I am merely using scientific fact to extrapolate a cause that cannot be sufficiently deduced by simply observing the facts alone.

At the same time, physicists can't explain the origin of gravity either. So my "spinning turtle" hypothesis cannot be proven wrong at the same time that I cannot be proven right. So it is just an idea.

In that same way, many actual scientific ideas are used in the explanation for twoness in the linked post above, but there is no evidence directly linking these scientific ideas to the idea of twoness. I am not saying it is wrong, just that there are many things you can question about it. For example, what is meant by symmetry and polarity? There are molecules with many VARYING degrees of polarity based on their electronegativities relative to one another. The polarity of water is not the same as the polarity of Hydrochloric acid which is not the same as the polarity for methane (which is so slightly polar it is practically non-polar). So how does this lend itself into a conclusion that everything conforms to twoness? Aren't non-polar molecules closer to "oneness" and what about the atom itself which taken as a whole is neutral even though it contains the ability to be polarized when it bonds with another? If you go beyond the simple positive and negative desriptions of atomic charges into particles like quarks, are these considered part of "oneness" even though they are an even further subdivision?

These are questions for philosophers, not scientists (who will save their minds from considering things like "twoness" or "spinning turtle shells" until some evidence arrives that forces them to consider it).
 
  • #3
for your response.

It is important to distinguish between philosophical discussions about the nature of the universe and scientific discussions about the physical laws that govern it. While there may be some overlap between the two, they are different fields of study with different methods and approaches.

In the thread you mentioned, it is likely that the individuals are discussing philosophical ideas and theories rather than making scientific claims. Philosophy allows for speculation and exploration of abstract concepts, while physics relies on empirical evidence and mathematical models to explain and predict physical phenomena.

That being said, there may be some connections between philosophical ideas and scientific theories. For example, some philosophical concepts such as determinism or causality may have implications for certain scientific theories. However, it is important to approach these discussions with an understanding of the limitations and differences between philosophy and science.

Ultimately, the ideas discussed in the thread may not necessarily align with current scientific understanding, but that does not mean they are without value. Philosophy allows for critical thinking and questioning of our understanding of the world, and this can lead to new insights and perspectives. So, while the discussions may not always align with physics, they can still be thought-provoking and valuable in their own right.
 

1. What does "making sense" mean in science?

In science, "making sense" refers to the logical and coherent interpretation of data and evidence to explain a phenomenon or support a hypothesis.

2. How do scientists determine if something makes sense?

Scientists use critical thinking and the scientific method to evaluate the validity and reliability of data and evidence. They also consider previous research and theories to determine if something makes sense in the context of current knowledge.

3. Can something make sense in one field of science but not in another?

Yes, different fields of science have unique methods, theories, and principles. Something may make sense in one field because it aligns with established knowledge and evidence, but it may not make sense in another field where different ideas and evidence are prioritized.

4. Is "making sense" subjective or objective in science?

In science, "making sense" is mostly objective, meaning it is based on evidence and logical reasoning. However, there may be some subjectivity in the interpretation of data and the application of theories, which can vary among scientists.

5. Can something still make sense even if it goes against current scientific beliefs?

Yes, science is constantly evolving and new evidence can challenge or change existing beliefs. However, for something to be accepted as making sense in science, it must be supported by solid evidence and be able to withstand scrutiny and replication by other scientists.

Similar threads

  • Other Physics Topics
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • Poll
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
22
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
69
Views
10K
Replies
10
Views
992
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
10
Replies
349
Views
16K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
1
Views
267
  • Sticky
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
1
Views
11K
Replies
26
Views
2K
Back
Top