Science,Knowledge, and Ontology

[JDStupi]

First off, I apologize for my lack of being able to pose this question/ line for discussion in as clear terms as possible.

What I essentially want to converse about is the question "To what extent is Scientifc Ontology necessary for the practice of Science?". Of course, their are various epistemological concerns regarding what we can know given only what is presented in conscious experience. Essentially the Kantian "We cannot reason beyond what we experience", but without the Kantian certainty regarding how propositions are justified. What I mean to say is if we take Existentialism seriously and stick to experience only and nothing beyond that, that is admitting that "God is dead", not in a religous sense only, but in the sense of the eradication of absolutes and Platonic certainty. We still hold the objective conception of a reality existing "with a God's eye view" independantly of us, though we have given up the deity itself (as an explanatory principle for physics). I am not debating this, I personally believe there to be a reality independant of us, but I do not wish to be dismissive towards these epistemological concerns.
Coming from within Science we have the various Sciences of the mind/brain that tell us about the mind's abstracting procedures and how the brain only registers differences and then from this constructs a pitcure of how reality exists that is meaningful for the organism. It tells us that our entire reality is constructed according to various developments in mind and brain science, but the sciences of mind/brain still presuppose the Ontology offered by discoveries in Physics. But How, if we are to take the Sciences of mind seriously are we to justify our use of The Scientific Ontology/MEtaphysic? If all we know is constructed and crafted in order to be intelligible how are we to suppose that we go beyond it and know "how things REALLY are?" It is at this point that some people deny Science, but it is for me a fact of life as plain as any other that Science works in the expansion of Knowledge (whatever that is) the question is how...The world picture provides a way to further our methodological inquiry and phrase questions to be posed to nature, but can we go as far as to say that independantly of us that is what exists and the exact way it exists?...The question then becomes one for study in the Cognitive Sciences...how do we go from constructing a completely uncertain reality which doesn't reflect objectivity, to developing systems of abstraction that lead to a structural knowledge of the universe? A kind of Indra's web presented in our experience

 

[yoda jedi]

First off, I apologize for my lack of being able to pose this question/ line for discussion in as clear terms as possible.

What I essentially want to converse about is the question "To what extent is Scientifc Ontology necessary for the practice of Science?". Of course, their are various epistemological concerns regarding what we can know given only what is presented in conscious experience. Essentially the Kantian "We cannot reason beyond what we experience", but without the Kantian certainty regarding how propositions are justified. What I mean to say is if we take Existentialism seriously and stick to experience only and nothing beyond that, that is admitting that "God is dead", not in a religous sense only, but in the sense of the eradication of absolutes and Platonic certainty. We still hold the objective conception of a reality existing "with a God's eye view" independantly of us, though we have given up the deity itself (as an explanatory principle for physics). I am not debating this, I personally believe there to be a reality independant of us, but I do not wish to be dismissive towards these epistemological concerns.
Coming from within Science we have the various Sciences of the mind/brain that tell us about the mind's abstracting procedures and how the brain only registers differences and then from this constructs a pitcure of how reality exists that is meaningful for the organism. It tells us that our entire reality is constructed according to various developments in mind and brain science, but the sciences of mind/brain still presuppose the Ontology offered by discoveries in Physics. But How, if we are to take the Sciences of mind seriously are we to justify our use of The Scientific Ontology/MEtaphysic? If all we know is constructed and crafted in order to be intelligible how are we to suppose that we go beyond it and know "how things REALLY are?" It is at this point that some people deny Science, but it is for me a fact of life as plain as any other that Science works in the expansion of Knowledge (whatever that is) the question is how...The world picture provides a way to further our methodological inquiry and phrase questions to be posed to nature, but can we go as far as to say that independantly of us that is what exists and the exact way it exists?...The question then becomes one for study in the Cognitive Sciences...how do we go from constructing a completely uncertain reality which doesn't reflect objectivity, to developing systems of abstraction that lead to a structural knowledge of the universe? A kind of Indra's web presented in our experience

cos reality exist...

 

[Maui]

cos reality exist...

What does that mean? What is a reality that doesn't exist?

 

[wuliheron]

Relational Frame Theory is the only science I know that presently bridges the cognitive and behavioral sciences in a self-consistent and non-trivial manner that has at least some empirical evidence.

 

[apeiron]

It is at this point that some people deny Science, but it is for me a fact of life as plain as any other that Science works in the expansion of Knowledge (whatever that is) the question is how...The world picture provides a way to further our methodological inquiry and phrase questions to be posed to nature, but can we go as far as to say that independantly of us...

The bit that always seems to go missing in these discussion is purpose. Everyone ends up accepting that minds model reality (we make maps of the terrain) and that because this relationship seems to work, there probably is both the map we make and also the terrain that "exists" and is "real".

But where confusion continues is that it is not admitted that the full equation is model + purpose = outcome.

So what does it mean to "know" in practice. It usually boils down to wanting control over the world. And that in turn means modelling just in terms of efficient cause (only one of Aristotle's four causes). We want to view the world in terms of the levers we think we can pull to make things happen.

This is a very reduced ambition (a reductionist ambition, indeed) and so therefore is also patently not a "true" view of reality. It is not the whole story. Just a particular way of telling it (the way that is the most efficient and pragmatic).

So the basic epistemological position is that we only ever model reality anyway. And mainstream modelling quite deliberately wants to be as streamlined as possible, focusing just on efficient causality and leaving the other three causes at an "intuitive" backdrop level of understanding.

 

[ConradDJ]

We still hold the objective conception of a reality existing "with a God's eye view"... I am not debating this, I personally believe there to be a reality independant of us...

If all we know is constructed and crafted in order to be intelligible how are we to suppose that we go beyond it and know "how things REALLY are?"

To me, the great success of science in constructing objective theories of the world is very good evidence that there's an aspect of the world that's real independent of us. And I'm certain that these theories never would have been achieved without a strong commitment to this particular ontological framework, built on the concept of independent things, that have their reality in and of themselves. The fact that we can have no absolute proof or direct knowledge of such reality isn't particularly important, compared with the practical benefits we get from partial and tentative knowledge, which can always be improved.

On the other hand, where ontology does become very important is in the areas where the notion of objective reality clearly fails, as in Quantum theory. All the evidence indicates that at the base level, entities do not exist "independently" in and of themselves, but only in physical contexts where they're "measured". And I have no doubt that the reason we're forced to such far-fetched "interpretations" of Quantum physics is that we have no alternative ontological framework, that would explain clearly what that means, without dragging in human observers.

The world we actually experience certainly does not consist of "things in themselves", but of things in contexts of interaction in which they "appear" to each other and make a specific difference to each other. But we have no ontological framework that relates information about things to the specific interaction-contexts that make it meaningful and measurable.

The other area where the traditional ontology has completely failed to bring clarity is with regard to consciousness. Again, very likely the reason we have no clear conception of this kind of being -- even though it's the kind of being we ourselves are -- is that consciousness is not "real" in the traditional sense of existing "in and of itself"... so like quantum-level entities, it doesn't fit our ontological assumptions. We get to be conscious -- in the human sense that can develop articulate self-awareness -- only by assimilating language in meaningful, communicative interaction with other people. And again, we lack even basic ontological concepts that would let us interpret this situation with any clarity.

So in short, the ontology we inherit from our intellectual tradition is certainly not wrong or useless -- but neither is it at all sufficient. So there's plenty of room for creative work in this field! We have a lot more "constructing and crafting" to do before our world is intelligible.

 

[apeiron]

And again, we lack even basic ontological concepts that would let us interpret this situation with any clarity.

It is not that the concepts are completely lacking, just not widely known or accepted. There is a long standing tradition of process thinkers, systems scientists, semioticians, dynamicists, who all share an ontology based on events and relations rather than entities and existence.

Whether you would say they offer "clarity" is another question . But a few of them actually do in my view.

 

[yoda jedi]

First off, I apologize for my lack of being able to pose this question/ line for discussion in as clear terms as possible.

What I essentially want to converse about is the question "To what extent is Scientifc Ontology necessary for the practice of Science?". Of course, their are various epistemological concerns regarding what we can know given only what is presented in conscious experience. Essentially the Kantian "We cannot reason beyond what we experience", but without the Kantian certainty regarding how propositions are justified. What I mean to say is if we take Existentialism seriously and stick to experience only and nothing beyond that, that is admitting that "God is dead", not in a religous sense only, but in the sense of the eradication of absolutes and Platonic certainty. We still hold the objective conception of a reality existing "with a God's eye view" independantly of us, though we have given up the deity itself (as an explanatory principle for physics). I am not debating this, I personally believe there to be a reality independant of us, but I do not wish to be dismissive towards these epistemological concerns.
Coming from within Science we have the various Sciences of the mind/brain that tell us about the mind's abstracting procedures and how the brain only registers differences and then from this constructs a pitcure of how reality exists that is meaningful for the organism. It tells us that our entire reality is constructed according to various developments in mind and brain science, but the sciences of mind/brain still presuppose the Ontology offered by discoveries in Physics. But How, if we are to take the Sciences of mind seriously are we to justify our use of The Scientific Ontology/MEtaphysic? If all we know is constructed and crafted in order to be intelligible how are we to suppose that we go beyond it and know "how things REALLY are?" It is at this point that some people deny Science, but it is for me a fact of life as plain as any other that Science works in the expansion of Knowledge (whatever that is) the question is how...The world picture provides a way to further our methodological inquiry and phrase questions to be posed to nature, but can we go as far as to say that independantly of us that is what exists and the exact way it exists?...The question then becomes one for study in the Cognitive Sciences...how do we go from constructing a completely uncertain reality which doesn't reflect objectivity, to developing systems of abstraction that lead to a structural knowledge of the universe? A kind of Indra's web presented in our experience

you say it:
ARE

 

[ConradDJ]

The bit that always seems to go missing in these discussion is purpose. Everyone ends up accepting that minds model reality (we make maps of the terrain) and that because this relationship seems to work, there probably is both the map we make and also the terrain that "exists" and is "real".

But where confusion continues is that it is not admitted that the full equation is model + purpose = outcome.

So what does it mean to "know" in practice. It usually boils down to wanting control over the world. And that in turn means modelling just in terms of efficient cause (only one of Aristotle's four causes). We want to view the world in terms of the levers we think we can pull to make things happen.

You’re making an important point – besides the “map” we create in our heads and the real “territory” out there, what makes a relationship between the two? You suggest there’s an implicit “purpose” on the part of the observer, that gets overlooked. Usually we just want to focus on the question: is the map accurate? But the deeper question is how it becomes possible to make a map and/or compare it with the territory.

In contrast to the way pre-literate cultures mapped the world in language and story-telling, the Greek philosophers invented Science (episteme) as a purely intellectual way of seeing the world, unconnected with human purposes. They idealized Mind as something beyond the ordinary interests of humanity, as having access to pure truth, like that of geometry. But this was itself a specific kind of “purpose” – and accordingly they projected a pure reality existing “in itself” with no purpose other than its own perfect existence. Which is still the sense many physicists and philosophers have about what “must” really be there at the bottom of things... a world of pure, changeless mathematical form.

It’s interesting that empirical science never really got going under this regime of the pure intellect. It was only when the idea of “controlling” natural phenomena was projected as a basic purpose of mankind (e.g. by the alchemists in the Renaissance and by Bacon at the beginning of the 17th century) that experimental science could get underway, interacting with things purposefully to try to make something work and to understand what happens when it doesn't. And then as you say, Nature began to be understood mainly in terms of the “efficient causes” that Newton mathematized as “forces”. The reality of the world began to be imagined not as changeless form but as based on dynamic equations that “determine” change according to absolute causal principles. And as thread after thread in this Forum attests, this projection is still very strong in people’s minds today.

There is a long standing tradition of process thinkers, systems scientists, semioticians, dynamicists, who all share an ontology based on events and relations rather than entities and existence.

Yes, going back at least to Leibniz... since I’m not really convinced Anaximander belongs in that camp, though it’s generous of you to interpret him that way. There is a recognition that there’s something missing in the dualism of subjective observer / objective reality, as in the dualism of cause / effect. But from what I can tell, “process thinking” and “systems science” still tend to operate within the traditional ontological framework, though they’re dealing with systems where simple dynamic equations are no longer adequate to describe how things change.

I think we need to pose the same kind of question ontologically that you pose from an epistemological standpoint when you bring up the purpose implicit in knowing. That is, what makes a meaningful relationship between “subject” and “object”, or between “cause” and “effect”? For example, how does interaction in the physical world create contexts that are adequate to empirically define (measure) the lawful behavior we describe in dynamic equations? As I’ve proposed in other threads, I think the fact that the physical world is able to measure and communicate about itself is something very remarkable, though taken for granted. To me it points to something like a “purpose” or (to use less loaded language) a “functionality” implicit in Nature itself.

 

[apeiron]

But from what I can tell, “process thinking” and “systems science” still tend to operate within the traditional ontological framework, though they’re dealing with systems where simple dynamic equations are no longer adequate to describe how things change.

Agreed that mostly people never actually make the break with local/efficient causality. Cybernetics and chaos theory are both examples of attempts to move to a larger model that really don't change the underlying thinking.

 

[brainstorm]

What I find so interesting is that not only can science proceed without scientists being aware of their own assumptions about the nature of reality; it can construct concepts that pass as realities just because people have become cognitively habituated into thinking in those terms. For example, who ever thinks twice about reality-claims made from statistical data even though we're well aware that there is an entire methodological model in between the raw data and the relevant knowledge extracted from it. We just take the statistical conclusion to be a raw fact the same as any directly observed empirical observation. Saying, "the average age of men is 50" is understood as referring to the same empirical reality that "the man said he was 50" does. In one case, the claim is based on processed data while the second is a piece of raw data, directly observed. Yet because we scientists operate within our theoretical-synthetic cognition, we're not as interested in the basis for a claim as we are with processing further conclusions from it. I find this the most interesting aspect of scientific ontology - i.e. when artifacts of scientific processing appear as direct observational facts.