Complaint A Disservice to Science: Exploring Philosophical Questions in Nature

[micromass]

I would like to have a discussion about constructivism and non-constructivism, but I fear it maybe labeled "wisdom loving" I mean I have seen a few forums, but still some people just like to throw around there power. Also, lots of logicians and set theorist had "philosophical" thoughts about the nature of sets, and if you say that each book doesn't have its own philosophical thoughts tucked away in the words of the pages, I think that you may have not read the book.

Constructivism and intuitionism are pretty important in the history of mathematics. The nature of sets is also very important for nowadays mathematics (in particular set theory and logic). If you want to start a thread about it, then I will allow this since these things are crucial in the history of mathematics.

Similarly, discussions on interpretations of QM are also philosophy, but they are usually allowed here. Why? Because they play a large role in the history of the subject and in the intepretation of the subject.

Philosophy not allowed are things which are totally irrelevant to the history of mathematics or science. For example, are baseballs sentient. (yes, we had threads like this).

 

[Tenshou]

But what about the thread I had made, I mean the one with education? I thought it had a historical basis, I mean people before didn't have "formal" educations, they went to school until a certain age and then went about doing what they wanted to do (Newton prime example, wasn't a human calculator, just a imaginative curious genius), I asked a simple question(or wanted to ask) Why do we need to jump through the hoop of today's society just so we may be accredited with false metals and other ornaments? But I got hit with a Red flag because I had gotten my answer and the rest of the discussion would fall into philosophy :/ I don't believe it is fair that I got that red flag. And are you sure I won't get another one red flag and get banned for the 3 strikes if I do start this topic on constructivism and non constructivism D:

 

[Evo]

What I don't understand is why some people don't understand that you don't need "philosophy" to ask questions about science. To be honest, understanding philosophy has nothing specifically to do with knowing the actual science and there is no demonstrated benefit when it comes to facts (see ZapperZ's post). There is a demonstrated downside, especially on the internet, of people that don't know the science saying that the nonsense they're spouting is "philosophy" and so should be accepted. No, actually it shouldn't.

Definition of philosophy - The study of the nature of reality and existence, of what it is possible to know, and of right and wrong behavior, or a particular set of beliefs of this type:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/philosophy

 

[Tenshou]

What I don't understand is why some people don't understand that you don't need "philosophy" to ask questions about science. To be honest, understanding philosophy has nothing specifically to do with knowing the actual science and there is no demonstrated benefit when it comes to facts (see ZapperZ's post). There is a demonstrated downside, especially on the internet, of people that don't know the science saying that the nonsense they're spouting is "philosophy" and so should be accepted. No, actually it shouldn't.



http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/philosophy

I don't think people should just blindly accept any philosophy that comes there way, because that would be Religion, PF isn't a religious cult. Of course, you don't need philosophy, you just need to find something which peaks your curiosity.

 

[Evo]

But what about the thread I had made, I mean the one with education? I thought it had a historical basis, I mean people before didn't have "formal" educations, they went to school until a certain age and then went about doing what they wanted to do (Newton prime example, wasn't a human calculator, just a imaginative curious genius), I asked a simple question(or wanted to ask) Why do we need to jump through the hoop of today's society just so we may be accredited with false metals and other ornaments? But I got hit with a Red flag because I had gotten my answer and the rest of the discussion would fall into philosophy :/ I don't believe it is fair that I got that red flag. And are you sure I won't get another one red flag and get banned for the 3 strikes if I do start this topic on constructivism and non constructivism D:

If you post in math, which is micro's specialty and he says it's ok, then you can trust him, at least for starting the thread, of course the direction the thread takes after your initial post matters for anyone posting in it.

 

[Tenshou]

I don't think I will take the chance of getting banned, Because no matter how much insight I may gain from 3 or four post ,I do not wish to get banned. PF still has some resources that I must use to my benefit.

 

[micromass]

I don't think I will take the chance of getting banned, Because no matter how much insight I may gain from 3 or four post ,I do not wish to get banned. PF still has some resources that I must use to my benefit.

You're really not getting banned if I told you that you could post.

 

[Borek]

This thread about philosophy becomes a "philosophy" and should be locked.

 

[verty]

I remember visiting this site after more than a year and seeing the philosophy section had exactly the same stickies and exactly the same questions (the same questions kept getting asked). You know, are we brains in a vat, is the universe designed to support life. These are unanswerable questions. I like the idea that this board is about answering questions, not posing unanswerable ones.

I want to say that knowing how to do science may be insufficient to be a critical reader of scientific papers, and therefore questions relating to how science should be done and how it may be misleading are good for this reason.

 

[jackmell]

This thread about philosophy becomes a "philosophy" and should be locked.

As a courtesy to all of you I read every single post and sadly to say I remain undeterred in my beliefs about the matter but of course will abide by the rules of PF.

"What would it be like to ride on a light beam?" On the surface, some might think that sounds stupid or ridiculous. "Why does the apple fall from the tree?" Same dif.

Anyway, thank all of you for contributing. I wish to see science stay strong and productive and provide a healthy environment for study.

Remember, discovery can come from the most unexpected places.

 

[ZapperZ]

As a courtesy to all of you I read every single post and sadly to say I remain undeterred in my beliefs about the matter but of course will abide by the rules of PF.

and this is why a philosophical discussion seldom goes anywhere. People are arguing things not based on facts or evidence, but rather based on beliefs. It is as rational as arguing about one's favorite color.

"What would it be like to ride on a light beam?" On the surface, some might think that sounds stupid or ridiculous. "Why does the apple fall from the tree?" Same dif.

Those questions are not stupid when it is done by people who have studied everything there is to know already. If it came out of, say, the Perimeter Institute, I would pay attention to it 100%. If it came out of someone's private website, I'll ignore it 100%.

Furthermore, these are PHYSICS questions. Philosophy does not provide answers to such things because it will require physicists to verify ANY ideas and answers via experiments (i.e. the facts and evidence I mentioned above). If you want to find answers to those, then do physics, not philosophy.

As for this "discovery" that can come out of nowhere, all I can say is: hockey puck!

https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=2979 Zz.

 

[jackmell]

As for this "discovery" that can come out of nowhere, all I can say is: hockey puck!

https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=2979


Zz.

Longitude. You know this story? Harrison came from no where and solved it didn't he? All the great academians were against him but his passion for the matter was stronger then their arrows.

 

[ZapperZ]

Longitude. You know this story? Harrison came from no where and solved it didn't he? All the great academians were against him but his passion for the matter was stronger then their arrows.

Nope. I don't. The only Harrison that I know is Walter Harrison of Stanford.

We ARE talking about physics, aren't we?

Zz.

 

[jackmell]

Nope. I don't. The only Harrison that I know is Walter Harrison of Stanford.

We ARE talking about physics, aren't we?

Zz.

It is a wonderful story if you can imagine 18th century shipping and a bunch of pendulum clocks in the captain's quarters swinging synchronously to the waves of sailing across the atlantic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_(book )

 

[ZapperZ]

It is a wonderful story if you can imagine 18th century shipping and a bunch of pendulum clocks in the captain's quarters swinging synchronously to the waves of sailing across the atlantic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_(book )

So you really didn't even read my rebuttal at all in that link. 18th century? Really! Why stop there? I hear the cavemen discovered a lot of stuff out of nowhere as well!

Talk about a disservice to science. It is a disservice to science and to students by bringing up outdated examples that no longer applies and no longer occurs.

Zz.

 

[jackmell]

So you really didn't even read my rebuttal at all in that link. 18th century? Really! Why stop there? I hear the cavemen discovered a lot of stuff out of nowhere as well!

Zz.

I did read your blog at the time you posted that link up there. My courtesy to you sir. However, I must respectfully disagree with some of what you stated. Surely the problem of longitude and it's solution is one counterexample?

 

[ZapperZ]

I did read your blog at the time you posted that link up there. My courtesy to you sir. However, I must respectfully disagree with some of what you stated. Surely the problem of longitude and it's solution is one counterexample?

Then you have a problem in comprehension:

So is that a valid situation for the same argument in physics? I would say no. During the last 50 years, let's say, how many "amateurs" have made a significant contribution to the body of knowledge in physics? Think about it. We're not talking just a small number here, we're talking about either a negligible number, or a non-existent quantity! In other words, a forum to cater to these people implies that we are providing an avenue for people to do something that doesn't occur. That is like keeping a broken vase, rather than throwing it out, with the hope that it will reassemble into its original self! Sure, the phase space for that happening isn't zero, but I'll be darn if it has happened before! There is a difference between "optimism" and "delusional", and you can guess which one I am categorizing this one.

It is utterly misleading to think that something from the "18th century" is a valid lesson and can occur again, especially when nothing of that nature has occurred since at least the middle of last century! No significant advancement in the field of physics have been made by amateurs since that time period.

So I take it that you must be hoarding a lot of broken vases in your home.

Zz.

 

[D H]

Jack, we are not stopping you from going to another site and discussion philosophy, metaphysics, speculative physics, whatever. There are discussion sites galore dedicated to those topics. Go there for those discussions, come here for serious discussions on science.

Why are you insisting that we be just like all those other discussion sites? Why can't we be different?

We don't want to be just like all those other discussion sites. By we, I mean the owner, administrators, mentors plus a good number of the members. This site attracts a good number of high quality members precisely because we don't allow those discussions on philosophy, metaphysics, speculative physics, etc.

 

[jackmell]

Then you have a problem in comprehension:



It is utterly misleading to think that something from the "18th century" is a valid lesson and can occur again, especially when nothing of that nature has occurred since at least the middle of last century! No significant advancement in the field of physics have been made by amateurs since that time period.

So I take it that you must be hoarding a lot of broken vases in your home.

Zz.

Ok, to be fair to me, no one said anything about the discussion being just physics. Rather, the discussion is about science although one I suppose could argue that a method for preventing getting lost at sea is not a valid scientific inquiry. But isn't navigation a science?

I must return the focus of discussion to the main premise of the thread: give them the freedom to discuss interesting things about Nature and science because just as I said in another thread just a few minutes ago, the smallest of perturbations in thinking can lead to the most dramatic change in directions and sometimes lead to a solution.

 

[ZapperZ]

Ok, to be fair to me, no one said anything about the discussion being just physics. Rather, the discussion is about science although one I suppose could argue that a method for preventing getting lost at sea is not a valid scientific inquiry. But isn't navigation a science?

I must return the focus of discussion to the main premise of the thread: give them the freedom to discuss interesting things about Nature and science because just as I said in another thread just a few minutes ago, the smallest of perturbations in thinking can lead to the most dramatic change in directions and sometimes lead to a solution.

And I asked you for specific evidence to back your claim, within the context of what has happened in today's scientific world. After all, you are claiming that this is a disservice to SCIENCE right now! All you have done is to simply state things based on your "beliefs". Without anything to justify it, then I can easily say that this is a blind, outdated belief, and your 18th century example is my evidence to back up that claim.

I will also claim, as I have done already, that what you are proposing IS the one that is a disservice to science, because it is misleading, outdated, and irrelevant today. So by doing what you want us to do, we are doing harm to science and those who wish to pursue science.

Now, about those broken vases that you are hoarding...

Zz.

 

[jackmell]

And I asked you for specific evidence to back your claim, within the context of what has happened in today's scientific world.

Zz.

I've done a few things Zapper and I'm pretty much a nobody. But I don't want to discuss them publicly. So yes, some nobody today can do something meaningful in science what no one else in established science can.

 

[ZapperZ]

I've done a few things Zapper and I'm pretty much a nobody. But I don't want to discuss them publicly. So yes, some nobody today can do what no one else in established science can.

I get e-mail like that from crackpots, and I wish I had $1 for every one that I've received. So you'll understand if I do not put any validity on such statement.

Zz.

 

[sas3]

As Greg said "Philosophical discussion is at the mentor's discretion" that is why we have mentor's and adviser's and moderator's on this site. I think they do a good job and if you get a thread locked or deleted you can always PM the group and get a reply as to why.

 

[russ_watters]

Longitude. You know this story? Harrison came from no where and solved it didn't he? All the great academians were against him but his passion for the matter was stronger then their arrows.

I read the book, but its been a while. My understanding is that all he did was invent a good clock, he didn't actually do any science. The scientific problem had already been figured out, they just didn't have the tool they needed. So there was no controversy, no "academians" "against him" that I'm aware of. That's not an issue of science, it is an invention.

Many solutions were proposed for how to determine longitude at the end of an exploratory sea voyage and hence the longitude of the place that was visited (in case one would want to revisit it, place it on a map, or more urgently, avoid known marine hazards). The practical methods relied on a comparison of local time with the time at a given place (such as Greenwich or Paris). Many of these methods relied on astronomical observations relying on the predictable, "clockwork" nature of motions of heavenly bodies. By measuring locations of the fixed stars, local time could be reckoned. The remaining problem was to accurately estimate the time at the given (now distant) place.

Harrison set out to solve the problem in a direct way: by producing a reliable clock that could keep the time of the given place across a long sea journey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harrison#Overview_of_the_problem