Fight Semi-Scientists: Embrace Inexactness for Exact Thinking

[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
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
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
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 going to 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]

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

 

[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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!

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?

 

[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 ass 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 colleague 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?

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 ?

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 ass 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 ?

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!

 

[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!

and you are NOT

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 ( 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 ( 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 colleague 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 ?

marlon

 

[Les Sleeth]

Excuse me dear sir, but your colleague 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.