My Philosophy Teacher: A Probabilistic Study of Science

[Pythagorean]

I agree with Dave, Chi Meson brings a very practical approach. I think if you want to do innovative theoretical work though (which is where I'm headed) you have to consider the philosophical side of science so that you can appropriately question things. As I've already noted in this thread, that's what our neuroscience teachers teach us. They want us to challenge dogmas in biology, they know that a lot of neuroscience is wrong.

And for anyone who hasn't read it, I repost:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/

Please note that gravity is just a stand-in here. The teacher isn't actually challenging the theory of gravity... she's challenging an overconfident way of thinking.

 

[chiro]

I agree with Dave, Chi Meson brings a very practical approach. I think if you want to do innovative theoretical work though (which is where I'm headed) you have to consider the philosophical side of science so that you can appropriately question things. As I've already noted in this thread, that's what our neuroscience teachers teach us. They want us to challenge dogmas in biology, they know that a lot of neuroscience is wrong.

And for anyone who hasn't read it, I repost:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/

Please note that gravity is just a stand-in here. The teacher isn't actually challenging the theory of gravity... she's challenging an overconfident way of thinking.

The thing that you and many of the decent philosophers have in common is that you are active the in the field that are philosophizing about or reading philosophy about.

This to me is really important. It's a lot more useful, even for people that are not academics, scientists, or philosophers of any kind to read something that isn't vague and that really adds context to a particular philosophical viewpoint.

I can't imagine for example someone that didn't do the things Godel did give a philosophy quite as comprehensive as he did. The fact that he spent a lot of time and energy on his completeness and incompleteness theorems has given him the ability to make decent philosophical arguments: in other words philosophy comes after the fact and not before it.

Now I'm not saying that everyone optimally only has to philosophize in their own field, but it seems that a majority of the good philosophers are the ones that are active in some particular areas (possibly many) before they make their own philosophies that are a lot more specific and carry more value to people.

The above of course is completely IMO.

 

[Drakkith]

It's like I tell people. I have no idea if gravity will turn off tomorrow. But it hasn't been known to in all of recorded history, so I trust that it won't happen.

 

[Pythagorean]

It's like I tell people. I have no idea if gravity will turn off tomorrow. But it hasn't been known to in all of recorded history, so I trust that it won't happen.

Classical gravity is pretty straight forward. Complex systems in the real world have lots of caveats and degeneracies. When we can't see what's going on, we make a model and verify the input output of the model as compared to experiment. But because of the complexity, several different models can all equivalently show the same behavior from your perspective outside the black box. We often take these models for granted and build on them, and continue to interpret data in a way that confirms our biases about the underlying model.

 

[Drakkith]

Sorry Pythagorean, was something in your post a reply to my previous one? If so I don't see the correlation.

 

[chiro]

Sorry Pythagorean, was something in your post a reply to my previous one? If so I don't see the correlation.

I think Pythagorean misinterpreted you as well.

I think Drakkith means that what we know (or think we know) today doesn't need to hold up tomorrow. You could interpret that our models become more right (i.e. our models incorporate more than they did before and still incorporate results from before) or that our models may even do the negative (as in line with Drakkiths example, the Sun may for whatever reason stop coming up tomorrow).

 

[Drakkith]

I'm just saying that no one can see the future. So everything is based on trust that the laws of nature don't suddenly change on us. A very reasonable view in my opinion.

 

[chiro]

I'm just saying that no one can see the future. So everything is based on trust that the laws of nature don't suddenly change on us. A very reasonable view in my opinion.

I agree with you but in practicality its important not to be as 'paranoid' as that. If we didn't have any constraints and didn't make assumptions we wouldn't be able to make sense of anything.

By making some assumptions we trade off accuracy (and often times understanding) for the ability to work with something and use it to make predictions as well as hypotheses and conjectures.

Could you imagine if our models that we used allowed for things like every particle or object could just do whatever the hell it wanted? You wouldn't be able to do anything with that model and finding patterns would be a nightmare.

So while its extremely important to have your mindset, it's also important not to get assumption anxiety or assumption paranoia: it's a tradeoff but with our limited mathematics and our limited abilities its an essential thing to do.

 

[Drakkith]

Chiro I agree with you. I'm not saying anything different.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Why not? At least in some sense.

Here are the definitions of "definitive" from Merriam Webster's:

1: serving to provide a final solution or to end a situation <a definitive victory>
2: authoritative and apparently exhaustive <a definitive edition>
3 a : serving to define or specify precisely <definitive laws>
b : serving as a perfect example : quintessential <a definitive bourgeois>
4: fully differentiated or developed <a definitive organ>
5f a postage stamp : issued as a regular stamp for the country or territory in which it is to be used

Let's try using it in some sentences after the models of the above examples:

"Red Cloud enjoyed many definite victories over the white invaders to his land. In fact, he never lost a battle. The definitive victory, however, went to the whites. They came to his country in such inexorable numbers he eventually gave up fighting and moved to a reservation."

"The OED is definitely a dictionary, but it is not the definitive dictionary it is sometimes made out to be. The Merriam Websters actually has much better definitions."

"This thing here is definitely a kidney, but it's not a definitive kidney: looks like it came from a fetus."

"This stamp is definitely from France, but it's not a French definitive stamp. It's a special issue in honor of an historic anniversary."

So, you can see definite and definitive are not synonymous. All things that are definitive might be said to also be definite, but that's incidental to their being definitive: their 'definiteness' is not what makes them definitive. By the same token, nothing that is definite is necessarily definitive at all, and can quite often not be. There is never an implication they are.

"Definitive knowledge" might mean something like "knowledge so solid and secure it constitutes the very definition of knowledge". It wouldn't mean(or at least shouldn't be meant to mean) the same thing as "definite knowledge", i.e. "The president had definite knowledge of that woman, Miss Lewinski."

However, "definitive knowledge" might also be the teacher misspeaking, or it might be a philosophy term I'm not aware of.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think you are being too hard on the teacher. This is not just some dude or dudette slagging science. We've here have all seen a lot of this, and it's easy to jerk our knee every time we hear something that sounds like "it's just a theory" - even if that's not what they're saying.

I see what she is doing as putting science in the bigger picture. That's the obligation of philosophy.

In his education, the OP should learn science's limits, else he may well go through life with a religious conviction in its predictions.

The Scientific Method is sound, but its predictions have a non-zero probability of being wrong.

Science needs to be tempered with wisdom.

I agree the teacher wasn't necessarily saying "it's just a theory". It sounded more to me like: "Science doesn't know everything!"

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I did philosophy when I was at school and I would [strike]definitively[/strike] definitely have brought them up on this if the tone was such as to suggest that this was a failing of science. We can only judge the present by what we have learned in the past, if our model of how the world works has been shown consistently to be correct time and time again by independent observations then we can feel pretty happy about using that model because what else would we use?
Tim Minchin has a good quote about this sort of science-doesn't-know-for-sure thinking;

I resist the urge to ask Storm whether knowledge is so loose-weave,
of a morn.
When deciding whether to leave,
her apartment by the front door.
Or a window on the second floor.

I have a wealth of observations that have given rise a series of models that I use to judge what actions will bring me harm, just because I don't absolutely know for sure that gravity won't turn off or the concrete won't turn spongy or my inertia won't disappear doesn't mean it is a good idea to jump off my roof.

There exists no philosophy that can get around the problem that there is no such thing as absolute knowledge. Everything is just induction and deduction.

 

[Chi Meson]

I agree the teacher wasn't necessarily saying "it's just a theory". It sounded more to me like: "Science doesn't know everything!"

Zooby & Dave, I'll admit not knowing the deeper details of the conversation, and I'll admit to my bias about philosophy in general...

And I'll assume the lecture was given to students who are hearing for the very first time that scientific knowledge is not to be considered "complete" and "ironclad" and this is a notion that shoud, rightfully, be corrected.

But the quote as given, if correct, is demeaning toward science, shows a sophomoric attitude toward science and knowledge in general, and I reject it. I also see a contradiction in stating that science "depends on the probabilistic nature of its findings by assuming them to be definite."

"Probabilistic" is exactly what science is about "and don't you forget it." Assumptions of being definite? I hope the community left that behind a few centuries ago. But our understanding of how probability works, most of the time (see what I did there?), is what makes the scientific attitude more productive, both mentally and physically (meaning "figuring things out" and "making things").

 

[ThomasT]

Here are the definitions of "definitive" from Merriam Webster's:

1: serving to provide a final solution or to end a situation <a definitive victory>
2: authoritative and apparently exhaustive <a definitive edition>
3 a : serving to define or specify precisely <definitive laws>
b : serving as a perfect example : quintessential <a definitive bourgeois>
4: fully differentiated or developed <a definitive organ>
5f a postage stamp : issued as a regular stamp for the country or territory in which it is to be used

Let's try using it in some sentences after the models of the above examples:

"Red Cloud enjoyed many definite victories over the white invaders to his land. In fact, he never lost a battle. The definitive victory, however, went to the whites. They came to his country in such inexorable numbers he eventually gave up fighting and moved to a reservation."

"The OED is definitely a dictionary, but it is not the definitive dictionary it is sometimes made out to be. The Merriam Websters actually has much better definitions."

"This thing here is definitely a kidney, but it's not a definitive kidney: looks like it came from a fetus."

"This stamp is definitely from France, but it's not a French definitive stamp. It's a special issue in honor of an historic anniversary."

So, you can see definite and definitive are not synonymous. All things that are definitive might be said to also be definite, but that's incidental to their being definitive: their 'definiteness' is not what makes them definitive. By the same token, nothing that is definite is necessarily definitive at all, and can quite often not be. There is never an implication they are.

"Definitive knowledge" might mean something like "knowledge so solid and secure it constitutes the very definition of knowledge". It wouldn't mean(or at least shouldn't be meant to mean) the same thing as "definite knowledge", i.e. "The president had definite knowledge of that woman, Miss Lewinski."

However, "definitive knowledge" might also be the teacher misspeaking, or it might be a philosophy term I'm not aware of.

It seems that I misspoke. Thanks for correcting/educating me.

 

[DaveC426913]

And I'll assume the lecture was given to students who are hearing for the very first time that scientific knowledge is not to be considered "complete" and "ironclad" and this is a notion that shoud, rightfully, be corrected.

This is what I'm trying to say, yes.

But the quote as given, if correct, is demeaning toward science, shows a sophomoric attitude toward science and knowledge in general, and I reject it.

It would be if it were out of context. But it is in the context of a philosophy course, wherein it is the discipline's duty to frame science in the larger picture.

The Scientific Method has, as part of its steps, one where we receive new data and revise our models. That always applies - even to things as trustworthy as gravity and the sun rising in the morning. The philosophy course is simply shining a light on this particular aspect of the SM - one which we know but take for granted (especially if we are just now formally learning it). It should not be taken for granted by new students. It needs to be explicitly stated. Otherwise we risk breeding a generation of science zealots.

 

[Dembadon]

I agree the teacher wasn't necessarily saying "it's just a theory". It sounded more to me like: "Science doesn't know everything!"

Me too, but I'm still curious as to what the OP's professor would consider valid inferences given that premise.

I think it's extremely awkward to even mention it because science doesn't take such a position. I know we don't have the context of the conversation, but my response to a statement like that will always be, "So what? / What's your point? / etc." Make the other person explicitly and clearly state their conclusions, which should be considered the bare minimum in philosophical discussions.

We can't be sure whether the professor was bashing science, but her statement is too familiar a flavor, in my opinion.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Moonbear and ThomasT have already said it for me. The second sentence doesn't make sense. Is it a quote or is it a paraphrase?

 

[mechanics_boy]

Moonbear and ThomasT have already said it for me. The second sentence doesn't make sense. Is it a quote or is it a paraphrase?

It's translated from french. Here's what she said:

Il n'y a aucun moyen définitif de savoir si la loi universelle de la gravitation demeurera valide dans 10 000 ans. La science dépend donc de la nature probabiliste de ses observations en supposant qu'elles sont définies.

I tried to the best of my ability to translate it into english.

On a different note, the quality and depth of replies this thread has got made me learn many things. I will certainly have a different view now entering my philosophy class next time.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It's translated from french. Here's what she said:

Il n'y a aucun moyen définitif de savoir si la loi universelle de la gravitation demeurera valide dans 10 000 ans. La science dépend donc de la nature probabiliste de ses observations en supposant qu'elles sont définies.

I tried to the best of my ability to translate it into english.

"there's no way of definitively knowing if the universal law of gravity will remain valid in 10 000 years. Science is therefore dependant on the probabilistic nature of its findings by assuming them to be definite."

I think in the original "definitif" modifies "moyen" and not "de savoir". That being the case, it become a less crucial word. According to my French/English dictionary it is generally the same as "definitive" in English, but they give an example of it being used in conjunction with the word "refus" where it means "definite": "Un refus definitive" is "a definite refusal".

Here's how I'd render her statement into English:

"There is no definite means whatever of knowing if the law of Universal Gravitation will remain valid in 10,000 years. Science is hanging, therefore, from the probabilistic nature of its observations, while assuming them to be definite."

I had French in high school and two years of college, only, so I cannot claim this a definitive translation. My sense, though, is that it's much more damning in the original than in your English rendering, the implication I perceive being that science is hanging by a fragile thread of mere "probability" that it (foolishly) supposes is secure. I translated "depend de" as "hangs from" rather than "is dependent on" to underscore this. "To hang from" is one valid meaning of the verb "to depend" in English, but I don't have enough experience to know if that sense of "hanging from" is present in French as well. I am secure with my translation of the first sentence. The second could be disputed.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Please don't take this the wrong way, I am not criticizing your translation. I have copied your translation, the original French, and the google translation of it. I slightly edited the google translate for a minor error. I don't speak French, but I think that where the google translate is different, it is better. I don't agree with the second sentence. Science does not suppose that its observations are set, or unalterable. Science is a practical response to an age old problem: We don't know anything with certainty. Everything, the theories and the observations are subject to constant review.

There's no way of definitively knowing if the universal law of gravity will remain valid in 10 000 years. Science is therefore dependant on the probabilistic nature of its findings by assuming them to be definite.

Il n'y a aucun moyen définitif de savoir si la loi universelle de la gravitation demeurera valide dans 10 000 ans. La science dépend donc de la nature probabiliste de ses observations en supposant qu'elles sont définies.

There is no definitive way to know if the universal law of gravitation will remain valid in 10 000 years. Science depends on the probabilistic nature of its observations assuming they are set.

 

[ThomasT]

Moonbear and ThomasT have already said it for me. The second sentence doesn't make sense.

I think Moonbear nailed it.

Your post #55 is enlightening, imho, and the google translation makes sense to me.

Interesting thread, imo, which illustrates the importance of how an assertion is phrased.

There are lots of posts in various threads at PF which disparage "philosophy" and say something like "well, this discussion is just a matter of, or has been reduced to, semantics". But it's the semantics of various assertions about our world that cause disagreements. And, it seems to me that sorting that out is a philosophical, not a scientific, task.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't agree with the second sentence. Science does not suppose that its observations are set, or unalterable. Science is a practical response to an age old problem: We don't know anything with certainty. Everything, the theories and the observations are subject to constant review.

I think everyone who has a bad reaction to the second sentence intuits it is a strawman: a criticism of Science for asserting something it doesn't actually ever assert.

 

[zoobyshoe]

But the quote as given, if correct, is demeaning toward science, shows a sophomoric attitude toward science and knowledge in general, and I reject it.

It would be if it were out of context. But it is in the context of a philosophy course, wherein it is the discipline's duty to frame science in the larger picture.

I don't see where the statement loses its demeaning, sophomoric edge by placement in a larger picture. That just makes it more 'criminal', so to speak.

If we don't know gravity (or anything at the same fundamental level) is going to be valid in 10,000 years, then we don't know it will be valid in 10 minutes, either. Strictly speaking, we don't.

Not wishing to be a science zealot I can, therefore, recommend this teacher jump off a cliff at the first opportunity. Because I take her point: I have no definite means of knowing if gravity will be valid when she does.

 

[DaveC426913]

Not wishing to be a science zealot I can, therefore, recommend this teacher jump off a cliff at the first opportunity. Because I take her point: I have no definite means of knowing if gravity will be valid when she does.

A teenaged kid I know once made the same flawed argument you just did: He said 'Sure I smoke. I get cancer / I don't get cancer - a 50: 50 chance right?'

He doesn't get that having two possible outcomes doesn't mean the two outcomes have to have equal probability. I'm guessing you know better.Seriously though, if philosophy profs aren't the right people to remind students that the tenet of all science starts with "As we currently understand it..." then who??

Or do you want the next generation growing up seriously thinking science proves things incontrovertibly and for all time?

Somewhere they need to learn that science is a process, not a product.

 

[zoobyshoe]

A teenaged kid I know once made the same flawed argument you just did: He said 'Sure I smoke. I get cancer / I don't get cancer - a 50: 50 chance right?'

He doesn't get that having two possible outcomes doesn't mean the two outcomes have to have equal probability. I'm guessing you know better.

The philosophy teacher is the one making this error, not me. The probability of gravity being valid in 10 minutes or 10,000 years is so high it's pointless to highlight it as only being a probability for the same reason that the probability of health problems from long term smoking is high enough that to point out it's only a probability is pointless. That is why I suggested she jump off a cliff: the thought of what would be sure to happen ought to cure her of highlighting certain kinds of things for their probabilistic nature.

The particular choice of gravity is telling. It's fundamental, and represents all physics fundamentals. She's not calling things at the periphery into question, but our ability to have any secure knowledge of fundamentals. And she's not saying our conception of gravity might be grossly revised in the future, she's saying gravity, itself, might change, for all we know.

This, to me, and I suppose for Chi Meson, is not any more productive a train of thought than to suggest that you, Dave, have an invisible weird, purple jellyfish sitting on your head whose purpose is to alter your brainwaves such that you cannot become aware of it. What's the point?

Seriously though, if philosophy profs aren't the right people to remind students that the tenet of all science starts with "As we currently understand it..." then who??

Or do you want the next generation growing up seriously thinking science proves things incontrovertibly and for all time?

Somewhere they need to learn that science is a process, not a product.

You're making a good point about science, but mistaking the intention of the Philosophy teacher who made the statement as being the same as your own. People who declare that "Science doesn't know everything!" (or, this case, "That's only a probability!") aren't doing it to keep things in perspective, they're doing it to knock things out of perspective, they're doing it to allow for fantasies of perpetual motion machines and everything else in the category of impossibilities: miracle cures of arthritis by magnetic bracelets, the face of Mother Teresa appearing on tortillas, messages from relatives who've passed over into The Great Beyond, Extra-Terrestrial visitation of earth, etc. A philosophy teacher, any philosophy teacher, must be constantly fighting the inferiority complex produced by constantly hearing that "Philosophy's not a hard science. It's a waste of time." Hence, the OP's report that she is hostile to physics and science students. She's trying to undermine science to fight the perception that what she's doing is a waste of time.

I don't know anyone involved in Science who thinks Scientific knowledge is absolute. Scientists appear arrogant only to people trying to assert or cling to impossibilities. "Science doesn't know everything!" is the last refuge of crackpots. The probability of conservation of energy holding true in perpetuity is so high that it is pointless to mention it is "only" a probability.

As RyanM_B said:

I have a wealth of observations that have given rise a series of models that I use to judge what actions will bring me harm, just because I don't absolutely know for sure that gravity won't turn off or the concrete won't turn spongy or my inertia won't disappear doesn't mean it is a good idea to jump off my roof.

The consequence of undermining the certainty we have about the things we are really certain about is, potentially, death. There's also the more minor dangers of being bilked out of your life savings by being talked into investing in a "free energy" motor, or paying $500.00 to a psychic healer to remove the invisible weird, purple jellyfish from your head.

The message that scientific knowledge isn't incontrovertible should be delivered by someone who isn't saying it to undermine science.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I didn't take the professor to mean that gravity might somehow go away, but rather that the equations (she used the word "law") we use to model it might change. This hopefully will take place sooner rather than later as currently, there is a problem reconciling the 'law' of gravity with the 'law' of quantum mechanics.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I didn't take the professor to mean that gravity might somehow go away, but rather that the equations (she used the word "law") we use to model it might change. This hopefully will take place sooner rather than later as currently, there is a problem reconciling the 'law' of gravity with the 'law' of quantum mechanics.

I absolutely took her to mean there is a probability gravity, itself, might change, in the same way that the Earth's magnetic field literally changes polarity every so many thousands of years. Maybe the OP can pin her down next class.

 

[Pythagorean]

Gravity was an example, probably not the best; there are many millions more claims published in journals that aren't near as rigorous that are at the systems level, where degeneracy occurs. Medical claims are about 50% likely to be true, according to the research done by Ioannidis.

It's not about gravity changing, it's about us being wrong.


So while her statement about gravity is true, the point is about the bigger picture.

 

[chronon]

Science is therefore dependant on the probabilistic nature of its findings by assuming them to be definite."
What do you think of her statement?

I think if a philosophy student wrote that in an essay it would deservedly be pulled to pieces. What evidence has she that 'Science' assumes its finding to be definite. And you really don't want to bring probability into it. Do you know how much philosophers argue about probability and what it means?

Since this was in France, it's certainly set off my 'Postmodernist' detector.

 

[DaveC426913]

The philosophy teacher is the one making this error, not me.
...
That is why I suggested she jump off a cliff: the thought of what would be sure to happen ought to cure her of highlighting certain kinds of things for their probabilistic nature.

No, you are committing the false dichotomy fallacy. You are ascribing to her argument only a black and white choice. That, if gravity has a non-zero chance of changing, she might as well jump off a cliff.

If you're going to fault someone for making errors, you can't do so by making errors yourself.

Your statement is argumentative; it doesn't actually get us closer to an answer, but it does erode the process of discussion by adding contempt to it.

This, to me, and I suppose for Chi Meson, is not any more productive a train of thought than to suggest that you, Dave, have an invisible weird, purple jellyfish sitting on your head whose purpose is to alter your brainwaves such that you cannot become aware of it. What's the point?

The point is humility. Good scientists have it. Bad scientists are supremely confident in their universe.

You're making a good point about science, but mistaking the intention of the Philosophy teacher who made the statement as being the same as your own. People who declare that "Science doesn't know everything!" (or, this case, "That's only a probability!")

...to allow for fantasies of perpetual motion machines and everything else in the category of impossibilities: miracle cures of arthritis by magnetic bracelets, the face of Mother Teresa appearing on tortillas, messages from relatives who've passed over into The Great Beyond, Extra-Terrestrial visitation of earth, etc.

A gigantic straw man.
Get off yer soapbox and argue the case at-hand, not the one you'd like to argue instead.

Shame on you.

I don't know anyone involved in Science who thinks Scientific knowledge is absolute.

And where exactly do they learn this? Or do you just assume they'll pick it up?

The message that scientific knowledge isn't incontrovertible should be delivered by someone who isn't saying it to undermine science.

This is circular. She's not trying to undermine science unless you make your case that that is what she's trying to do. You can't use your case to support your case.This is all dreadful logic Zoob. You're better than this. I think you've gotten caught up in an argument that looks a lot like arguments you've seen before, and you're just whipping out all your opinions without examining this specific case on its own merits. You're having a knee-jerk reaction.

 

[mechanics_boy]

I went to see my teacher for clarification (concerning her original statement) and she referred me to the following passage from the textbook we're using. It's in French and I will use Google Translate to translate it into English.

"[...] Par exemple, on pourrait conclure par induction, après avoir observé que différents corps ont tous tendance à se retrouver au sol si on les laisse tomber, que tous ces objets ont en commun une loi générale de la nature: la loi de la gravité.

À l'instar de toutes nos activités naturelles, la démarche inductive est parfois trompeuse. De là l'importance de procéder à un examen minutieux de tous les cas possibles et imaginables avant d'affirmer hors de tout doute raisonnable qu'il en est ou en sera ainsi pour tous les autres cas."

In English (with slight modification from Google):

"For example, one might conclude by induction, after observing that different bodies all tend to end up on the ground if allowed to fall, that all these objects have in common a general law of nature: the law of gravity.

Like all of our natural activities, the inductive approach is sometimes misleading. Hence the importance of conducting a thorough review of all cases imaginable before asserting beyond a reasonable doubt [that is the case or will be for all other cases]."

I think her point was to teach us that science is fallible, and that one should not consider scientific assertions to be permanent. They are prone to transformation, they constantly change. Maybe she wants us to realize that science does not necessarily equate to an absolute "truth" (the notion of absolute truth may be debatable). But I may be wrong...

I also completely agree with DaveC426913, especially with the part:

"Philosophy is a discipline that helps temper our arrogance that we think we know how the world is going to work."

I admit I'm still quite arrogant, although reading through my textbook and thinking about what the teacher said, I'm becoming slightly more open about it.

 

[ThomasT]

@ mechanics boy,

By the way, welcome to PF. Apparently you're French. Canada, France, or somewhere else? Just curious. I like your inquisitiveness. It's a good thing, imo, to ask what people mean wrt statements about the world.

 

[mechanics_boy]

@ mechanics boy,

By the way, welcome to PF. Apparently you're French. Canada, France, or somewhere else? Just curious. I like your inquisitiveness. It's a good thing, imo, to ask what people mean wrt statements about the world.

You're right, I speak French and I'm from Canada.

 

[zoobyshoe]

No, you are committing the false dichotomy fallacy. You are ascribing to her argument only a black and white choice. That, if gravity has a non-zero chance of changing, she might as well jump off a cliff.

Given the assumption she's talking about gravity, itself, changing, no, she is committing the false dichotomy fallacy, which I demonstrate by suggesting she apply it to her own real life. The false dichotomy I assert is understood to be a logical extention of hers, in order to discover hers. In other words, if her false dichotomy is valid then she ought to be able to apply it in all cases. Her false dichotomy is that all probabilities, because they are probabilities, and not certainties, should carry the same black or white weight in making us question assumptions and be humble. I am saying that she can't use that argument: some probabilities are SO HIGH that it is pointless to use them to demonstrate the error of certitude, or to caution someone to be careful. If she thinks gravity, or anything equally fundamental, is a good choice for this purpose, I seriously question her powers of reason and motives. If she thinks a tiny, tiny probability should be given so much weight, let her action speak louder than words. Otherwise, her point is incredibly poorly made, and her motivation, therefore, highly suspect.

If you're going to fault someone for making errors, you can't do so by making errors yourself.

Which means nothing unless you demonstrate, rather than merely assert without proof, that I am making errors.

Your statement is argumentative; it doesn't actually get us closer to an answer, but it does erode the process of discussion by adding contempt to it.

ar·gu·men·ta·tive *(ärgy-mnt-tv)
adj.
1. Given to arguing; disputatious.
2. Of or characterized by argument:
If I were, which I am not, then you would be also, since you are chronically rebutting every post I make. I don't find you to be arguing because you enjoy arguing, however. I think you're rebutting what I say because you are sincere in your beliefs, as am I.

The point is humility. Good scientists have it. Bad scientists are supremely confident in their universe.

How does it teach humility to coach people to doubt an assertion which has a minuscule probability of being erroneous? The fact she chose that particular example raises alarm bells in my mind, because there are so many much better examples of an assumption getting someone into trouble in Science. I can't think of a good reason for her to pick that example for the purpose you ascribe to her.

A gigantic straw man.
Get off yer soapbox and argue the case at-hand, not the one you'd like to argue instead.

Shame on you.

And where exactly do they learn this? Or do you just assume they'll pick it up?

This is circular. She's not trying to undermine science unless you make your case that that is what she's trying to do. You can't use your case to support your case.

The issue you and I are at odds about is whether she is just science-bashing or teaching a valid lesson. Both the crackpot and the reasonably cautious person can make the same true recommendation about what a person's attitude should be toward science, i.e., don't get overconfident about assertions arising from Science, because Science has been wrong in the past, but there's a huge difference in what they would be up to in pointing that out. If all she is up to is protecting Philosophy from getting an inferiority complex, then we're under no obligation to play that game.

This is all dreadful logic Zoob. You're better than this. I think you've gotten caught up in an argument that looks a lot like arguments you've seen before, and you're just whipping out all your opinions without examining this specific case on its own merits. You're having a knee-jerk reaction.

Dave, it speaks well of you that your knee-jerk reaction was to assume she has the best motives. My initial reaction to her statement was confusion and my meticulous combing of her wording and phrasing to figure out what she's driving at has lead me in a very different direction. My reaction is not knee-jerk. The whole process has been quite laborious and methodical. Shame on you (to throw your attempt at guilt-flinging back at you) for not observing how meticulous and thoughtful I am being.

The identification of implications and assumptions can be confounded by things such as translations, or the person not having made a good, articulate, statement of what they meant, the abstraction of a statement from context, typo's, etc. Given we don't have the teacher in question to question, I have been inordinately willing to meticulously thump, probe, weight, measure, palpate and otherwise examine her statement. It's hinkey, and I'm not the only one to have that reaction.

It's not clear to me where you get the idea philosophy has any "job", as if it has been established to everyone's satisfaction that philosophy has a proper, practical niche in society. Philosophy happens, but that's about all I can say for sure about it. Science students learn the limits of science right along with the facts they learn. If learning that Einstein caused a whole restructuring of our conception of gravity doesn't get the point across, nothing a philosophy teacher has to say about it will.

 

[zoobyshoe]

"For example, one might conclude by induction, after observing that different bodies all tend to end up on the ground if allowed to fall, that all these objects have in common a general law of nature: the law of gravity.

Like all of our natural activities, the inductive approach is sometimes misleading. Hence the importance of conducting a thorough review of all cases imaginable before asserting beyond a reasonable doubt [that is the case or will be for all other cases]."

I think her point was to teach us that science is fallible, and that one should not consider scientific assertions to be permanent. They are prone to transformation, they constantly change. Maybe she wants us to realize that science does not necessarily equate to an absolute "truth" (the notion of absolute truth may be debatable). But I may be wrong…

Here's the thing: directing you to these quotes does not answer the question of whether or not she proposes that gravity, itself, might be different in 10,000 years, or whether she only meant our conception of gravity might be different. Her statement is ambiguously phrased such that it can be read either way, and these additional quotes don't clarify it.

I know for a fact she is biased and heavily favours non-science students.

It would have had little effect if i had decided to argue with her. She has a reputation of being biased and harsh on students who dare defy her ways of reasoning.

I remarked these statements and took them into my consideration of the subject. In the second you are reporting her reputation, without necessarily saying you think it's justified. But, in the first you use the word "fact" which suggests to me you have a specific story or stories of her showing favoritism to non-science students. I'd be interested in the details.