Why don't we bury Schrodinger's Cat?

[kered rettop]

Indeed I'm arguing something like the converse of this. It's true that if our goal is to regard ontology as the primary goal of science, then even QM can be shoehorned into that picture. However, I'm saying that QM is the place where we encounter what we should have known all along: ontology is a convenience of science not the goal of science. The goal of science is purely epistemological, as all science must be, by its very definition. QM is trying to remind us of that, but if we are not listening, we can ignore it there too.

Well thanks for that, Ken, but I really have no palate for teleological or prescriptive theories of science. So "I'm out".

 

[vanhees71]

That means you are arguing for epistemics. The distinction between ontics and epistemics is the former is about what exists, and the latter is about our knowledge. A quantitative description that checks with observed facts is all clearly about knowledge. Knowledge of the quantities, knowledge of the observations, knowledge about how to compare the two in some kind of fair or useful way, all decided inside our brains. None of it has anything to do with "what actually is", it's all about "what we can know, and how we can use that knowledge to achieve our goals." That's literally exactly what epistemology is all about, or so it seems to me-- perhaps you think of something else associated with that term. (What meanings we associate with terms is also super important, so we should probably say that science combines epistemology with semantics, and uses ontology as a convenience along the way, but we should use that convenience carefully for fear that we begin to think that science is fundamentally ontological. Regarded as ontology, the history of science is a history of dismal failure. Regarded as epistemology, the history of science is a history of spectacular success.)

We can only know "what actually is" by observations. So what should ontology add to science, which is about what we can objectively observe in Nature and finding descriptions in terms of a few fundamental "natural laws" that describe a lot of different phenomena. Asking for more in the sense of "what it really is" is not a question answered by the Natural Sciences, and this restriction makes it much more successful and applicable than such metaphysical speculations. That's why, if I'm sick, I'll rather take some medication based on science rather than speculations like homeopathy ;-)).

 

[kered rettop]

We can only know "what actually is" by observations. So what should ontology add to science, which is about what we can objectively observe in Nature and finding descriptions in terms of a few fundamental "natural laws" that describe a lot of different phenomena. Asking for more in the sense of "what it really is" is not a question answered by the Natural Sciences, and this restriction makes it much more successful and applicable than such metaphysical speculations. That's why, if I'm sick, I'll rather take some medication based on science rather than speculations like homeopathy ;-)).

Disproven speculations!

 

[PeterDonis]

This thread has run its course and is now closed. Thanks to all who participated.