| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Immortalist" |
| Date: |
22 Aug 2005 11:57:08 AM |
| Object: |
All science was once philosophy |
Not too long ago, all scientific subjects were considered part of
philosophy. Philosophy concerning matter encompassed what we now think
of as physics and chemistry; philosophy concerning mind covered the
subject of psychology and adjacent areas. In short, philosophy was once
construed so broadly as to cover any field of theoretical inquiry. Any
subject matter for which some general explanatory theory might be
offered would have been a branch of philosophy. However, once a field
of study came to be dominated by some main theory and developed
standard methods of criticism and confirmation, then the field was cut
off from the mother country of philosophy and became independent.
For example, philosophers once advanced a variety of theories to
explain the nature of matter. One suggested that everything was made of
water; another, somewhat closer to current conceptions, proposed that
matter was composed of tiny, homogeneous, indivisible atoms. Once
certain theories of matter, as well as experimental methods for testing
such theories, became well established in the community of scholars,
the philosophy of matter became the sciences of physics and chemistry.
Another example of a philosophical problem that has been converted to a
scientific one is the problem of the nature of life. At one time, life
was conjectured to be an entity that enters the body at birth and
departs at death. Currently, the nature of life is explained in terms
of biochemistry.
Thus, it is a peculiarity of philosophy that, once argument and
disputation have brought us to some theory, accompanied by a
methodology, adequate to cope successfully with some issues in
philosophy, the theory and methodology become separated from philosophy
and are considered part of another discipline. Certain subjects are
currently in transition. One such example is the field of linguistics,
and, more particularly, the subject of semantics within that field.
Philosophers have articulated a variety of theories to explain how
words and other representations can have meaning, and what constitutes
the meaning of words and other representations. In semantics, there is
no sharp distinction between a philosopher and a linguist. In a field
in transition, whether an investigator is a philosopher or a scientist
characteristically becomes a moot question. In philosophy the
successful development of an area often leads to the independence and
autonomy of the developed part. For this reason, any specification of
philosophy in terms of subject matter is likely to be both
controversial today and out of date tomorrow.
Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction
by James W. Cornman, Keith Lehrer, George Sotiros Pappas
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872201244/
.
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: All science was once philosophy |
23 Aug 2005 12:01:23 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
BuddhaThu wrote:
Dear Immortalist,
What you say is true. But one of the issues that come with this is if
all things now are scientific, where does it put philosophy?
If grammar is the study of the rules governing the use of a language;
that set of rules is also called the grammar of the language, and each
language has its own distinct grammar. Grammar is part of the general
study of language called linguistics, and grammer is to language what
logic is to science, then if all languge necessarily involves grammer,
then then grammar is not sufficient to account for the subject matter
based upon thee gramma'.
[snip crap]
It puts philosophy in bed with Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the
Great Pumpkin, the Keebler Elves, Tinkerbelle, the good Witch of the
North, Casper the Friendly Ghost, Superman, AstroBoy... "The Nine
Billion Names of God"... and all that textual crap Tommy Aquinas
generated - a combination Barbara Cartland and Louis L'Amour of ditzy
hateful Christianity. Even fetishistic homosexual pederasts of the
One True Church during Vatican II recoiled in horror at what Christ's
pet had locked them into.
If an argument can be valid and yet have a preposterously false
conclusion, what good is validity? Why should we be concerned with
validity at all? The answer is that a valid argument is
truth-preserving. Truth in the premises of a valid argument is
preserved in the conclusion. Of course, if the premises are not true to
begin with, then even a valid argument cannot ensure that the
conclusion is true. But only valid arguments are truth-preserving. An
analogy might help to clarify this point. Roughly, valid arguments
preserve truth as good freezers preserve food. If the food you place in
a freezer is spoiled to begin with, then even a good freezer cannot
preserve it. But if the food placed in a good freezer is fresh, then
the freezer will preserve it. Good freezers and valid arguments
preserve fresh food and truth, respectively. But, just as the former
cannot preserve food when the food is spoiled, so the latter cannot
preserve truth when the premises are false. Garbage in, garbage out.
Nevertheless, food freezers and valid arguments are worth having
because they do preserve something good when one has it, and without
them one may wind up with something rotten even when beginning with
something impeccable. Thus, validity is to be desired and invalidity is
to be eschewed.
Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction
by James W. Cornman, Keith Lehrer, George Sotiros Pappas
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872201244/
If theology changed at Vatican II, then it never was nor is it
infallible. Without an infallible magisterium plus indispensable keys
to heaven, the entire human product of Catholic theology is corrupt
and worthless by its own rules of engagement. Pookie pookie.
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume
Both Schopenhauer and Hegel.
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away--
Half a crate of whisky every day.
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Ren=E9 Descartes was a drunken fart.
"I drink, therefore I am."
Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he's pissed.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BuddhaThu" |
|
| Title: Re: All science was once philosophy |
22 Aug 2005 03:35:37 PM |
|
|
Ok...
This is rushed.
One of my principle beliefs is that scientific disinterestedness must
be viewed within the realm of not being right all the time, but being
fair. The latter preserves the scientific skepticism that is so crucial
to science.
With that in mind, I would like to talk briefly about Newton's three
laws of motion.
This will be brief and I am off.
They are cited from
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html.
The first law... "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to
remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to
it."
Well, in our universe, there is never an observable moment when this is
true. There will always motions that will have an external force
interfering with it. So this does not exist in nature.
In terms of a logic issue if there is no empirical, observable or
existential A, then A=A is false. We will not posit an "empty
variable."
The second law ... "The relationship between an object's mass m, its
acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and
force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in
slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the
same as the direction of the acceleration vector."
This is an equation symbol. The problem with equation symbols is that
it has tendency to deploy circularity in logic. In other words, it is
like saying ... "A quail bobs its head because a quail bobs its
head." This is not much of a proof of anything.
A circular argument is not an argument for anything. It is a positing
of an issue. Another example is from theory evolution. "To be fit is
to survive," or "to survive is to be fit," which is true? It is
self-justifying and proves nothing.
The third law is interesting to me because it has a tendency toward the
dialectic. However, there seems to be incongruity between the third law
which seems to imply some contiguity and the 1st and 2nd law which
deploys "force."
The next question is what is this force? Force seems to be a
description of a cause without providing explanations. Just because we
give it a name does not mean that it explains anything.
In this, there seems to be a very curious thematic disjunction there. I
don't know if it will hurt Newton or not, but I would like to know
why of the inconsistency.
I have to run. See ya! BT
BuddhaThu wrote:
Dear Immortalist,
What you say is true. But one of the issues that come with this is if
all things now are scientific, where does it put philosophy?
To the metaphysicians, there are still many things that science cannot
answer and hence we still have a place in speculative philosophy.
In my view, there is nothing wrong with speculations when there is an
absence of explanation. Scientific creative endeavors begins with
speculations about "what if x."
The problem is that some do not understand that they are supposed to
only speculate and initiate beliefs as if these speculations are
actually true. This is what I notice in my brief but comprehensive
study of metaphysics. In this, it no longer is metaphysics. It is more
about Church Dogmatics.
According to Wittgenstein, philosophy's role is to be the handmaid to
science. Wilfred Sellars would interpret this as exploring and
self-reflecting on their concepts, words and grammar.
When practices become habitual, in fact so habitual, that practices
become automatic, ---science ceases to be because it loses
self-reflectivity on its issues.
There are still scientists in this world who push that numbers are
things, and that they can do certain things. Theories encompassing
numbers and abstractions cannot predict anything. They are still
descriptions of regularity.
They are co-opting an old magical world view that should have died out
during the Enlightenment, but is still here. Science whether they want
to believe it or not is still a part of cultural beliefs systems.
However, this does not mean that science loses its goal of
disinterested objectivism. But in order to let go of the culture that
should have been left behind, it must explore its concepts with the
philosophers.
Take for instance Newton's F=MA and Einstein's E=MC2, very few
sciences will see the contextual and cultural differences of how they
treated the equation. Most scientists who I have interviewed in my
correspondences cannot, (and do not) see the shift in grammar.
F=MA expresses an ***external relationship*** of combinations and
re-combinations. Mass which is a Newtonian concept will not change. The
change is external to the force acting on mass.
E=MC2 is a grammatical shift of meaning to be that E is self-identical
to the Mass travel twice the speed of light. This is no longer an
expression of combinations and recombinations. It is an expression of
pure identity.
Still, when I tell them this, they are surprised. They tell me they are
just doing the math, ***THEY DO NOT THINK ABOUT IT.****
And why should they?
Would it change much in their practice if they had???
Probably not, but it is nice of them to know, and I would like to think
it adds to their work.
This is what I do. I explore their logic and grammar. I find it very
interesting.
Newtonian physics esp. within the Three Laws presently is of great
grammatical interest to me, but because in the end, all three cannot
exist. But this is a complex matter of logic due to an
over-idealization in the way the three laws are expressed. But I cannot
get into it in detail. Perhaps, if someone were to post something on
it, I can go into it more.
Time is running out.
Freshman's are coming in. Those who know me on this NG know I like to
grammar critique the incoming freshmen before they get too educated. It
is an extraordinary plethora of specimen of common sense and ordinary
language usage. Sometimes, the language games might even yield what
Nelson Goodman would quip as "common nonsense", which is just as
equally interesting.
I will try to climb on about once a week and see what's up.
Oh, they're here! Oh there're here! What do I wear, what do I wear.
Got to check and test out my recording devices. I will see ya' all
later. BT :-)
Immortalist wrote:
Not too long ago, all scientific subjects were considered part of
philosophy. Philosophy concerning matter encompassed what we now think
of as physics and chemistry; philosophy concerning mind covered the
subject of psychology and adjacent areas. In short, philosophy was once
construed so broadly as to cover any field of theoretical inquiry. Any
subject matter for which some general explanatory theory might be
offered would have been a branch of philosophy. However, once a field
of study came to be dominated by some main theory and developed
standard methods of criticism and confirmation, then the field was cut
off from the mother country of philosophy and became independent.
For example, philosophers once advanced a variety of theories to
explain the nature of matter. One suggested that everything was made of
water; another, somewhat closer to current conceptions, proposed that
matter was composed of tiny, homogeneous, indivisible atoms. Once
certain theories of matter, as well as experimental methods for testing
such theories, became well established in the community of scholars,
the philosophy of matter became the sciences of physics and chemistry.
Another example of a philosophical problem that has been converted to a
scientific one is the problem of the nature of life. At one time, life
was conjectured to be an entity that enters the body at birth and
departs at death. Currently, the nature of life is explained in terms
of biochemistry.
Thus, it is a peculiarity of philosophy that, once argument and
disputation have brought us to some theory, accompanied by a
methodology, adequate to cope successfully with some issues in
philosophy, the theory and methodology become separated from philosophy
and are considered part of another discipline. Certain subjects are
currently in transition. One such example is the field of linguistics,
and, more particularly, the subject of semantics within that field.
Philosophers have articulated a variety of theories to explain how
words and other representations can have meaning, and what constitutes
the meaning of words and other representations. In semantics, there is
no sharp distinction between a philosopher and a linguist. In a field
in transition, whether an investigator is a philosopher or a scientist
characteristically becomes a moot question. In philosophy the
successful development of an area often leads to the independence and
autonomy of the developed part. For this reason, any specification of
philosophy in terms of subject matter is likely to be both
controversial today and out of date tomorrow.
Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction
by James W. Cornman, Keith Lehrer, George Sotiros Pappas
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872201244/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: All science was once philosophy |
22 Aug 2005 12:37:47 PM |
|
|
Immortalist wrote:
Not too long ago, all scientific subjects were considered part of
philosophy.
[snip]
Science is big enough to admit when it is wrong. Philosophy requires
pencil and paper. Science requires pencil, paper, and a wastebasket.
In all of recorded human history, no philosopher or committee of
philosphers ever concocted a hairball like quantum field theory - much
less one that accurately predicts observation to 14 significant
figures.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: All science was once philosophy |
23 Aug 2005 05:32:24 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:430A0D6A.A083F63E@hate.spam.net...
Immortalist wrote:
Not too long ago, all scientific subjects were considered part of
philosophy.
[snip]
Science is big enough to admit when it is wrong. Philosophy requires
pencil and paper. Science requires pencil, paper, and a wastebasket.
In all of recorded human history, no philosopher or committee of
philosphers ever concocted a hairball like quantum field theory - much
less one that accurately predicts observation to 14 significant
figures.
We all existed as "all knowing" but unconscious, gradually becoming
"conscious of our unconsciousness", so we each created mechanisms (common
identities) within that emerging state of conscious awakening, to link as
close as possible to the pure knowing, and in the process, formed groups to
reinforce the now fragmented knowing.Communicating through "common senses".
As our "centrifugal flow" continued, the gap between actual knowing and
thinking became wider, "stepping down" from philosophy to scientific
discovery, and political, religious and social experimentation, step by step
moving away from our origin.
As a group, we become more aware of how things work until, individually, the
reason "why" becomes more compelling, triggering the centripetal flow, where
the whole process reverses, and we take our consciousness back to our
knowing state.A "saturated mass" of information creates the necessary
mutation.At this stage our philosophical awareness "appears" to be
reinforced by scientific discovery
This is why people of similar intellect can have common views on "how" buy
are often diametrically opposed to why. Some are in the centrifugal stage ,
when others are "coming home".
This explanation is somewhat clumsy on two levels. One being my limited
skills in this medium, and two, some here will "think" the whole picture is
nonsense.
The centrifugal group will be correct in "sensing" this is nonsense, (as it
is to the senses) and the 'petal, group will "know" it is non sense(ual).
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: All science was once philosophy |
22 Aug 2005 07:53:22 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:430A0D6A.A083F63E@hate.spam.net...
Immortalist wrote:
Not too long ago, all scientific subjects were considered part of
philosophy.
[snip]
Science is big enough to admit when it is wrong. Philosophy requires
pencil and paper. Science requires pencil, paper, and a wastebasket.
In all of recorded human history, no philosopher or committee of
philosphers ever concocted a hairball like quantum field theory - much
less one that accurately predicts observation to 14 significant
figures.
Science is also big enough to admit that QFT is restricted to a
very specific domain of scientific subjects - not the full spectrum
of possible observations - outside of which the QFT is totally
inapplicable, accurately predicting no observations, with zero
significant figures.
In fact, as you know, science necessarily relies on a number
of inconsistent theoretical foundations (QFT being one of a set)
in order to cover the full field of scales in the cosmos as
outlined in a tabular fashion below:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mapping the Domains of the Sciences to its theories (V.3)
-----------------------------------------------------------
## SCALE (Domain) Science (Theories of Science)
-----------------------------------------------------------
-8 sub-quark TOE's?(Superstrings,Technicolor,Aether)
-----------------------------------------------------------
-7 sub-nuclear Hadronic Physics (QCD,Std Model)
-----------------------------------------------------------
-6 nuclear Nuclear Physics (QCD)
-----------------------------------------------------------
-5 sub-atomic Muonic atoms, muon catalyzed fusion
-----------------------------------------------------------
-4 atomic Atomic Physics (QFT,QED,electroweak Std)
-----------------------------------------------------------
-3 molecular Chemistry (QM, Thermodynamics)
-----------------------------------------------------------
-2 bio-molecular Bio-Chemistry, Bio-Physics (--?--)
-----------------------------------------------------------
-1 cellular Micro-Biology, (Endosymbiosis)
-----------------------------------------------------------
00 organism N&FD,Biology,NG (Evolution)("Observer")
Philosophy, etc
-----------------------------------------------------------
01 ecosystem "ALL Std Physical sciences" ("Nature")
Oceanic surf and surfers dwell here.
-----------------------------------------------------------
02 planet N&FD/Geology/Meteorology/NG (Gaia?)
-----------------------------------------------------------
03 moon N&FD/Astronomy/Tides/Geology/NG
-----------------------------------------------------------
04 solar system N&FD/GR/NG/Solar Physics,
-----------------------------------------------------------
05 galactic system GR/Newtonian Gravitation(NG) + DM&E
-----------------------------------------------------------
06 galactic clusters GR/Newtonian Gravitation + DM&E
-----------------------------------------------------------
07 observable cosmos Cosmology (Big Bang/Tired Light/SS)
-----------------------------------------------------------
08 Further?? ??? Cosmology
-----------------------------------------------------------
Notes: (1) N&FD = Newtonian & Fluid Dynamics
(2) DM&E = Dark matter/energy (additional postulate)
-----------------------------------------------------------
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: All science was once philosophy |
23 Aug 2005 07:30:49 PM |
|
|
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:6suOe.7606$FA3.7595@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:430A0D6A.A083F63E@hate.spam.net...
Immortalist wrote:
Not too long ago, all scientific subjects were considered part of
philosophy.
[snip]
Science is big enough to admit when it is wrong. Philosophy requires
pencil and paper. Science requires pencil, paper, and a wastebasket.
In all of recorded human history, no philosopher or committee of
philosphers ever concocted a hairball like quantum field theory - much
less one that accurately predicts observation to 14 significant
figures.
Science is also big enough to admit that QFT is restricted to a
very specific domain of scientific subjects - not the full spectrum
of possible observations - outside of which the QFT is totally
inapplicable, accurately predicting no observations, with zero
significant figures.
In fact, as you know, science necessarily relies on a number
of inconsistent theoretical foundations (QFT being one of a set)
in order to cover the full field of scales in the cosmos as
outlined in a tabular fashion below:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mapping the Domains of the Sciences to its theories (V.3)
-----------------------------------------------------------
## SCALE (Domain) Science (Theories of Science)
-----------------------------------------------------------
-8 sub-quark TOE's?(Superstrings,Technicolor,Aether)
-----------------------------------------------------------
-7 sub-nuclear Hadronic Physics (QCD,Std Model)
-----------------------------------------------------------
-6 nuclear Nuclear Physics (QCD)
-----------------------------------------------------------
-5 sub-atomic Muonic atoms, muon catalyzed fusion
-----------------------------------------------------------
-4 atomic Atomic Physics (QFT,QED,electroweak Std)
-----------------------------------------------------------
-3 molecular Chemistry (QM, Thermodynamics)
-----------------------------------------------------------
-2 bio-molecular Bio-Chemistry, Bio-Physics (--?--)
-----------------------------------------------------------
-1 cellular Micro-Biology, (Endosymbiosis)
-----------------------------------------------------------
00 organism N&FD,Biology,NG (Evolution)("Observer")
Philosophy, etc
-----------------------------------------------------------
01 ecosystem "ALL Std Physical sciences" ("Nature")
Oceanic surf and surfers dwell here.
-----------------------------------------------------------
02 planet N&FD/Geology/Meteorology/NG (Gaia?)
-----------------------------------------------------------
03 moon N&FD/Astronomy/Tides/Geology/NG
-----------------------------------------------------------
04 solar system N&FD/GR/NG/Solar Physics,
-----------------------------------------------------------
05 galactic system GR/Newtonian Gravitation(NG) + DM&E
-----------------------------------------------------------
06 galactic clusters GR/Newtonian Gravitation + DM&E
-----------------------------------------------------------
07 observable cosmos Cosmology (Big Bang/Tired Light/SS)
-----------------------------------------------------------
08 Further?? ??? Cosmology
-----------------------------------------------------------
Notes: (1) N&FD = Newtonian & Fluid Dynamics
(2) DM&E = Dark matter/energy (additional postulate)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for that.
If you put those branches in a circular configuration, cosmology reconnects
with string.
The will always be another step towards the "theory of everything", being a
mental exercise; the mind being part of "that which is being observed".
The "knowing of everything" exists, and is experienced only when the
observer is realised. This was recognised by Hawking when he referred to the
"event horizon", where he conceived imagination takes over. The true
"creator" stage. Correlates with my comment above, re the circle. Not only
space that is "curved".
The martyr is one who hasn't yet escaped the pull of "psychic gravity" and
tries to take that "knowing" back from whence he came. OUCH :-)
_Particularly_ if he/she is still a scientist.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "D.B. Calhoun efrankvalliAThotRE-MOVEmail.com" |
|
| Title: Re: All science was once philosophy |
28 Aug 2005 02:09:02 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in
news:430A0D6A.A083F63E@hate.spam.net:
Science is big enough to admit when it is wrong. Philosophy requires
pencil and paper. Science requires pencil, paper, and a wastebasket.
In all of recorded human history, no philosopher or committee of
philosphers ever concocted a hairball like quantum field theory - much
less one that accurately predicts observation to 14 significant
figures.
<sarcasm> I thank science and quantum field theory for making our lives all
the more richer, and for making us more wise. </sarcasm>
Maybe I'll take science more seriously when it offers meaningful ways for
people, even ordinary people, to live their lives better. And I'm not
talking about cures for diseases. Making a person live longer does NOT
make them a better person.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: All science was once philosophy |
22 Aug 2005 07:47:57 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
Not too long ago, all scientific subjects were considered part of
philosophy.
[snip]
Science is big enough to admit when it is wrong.
Uncle al
Science thinks it has what it doesn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PerfectlyAble" |
|
| Title: Re: All science was once philosophy |
23 Aug 2005 09:09:29 AM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
Not too long ago, all scientific subjects were considered part of
philosophy.
[snip]
Science is big enough to admit when it is wrong.
Uncle al
Science thinks it has what it doesn't.
Your daughter is dying in child birth.
Philosophy seeks reason in the death.
Religion seeks peace with death.
Science seeks to conquer death.
Cultists hope the FBI don't do parential DNA test.
Science starts with the statement that what
we know now isn't sufficent (i.e. philosophy)
then moves onto seeking answers that WORK.
Religion seeks any answer that will reinforce
what we know now to be sufficent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "D.B. Calhoun efrankvalliAThotRE-MOVEmail.com" |
|
| Title: Re: All science was once philosophy |
28 Aug 2005 02:14:58 PM |
|
|
"PerfectlyAble" <jrhw@kol.co.nz> wrote in news:1124806169.524082.80350
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Your daughter is dying in child birth.
Philosophy seeks reason in the death.
Religion seeks peace with death.
Science seeks to conquer death.
Cultists hope the FBI don't do parential DNA test.
Science starts with the statement that what
we know now isn't sufficent (i.e. philosophy)
then moves onto seeking answers that WORK.
Religion seeks any answer that will reinforce
what we know now to be sufficent.
Science extends life; why does this necessarily mean that the life is
improved?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: All science was once philosophy |
23 Aug 2005 09:43:18 AM |
|
|
PerfectlyAble wrote:
Science seeks to conquer death.
Well, in that case it has already succeeded (or merely conquered
insanity).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: All science was once philosophy |
18 Sep 2005 09:20:16 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
Not too long ago, all scientific subjects were considered part of
philosophy.
[snip]
Science is big enough to admit when it is wrong. Philosophy requires
pencil and paper. Science requires pencil, paper, and a wastebasket.
Philosophy requires a wastebasket as well.
In all of recorded human history, no philosopher or committee of
philosphers ever concocted a hairball like quantum field theory - much
less one that accurately predicts observation to 14 significant
figures.
Without the philosophical advances of the 19th century, quantum field
theory would have been inconceivable - scientists would still be
working with a Newtonian theory full of ad hoc patches.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: All science was once philosophy |
23 Aug 2005 11:44:20 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
Not too long ago, all scientific subjects were considered part of
philosophy.
[snip]
Science is big enough to admit when it is wrong. Philosophy requires
pencil and paper. Science requires pencil, paper, and a wastebasket.
and, of course Science requires philosophy!
The philosophy of science is the branch of philosophy which studies the
philosophical foundations, assumptions, and implications of science,
including the natural sciences such as physics and biology, and the
social sciences, such as psychology and economics. In this respect, the
philosophy of science is closely related to epistemology and ontology.
It seeks to explain such things as: the nature of scientific statements
and concepts; the way in which they are produced; how science explains,
predicts and, through technology, harnesses nature; the means for
determining the validity of information; the formulation and use of the
scientific method; the types of reasoning used to arrive at
conclusions; and the implications of scientific methods and models for
the larger society, and for the sciences themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
In all of recorded human history, no philosopher or committee of
philosphers ever concocted a hairball like quantum field theory - much
less one that accurately predicts observation to 14 significant
figures.
Democritus was a Greek philosopher who lived between 470-380 B.C. He
developed the concept of the 'atom', Greek for 'indivisible'.
Democritus believed that everything in the universe was made up of
atoms, which were microscopic and indestructible.
Democritus had many remarkable insights for his time. He understood
that the Milky Way was a large collection of stars and also thought
that space was limitless.
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/people/ancient_epoch/democritus.html
In 400 B.C., the Greek thinker Democritus proposed that all matter was
made of tiny indivisible particles, which he named atomos. But
scientific investigation as we know it was not commonly practiced back
then, and Democritus never carried out any experiments that could prove
his theory. He had his supporters, and the Democritus University of
Thrace was named in his honor, but lacking any solid evidence, his
theory was rejected by Aristotle; and therefore the idea of atoms was
likewise rejected by nearly everyone else for the next two thousand
years.
Then, in the early 1800s, an English school teacher named John Dalton
made the theory of atoms a cornerstone of modern science....
http://www.chemheritage.org/EducationalServices/webquest/dalton.htm
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: All science was once philosophy |
23 Aug 2005 08:55:53 PM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124815460.542918.293520@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Al wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
Not too long ago, all scientific subjects were considered part of
philosophy.
[snip]
Science is big enough to admit when it is wrong. Philosophy requires
pencil and paper. Science requires pencil, paper, and a wastebasket.
and, of course Science requires philosophy!
The philosophy of science is the branch of philosophy which studies the
philosophical foundations, assumptions, and implications of science,
including the natural sciences such as physics and biology, and the
social sciences, such as psychology and economics. In this respect, the
philosophy of science is closely related to epistemology and ontology.
It seeks to explain such things as: the nature of scientific statements
and concepts; the way in which they are produced; how science explains,
predicts and, through technology, harnesses nature; the means for
determining the validity of information; the formulation and use of the
scientific method; the types of reasoning used to arrive at
conclusions; and the implications of scientific methods and models for
the larger society, and for the sciences themselves.
*****This is akin to the fish trying to explain the ocean, and vice versa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
In all of recorded human history, no philosopher or committee of
philosphers ever concocted a hairball like quantum field theory - much
less one that accurately predicts observation to 14 significant
figures.
Democritus was a Greek philosopher who lived between 470-380 B.C. He
developed the concept of the 'atom', Greek for 'indivisible'.
Democritus believed that everything in the universe was made up of
atoms, which were microscopic and indestructible.
****He didnt develop the concept or believed. He knew.
Democritus had many remarkable insights for his time. He understood
that the Milky Way was a large collection of stars and also thought
that space was limitless.
Exactly, they were in-sights. Today we still have insights, leading to
hypothesis, experimentation. The 'centrifugal flow' I refered to in a
previous thread.
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/people/ancient_epoch/democritus.html
In 400 B.C., the Greek thinker Democritus proposed that all matter was
made of tiny indivisible particles, which he named atomos. But
scientific investigation as we know it was not commonly practiced back
then, and Democritus never carried out any experiments that could prove
his theory.
****Again, it was not a theory. As a scientist, can you imagine how accurate
you would be to had theorise what would be established knowledge in 3000
yrs.?
He had his supporters, and the Democritus University of
Thrace was named in his honor, but lacking any solid evidence, his
theory was rejected by Aristotle; and therefore the idea of atoms was
likewise rejected by nearly everyone else for the next two thousand
years.
Aristotle, like Plato, were members of a "caste" whose role it was to build
the bridge between knowing and learning.
Then, in the early 1800s, an English school teacher named John Dalton
made the theory of atoms a cornerstone of modern science....
Very likely "the return of Democritus" :-)
BOfL
http://www.chemheritage.org/EducationalServices/webquest/dalton.htm
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: All science was once philosophy |
24 Aug 2005 11:43:22 AM |
|
|
Brian Fletcher wrote:
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124815460.542918.293520@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Al wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
Not too long ago, all scientific subjects were considered part of
philosophy.
[snip]
Science is big enough to admit when it is wrong. Philosophy requires
pencil and paper. Science requires pencil, paper, and a wastebasket.
and, of course Science requires philosophy!
The philosophy of science is the branch of philosophy which studies the
philosophical foundations, assumptions, and implications of science,
including the natural sciences such as physics and biology, and the
social sciences, such as psychology and economics. In this respect, the
philosophy of science is closely related to epistemology and ontology.
It seeks to explain such things as: the nature of scientific statements
and concepts; the way in which they are produced; how science explains,
predicts and, through technology, harnesses nature; the means for
determining the validity of information; the formulation and use of the
scientific method; the types of reasoning used to arrive at
conclusions; and the implications of scientific methods and models for
the larger society, and for the sciences themselves.
*****This is akin to the fish trying to explain the ocean, and vice versa.
More like a fish noting, "I swim in water" or a grammarian thinking,
"All language involves grammar."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
In all of recorded human history, no philosopher or committee of
philosphers ever concocted a hairball like quantum field theory - much
less one that accurately predicts observation to 14 significant
figures.
Democritus was a Greek philosopher who lived between 470-380 B.C. He
developed the concept of the 'atom', Greek for 'indivisible'.
Democritus believed that everything in the universe was made up of
atoms, which were microscopic and indestructible.
****He didnt develop the concept or believed. He knew.
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/TKno/TKnoHowa.htm
1. Suppose, that there are basic empirical beliefs, that is, emperical
beliefs (a) which are epistemically justified, and (b) whose
justification does not depend on that of any further emperical beliefs.
2. For a belief to be episemically justified requires that there be a
reason why it is likely to be true.
3. A belief is justified for a person only if he is in cognitive
possession of such a reason.
4. A person is in cognitive possession of such a reason only if he
believes with justification the premises from which it follows that the
belief is likely to be true.
5. The premises of such a justifying argument must include at least one
empirical premise.
6. So, the justification of a supposed basic empirical belief depends
on the justification of at least one other empirical belief,
contradicting 1.
7. So, there can be no basic empirical beliefs.
This seems to eliminate the possibility of emperical justification of
any and all emperical beliefs. But it can lead to this untruthfullness
of human beliefs in three ways which deal with the apparent "regress"
of one belief depending upon another which depends upon another and so
on:
If the regress of emperical justification does not terminate in basic
emperical beliefs, then it must either:
(1) terminate in unjustified beleifs
(2) go on infinitely (without circularity)
(3) circle back upon itself in some way. (begging the question on
steroids)
If there is no way to justify emperical beliefs apart from an appeal to
other justified emperical beliefs, and if an infinite sequence of
distinct justified beliefs is ruled out, then the presumably finite
system of justified emperical beliefs can only be justified from
within, by birtue of the relations of its component beliefs to each
other. Coherence theory is of the variey (3) seemingly circular if
veiwed in an linear fasion, merely indicated by whatever "property" (or
complex of properties) is requisite for the justification of such a
system of beliefs. Degrees of justification emerge out of the relations
of groups of beliefs.
Democritus had many remarkable insights for his time. He understood
that the Milky Way was a large collection of stars and also thought
that space was limitless.
Exactly, they were in-sights. Today we still have insights, leading to
hypothesis, experimentation. The 'centrifugal flow' I refered to in a
previous thread.
I agree with that.
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/people/ancient_epoch/democritus.html
In 400 B.C., the Greek thinker Democritus proposed that all matter was
made of tiny indivisible particles, which he named atomos. But
scientific investigation as we know it was not commonly practiced back
then, and Democritus never carried out any experiments that could prove
his theory.
****Again, it was not a theory. As a scientist, can you imagine how accurate
you would be to had theorise what would be established knowledge in 3000
yrs.?
The theory of gravity is a theory?
CARLSON: Ms. Scott -- hold on. That's not -- in some ways, that's not
really the question. I mean, the question is: Shall we admit the truth
that evolution is a theory? It's the theory of evolution, not the law
of evolution. And what's wrong with admitting that?
SCOTT: Well, in science, a theory is an explanation. Of course
evolution is a theory, just like gravitation. But what we should be...
CARLSON: Wait, I thought gravity was a law. The law of gravity,
right...
SCOTT: No, gravity...
CARLSON: ... or is this so far over my head I don't know what you're
talking about? I thought it was a law.
SCOTT: Well, I'll tell you what, if you drop something, it's going to
fall. That's an observation: unsupported things fall. But you explain
that observation with the theory of gravity, which is that the mass of
what whatever it is you dropped, a pencil or a pen or something, is
attracted by the mass...
CARLSON: Well you are blowing my mind...
SCOTT: That's not an observation.
CARLSON: ... law of gravity. Honestly, is it not the law, it's really a
theory of gravity?
SCOTT: It's a theory of gravity. But remember, a theory is an
explanation.
SPRIGG: ... should point out, Scott, though, that theories of origins
and theories that are testable in terms of current experimentation are
somewhat different in a scientific perspective. We can't experimentally
confirm evolution.
SCOTT: Sure we can...
CNN Crossfire: Secret Court Stymies Justice Department; Creationists
Square off with Evolutionists; Should Bush Be Telling Americans to
Exercise?
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/24/cf.00.html
He had his supporters, and the Democritus University of
Thrace was named in his honor, but lacking any solid evidence, his
theory was rejected by Aristotle; and therefore the idea of atoms was
likewise rejected by nearly everyone else for the next two thousand
years.
Aristotle, like Plato, were members of a "caste" whose role it was to build
the bridge between knowing and learning.
Then, in the early 1800s, an English school teacher named John Dalton
made the theory of atoms a cornerstone of modern science....
Very likely "the return of Democritus" :-)
A cartoon character on a 2 dimensional piece of paper or a human with 3
dimensional sense apparatus imagining 10 dimensions, but the cartoon in
2 dimensions gives the illusion of 3 dimensions.
BOfL
http://www.chemheritage.org/EducationalServices/webquest/dalton.htm
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: All science was once philosophy |
24 Aug 2005 11:16:48 PM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124901802.565882.286930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Brian Fletcher wrote:
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124815460.542918.293520@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Al wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
Not too long ago, all scientific subjects were considered part of
philosophy.
[snip]
Science is big enough to admit when it is wrong. Philosophy requires
pencil and paper. Science requires pencil, paper, and a wastebasket.
and, of course Science requires philosophy!
The philosophy of science is the branch of philosophy which studies the
philosophical foundations, assumptions, and implications of science,
including the natural sciences such as physics and biology, and the
social sciences, such as psychology and economics. In this respect, the
philosophy of science is closely related to epistemology and ontology.
It seeks to explain such things as: the nature of scientific statements
and concepts; the way in which they are produced; how science explains,
predicts and, through technology, harnesses nature; the means for
determining the validity of information; the formulation and use of the
scientific method; the types of reasoning used to arrive at
conclusions; and the implications of scientific methods and models for
the larger society, and for the sciences themselves.
*****This is akin to the fish trying to explain the ocean, and vice
versa.
More like a fish noting, "I swim in water" or a grammarian thinking,
"All language involves grammar."
***** Where the fish is also looking at the ocean, or the grammarian
thinking "I have a great grasp of language, why then do I know little of
myself?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
In all of recorded human history, no philosopher or committee of
philosphers ever concocted a hairball like quantum field theory - much
less one that accurately predicts observation to 14 significant
figures.
Democritus was a Greek philosopher who lived between 470-380 B.C. He
developed the concept of the 'atom', Greek for 'indivisible'.
Democritus believed that everything in the universe was made up of
atoms, which were microscopic and indestructible.
****He didnt develop the concept or believed. He knew.
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/TKno/TKnoHowa.htm
1. Suppose, that there are basic empirical beliefs, that is, emperical
beliefs (a) which are epistemically justified, and (b) whose
justification does not depend on that of any further emperical beliefs.
Belief is not knowing.
2. For a belief to be episemically justified requires that there be a
reason why it is likely to be true.
****There is also truth that needs no justification or reason.No matter how
much of both is accumulated, faith is the only link to reality, until
'breakthrough'.
3. A belief is justified for a person only if he is in cognitive
possession of such a reason.
****Many believe because of cultural influence.Of course, there are many
levels of belief.
4. A person is in cognitive possession of such a reason only if he
believes with justification the premises from which it follows that the
belief is likely to be true.
****Not only space is curved :-)
5. The premises of such a justifying argument must include at least one
empirical premise.
****As the snake starts to eat it's tail....
6. So, the justification of a supposed basic empirical belief depends
on the justification of at least one other empirical belief,
contradicting 1.
Now we have investigated the 'curved mind', its time for no time.
7. So, there can be no basic empirical beliefs.
This seems to eliminate the possibility of emperical justification of
any and all emperical beliefs. But it can lead to this untruthfullness
of human beliefs in three ways which deal with the apparent "regress"
of one belief depending upon another which depends upon another and so
on:
If the regress of emperical justification does not terminate in basic
emperical beliefs, then it must either:
(1) terminate in unjustified beleifs.
****All beliefs are unjustified per se, but are a "necessary shadow" to be
investigated.
(2) go on infinitely (without circularity).
****VERY circular. (as with all mental projections)
(3) circle back upon itself in some way. (begging the question on
steroids)
****Leave Arnold out of this ;-))............"I'll be back"
If there is no way to justify emperical beliefs apart from an appeal to
other justified emperical beliefs, and if an infinite sequence of
distinct justified beliefs is ruled out, then the presumably finite
system of justified emperical beliefs can only be justified from
within, by birtue of the relations of its component beliefs to each
other.
****This is the 'shadowland' I'm referring to. Truth is and part of "the
individual". The circle is of the universal mind. We each have to achieve
"I" to see "they".
Coherence theory is of the variey (3) seemingly circular if
veiwed in an linear fasion, merely indicated by whatever "property" (or
complex of properties) is requisite for the justification of such a
system of beliefs. Degrees of justification emerge out of the relations
of groups of beliefs.
****As do degrees of consciousness.
Then comes "chop wood, carry water" once again.
Democritus had many remarkable insights for his time. He understood
that the Milky Way was a large collection of stars and also thought
that space was limitless.
Exactly, they were in-sights. Today we still have insights, leading to
hypothesis, experimentation. The 'centrifugal flow' I refered to in a
previous thread.
I agree with that.
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/people/ancient_epoch/democritus.html
In 400 B.C., the Greek thinker Democritus proposed that all matter was
made of tiny indivisible particles, which he named atomos. But
scientific investigation as we know it was not commonly practiced back
then, and Democritus never carried out any experiments that could prove
his theory.
****Again, it was not a theory. As a scientist, can you imagine how
accurate
you would be to had theorise what would be established knowledge in 3000
yrs.?
The theory of gravity is a theory?
It is what it is. People theorise.They also need to discover laws on many
planes of existence.Part of the nature of the "group consciousness".Each
member has a desire to disover "what is out there". The more intelligent of
us feel they are contributing to "the understanding of everything" even
though they refer to the "theory of everything".
The truth is, they are each on a solo journey to discover truth by
elimination (of what's out there).
CARLSON: Ms. Scott -- hold on. That's not -- in some ways, that's not
really the question. I mean, the question is: Shall we admit the truth
that evolution is a theory? It's the theory of evolution, not the law
of evolution. And what's wrong with admitting that?
SCOTT: Well, in science, a theory is an explanation. Of course
evolution is a theory, just like gravitation. But what we should be...
CARLSON: Wait, I thought gravity was a law. The law of gravity,
right...
SCOTT: No, gravity...
CARLSON: ... or is this so far over my head I don't know what you're
talking about? I thought it was a law.
SCOTT: Well, I'll tell you what, if you drop something, it's going to
fall. That's an observation: unsupported things fall. But you explain
that observation with the theory of gravity, which is that the mass of
what whatever it is you dropped, a pencil or a pen or something, is
attracted by the mass...
CARLSON: Well you are blowing my mind...
SCOTT: That's not an observation.
CARLSON: ... law of gravity. Honestly, is it not the law, it's really a
theory of gravity?
SCOTT: It's a theory of gravity. But remember, a theory is an
explanation.
SPRIGG: ... should point out, Scott, though, that theories of origins
and theories that are testable in terms of current experimentation are
somewhat different in a scientific perspective. We can't experimentally
confirm evolution.
SCOTT: Sure we can...
They all evolved through that interaction !!!
Great confirmation for an amateur (me).(relatively speaking , of course :-)
CNN Crossfire: Secret Court Stymies Justice Department; Creationists
Square off with Evolutionists; Should Bush Be Telling Americans to
Exercise?
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/24/cf.00.html
He had his supporters, and the Democritus University of
Thrace was named in his honor, but lacking any solid evidence, his
theory was rejected by Aristotle; and therefore the idea of atoms was
likewise rejected by nearly everyone else for the next two thousand
years.
Aristotle, like Plato, were members of a "caste" whose role it was to
build
the bridge between knowing and learning.
Then, in the early 1800s, an English school teacher named John Dalton
made the theory of atoms a cornerstone of modern science....
Very likely "the return of Democritus" :-)
A cartoon character on a 2 dimensional piece of paper or a human with 3
dimensional sense apparatus imagining 10 dimensions, but the cartoon in
2 dimensions gives the illusion of 3 dimensions.
****My Head Hurts (Homer Simson)
****Thanks Imm....inspirational and also informative!
BOfL
BOfL
http://www.chemheritage.org/EducationalServices/webquest/dalton.htm
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: All science was once philosophy |
25 Aug 2005 12:37:14 PM |
|
|
Brian Fletcher wrote:
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124901802.565882.286930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Brian Fletcher wrote:
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124815460.542918.293520@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Al wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
Not too long ago, all scientific subjects were considered part of
philosophy.
[snip]
Science is big enough to admit when it is wrong. Philosophy requires
pencil and paper. Science requires pencil, paper, and a wastebasket.
and, of course Science requires philosophy!
The philosophy of science is the branch of philosophy which studies the
philosophical foundations, assumptions, and implications of science,
including the natural sciences such as physics and biology, and the
social sciences, such as psychology and economics. In this respect, the
philosophy of science is closely related to epistemology and ontology.
It seeks to explain such things as: the nature of scientific statements
and concepts; the way in which they are produced; how science explains,
predicts and, through technology, harnesses nature; the means for
determining the validity of information; the formulation and use of the
scientific method; the types of reasoning used to arrive at
conclusions; and the implications of scientific methods and models for
the larger society, and for the sciences themselves.
*****This is akin to the fish trying to explain the ocean, and vice
versa.
More like a fish noting, "I swim in water" or a grammarian thinking,
"All language involves grammar."
***** Where the fish is also looking at the ocean, or the grammarian
thinking "I have a great grasp of language, why then do I know little of
myself?"
That the fish is in water or a grammarian thinks that all language
involves grammar are still good theories whether some know little of
themselves or some know much. Unless you were claiming that all people
know little of how the activities of the brain are equivalent to
subjective experience?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
In all of recorded human history, no philosopher or committee of
philosphers ever concocted a hairball like quantum field theory - much
less one that accurately predicts observation to 14 significant
figures.
Democritus was a Greek philosopher who lived between 470-380 B.C. He
developed the concept of the 'atom', Greek for 'indivisible'.
Democritus believed that everything in the universe was made up of
atoms, which were microscopic and indestructible.
****He didnt develop the concept or believed. He knew.
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/TKno/TKnoHowa.htm
1. Suppose, that there are basic empirical beliefs, that is, emperical
beliefs (a) which are epistemically justified, and (b) whose
justification does not depend on that of any further emperical beliefs.
Belief is not knowing.
Is knowing similar to having no_chance of being mistaken?
Do you simply believe something about knowing?
2. For a belief to be episemically justified requires that there be a
reason why it is likely to be true.
****There is also truth that needs no justification or reason.No matter how
much of both is accumulated, faith is the only link to reality, until
'breakthrough'.
You mean beliefs about breakthroughs?
Every day the sun has risen
The sun rose yesterday
The sun rose the day before that
The sun rose the day before that, etc.
Therefore, the sun will rise tommorow.
....why should we have the right to belive conclusions that we arrive at
through inductive logic? Nothing can be proved in an accurate and
undenaible way through induction, and therefore we have no reason for
beliving that the sun will rise tommorow.
3. A belief is justified for a person only if he is in cognitive
possession of such a reason.
****Many believe because of cultural influence.Of course, there are many
levels of belief.
How do you support this belief about beliefs?
4. A person is in cognitive possession of such a reason only if he
believes with justification the premises from which it follows that the
belief is likely to be true.
****Not only space is curved :-)
Please explain this assumption further.
5. The premises of such a justifying argument must include at least one
empirical premise.
****As the snake starts to eat it's tail....
6. So, the justification of a supposed basic empirical belief depends
on the justification of at least one other empirical belief,
contradicting 1.
Now we have investigated the 'curved mind', its time for no time.
This is the belief that requires no justification? Why doesn't it?
7. So, there can be no basic empirical beliefs.
This seems to eliminate the possibility of emperical justification of
any and all emperical beliefs. But it can lead to this untruthfullness
of human beliefs in three ways which deal with the apparent "regress"
of one belief depending upon another which depends upon another and so
on:
If the regress of emperical justification does not terminate in basic
emperical beliefs, then it must either:
(1) terminate in unjustified beleifs.
****All beliefs are unjustified per se, but are a "necessary shadow" to be
investigated.
Even that belief? If so why should I believe an unjustified belief like
yours?
(2) go on infinitely (without circularity).
****VERY circular. (as with all mental projections)
(3) circle back upon itself in some way. (begging the question on
steroids)
Which style do you perform, 1, 2, or 3?
****Leave Arnold out of this ;-))............"I'll be back"
The initial problem is whether and how a coherence theory constitutes
even a prima-facia solution to the epistemic regress problem. Rejecting
most regress terminations coherence theorists accept that the regress
of emperical justification must move in a circle - or more plausibly,
some more complicated and multi-dimensional variety of closed circle.
But if that inferential justification is essentially linear in
character, that it involves a one-dimensional sequences of beliefs,
ordered by the *relation* of epistemic priority, along which epistemic
justification is passed from ealier to later beliefs in the sequence
via connections of inference, it is just another linear conception of
which generate the regress problem in the first place. This is why we
need to think in local and global dimensions of justificatory support.
(justificandum/justification)
Beliefs are justified by being inferentially related to other beliefs
in the *overall_context* of a coherent system. There are two different
levels at which emperical justification can be raised
(cognitively_confronted). On the local level justification of single or
very small groups of emperical beliefs will be the issue. It is
possible to raise the issue of the overall justification of the entire
system of emperical beliefs, which may be called the global level of
justification.
It is only at the local level of justification that inferential
justification *appears* linear. But we must develop an *pattern* of
inference. Although reference within the context of support appears to
regress this is an illusion because the emerging combined support gains
strength and confrontational properties of justification. In the
pattern of inference there is only mutual or reciprical support. There
is no ultimate relation of epistemic *priority* amoung the members of
such a system and consequently no basis for a true regress. By
chaotically moving around for emperical justification where it is need
the confrontatlional nature of this complexity becomes **resilient** or
resistent to efforts aimed towards weakening by demolition of single
premises.
http://www.soci.niu.edu/~phildept/ipa/Klein.html
If there is no way to justify emperical beliefs apart from an appeal to
other justified emperical beliefs, and if an infinite sequence of
distinct justified beliefs is ruled out, then the presumably finite
system of justified emperical beliefs can only be justified from
within, by birtue of the relations of its component beliefs to each
other.
****This is the 'shadowland' I'm referring to. Truth is and part of "the
individual". The circle is of the universal mind. We each have to achieve
"I" to see "they".
When you believe that to acheive I to see they, what justifies this
belief?
Coherence theory is of the variey (3) seemingly circular if
veiwed in an linear fasion, merely indicated by whatever "property" (or
complex of properties) is requisite for the justification of such a
system of beliefs. Degrees of justification emerge out of the relations
of groups of beliefs.
****As do degrees of consciousness.
Then comes "chop wood, carry water" once again.
Is there a possibility that you could be mistaken?
Democritus had many remarkable insights for his time. He understood
that the Milky Way was a large collection of stars and also thought
that space was limitless.
Exactly, they were in-sights. Today we still have insights, leading to
hypothesis, experimentation. The 'centrifugal flow' I refered to in a
previous thread.
I agree with that.
Then you contradict you prior theory that you could know instead of
only believe that you know.
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/people/ancient_epoch/democritus.html
In 400 B.C., the Greek thinker Democritus proposed that all matter was
made of tiny indivisible particles, which he named atomos. But
scientific investigation as we know it was not commonly practiced back
then, and Democritus never carried out any experiments that could prove
his theory.
****Again, it was not a theory. As a scientist, can you imagine how
accurate
you would be to had theorise what would be established knowledge in 3000
yrs.?
The theory of gravity is a theory?
It is what it is. People theorise.They also need to discover laws on many
planes of existence.Part of the nature of the "group consciousness".Each
member has a desire to disover "what is out there". The more intelligent of
us feel they are contributing to "the understanding of everything" even
though they refer to the "theory of everything".
This objection misses the point of the argument. The crucial idea is
that many experiences which are similar phenomenologically or, as we
might say, internally, to mystical experiences, are caused by drugs,
laughing gas, chloroform, LSD, and related agents. None of these
agents, surely, is a supernatural one. Hence, since these experiences
are just like mystical experiences phenomenologically, and since these
experiences have quite natural causes, it is reasonable to think that
mystical experiences also have quite natural causes, ones that will in
time be discovered by the sciences of psychology and physiology. Thus,
both the subsequent behavior of people who undergo mystical experiences
and the actual occurrence of mystical experiences are explicable by
means of perfectly natural causes. The argument from mystical
experiences, while it might give the person who actually has the
experience some reason to think that he or she has experienced God,
provides no justification for us nonmystics to have a belief in God.
Some other argument should be sought.
Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction
by James W. Cornman, Keith Lehrer, George Sotiros Pappas
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872201244/
The truth is, they are each on a solo journey to discover truth by
elimination (of what's out there).
Has anyone discovered a truth that requires no justification and how
would it be justified then?
CARLSON: Ms. Scott -- hold on. That's not -- in some ways, that's not
really the question. I mean, the question is: Shall we admit the truth
that evolution is a theory? It's the theory of evolution, not the law
of evolution. And what's wrong with admitting that?
SCOTT: Well, in science, a theory is an explanation. Of course
evolution is a theory, just like gravitation. But what we should be...
CARLSON: Wait, I thought gravity was a law. The law of gravity,
right...
SCOTT: No, gravity...
CARLSON: ... or is this so far over my head I don't know what you're
talking about? I thought it was a law.
SCOTT: Well, I'll tell you what, if you drop something, it's going to
fall. That's an observation: unsupported things fall. But you explain
that observation with the theory of gravity, which is that the mass of
what whatever it is you dropped, a pencil or a pen or something, is
attracted by the mass...
CARLSON: Well you are blowing my mind...
SCOTT: That's not an observation.
CARLSON: ... law of gravity. Honestly, is it not the law, it's really a
theory of gravity?
SCOTT: It's a theory of gravity. But remember, a theory is an
explanation.
SPRIGG: ... should point out, Scott, though, that theories of origins
and theories that are testable in terms of current experimentation are
somewhat different in a scientific perspective. We can't experimentally
confirm evolution.
SCOTT: Sure we can...
They all evolved through that interaction !!!
Great confirmation for an amateur (me).(relatively speaking , of course :-)
Then you can only believe in the best theories?
CNN Crossfire: Secret Court Stymies Justice Department; Creationists
Square off with Evolutionists; Should Bush Be Telling Americans to
Exercise?
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/24/cf.00.html
He had his supporters, and the Democritus University of
Thrace was named in his honor, but lacking any solid evidence, his
theory was rejected by Aristotle; and therefore the idea of atoms was
likewise rejected by nearly everyone else for the next two thousand
years.
Aristotle, like Plato, were members of a "caste" whose role it was to
build
the bridge between knowing and learning.
Then, in the early 1800s, an English school teacher named John Dalton
made the theory of atoms a cornerstone of modern science....
Very likely "the return of Democritus" :-)
A cartoon character on a 2 dimensional piece of paper or a human with 3
dimensional sense apparatus imagining 10 dimensions, but the cartoon in
2 dimensions gives the illusion of 3 dimensions.
****My Head Hurts (Homer Simson)
****Thanks Imm....inspirational and also informative!
My interpretation of how Kant implied we are trapped perceptually even
though we can imagine possibly the truth.
BOfL
BOfL
http://www.chemheritage.org/EducationalServices/webquest/dalton.htm
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: All science was once philosophy |
27 Aug 2005 10:59:46 AM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124991434.533502.219890@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Brian Fletcher wrote:
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124901802.565882.286930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Brian Fletcher wrote:
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124815460.542918.293520@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Al wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
Not too long ago, all scientific subjects were considered part of
philosophy.
[snip]
Science is big enough to admit when it is wrong. Philosophy
requires
pencil and paper. Science requires pencil, paper, and a
wastebasket.
and, of course Science requires philosophy!
The philosophy of science is the branch of philosophy which studies
the
philosophical foundations, assumptions, and implications of science,
including the natural sciences such as physics and biology, and the
social sciences, such as psychology and economics. In this respect,
the
philosophy of science is closely related to epistemology and
ontology.
It seeks to explain such things as: the nature of scientific
statements
and concepts; the way in which they are produced; how science
explains,
predicts and, through technology, harnesses nature; the means for
determining the validity of information; the formulation and use of
the
scientific method; the types of reasoning used to arrive at
conclusions; and the implications of scientific methods and models
for
the larger society, and for the sciences themselves.
*****This is akin to the fish trying to explain the ocean, and vice
versa.
More like a fish noting, "I swim in water" or a grammarian thinking,
"All language involves grammar."
***** Where the fish is also looking at the ocean, or the grammarian
thinking "I have a great grasp of language, why then do I know little of
myself?"
That the fish is in water or a grammarian thinks that all language
involves grammar are still good theories whether some know little of
themselves or some know much. Unless you were claiming that all people
know little of how the activities of the brain are equivalent to
subjective experience?
I meant to say "the fish is looking for the ocean". All theories are good,
but I'm not refering to theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
In all of recorded human history, no philosopher or committee of
philosphers ever concocted a hairball like quantum field theory -
much
less one that accurately predicts observation to 14 significant
figures.
Democritus was a Greek philosopher who lived between 470-380 B.C. He
developed the concept of the 'atom', Greek for 'indivisible'.
Democritus believed that everything in the universe was made up of
atoms, which were microscopic and indestructible.
****He didnt develop the concept or believed. He knew.
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/TKno/TKnoHowa.htm
1. Suppose, that there are basic empirical beliefs, that is, emperical
beliefs (a) which are epistemically justified, and (b) whose
justification does not depend on that of any further emperical beliefs.
Belief is not knowing.
Is knowing similar to having no_chance of being mistaken?
There are no mistakes, just mis-takes.
Do you simply believe something about knowing?
At the group conscious level, there is only belief. Group consciousness is
made of beliefs
"I am part of a group, therefor I have beliefs"
is not contradictory to "I am, therefor I know".
2. For a belief to be episemically justified requires that there be a
reason why it is likely to be true.
****There is also truth that needs no justification or reason.No matter
how
much of both is accumulated, faith is the only link to reality, until
'breakthrough'.
You mean beliefs about breakthroughs?
No.
Every day the sun has risen
The sun rose yesterday
The sun rose the day before that
The sun rose the day before that, etc.
Therefore, the sun will rise tommorow.
...why should we have the right to belive conclusions that we arrive at
through inductive logic? Nothing can be proved in an accurate and
undenaible way through induction, and therefore we have no reason for
beliving that the sun will rise tommorow.
Of course.In this case a belief can be said to consist of past recollections
+ future speculation.
Always illusionary.
3. A belief is justified for a person only if he is in cognitive
possession of such a reason.
****Many believe because of cultural influence.Of course, there are many
levels of belief.
How do you support this belief about beliefs?
I dont support it. It just is.
4. A person is in cognitive possession of such a reason only if he
believes with justification the premises from which it follows that the
belief is likely to be true.
****Not only space is curved :-)
Please explain this assumption further.
Not an assumption.
5. The premises of such a justifying argument must include at least one
empirical premise.
****As the snake starts to eat it's tail....
6. So, the justification of a supposed basic empirical belief depends
on the justification of at least one other empirical belief,
contradicting 1.
Now we have investigated the 'curved mind', its time for no time.
This is the belief that requires no justification? Why doesn't it?
Beliefs need believers.Self(s) justified.
7. So, there can be no basic empirical beliefs.
This seems to eliminate the possibility of emperical justification of
any and all emperical beliefs. But it can lead to this untruthfullness
of human beliefs in three ways which deal with the apparent "regress"
of one belief depending upon another which depends upon another and so
on:
If the regress of emperical justification does not terminate in basic
emperical beliefs, then it must either:
(1) terminate in unjustified beleifs.
****All beliefs are unjustified per se, but are a "necessary shadow" to
be
investigated.
Even that belief? If so why should I believe an unjustified belief like
yours?
You can believe it "to be or not to be",
Knowing needs no justification.
(2) go on infinitely (without circularity).
****VERY circular. (as with all mental projections)
(3) circle back upon itself in some way. (begging the question on
steroids)
Which style do you perform, 1, 2, or 3?
Part one of my nature for "1", two for "2" etc.
The operative word being perform.
"I" am not what I do.
****Leave Arnold out of this ;-))............"I'll be back"
The initial problem is whether and how a coherence theory constitutes
even a prima-facia solution to the epistemic regress problem. Rejecting
most regress terminations coherence theorists accept that the regress
of emperical justification must move in a circle - or more plausibly,
some more complicated and multi-dimensional variety of closed circle.
The illustration of a spiral is more accurate. Appears to be a closed circle
until the apex is realised.
But if that inferential justification is essentially linear in
character, that it involves a one-dimensional sequences of beliefs,
ordered by the *relation* of epistemic priority, along which epistemic
justification is passed from ealier to later beliefs in the sequence
via connections of inference, it is just another linear conception of
which generate the regress problem in the first place. This is why we
need to think in local and global dimensions of justificatory support.
(justificandum/justification).
True of thinking. Thinking "outside the square", or in your illustration
"the globe", just increases the diameter.
Knowing transends this state.
Beliefs are justified by being inferentially related to other beliefs
in the *overall_context* of a coherent system. There are two different
levels at which emperical justification can be raised
(cognitively_confronted). On the local level justification of single or
very small groups of emperical beliefs will be the issue. It is
possible to raise the issue of the overall justification of the entire
system of emperical beliefs, which may be called the global level of
justification.
Agreed and understood.
It is only at the local level of justification that inferential
justification *appears* linear. But we must develop an *pattern* of
inference. Although reference within the context of support appears to
regress this is an illusion because the emerging combined support gains
strength and confrontational properties of justification. In the
pattern of inference there is only mutual or reciprical support. There
is no ultimate relation of epistemic *priority* amoung the members of
such a system and consequently no basis for a true regress. By
chaotically moving around for emperical justification where it is need
the confrontatlional nature of this complexity becomes **resilient** or
resistent to efforts aimed towards weakening by demolition of single
premises.
The group consciousness has a gravity pull. Not able, of itself, to relate
to singularity, and attempts to stop what appears to be the 'escape', by
denial of such reality.
http://www.soci.niu.edu/~phildept/ipa/Klein.html
If there is no way to justify emperical beliefs apart from an appeal to
other justified emperical beliefs, and if an infinite sequence of
distinct justified beliefs is ruled out, then the presumably finite
system of justified emperical beliefs can only be justified from
within, by birtue of the relations of its component beliefs to each
other.
****This is the 'shadowland' I'm referring to. Truth is and part of "the
individual". The circle is of the universal mind. We each have to achieve
"I" to see "they".
When you believe that to acheive I to see they, what justifies this
belief?
Not a belief.
Coherence theory is of the variey (3) seemingly circular if
veiwed in an linear fasion, merely indicated by whatever "property" (or
complex of properties) is requisite for the justification of such a
system of beliefs. Degrees of justification emerge out of the relations
of groups of beliefs.
****As do degrees of consciousness.
Then comes "chop wood, carry water" once again.
Is there a possibility that you could be mistaken?
No. Although sometimes Ive tried to chop water and carry wood :-)
Democritus had many remarkable insights for his time. He understood
that the Milky Way was a large collection of stars and also thought
that space was limitless.
Exactly, they were in-sights. Today we still have insights, leading to
hypothesis, experimentation. The 'centrifugal flow' I refered to in a
previous thread.
I agree with that.
Then you contradict you prior theory that you could know instead of
only believe that you know.
Not a theory. "I know I believe" sits in parallel but superior to "I believe
I know"
I am I , and am a card carrying member of the group consciousness.
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/people/ancient_epoch/democritus.html
In 400 B.C., the Greek thinker Democritus proposed that all matter
was
made of tiny indivisible particles, which he named atomos. But
scientific investigation as we know it was not commonly practiced
back
then, and Democritus never carried out any experiments that could
prove
his theory.
****Again, it was not a theory. As a scientist, can you imagine how
accurate
you would be to had theorise what would be established knowledge in
3000
yrs.?
The theory of gravity is a theory?
It is what it is. People theorise.They also need to discover laws on many
planes of existence.Part of the nature of the "group consciousness".Each
member has a desire to disover "what is out there". The more intelligent
of
us feel they are contributing to "the understanding of everything" even
though they refer to the "theory of everything".
This objection misses the point of the argument. The crucial idea is
that many experiences which are similar phenomenologically or, as we
might say, internally, to mystical experiences, are caused by drugs,
laughing gas, chloroform, LSD, and related agents. None of these
agents, surely, is a supernatural one.
Excellent point. Those experiences are not caused (or created) by drugs.
Just an artificially created "window"
with the accompanying "law of diminished returns".
Hence, since these experiences
are just like mystical experiences phenomenologically, and since these
experiences have quite natural causes, it is reasonable to think that
mystical experiences also have quite natural causes, ones that will in
time be discovered by the sciences of psychology and physiology.
Not so. Back to the mind trying to see itself. You wrote "like mystical
experiences". Thi | | | | | | | |
