globarr@yahoo.com (Gerald L. O'Barr) wrote in message news:<e9b03d3c.0311172051.673d23c6@posting.google.com>...

globarr@yahoo.com (Gerald L. O'Barr) wrote in message news:<e9b03d3c.0311172051.673d23c6@posting.google.com>...

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Robert J. Kolker wrote:

Timo Nieminen wrote:

Although the term "natural philosophy" is
antiquated, it stills seems to be nicely
accurate.

I disagree

<deletes by O'Barr>

Reany wrote:

Philosophy is the set of all possible beliefs about
anything at all, real or imagined, physical or
abstract.

O'Barr comments:
This is most perfect. It sets no standards. It
allows anyone and everyone, smart or dumb, to be a
full fledge philosopher. All you have to have is a
belief, any belief at all, even a belief in any
subject you want, and you instantly become a
philosopher. Isn't that great! And this is the way
it is. A philosopher is more than worthless. He has
no way of being judged right or wrong on anything,
for there is no way to judge. It is anyone's belief,
and thus anyone's belief is just as good as any other
belief, on the level of being just a philosopher.

A "full fledge philosopher"? That's an ambiguous phrase to me. On the
one hand we're all "full fledge philosophers" because we all
philosophize all the time, usually without recognizing that we're dong
so. On the other hand, one could interpret "full fledge philosopher"
as meaning a philosopher by profession or PhD. Don't try to relegate
philosophy to professional philosophers alone. Do only professional
chiefs cook? Do only professional chauffeurs drive?

Reany wrote:

Natural Philosophy is the set of all possible
beliefs about the natural realm, including what the
natural realm is.

O'Barr comments:
Again totally correct. It includes all beliefs,
to whether they are right or wrong, good or
impossible. How did you get to be so smart, Reany?

A lot of study over twenty years, and more than that - an open mind -
that's the secret!

And Philosophy accepts all these beliefs equally.
There is no way to decide which is correct or best.
It is totally sick to care about, one way or the
other.

You're too obsessed about what's "sick." You're too judgmental. Relax
a bit. Of course, I'm obsessed about what's "sick" about the
educational system in the West because I see it damaging people's
minds and beliefs, and that someday this sickness will turn against
good science itself. But I'm not too judgmental about people's
personal philosophies of science, except to the degree that I think
people have made their alliances to them based on too little knowledge
of the alternative choices which have developed over the centuries but
which are NEVER taught in science classes. So, the base of my
complaint is that people have made these choices on an uninformed
basis. Choices that they probably would not have made if they had been
informed earlier in their lives.

Whether there is "way" to choose between particular philosophic
beliefs or not, you WILL do so anyway. You did already choose between
the PoR and competing views, and between logical economy or competing
views. Somehow, you did it, and it was a philosophic activity!

Reany wrote:

Metaphysics is the subset of Philosophy which is
the set of all possible beliefs about existence.

O'Barr comments:
We can say this much: We know that there is an
existence.

We know that our own consciousness and sensual perceptions exist. We
are free to believe in the existence of other things if we wish to.

It appears to follow fixed rules or laws.
Because it has such characteristics, then science
seems to work. Thus, to the extent we can figure
out, or guess, these rules and laws, it appears to be
'knowable' and 'predictable' and 'controllable,' at
least within the range we have so far accomplished
all this. So far, our abilities to 'know' and
'control' appears to be without any definite
boundaries.
When we have such powers as science, then
philosophy has no place or use for modern man, except
as entertainment, or speculations, etc.

False. You employed philosophy in the first place to delimit the
distinction between subject and object, between knowing and
hallucinating, between scientific and nonscientific epistemologies,
etc. You employ philosophy to evaluate the relative merits of various
heuristic approaches to the invention of new theories. You employ
personal philosophies of existence to formulate a formal point of view
upon which a research program is defined, upon which you desire to
build a testable physical theory. For example, to use or not to use
logical economy is purely a philosophical decision, completely beyond
the pale of empiricism. But empiricism is also a philosophic decision.

You employ philosophy every time you proclaim the existence of ether,
or hydrogen or gold atoms. You employ philosophy every time you
proclaim the existence of an "out-there" out there.

Reany wrote:

Ontology is the subset of Metaphysics which is the
set of all possible beliefs about existence of
"real" things -- that is, things existing
in the physical, or natural, realm.

O'Barr comments:
Well, we are just about down to something worth
talking about. However, as long as it remains any
and all beliefs of such things, it is totally useless
for any thinking man to care about.

Reany wrote:

Semantics is the study of meaning.

O'Barr comments:
I really do not care to argue such fine points.

Then just don't.

Personally, I would say that language is the study of
meaning. Semantics has to do with how different
meanings can be obtained by the same word or phrase,
depending on a multitude of things, even to include
things external to the words themselves.

Reany wrote:

Epistemology is the study of knowledge. It
basically seeks to answer two questions 1) What does
it mean to say I KNOW something? 2) What is
the certainty of knowledge?

O'Barr comments:
When someone says that they know something, it
usually means that they have a memory of it in their
mind. And usually they mean that they can thus
recite it or repeat it, or perform it, or they have
an understand of it, or they can make use of it.
'Familiarity' is a good word to use in this area.

That's a rather naive view. You could benefit from a study of
epistemology. What if someone says, "I know that the sun will rise
tomorrow," or " I know that I will live until my next birthday," I
know what will happen if I let go of this hammer? To deal with claims
of those kinds, you need a broader kind of epistemology. It's pretty
safe to say that you've never even heard of the Problem of Induction.

The certainty of knowledge depends upon several
things. Technically, statistics can be employed to
formalize it in a scientific sense. But as humans,
we have a sixth sense that helps us to decide the
degree to which we are willing to assume things to be
correct. We often do this when forced to make quick
decisions. But it is also useful, and necessary, at
all times when a decision must be made.

The so-called "empiricist," O'Barr, is appealing to "a sixth sense"
for knowledge claims? You see, you're philosophizing and you don't
even realize it. And you're already breaking your own characterization
of what constitutes your "epistemology." That's one reason why people
need a formal educating in these things. Commonsense isn't good
enough.

Reany wrote:

Science is an extension of philosophy ...

O'Barr comments:
It is not an extension!
It is a total rejection of philosophy (the concept
of just thinking about things.)

That is not a true characterization of philosophy, but it may indeed
be a common misconception about what philosophy is, apparently even
held but modern physicists, but not held by physicists prior to WWII.

As you say below,
it requires a method of using the results of tests to
verify and confirm. Thinking, no matter how perfect
or intelligent, is not sufficient.

Try to establish any empirical domain of knowledge that doesn't employ
philosophical terms or concepts. Building science is a philosophic
activity, not a scientific activity, just as building a house is not
the same as living within the house.

Even simpler, try to invent a new sport with rules that doesn't
require philosophy in the effort. It takes a philosophy to come up
with a value system that guides the invention of the rules. Philosophy
is NOT just for pure impractical abstractions!

Reany continues: . . .

...with two conventional components: 1) it has a
componenent in natural philosophy which assumes that
the natural world is orderly and persistent, 2) it
has a component in epistemology which is the so-
called scientific method. However, the individual
scientist may add on to either or both of those base
conventions. Einstein did so quite explicitly in
his presentation of the general theory of relativity
(1916), which he stated in the first pages of that
paper. See
http://www.ajnpx.com/html/Einstein-
analects/Einstein-Epistemology.html

for that reference and for others.

A little knowledge of philosophy can bear directly
and positively on the creativity of physicists,
because it can broaden their perspective.

O'Barr comments:
There is no 'so-called' scientific method.

Carefully define the scientific method for us.

There
is test and confirm, test and confirm, test and
confirm.

"test and confirm" what? Where did that 'what' come from? You probably
won't even get my question, but I can only accomplish so much disabuse
of close-minded people "educated" by our so-called "educational"
system in the West.

There is plenty of room for creativity in science.

Not thanks to your philosophy of science there isn't.

But no true scientist is free to think anything he
wants, or to add more to his philosophy side, or to
some other side.

Of course we're all free to think. It isn't in the thinking that has
constraints beyond what we impose on ourselves freely; it's in getting
one's thoughts generally accepted that has the constraints.

A true scientist goes where his
testing leads him, no more, no less.

Impossible. One freely chooses one's formal point of view, without
which one cannot even get starting theory building. Science is not
just testing; it's also conceptual free invention. When Rutherford
performed his gold leaf experiment, he had no prior proof that the
model of plumb pudding was inferior to the nucleated atom. But if he
had been prejudiced by either model, he might not have bothered to
perform the experiment at all. It has long been recognized that the
experiments one dreams up is largely a function of the physical
theories popular at the time.

If a scientist
is not able to separate out the differences, and
clearly mark the boundaries of such, then he is not
scientist. He makes himself just a philosopher, and
thus dies on the spot! Shame on you, Reany. You
cannot mix these two subjects as far as I am
concerned.

Shame on you, O'Barr, and shame on the crappy educational system that
claims to have educated you and me.

The scientific method certainly contains certain
beliefs about the way things are, and thus contains
philosophy. But this philosophy is controlling the
methods being applied, it should have nothing to do
with what gets finally accepted.

Why not. The debate of ether-vs-nonether is a philosophic debate! Why
are you so obsessed with your irrational hatred of philosophy. You are
irrational -- and that also is the result of the bad educational
system. You are precisely what I expect for any person educated in the
West. Science is falsely taught as a means to TRUTH, which it is not.
Science is one of a potentially infinite number of empirical
approaches spawned by philosophy for the invention of physical
theories that work. There's nothing sacred about the scientific
method.

And you are going to have to admit to this, if
you are ever going to be scientific.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@yahoo.com>

The only thing I'm ever going to have to admit to is that the
educational system failed me just as it failed you. I'm not so
interested in being "scientific" as I am in being rational and fair to
everything that contributes to scientific progress. But not you, you
think it all boils down to some trivial and simplistic formula, but it
doesn't.

Patrick