| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Gremlin" |
| Date: |
19 Nov 2004 10:18:10 AM |
| Object: |
The New Science |
Since the era of logical positivism, the philosophy of science has shifted
away from scientific realism to instrumentalism and confirmation holism.
While the views of professional philosophers of science have not permeated
widely to scientists and the public, these views weigh in significantly on
the relationship of science and religion and on worldviews in general. In
particular, presuming the validity of confirmation holism, no scientific,
religious or any other worldview can be conclusively proven by empirical
data since data is sufficiently ambiguous to allow competing sometimes
contradictory interpretations. Thus, under these views, one worldview is as
credible as another in regards to what empirical data reveals.
The central thesis underlying the indeterminacy of translation and other
extensions of Quine's work is ontological relativity and the related theory
of confirmation holism. The premise of confirmation holism is that all
theories (and the propositions derived from them) of what exists are not
sufficiently determined by empirical data (data, sensory-data, evidence);
each theory with its interpretation of the evidence is equally justifiable.
Thus, the Greek's worldview of Homeric gods is as credible as the
physicists' world of electromagnetic waves.
As to his personal beliefs, Quine clarifies at the end of "Two Dogmas of
Empiricism":
As an empiricist I continue to think of the conceptual scheme of
science as a tool, ultimately, for predicting future experience in the
light of past experience. Physical objects are conceptually imported into
the situation as convenient intermediaries not by definition in terms of
experience, but simply as irreducible posits comparable, epistemologically,
to the gods of Homer . . . For my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in
physical objects and not in Homer's gods; and I consider it a scientific
error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing, the
physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both
sorts of entities enter our conceptions only as cultural posits.
Quine's ontological relativism led him to agree with Pierre Duhem that for
any collection of empirical evidence there would always be many theories
able to account for it. Thus it is not possible to verify or falsify a
theory simply by comparing it to the empirical evidence; the theory can
always be saved by some modification. For Quine, scientific thought formed
a coherent web in which any part could be altered in the light of empirical
evidence and in which no empirical evidence could force the revision of a
part.
Quine's work has helped drive the wide acceptance of instrumentalism in the
philosophy of science.
In the philosophy of science, instrumentalism is the view that concepts and
theories are merely useful instruments whose worth is measured not by
whether the concepts and theories are true or false (or correctly depict
reality), but how effective they are in explaining and predicting
phenomena.
Instrumentalism relates closely to pragmatism. This methodological
viewpoint often contrasts with scientific realism, which defines theories
as specially being more or less true. However, instrumentalism is more of a
pragmatic approach to science, information and theories than an ontological
statement. Oftentimes instrumentalists (just like pragmatists) have been
accused of being relativists, even though many instrumentalists are also
believers in sturdy objective realism (such as Karl Popper).
Instrumentalist morality thus resembles utilitarianism in defining moral
rules only as tools for moral good. Thus the moral code rising from a given
population is simply a collection of rules that are useful to the
population. David Hume was perhaps the first person to suggest, that there
might not be any intrinsic or metaphysical value of rules, but that they
are simply secular and natural rules that are human-made.
Political instrumentalism is a view first suggested by John Dewey and later
by the Chicago school of economists, which sees politics as simply means to
an end. Milton Friedman paraphrased the viewpoint by explaining that he had
no ideological love for free markets, but he might as simply be a socialist
if socialism fulfilled the ends most people seem to want. The fallibilistic
epistemology of Karl Popper adds to this, that we should empirically
measure all politics and verify whether or not they fulfill their goals,
and try to falsify our politics, critique them and come up with better ways
to reach the ends.
In the philosophy of mind, instrumentalism is the view (championed by
Daniel Dennett), that propositional attitudes such as belief are not
concepts on which we can base scientific investigations of the mind and
brain, but that acting as if other beings do have beliefs is often a
successful strategy. For example, acting as if the chess playing computer
has the belief that taking the queen will give it a significant advantage
is a successful strategy, despite the fact that few people would argue
simple electronics devices have beliefs as we normally think of them.
Quines work has stood up to critisism from alternative theorys such as
Falsification, or Ocmas Razor.. and has radically changed the dominant
scientific worldview from the hypothetico-deductive method to
instrumentalism, at least among scholars. The hypothetico-deductive method
is a theory about scientific method. A hypothesis is devised from which can
be deduced certain explicit, observable predictions. Observations which run
contrary to those predicted are taken as evidence against the hypothesis,
observations which are in agreement with those predicted are taken as
corroborating the hypothesis. It is then supposedly possible to compare the
explanatory value of competing hypotheses by looking to see how well they
are sustained by their predictions.
The hypothetico-deductive method derives primarily from the work of Karl
Popper.
This is related to the problem of induction, and arises because one cannot
logically deduce a general case (a hypothesis) from any series of specific
observations. Since it appears that virtually any observation can be seen
as corroboration of any hypothesis, the choice of which observations the
scientists involved should take seriously seems to be open, rather than a
matter of the application of a strict method. The argument has also been
taken as showing that both observations and theories are embedded in our
overall understanding (holism), and so that it is not possible to make
truly independent observations.
Evidence contrary to a hypothesis is also philosophically problematic. Such
evidence is called a falsification of the hypothesis. However, under the
theory of confirmation holism it is always possible to save a given
hypothesis from falsification. This is so because any falsifying
observation is embedded in a theoretical background, which can be modified
in order to save the hypothesis. Popper anticipated this, noting that the
falsification of a hypothesis is a matter of choice on the part of the
scientists involved.
Despite these philosophical problems the hypothetico-deductive method
remains perhaps the most popular and best understood theory of scientific
method... In my opinion this is because of the predominantly anti-
scientific world view held by most people. Fundemental Christianity would
be challenged by these scientific concepts presented above, because
Christianity holds itself to be scientific and also to be the only way to
look at the world from a scientific perspective. The New Science, the true
science though.. does not hold this perspective...
This is for you Alexander. :)
.
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Science |
19 Nov 2004 09:48:35 PM |
|
|
An order of locus .
evry atom of carbon you record all you know on will fall into the black
hole .
jesus recorded his carbon then gave it to your dna to copy on your
carbon.
all times and all things are like an internet of reality in a black
hole.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Science |
19 Nov 2004 10:48:54 AM |
|
|
Gremlin wrote:
Since the era of logical positivism,
[snip]
Not even wrong. If it isn't math it is opinion. The universe doesn't
give a sparrow's fart about your opinion.
The central thesis underlying the indeterminacy of translation
[snip]
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
As to his personal beliefs, Quine clarifies
[snip]
See above: "Not even wrong. If it isn't math it is opinion. The
universe doesn't give a sparrow's fart about your opinion.
Quine's ontological relativism
[snip]
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
Quine's work has helped drive the wide acceptance of instrumentalism in the
philosophy of science.
[snip]
Ohhhhh! We got permission from our mommy to run a 2-D C-13/H-1 300
MHz supercon FT-NMR. Mommy says, "stop cross-correlating resonances
and come in for dinner."
Hey stooopid: Philosophy is *****. You get the practitoners to
all agree and come back with the result. In the meanwhile we will
continue to build 400-million transistor CPUs.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gremlin" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Science |
19 Nov 2004 10:57:56 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in
news:419E23F6.66F82292@hate.spam.net:
Gremlin wrote:
Since the era of logical positivism,
[snip]
Not even wrong. If it isn't math it is opinion. The universe doesn't
give a sparrow's fart about your opinion.
It is math, just not any you are familiar with.
Hey stooopid: Philosophy is *****. You get the practitoners to
all agree and come back with the result. In the meanwhile we will
continue to build 400-million transistor CPUs.
I think your post stands for itself... Arrogant, misleading, and a fallacy
of personal attack.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Science |
19 Nov 2004 10:54:26 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Gremlin wrote:
Since the era of logical positivism,
[snip]
Not even wrong. If it isn't math it is opinion. The universe doesn't
give a sparrow's fart about your opinion.
The universe does not care about mathematics either. That is because the
universe is not a sentient and it does not care about anything.
Mathematics is the clearest and best language we have for describing
natural phenomena to the best of -our- (human) understanding. It is the
best Jedi Mind Trick we have in our Bag of Tricks. But mathematics
originates as neurons a-poppin' in our skulls and not Out There.
Why mathematics works as well as it does is still a bit of a mystery.
See Eugene Wigner's essay on the effectiveness of mathematics in physics.
It is no surprise the some philosophers attribute mathematical structure
to the universe as a primary quality.
As Platon once wrote:
"God forever geometrizes" (the rest of us commute and pay taxes).
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Science |
19 Nov 2004 01:01:34 PM |
|
|
"robert j. kolker" wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Gremlin wrote:
Since the era of logical positivism,
[snip]
Not even wrong. If it isn't math it is opinion. The universe doesn't
give a sparrow's fart about your opinion.
The universe does not care about mathematics either. That is because the
universe is not a sentient and it does not care about anything.
Mathematics is the clearest and best language we have for describing
natural phenomena to the best of -our- (human) understanding. It is the
best Jedi Mind Trick we have in our Bag of Tricks. But mathematics
originates as neurons a-poppin' in our skulls and not Out There.
Why mathematics works as well as it does is still a bit of a mystery.
See Eugene Wigner's essay on the effectiveness of mathematics in physics.
It is no surprise the some philosophers attribute mathematical structure
to the universe as a primary quality.
As Platon once wrote:
"God forever geometrizes" (the rest of us commute and pay taxes).
If you are Abelian, sure. Not Alain Connes. "8^>)
Analytic geometry and algebra are united through Euler's equation.
Math in quantum mechanics is only metaphor.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Science |
19 Nov 2004 06:44:32 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Analytic geometry and algebra are united through Euler's equation.
Math in quantum mechanics is only metaphor.
Precisely.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Science |
19 Nov 2004 01:22:48 PM |
|
|
robert j. kolker wrote:
Why mathematics works as well as it does is still a bit of a mystery.
I think its pretty obvious that mathematics works well as a language
because all languages work well.
The math would be meaningless if natural language didn't first identify
and describe our observations. Math simply adds to the explictness of
our language.
Math works well because it is a language, and all language work well.
After all, an important aspect of the scientific method is developing
your first conjecture to build testable hypotheses from. Those
conjectures are always going to be in your natural language, or, in the
case of Einstein something even simpler, basic visualizations he
created in his head.
The real question is: why does any language work at describing reality?
How is it that we are allowed to describe reality at all?
I think this is heavily intertwined with consciousness.
In fact, I think our reality is defined by our consciousness, and our
consciousness includes linguistic networks, so a reality defined in
part by language obviouslly lends itself to description by language.
Anyways, just throwing that all out for consideration, by you of
course. I wouldn't expect Uncle Al to give a sparrow's fart, to steal
one of his boring cliches.
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Science |
19 Nov 2004 06:46:26 PM |
|
|
Mike Helland wrote:
Math works well because it is a language, and all language work well.
Try doing physics using only prose and no math. The syntax will become
so convoluted so fast that all your internal pushdown stacks will be
busted.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gremlin" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Science |
19 Nov 2004 08:19:05 PM |
|
|
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in news:307ifcF2pgpq6U2@uni-
berlin.de:
Mike Helland wrote:
Math works well because it is a language, and all language work well.
Try doing physics using only prose and no math. The syntax will become
so convoluted so fast that all your internal pushdown stacks will be
busted.
Bob Kolker
one plus one equals two... not so hard is it? Would make math much easyer
as well if they explained why that sentence was true with common language.
Ever try reading a math book without a professor to explain it to you?
Owch.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Science |
20 Nov 2004 08:24:14 AM |
|
|
"Gremlin" <virtualadepts.nospam@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95A6D9186934ATest@216.168.3.44...
one plus one equals two... not so hard is it? Would make math much easyer
as well if they explained why that sentence was true with common language.
Ever try reading a math book without a professor to explain it to you?
Owch.
Oh dear, Gremlin finds math too hard. It hurts his head.
Gremlin had best master a technology that won't hurt his
brain, if he wants to make a living. The shovel might be
appropriate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MICKY" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Science |
17 Dec 2004 11:27:03 PM |
|
|
OH DEAR OH DEAR OH DEAR & BY THE WAY IF U E-MAIL ME I WILL KICK YOUR
@$$!
.
|
|
|
| User: "MICKY" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Science |
17 Dec 2004 11:32:48 PM |
|
|
OH NEVER MIND!!! BUT ISANT GREG NEIL ON THE NEWS
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Science |
19 Nov 2004 09:41:27 PM |
|
|
Gremlin wrote:
one plus one equals two... not so hard is it? Would make math much easyer
as well if they explained why that sentence was true with common language.
Ever try reading a math book without a professor to explain it to you?
Owch.
Derive the Euler Legrange equations without using mathematical notation.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Science |
20 Nov 2004 07:33:14 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns95A6D9186934ATest@216.168.3.44>,
Gremlin <virtualadepts.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in news:307ifcF2pgpq6U2@uni-
berlin.de:
Mike Helland wrote:
Math works well because it is a language, and all language work well.
Try doing physics using only prose and no math. The syntax will become
so convoluted so fast that all your internal pushdown stacks will be
busted.
Bob Kolker
one plus one equals two... not so hard is it? Would make math much easyer
as well if they explained why that sentence was true with common language.
Ever try reading a math book without a professor to explain it to you?
Owch.
Try giving the Hartree-Fock equation in words.
--
"I'm giving you the chance to look fate in those pretty eyes of hers
and say, 'Step off, *****. This is my party and you're not invited.'"
-- Chris Shugart, _Testosterone Magazine_
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
