Quine's Scientism

[Advocate]

While science is the most rigorous method of knowing external facts, and logic presupposes replicable external experience, it is not the only way of knowing and certainly not the only way of knowing well Enough for a given purpose. Rigor is always sufficient but not always necessary.

[Skepdick]

Science is the construction of mental models which reasonably correlate with our sensory experiences.

All models are wrong - some are useful.

If rigor was sufficient falsification would be impossible. Rigor is not even necessary. It's a process for decreasing uncertainty. If you want it.

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=493585 time=1612104142 user_id=17350]
Science is the construction of mental models which reasonably correlate with our sensory experiences.

All models are wrong - some are useful.

If rigor was sufficient falsification would be impossible. Rigor is not even necessary. It's a process for decreasing uncertainty. If you want it.
[/quote]

"All models are wrong." is esoteric crap. All models are not exhaustive is all it can mean, and that's an unimportant revelation.

Rigor is the fundamental technique of science, so if you want to claim it's unnecessary you must simultaneously claim that science is unnecessary. That's a claim that may be supported but it supposes an entirely different sort of society than the one we currently inhabit.

Rigor is not sufficient because there is no specific amount of rigor that the word rigor intends. You're playing language games there.

Decreasing uncertainty is the point of All knowledge and understanding. Rigor happens to be the literal best way to do that.

[Skepdick]

"All models are wrong." is esoteric crap. All models are not exhaustive is all it can mean, and that's an unimportant revelation.

It's not esoteric - it's a statistical fact.

All models contain errors. False positives AND false negatives.

Vaccines work. Except for the edge/corner cases of side effects.

Rigor is the fundamental technique of science, so if you want to claim it's unnecessary you must simultaneously claim that science is unnecessary.

There is no fundamental technique of science. Unless you are appealing to a universal scientific - there isn't one.

That's a claim that may be supported but it supposes an entirely different sort of society than the one we currently inhabit.

It's supportable in the current society with the current artefacts of science. We have multiple, rigorous scientific models which account for the exact same experiences.

You can have different mathematical expressions predicting the exact same predictions. This is called observational equivalence.

The model-dependednt realists speak about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
Philosophers call it underdetermination: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination

Rigor is not sufficient because there is no specific amount of rigor that the word rigor intends. You're playing language games there.

You OP literally says rigor is sufficient. Now it isn't. Which one is it?

What determines the sufficient amount of rigor?

Decreasing uncertainty is the point of All knowledge and understanding. Rigor happens to be the literal best way to do that.

Is it? So what if I don't want to know/understand anything; if I am not uncertain - then I don't ned rigor.

[Advocate]

>All models contain errors. False positives AND false negatives.

Once again, all that means is that they're low-resolution/incomplete, which is not the same thing as wrong. For a model to be considered wrong it must be fundamentally wrong, not tangentially or incidentally wrong. Your use of words which intend absolute certainty is impossible because that level of certainty (such as completeness of a model) is never attainable other than in logic, and it is not needful to be logically rigorous in all models.

>Vaccines work. Except for the edge/corner cases of side effects.

So the model is incomplete. That is NOT!!!!!!! the same thing as wrong! No possible model can account for all possible variables. You're requiring the impossible.

>There is no fundamental technique of science. Unless you are appealing to a universal scientific - there isn't one.

Yes there is. It's rigor. Literally every scientific enterprise is a rigorous one, and it's scientific to the extent it's rigorous. It's literally the only possible baseline for scientific understanding.

[quote=Advocate post_id=493590 time=1612105282 user_id=15238]
That's a claim that may be supported but it supposes an entirely different sort of society than the one we currently inhabit.
[/quote]

>It's supportable in the current society with the current artefacts of science. We have multiple, rigorous scientific models which account for the exact same experiences.

>You can have different mathematical expressions predicting the exact same predictions. This is called observational equivalence.

The most current ones are typically the best ones as far as we can tell. The track of science is toward greater certainty, not less certainty as people develop new theories to account for new information or previously unconsidered variables. Multiple scientific models are either compatible or at least one of them is wrong. There is no way to have to identically correct models of the same thing which are not compatible. In quantum physics, for example, there's string theory and the carrier wave theory. Both explain the available evidence but they lead to completely different predictive certainty. The fact that they disagree only points to the fact that one must fall. It's utterly senseless to say that all theories are wrong just because we don't (yet) know which one is right

>The model-dependednt realists speak about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
>Philosophers call it underdetermination: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination

Every version of reality depends on a model - which is just another way of saying you Have a version of reality. The question is whether the model is sufficient, not whether you depend upon a model. Reality is the same regardless of which model you apply and models are the same to the extent they are sufficient to their given purpose.

Under-determination only means lack of epistemological warrant and isn't particularly relevant here.

>You OP literally says rigor is sufficient. Now it isn't. Which one is it?

Rigor is a sufficient method. Whether you've applied it sufficiently is a different question.

>What determines the sufficient amount of rigor?

The purpose. What are you wanting to do? Rigorous enough to choose a birthday gift isn't the same thing as rigorous enough to land someone on Mars. But in both cases, rigor is a sufficient mechanism for making that decision. Gather information, understand it's relationships, make your decision. Obviously there are infinite levels of potential completeness and/or sufficiency possible in this method.

>>Decreasing uncertainty is the point of All knowledge and understanding. Rigor happens to be the literal best way to do that.

>Is it? So what if I don't want to know/understand anything; if I am not uncertain - then I don't ned rigor.

If you don't care about certainty, there's nothing to discuss. Carry on, do as you will. If you think non-rigorous examination of evidence is sufficient for survival, you're possibly very lucky and definitely very stupid.

[Skepdick]

Once again, all that means is that they're low-resolution/incomplete, which is not the same thing as wrong.

From the absolutist perspective if the model is not right then it's necessarily wrong.

From a relativist perspective a more complete model is less wrong than a less complete model but neither of them is "right"!

So in the absolute sense ALL models are wrong.

For a model to be considered wrong it must be fundamentally wrong, not tangentially or incidentally wrong.

What exactly is "fundamental wrongness" without rapidly shifting the conversation from ontology to morality?

It has errors! Type I and Type II errors.

Your use of words which intend absolute certainty is impossible because that level of certainty (such as completeness of a model) is never attainable other than in logic, and it is not needful to be logically rigorous in all models.

Exactly! So all models are wrong. I didn't say that the wrongness of models is a problem. I am just saying that they are wrong.

They produce Type I and Type II errors.

Wrong models are still useful!

So the model is incomplete. That is NOT!!!!!!! the same thing as wrong!

It's the same fucking thing at the 100th percentile!

Dead by incompetence, ignorance or model error is still dead!

No possible model can account for all possible variables. You're requiring the impossible.

I am! But it's precisely because I have an impossible standard is why I can make objective judgment about models!

A less-wrong model (more complete) model is better than a more-wrong (more incomplete) model.

Yes there is. It's rigor. Literally every scientific enterprise is a rigorous one, and it's scientific to the extent it's rigorous. It's literally the only possible baseline for scientific understanding.

The non-rigorous scientific enterprises are still scientific. Utility is the first metric. Rigor is not always necessary!

It's the only possible baseline for YOUR understanding. I am a scientist - I am telling you that the degree if rigor required varies with the risk.

The rigor required for making toast is not the same as the rigor of packing your parachute.

Risk appetite...

The most current ones are typically the best ones as far as we can tell.

What is your metric for "best" ?

The track of science is toward greater certainty, not less certainty as people develop new theories to account for new information or previously unconsidered variables.

That's too easy. Given two different models which offer equivalent certainty which model is "better"?

Multiple scientific models are either compatible or at least one of them is wrong.

So when they are compatible, which one is the "correct" model?

There is no way to have to identically correct models of the same thing which are not compatible.

They are "compatible" - they make the same predictions. They have the same predictive utility to a physicist.

Which model is the right model?

In quantum physics, for example, there's string theory and the carrier wave theory. Both explain the available evidence but they lead to completely different predictive certainty. The fact that they disagree only points to the fact that one must fall. It's utterly senseless to say that all theories are wrong just because we don't (yet) know which one is right

it's only senseless to a non-scientist who doesn't understand what models are.

Models are USEFUL. That is their primary property.

Every version of reality depends on a model - which is just another way of saying you Have a version of reality.

That's what I said with pointing out to Philosophical perspectives.

Every Philosopher/Scientist/Observer/Human believes their version of reality is "the best version of reality".

You are still no closer to giving me an objective selection or elimination criterion.

The question is whether the model is sufficient, not whether you depend upon a model.

Sufficient for what?

Lets suppose that physics uncovers a Theory of Everything. A complete model.

What is this model supposed to be sufficient for?

Reality is the same regardless of which model you apply and models are the same to the extent they are sufficient to their given purpose.

By what objective criterion are you asserting "sameness"?

Under-determination only means lack of epistemological warrant and isn't particularly relevant here.

Epistemological warrant... FOR WHAT?

Your entire shpiel is about actionable certainty. Why do you want to act?

What are you acting TOWARDS?

Rigor is a sufficient method. Whether you've applied it sufficiently is a different question.

OK. Sufficient for what?

The purpose. What are you wanting to do?

OK. What do you want to do with a complete model of reality?

If you don't care about certainty, there's nothing to discuss. Carry on, do as you will.

I don't care about certainty in particular. I can (and do) function without it.

I am just a very skilled gambler.

If you think non-rigorous examination of evidence is sufficient for survival, you're possibly very lucky and definitely very stupid.

Not only do I think it, it's a fact! Humans survived for hundreds of thousands of years without rigor. Science is a recent invention.

I am lucky indeed. The more I practice, the luckier I get.

But take note of the strawman you are constructing. Because earlier on I did point out that Philosophies which fail to account for time are worthless.

Without science average human longevity was 35-40 years.
With science human longevity is 75-80.

[Terrapin Station]

While science is the most rigorous method of knowing external facts, and logic presupposes replicable external experience, it is not the only way of knowing and certainly not the only way of knowing well Enough for a given purpose. Rigor is always sufficient but not always necessary.

And the evidence for Quine buying scientism is . . . well, not at all presented in the above. Which isn't surprising. Quine was a philosopher who valued philosophy as such. He wasn't going to wind up buying scientism. He also wasn't prone to religious beliefs. Scientism amounts to treating science as akin to a religion.

[bahman]

While science is the most rigorous method of knowing external facts, and logic presupposes replicable external experience, it is not the only way of knowing and certainly not the only way of knowing well Enough for a given purpose.

Science is about modeling facts.

Rigor is always sufficient but not always necessary.

Without rigor, you go nowhere. Without doubt, you are trapped.

[Advocate]

[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=493611 time=1612110035 user_id=12582]
And the evidence for Quine buying scientism is . . . well, not at all presented in the above. Which isn't surprising. Quine was a philosopher who valued philosophy as such. He wasn't going to wind up buying scientism.
[/quote]

I don't understand it except through the understanding of Putnam here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNsMP-Jj5Pw

[Skepdick]

I don't understand it except through the understanding of Putnam here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNsMP-Jj5Pw

People who report on what science looks like when scientists do it are guilty of cargo-cult scientism.

People who practice science understand that you can't understand science by observing it. Because science happens in your head first and foremost.

The parallax between 1st and 3rd person perspective cannot be captured in incomplete linguistic expressions.

[Terrapin Station]

And the evidence for Quine buying scientism is . . . well, not at all presented in the above. Which isn't surprising. Quine was a philosopher who valued philosophy as such. He wasn't going to wind up buying scientism.

I don't understand it except through the understanding of Putnam here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNsMP-Jj5Pw

Are you conflating scientism and positivism? Scientism is a term that refers to people more or less treating science like a religion.

Positivism is something entirely different. Positivism is an empirically-oriented approach (not necessarily scientific) that focuses on observables qua observables and that shies away from positing theoretical constructs behind the observables--at least beyond positing them simply as an instrumental tool.

I'm a positivist. I'm not at all someone who buys scientism. For that matter, science tends to posit a lot of theoretical constructs behind observables that positivists have a problem with. Someone who follows science a la scientism is not going to have a problem with this, because they treat science as if it were a religion. In following a religion, you normally don't question what you're presented with very much. You simply obey, proselytize, etc.

[Skepdick]

Positivism is something entirely different. Positivism is an empirically-oriented approach (not necessarily scientific) that focuses on observables qua observables and that shies away from positing theoretical constructs behind the observables--at least beyond positing them simply as an instrumental tool.

The trouble with positivists is this idiotic notion:

Introspective and intuitive knowledge is rejected, as are metaphysics and theology because metaphysical and theological claims cannot be verified by sense experience.

The notion that I am unable to empirically verify that I am thirsty is all the evidence I need to catch on that the positivists are using a constrained notion of "sensing" and "experiencing". They are uncharitable. Even to themselves.

My thirst cannot be verified by OTHERS, because it's private information. But it can be verified.

[Terrapin Station]

Positivism is something entirely different. Positivism is an empirically-oriented approach (not necessarily scientific) that focuses on observables qua observables and that shies away from positing theoretical constructs behind the observables--at least beyond positing them simply as an instrumental tool.

The trouble with positivists is this idiotic notion:

Introspective and intuitive knowledge is rejected, as are metaphysics and theology because metaphysical and theological claims cannot be verified by sense experience.

The notion that I am unable to empirically verify that I am thirsty is all the evidence I need to catch on that the positivists are using a constrained notion of "sensing" and "experiencing". They are uncharitable. Even to themselves.

My thirst cannot be verified by OTHERS, because it's private information. But it can be verified.

I shouldn't be responding to you, but this deserves being cleared up for other folks at least:

There's a difference between being a strict logical positivist in the traditional sense a la the Vienna Circle and being a positivist in a more general sense.

[Skepdick]

I shouldn't be responding to you, but this deserves being cleared up for other folks at least:

There's a difference between being a strict logical positivist in the traditional sense a la the Vienna Circle and being a positivist in a more general sense.

Even in the most general sense of Positivism these are still your words:

Positivism...focuses on observables qua observables

So, being charitable I want to believe you aren't excluding hearing, touch, smell etc. but then... you could've just said "Positivism....focuses on sensing qua sensing"; or "experiencing qua experiencing", but you didn't say that so I figure you chose your words so as to exclude certain experiences and focus only on the "observable" ones.