Is science being divided?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Science will become:

Divided
1
50%
Physicalism
0
No votes
A matter of "information"
1
50%
 
Total votes: 2

User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by QuantumT »

Averroes wrote: Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:21 pm I remember some weeks ago you did not know about Descartes when I mentioned him to you and now you are able to recognize his argument! You ended up learning something worthwhile after all by exchanging with me! :)
You remember wrong. I've know Descartes a long time. But what does it have to do with disagreements among scientists? About matter vs. information? Descartes didn't know anything about that stuff.
Averroes
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by Averroes »

uwot wrote: Sat Jun 02, 2018 7:52 am
Averroes wrote: Fri Jun 01, 2018 9:33 pm
uwot wrote: Thu May 31, 2018 3:03 pmOf course Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is science.
Not everyone shares that point of view though.
That's because there is no agreed definition of science.
The scientific method is accepted by all scientists. The scientific method has a fundamental requirement that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori intuition and reasoning. The observation and experimentation of the natural world is the crucial element in the scientific method. Darwinism fails to fulfill that fundamental requirement of the scientific method because as you rightly subsequently mentioned: “what has never been observed is the spontaneous generation of an entirely new species.” The latter are your own words!
uwot wrote: Sat Jun 02, 2018 7:52 am
Averroes wrote: Fri Jun 01, 2018 9:33 pmI tend to agree that Darwinism is without proof/evidence...
You really should listen to what every native English speaker is telling you and accept that we understand that there is a profound difference between evidence and proof.
You are mistaken on several grounds here. Firstly, every native English speaker is not on this forum! What you have on this forum is around a couple dozens or so of English speakers from different parts of the heterogeneous English speaking world. Secondly, you do not speak on behalf of all the native English speakers, but you speak for yourself and from your own understanding of the English language. The English language does not belong to you exclusively and does not have to follow your particular understanding of it. Moreover, the English speaking world is not a completely homogeneous entity. There are many different types of native English speakers, and they do not speak in one voice but oftentimes in divergent voices. You have for example, American English, British English, Australian English etc... And among each of these broad divisions there are many other subdivisions and they also do not speak in one voice. Which makes what you call an “every native English speaker” an abstraction or a concept. In reality now, what you have close to the concept of an “every native English speaker” are the works of linguists and English language scholars in the form of dictionaries and other reference materials which are then called the authorities in the English language. And it is the job of these English language scholars to try to harmonize the heterogeneous English language in their works. And I do listen to these people! I consult the dictionary and follow their recommendations. This is the only way to communicate effectively on such kind of platform as PhilosophyNow, where you truly have a meeting of the international community with their various particular understanding of the language, Among so much diversity, one cannot function effectively without an agreed harmonizer, i.e. a common English dictionary.
And these references say that evidence and proof are synonymous: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/proof
http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/thesaurus/proof

If you do not want these words to be synonymous or use them as such, you have the right to do so. But what you do not have a right to do is to impose on me your choice! My choice is to follow the recommendations of the English language scholars wherever they apply. If they revise their entries, then I revise my concepts. This is my choice and I intend to keep it that way.

uwot wrote: Sat Jun 02, 2018 7:52 am
Averroes wrote: Fri Jun 01, 2018 9:33 pmAs can be clearly understood from these authoritative geology references, the methods used to date fossils are not at all reliable. We do NOT know the age of these fossils at all. So these fossils cannot be used as evidence for evolution from a scientific point of view.
Whether or not we know the exact time of death of each individual fossilised creature is irrelevant.
It is certain that the scientists do not know the age of any of these fossils.

uwot wrote:We understand the process by which the sedimentary rocks that fossils are generally found in form. We know that process doesn't happen overnight.
Good. So what you and the scientists know is that the process of fossilization does not happen overnight. Now, instead of talking about what they do not know, they should be talking about what they know. So all references where mentioned is made of “billions or millions of years” should be removed and replaced with the correct technical term “not overnight!” After this has been done, then we would better be able to observe it’s relevancy! For example the Wikipedia entry on fossil contains the following statement: “The oldest fossils are from around 3.48 billion years old to 4.1 billion years old.” The latter statement is not true but the correct statement should instead be written as: “The oldest fossils are from around not overnight!”
Averroes
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by Averroes »

QuantumT wrote: Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:42 pm About matter vs. information? Descartes didn't know anything about that stuff.
Really?? Descartes the great mathematician and scientist did not know anything about matter and information??? Are you sure you know who is Descartes? Continue your studies you still have more to learn!
User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by QuantumT »

Averroes wrote: Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:49 pm Really?? Descartes the great mathematician and scientist did not know anything about matter and information??? Are you sure you know who is Descartes? Continue your studies you still have more to learn!
Descartes predates Newton! He lived in an age without known physical laws! His "science" had no foundation in facts!
Averroes
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by Averroes »

-1- wrote: Sat Jun 02, 2018 8:02 am Finally we are on the same page. Science can't prove anything, only disprove.
If I am not mistaken, I think that statement is related to Karl Popper’s view of science. But what Popper actually claimed is more nuanced than that. More accurately the statement goes as follows: “The scientific method cannot prove but only disprove a scientific theory.” Here it is important to consider that the proving/disproving statement concerns only scientific theories. Under Popper’s account a hypothesis has to meet four conditions in-order to be labeled as scientific. One of these conditions is that the hypothesis be capable of being tested by experience. One of the criticisms that Popper himself raised against Darwinism is that it is tautological: “the survivor survives,” and that it is not testable. So under this view of science, Darwinism does not even get to be called a scientific theory and hence the proving/disproving statement does not get to apply to it!
-1- wrote:You and I got to get you understand this much (maybe) after a grueling few days work of explaining things to you.
It was interesting and informative for me.
-1- wrote:I shall now respectfully put you on my "foe" list, so I shall never have to see your posts again.
That is unwarranted, disproportionate and excessive I think. Our exchange was quite civilized and respectful all through. But I respect your choice. The thing now is that if you have already put me on the “foe” list you will not get to read this message! It was interesting to have exchanged with you though.
Averroes
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by Averroes »

QuantumT wrote: Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:54 pm
Averroes wrote: Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:49 pm Really?? Descartes the great mathematician and scientist did not know anything about matter and information??? Are you sure you know who is Descartes? Continue your studies you still have more to learn!
Descartes predates Newton! He lived in an age without known physical laws! His "science" had no foundation in facts!
Really?? So science is merely reduced to physics for you? What about medicine, biology, chemistry and others? Moreover Newton's laws heavily relied on the works of people such as Coppernicus, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, all of whom preceded or were contemporary to Descartes and were known to him.

Galileo was already doing physical experiments and finding physical laws before Newton.

From Wikipedia on Galileo:
  • Galileo's theoretical and experimental work on the motions of bodies, along with the largely independent work of Kepler and René Descartes, was a precursor of the classical mechanics developed by Sir Isaac Newton. Galileo conducted several experiments with pendulums. It is popularly believed (thanks to the biography by Vincenzo Viviani) that these began by watching the swings of the bronze chandelier in the cathedral of Pisa, using his pulse as a timer. Later experiments are described in his Two New Sciences. Galileo claimed that a simple pendulum is isochronous, i.e. that its swings always take the same amount of time, independently of the amplitude. In fact, this is only approximately true, as was discovered by Christiaan Huygens. Galileo also found that the square of the period varies directly with the length of the pendulum. Galileo's son, Vincenzo, sketched a clock based on his father's theories in 1642. The clock was never built and, because of the large swings required by its verge escapement, would have been a poor timekeeper. (See Engineering above.)

In fact Galileo had already found and stated Newton's first law of motion. I think you should spare some of your time to study the history of science.

From Wikipedia:
  • He (Galileo) also concluded that objects retain their velocity in the absence of any impediments to their motion, thereby contradicting the generally accepted Aristotelian hypothesis that a body could only remain in so-called "violent", "unnatural", or "forced" motion so long as an agent of change (the "mover") continued to act on it. Philosophical ideas relating to inertia had been proposed by John Philoponus and Jean Buridan. Galileo stated: "Imagine any particle projected along a horizontal plane without friction; then we know, from what has been more fully explained in the preceding pages, that this particle will move along this same plane with a motion which is uniform and perpetual, provided the plane has no limits" This was incorporated into Newton's laws of motion (first law).
Some reading materials for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Physics
User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by QuantumT »

Averroes wrote: Sun Jun 03, 2018 11:02 pm
-1- wrote:I shall now respectfully put you on my "foe" list, so I shall never have to see your posts again.
That is unwarranted, disproportionate and excessive I think. Our exchange was quite civilized and respectful all through. But I respect your choice. The thing now is that if you have already put me on the “foe” list you will not get to read this message! It was interesting to have exchanged with you though.
Again, Averroes? You seem to have a pattern with people :mrgreen:

I also had you on my foe list shortly, but then I though: Life is to short to have foes. Let bygones be bygones. I just hope one day, that your mind will be liberated from the burden of Islam.
Last edited by QuantumT on Sun Jun 03, 2018 11:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Averroes
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by Averroes »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Jun 02, 2018 9:25 am Stop arguing English.
The discussion I was having with -1- was not particularly English related actually. It was more a discussion about language in general and more specifically it was a logical discussion. I could have had that same discussion in French for example, with the same content but the medium of expression would have been different. Logic and mathematics are universal languages.

The philosophy of language and the study of language is an important aspect of the western tradition in philosophy which dates back to the ancient Greek philosophers culminating in the logic of Aristotle. The logic of Aristotle would then dominate the philosophical scene for more that 2000 years up until the turn of the 19th century in the development of modern logic by philosophers such as Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell and Lugwig Wittgenstein among others. But before that there is often the not enough mentioned in philosophy a very important development in logic namely the algebraization of logic by English mathematician George Boole. I am of the opinion that Boole was influential in what would subsequently pave the way for the development of modern logic by Frege and Russell. Boole is a towering figure in the field of computer science but not so much (if at all) in philosophy. He is mostly known as a mathematician but he himself saw himself as a philosopher. So it would not do harm to anybody if we were to call him a philosopher-mathematician.

So the analysis of language is a well entrenched tradition in philosophy which cannot be avoided nowadays. And also, the study of language is a really fascinating subject. Moreover, the computer that you are using to write and post on the forum is itself in a significant part the result of the sophisticated study of language and argumentation, i.e. logic!!! You can read the following article to get an idea of what I am talking about: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... er/518697/
Averroes
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by Averroes »

QuantumT wrote: Sun Jun 03, 2018 11:32 pm I just hope one day, that your mind will be liberated from the burden of Islam.
Without Islam, death is better for me.
User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 895
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by A_Seagull »

Averroes wrote: Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:17 pm
A_Seagull wrote: Fri Jun 01, 2018 10:43 pm
Averroes wrote: Fri Jun 01, 2018 9:02 pm

Have we really agreed that I exists? How come?
For me my existence is self-evident. It will be logically absurd if I were to deny my own existence. But that's just for me.
But now, how have you come to agree that I exist? What evidence/proof do you have of my existence for you to agree that I exist? Do you have empirical evidence/proof of my existence? Please explain this before we proceed to the other points in your post.
Its just a working hypothesis....
or if you like it is the best theory to fit the available data.
I am very happy to read that it is the best theory. Please, I would like you to elaborate more on the following points:
1. What available data are being fitted?
2. Why is it the best theory to conclude that I exist from that available data?
Its not rocket science, but it is science! Collect the data, draw a conclusion. It is the only sensible way to learn about the world.

If you want more information on how this works you can read my book : The Pattern Paradigm.
User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by QuantumT »

Averroes wrote: Sun Jun 03, 2018 11:33 pm
QuantumT wrote: Sun Jun 03, 2018 11:32 pm I just hope one day, that your mind will be liberated from the burden of Islam.
Without Islam, death is better for me.
That makes your science worthless and your philosophy contaminated.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9295
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Averroes wrote: Sun Jun 03, 2018 11:32 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Jun 02, 2018 9:25 am Stop arguing English.
The discussion I was having with -1- was not particularly English related actually. It was more a discussion about language in general and more specifically it was a logical discussion. I could have had that same discussion in French for example, with the same content but the medium of expression would have been different. Logic and mathematics are universal languages.

The philosophy of language and the study of language is an important aspect of the western tradition in philosophy which dates back to the ancient Greek philosophers culminating in the logic of Aristotle. The logic of Aristotle would then dominate the philosophical scene for more that 2000 years up until the turn of the 19th century in the development of modern logic by philosophers such as Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell and Lugwig Wittgenstein among others. But before that there is often the not enough mentioned in philosophy a very important development in logic namely the algebraization of logic by English mathematician George Boole. I am of the opinion that Boole was influential in what would subsequently pave the way for the development of modern logic by Frege and Russell. Boole is a towering figure in the field of computer science but not so much (if at all) in philosophy. He is mostly known as a mathematician but he himself saw himself as a philosopher. So it would not do harm to anybody if we were to call him a philosopher-mathematician.

So the analysis of language is a well entrenched tradition in philosophy which cannot be avoided nowadays. And also, the study of language is a really fascinating subject. Moreover, the computer that you are using to write and post on the forum is itself in a significant part the result of the sophisticated study of language and argumentation, i.e. logic!!! You can read the following article to get an idea of what I am talking about: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... er/518697/
You are the one who was claiming that proof and evidence mean the same thing.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9295
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Averroes wrote: Sun Jun 03, 2018 11:33 pm
QuantumT wrote: Sun Jun 03, 2018 11:32 pm I just hope one day, that your mind will be liberated from the burden of Islam.
Without Islam, death is better for me.
Stupid claim that makes no logical sense. No one ever misses religious brain-washing once they are free of it. Unfortunately only a few very intelligent people can rise above early indoctrination. You should really try to grow up and stand on your own two feet instead of hero-worshipping some vague, dictatorial daddy-figure.
Btw, are you a 'British' muslim by any chance? Real muslims don't tend to go on about their religion or even mention it. You come across as a 'born-again' type.
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by uwot »

Averroes wrote: Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:45 pmThe scientific method is accepted by all scientists.
There is no scientific method. You are clearly someone who accepts authority as a reliable source of knowledge; where do you believe the "scientific method" is written down and by whom?
Averroes wrote: Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:45 pmDarwinism fails to fulfill that fundamental requirement of the scientific method because as you rightly subsequently mentioned: “what has never been observed is the spontaneous generation of an entirely new species.” The latter are your own words!
Yes, and Darwinism does not posit the spontaneous generation of new species, so what is your point?
Averroes wrote: Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:45 pm...every native English speaker is not on this forum! What you have on this forum is around a couple dozens or so of English speakers from different parts of the heterogeneous English speaking world.
True, but in your estimation, what are the chances of all of us saying the exact same wrong thing?
Averroes wrote: Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:45 pmIt is certain that the scientists do not know the age of any of these fossils.
I've already conceded as much, but I'll say it again. This time I'll emphasise the bit you really need to address:
uwot wrote: Sat Jun 02, 2018 7:52 amWhether or not we know the exact time of death of each individual fossilised creature is irrelevant. We understand the process by which the sedimentary rocks that fossils are generally found in form. We know that process doesn't happen overnight. And we know that the rocks at the bottom contain the simplest organisms and that the closer to the surface, the more like modern animals the fossils become.
Averroes
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by Averroes »

A_Seagull wrote: Sun Jun 03, 2018 11:55 pm Its not rocket science, but it is science! Collect the data, draw a conclusion. It is the only sensible way to learn about the world.

If you want more information on how this works you can read my book : The Pattern Paradigm.
Ok. Thanks for informing me be about your book. Where can I find it please?

But for now can you give me a synopsis? What I am asking you is why did you infer my existence from some available data that you have; given that this data is not me and that you have never had an empirical experience of me? If you do not know the answer but it was just a natural response for you to infer my existence then don’t worry, just say so and I won’t be asking those questions anymore.
Post Reply