Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

uwot
Posts: 4374
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by uwot » Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:10 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:45 am
...if you concede to allowing for interpretation in science then you must concede it no different to religion.
As I said:
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:21 am
...but science stakes its hold on 'objectivity'. Things are true irrespective if you believe them or not.
uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:05 am
Of observations. Falling objects on Earth accelerate at 9.8mss or they don't. You can make up any story you like for why that might be the case.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:45 am
Yes, science is subjective. But by agreeing to some fundamentals (SI units) we INVENT objectivity. A reference frame against which we consistently interpret our results. Should we invent "observation" too then ?
No, we should just be aware of the theory dependence of observation.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:14 am

uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:10 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:45 am
...if you concede to allowing for interpretation in science then you must concede it no different to religion.
As I said:
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:21 am
...but science stakes its hold on 'objectivity'. Things are true irrespective if you believe them or not.
uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:05 am
Of observations. Falling objects on Earth accelerate at 9.8mss or they don't. You can make up any story you like for why that might be the case.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:45 am
Yes, science is subjective. But by agreeing to some fundamentals (SI units) we INVENT objectivity. A reference frame against which we consistently interpret our results. Should we invent "observation" too then ?
No, we should just be aware of the theory dependence of observation.

Ok but you ARE interpreting observation to mean the passive meaning "watch falling objects accelerate" which is consistent with the GR framework. Which is consistent with human experience.

QFT is NOT consistent with human experience, so my point is that if you want to translate any QFT phenomena into human scale of observation (e.g in the passive meaning) of the word "observation" (which - I imagine is something you want to do since you care about visualisation and understanding) then you need to translate the meaning of "observation" from the context in which it is meant into the context in which it is being interpreted!

10 in decimal does not mean 10 in binary! Translation of MEANING required.

uwot
Posts: 4374
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by uwot » Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:16 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:14 am
Ok but you ARE interpreting observation to mean the passive meaning "watch falling objects accelerate" which is consistent with the GR framework.
And I am aware of it.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:17 am

uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:16 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:14 am
Ok but you ARE interpreting observation to mean the passive meaning "watch falling objects accelerate" which is consistent with the GR framework.
And I am aware of it.
And the rest of it?

uwot
Posts: 4374
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by uwot » Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:28 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:17 am
And the rest of it?
Well, you could read the blog and tell me what I don't know. https://willijbouwman.blogspot.com As I have said at least a couple of times, if you are happy with your narrative, stick with it. If you are determined to point out errors in mine, you will have to find them.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:31 am

To put it simply: Linguistically - context confers meaning. A symbol must be interpreted IN the context that it was used.
If you switch contexts - you need to translate your symbols.

If you don't - you are using 10(binary) to mean 10(decimal) which leads to errors in reasoning.

And so how do you translate interactive-observation into passive-observation?

The exact same ambiguity exists in the word "prediction"! Because QFT and GR have different conceptions of time.How do you translate THAT into human experience?

"Prediction" is measurement corresponding with theoretical guess at time(NOW)+N. N of WHAT ?

uwot
Posts: 4374
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by uwot » Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:57 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:31 am
To put it simply: Linguistically - context confers meaning. A symbol must be interpreted IN the context that it was used.
That is the nature of any paradigm, any narrative, any Gestalt, any Weltanschauung absolutely any point of view and any language that is derived from it. Long story short-philosophers have traditionally tried to create a narrative, to a large degree, that is what philosophy is, even if it is a 'scientific' philosophy like 'spacetime' or m-theory. This pretty much came to a head in the middle of the 20th century, when logical positivists, in an attempt to shore up what was fundamentally Russell and Whitehead's logical atomism and inspired by Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, finally conceded that actually, it was the later Wittgenstein who was on the money. Since then, the odd throwback notwithstanding, it is generally accepted that science is a human endeavour, subject to human foibles, pretty much as Kuhn stated. And yes, we can try to find 'objective' principles (there is a fine book by Daston and Galison, for anyone with an attention span exceeding 5 minutes), but we have to be aware of confirmation bias, the best protection against which is peer review, which works best by people who are critical; as Popper advised.
Sorry if that is too long for you.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:10 am

uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:57 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:31 am
To put it simply: Linguistically - context confers meaning. A symbol must be interpreted IN the context that it was used.
That is the nature of any paradigm, any narrative, any Gestalt, any Weltanschauung absolutely any point of view and any language that is derived from it. Long story short-philosophers have traditionally tried to create a narrative, to a large degree, that is what philosophy is, even if it is a 'scientific' philosophy like 'spacetime' or m-theory. This pretty much came to a head in the middle of the 20th century, when logical positivists, in an attempt to shore up what was fundamentally Russell and Whitehead's logical atomism and inspired by Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, finally conceded that actually, it was the later Wittgenstein who was on the money. Since then, the odd throwback notwithstanding, it is generally accepted that science is a human endeavour, subject to human foibles, pretty much as Kuhn stated. And yes, we can try to find 'objective' principles (there is a fine book by Daston and Galison, for anyone with an attention span exceeding 5 minutes), but we have to be aware of confirmation bias, the best protection against which is peer review, which works best by people who are critical; as Popper advised.
Sorry if that is too long for you.
We have developped objective principles in systems theory/information theory ;) Because what is software engineering but some "objective observer" having total control of a system.

Part of the reason I am doing this is to figure out if this knowledge has made it out into the "broader scientific community". I will read the book and gauge how far off the mark it is. Because I may have to write a book...

uwot
Posts: 4374
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by uwot » Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:27 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:10 am
We have developped objective principles in systems theory/information theory ;)
Well, you've developed a language that you and computers understand.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:10 am
Part of the reason I am doing this is to figure out if this knowledge has made it out into the "broader scientific community".
You might want to visit a science forum then. If it's philosophy you want to know about, this might get you started: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computer-science/

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:44 pm

uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:27 pm
Well, you've developed a language that you and computers understand.
Then perhaps I have conveyed a very narrow conception of it? The computers part are just tools. They help us automate human reasoning and make faster decisions. Save time if you will.
The language/framework is just a pragmatic need to solve metaphysics, epistemology and ontology - so people don't have to bicker over silly stuff for days and reach consensus faster.

Objective languages and metaphysics are useful tools to have - I think?

Systems theory/complexity theory goes beyond computers. It is generally applicable anywhere from industrial engineering, aviation safety, health&medicine, education, ecosystems. Any inter-connected systems. And so the general theoretical problems that emerge in systems theory apply to the problems that emerge in the particular fields.
uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:27 pm
You might want to visit a science forum then. If it's philosophy you want to know about, this might get you started: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computer-science/
Why create such an artificial taxonomy in the human endeavor of enquiry?

uwot
Posts: 4374
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by uwot » Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:22 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:44 pm
The language/framework is just a pragmatic need to solve metaphysics, epistemology and ontology - so people don't have to bicker over silly stuff for days and reach consensus faster.
Great. So let us know when you have solved all of that and can tell us in a language we speak.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:44 pm
Why create such an artificial taxonomy in the human endeavor of enquiry?
Because you have to know what questions you wish to ask and how to ask them.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:25 pm

uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:22 pm
Great. So let us know when you have solved all of that and can tell us in a language we speak.
Well, look. I explained to you the value of the language I speak (if you want to learn it). If you don't - there are plenty of people who do.
It is a valuable tool - and having access to valuable tools tends to create social inequality and all. If not now - for future generations.

You get to choose :)
uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:22 pm
Because you have to know what questions you wish to ask and how to ask them.
Yes. You need a teleology first. Which is what I ask most people I encounter: "What do you want and how will you know when you find it?" ;)
If you don't know that - good luck on your forthcoming infinite loop. Know thyself before you try to figure out the world or something...

uwot
Posts: 4374
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by uwot » Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:39 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:25 pm
Well, look. I explained to you the value of the language I speak (if you want to learn it). If you don't - there are plenty of people who do.
It is a valuable tool - and having access to valuable tools tends to create social inequality and all. If not now - for future generations.

You get to choose :)
Yeah, but it's only of value to someone interested in philosophy, if it can answer philosophical questions. If you can't understand philosophical questions, how will ask your computer to solve them?
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:25 pm
You need a teleology first. Which is what I ask most people I encounter: "What do you want and how will you know when you find it?" ;)
If you don't know that - good luck on your forthcoming infinite loop.
Well, you hypothesise an answer to the question, get all the help you can from computers to devise experiments and crunch the numbers, but it is the empirical evidence that tells you if your model works, regardless of what a computer tells you should happen.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:44 pm

uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:39 pm
Yeah, but it's only of value to someone interested in philosophy, if it can answer philosophical questions. If you can't understand philosophical questions, how will ask your computer to solve them?
No? It's a general framework for asking and answering questions (philosophical or otherwise). Or rather - for developing an intuition to ask the right questions. But for it to work you actually need to have a conception of what a "good answer" is. Which is the "what do you want and what does it look like?" question.

Like I said - the computer is a tool. Some questions require lots of computation to get good answers.

But the framework of computation makes for more rational brains that know how spot errors in reasoning and how to ask the right questions. You learn to think for yourself or something ;)
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:25 pm
Well, you hypothesise an answer to the question, get all the help you can from computers to devise experiments and crunch the numbers, but it is the empirical evidence that tells you if your model works, regardless of what a computer tells you should happen.
The human does the hypothesizing and the experiment design. Designing experiments WITH COMPUTERS is cheaper. Modeling and simulation.
So you can get quick ideas/guesstimates on what may or may not work.

Predicting failure early (falsification!) is super-useful to avoid wasting your time towards a dead end.

uwot
Posts: 4374
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by uwot » Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:18 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:25 pm
The human does the hypothesizing and the experiment design. Designing experiments WITH COMPUTERS is cheaper. Modeling and simulation.
So you can get quick ideas/guesstimates on what may or may not work.

Predicting failure early (falsification!) is super-useful to avoid wasting your time towards a dead end.
Not sure why you feel the need to repeat something I already said.
Anyway, for anyone interested in how computers can help visualise philosophical models, Derek Leinweber and his team at Adelaide have created some really good animations of things like quark-gluon plasma here: http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/theo ... index.html
This is one of my favourites: http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/theo ... action.gif

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests