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

Impenitent
Posts: 2386
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

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

Post by Impenitent » Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:51 am

uwot wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 4:45 pm
Anyway; the Thomas Kuhn biography is coming out in the next issue of Philosophy Now. Bit of toing and froing with the proofs, but that's how this publishing lark works. If anyone wants to submit something to the magazine, by all means chuck a rough version up on the forum. Believe it or not, there are people here who know what they're talking about, and can offer help.
congratulations, it is a nice presentation/summation...

-Imp

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 Feb 18, 2019 10:51 am

Thank you Imp, very good of you to say so.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4964
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

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

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Mar 30, 2019 4:03 pm

uwot wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 2:23 pm



A scientific theory must be:

A Logically coherent explanation.
Supported by evidence.
Useful.
All of these require assumptions. Assumptions require no thought, an empty mind. Assumption is space, space is being and pure justified belief through a progressive self-referentiality.

Science is a religion.

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 » Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:00 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 4:03 pm
Science is a religion.
Really? So if I were to ask you for the defining characteristics of a science, and of a religion, they would be the same? Fuck it, let's see.
Eodnhoj7, what are the defining characteristics of:
1. A science.
2. A religion.

Anyway, while Eodnhoj7 is sorting that out, yer might like to know that the Kuhn article is in the latest edition of Philosophy Now. https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996

socrat44
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

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

Post by socrat44 » Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:26 pm

uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:00 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 4:03 pm
Science is a religion.
Really? So if I were to ask you for the defining characteristics of a science,
and of a religion, they would be the same? Fuck it, let's see.
Eodnhoj7, what are the defining characteristics of:
1. A science.
2. A religion.

Anyway, while Eodnhoj7 is sorting that out, yer might like to know
that the Kuhn article is in the latest edition of Philosophy Now.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996
Modern philosophy of science says:
a) 27% of matter in the universe is dark-matter
(we have no idea what it is )
b) 68% of energy in the universe is dark-energy
(we have no idea what it is )
c) there are many black-holes
(we have no idea how many they are )
d) ≈  5% of matter in the universe is normal-matter
( we don't know everything about this normal-matter)
#
That is our philosophical knowledge.
Welcome to the era of precision ignorance.
======

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 » Sun Mar 31, 2019 4:44 am

socrat44 wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:26 pm
Modern philosophy of science says:
a) 27% of matter in the universe is dark-matter
(we have no idea what it is )
Well, according to our best theory of gravity, the observable galaxies shouldn't be as compact as they are. Something that we don't know about is apparently generating the gravity to hold them together. The only source of gravity that we are currently aware of is matter and since there is more gravity than the matter we can see can account for, the assumption is that there must be some matter we can't see.
socrat44 wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:26 pm
b) 68% of energy in the universe is dark-energy
(we have no idea what it is )
Yeah. Something is causing the islands of "normal-matter", galaxies, to accelerate away from each other.
socrat44 wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:26 pm
c) there are many black-holes
(we have no idea how many they are )
No we don't.
socrat44 wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:26 pm
d) ≈  5% of matter in the universe is normal-matter
( we don't know everything about this normal-matter)
True.
socrat44 wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:26 pm
That is our philosophical knowledge.
Welcome to the era of precision ignorance.
Out of interest, have you read page 1 of this thread?

socrat44
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

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

Post by socrat44 » Sun Mar 31, 2019 11:25 am

socrat44 wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:26 pm
Welcome to the era of precision ignorance.
uwot wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 4:44 am
Out of interest, have you read page 1 of this thread?
The philosophy of science (-the first two and a half millennia)
showed, we studied about 5% of matter in the universe.
It means we possess only about 5% of all knowledge.
Most knowledge (+95%) is a foggy image of something unknown.
===

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 » Sun Mar 31, 2019 1:12 pm

socrat44 wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 11:25 am
uwot wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 4:44 am
Out of interest, have you read page 1 of this thread?
The philosophy of science (-the first two and a half millennia)
showed, we studied about 5% of matter in the universe.
That's a 'no' then.

socrat44
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

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

Post by socrat44 » Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:09 pm

uwot wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 1:12 pm
socrat44 wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 11:25 am
uwot wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 4:44 am
Out of interest, have you read page 1 of this thread?
The philosophy of science (-the first two and a half millennia)
showed, we studied about 5% of matter in the universe.
That's a 'no' then.
All ( Aristotle + Galileo + Newton + Maxwell + Planck + Einstein + . . . )
knowledge is only about 5% of all knowledge because:
a) scientists know something about 5% of normal-matter and
b) they know nothing about unseen dark matter-energy (+95%)
===

socrat44
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

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

Post by socrat44 » Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:18 pm

socrat44 wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 11:25 am
All ( Aristotle + Galileo + Newton + Maxwell + Planck + Einstein + . . . )
knowledge is only about 5% of all knowledge because:
a) scientists know something about 5% of normal-matter and
b) they know nothing about (+95%) of unseen dark matter-energy
===
What does modern Physics say about reality?
Modern physics says about reality,
you have modern technology and strange philosophy.
===

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3407
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

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

Post by attofishpi » Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:26 pm

Question:- Is dark matter anti matter? I know I could just goggle it, but I refuse - and I can't debate in a static response.

socrat44
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

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

Post by socrat44 » Wed Apr 03, 2019 11:57 am

attofishpi wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:26 pm
Question:- Is dark matter anti matter?
On the one hand
1 - dark matter is 27% in the universe
2 - normal matter is 5% in the universe,
it means anti-matter must be also 5%.
On the other hand
1 - dark matter has stuff / mass and therefore
must feel gravity (takes part in gravity process)
But it doesn't reflect light or give off light.
It means dark matter doesn't have electromagnetic
interaction (doesn't have electric charge)
2- we don't know what kind of particles it is made of.
3 - anti-matter is made of anti-particles.
These anti-particles have their own electric charge.
#
So, dark-matter cannot be anti-matter.
(my opinion)
======
dark matter.jpg
dark matter.jpg (10.2 KiB) Viewed 432 times

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4964
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

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

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:43 pm

uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:00 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 4:03 pm
Science is a religion.
Really? So if I were to ask you for the defining characteristics of a science, and of a religion, they would be the same? Fuck it, let's see.
Eodnhoj7, what are the defining characteristics of:
1. A science.
2. A religion.

Anyway, while Eodnhoj7 is sorting that out, yer might like to know that the Kuhn article is in the latest edition of Philosophy Now. https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996
Here is a short response because I am strapped for time...and quite frankly don't care enough because I am tired from life:

The defining characteristics of each phenomenon in itself (ie Science and Religion) is subject to a problematic nature due to its dependence upon group agreement. With that in mind, a common dictionary definition will be used:

Science:

NOUN

-the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

-a particular area of science.

-a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.

-knowledge of any kind.


http://www.bing.com/search?q=science+de ... 9EAF1E16CF


Religion:

-the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

-a particular system of faith and worship.

-a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.


http://www.bing.com/search?q=religion+d ... 1D37A214E3


Religion as Science:

- All systems, that which the human intellect is subject to, is in itself superhuman in the respect it is the measuring point (ie value system whether of an abstract or anthropomorphic nature) that exists as not just the potential of the human condition (ie union with God or "Truth") but effectively is the guiding force that determines the human course of action.

Both science and religion exist through "ritual", where ritual is a repeated course of action that forms the perspectives of the human condition which in turn forms the human condition itself.

The circularity of the scientific method mirrors the cyclical nature of repetitive rituals in religion. The formation of experiments is a repeated act where either the experiment changes or is repeated in a manner where the results exist repeatably (a high probability of occurence).

The rituals of religions are repeated at intervals as well, and while the ritual may change at a much slower rate in time (an experiment may change at a quicker rate than a ritual) the continuance of the ritual represents a means of perspective to ground the person's changing perspective. In simpler terms, while the experiment may represent a grounding framework in which reality may be interpreted consistently (ie an apple falling from a tree is a framework for gravity) the ritual may repeatably resurrect forgotten elements of the psyche that are hidden within the chaos of existence (ie the ritual of "confession" may bring back a clarity of conscience by observing the identity of self in its full form).

The ritual and experiment are both frameworks which defined the identity of reality through which the individual exists and as such is an extension of the individual him or herself.


Both require an "imaging" process of visualization. The "hypothesis" is strictly an interpretation of a phenomenon that quite literally is imaginary. Any spiritual experience, through deep contemplation or prayer, follows this same imaging process in which both exist not only as "experiences" grounded in deep observation/meditation but effectively exist as "visions" which are justified by there ability to align with empirical sensory reality.

The hypothesis and religious vision, in these respects, are both one and the same and that while acting as "definer's" or reality (as both represent some means of defining a specific phenomenon) they are justified simultaneously by the aligning to other definitions of reality. In simpler terms both are abstract/intuitive means of definition which are deemed as "true" relative to there symmetry to empirical reality...there alignment or unity to empirical reality is what determines them.

However a paradox occurs as empirical reality is subject to an infinite number of hypothesis's, explanations, much in the same manner a vision may be composed of specific symbolic qualities that have an infinite range of meanings.


Both Science and Religion, as systems of definition, are grounded in "knowledge" where the experiment and ritual exist not only as a revelatory process in themselves but effectively are revealed in accords to a perceived unity between the observer and higher reality.

The process of experimentation is revealed in accords with the experiments ability to give a unified interpretation of a specific phenomenon with the "process of experimentation" revealed in accords with time where people observed that "experimentation" allows a grounding of the human condition.

In simpler terms the repetitive actions of the human condition in its navigation through chaos revealed that experiments allow a certain consistency in interpretating and thus giving order to a percieved external and/or internal chaos.

The same applies for the ritual in religion where the ritual acts as a grounding point through which a person's perceptions may revolve (similiar to the nature of experimentation itself) and give a constant means of the individual to root their identity.

The nature of both the ritual and experiment, as grounded in identity where the "self" or a percieved "outside" self, is repeated as constant through time observes a maintaining property which gives unity and order to "being" by the process of definition alone where percievably seperate elements of reality are "united".

The experiment may observe something, such as "gravity", uniting seperate phenomenon (the apples movement away from the tree to the ground) in the same manner where a ritual observes the same phenomenon (the person going to confession to effectively integrate their percieved "failings", that which seperates the identity and integrity of the individual) of "uniting". This by nature is "definition".

In a dual respect this defintion, occuring through the experiment/ritual, observes a process of seperation where the experiment may seperate one definition from another (such as a framework defining lightwaves as not the sole cause of the apple falling from the tree) as well as the ritual (the ritual of worship observing that a person's lifestyle does not align with perceived virtues exhibited by the deity/dieties).


Both require "sacrifice" in a primordial sense whether observing the lab table and sacrifical altar as fundamentally the same process of taking a phenomenon and seperating it in order to gain deeper knowledge or power, or the nature of the individual giving both time and attention in a manner to the experimental/ritual process in manner in which they effective lose the subjective emotion part to it. In the scientific method this is called "objectivity" and in the religious ritual this is called transcendence. Objectivity and transcendence are both one and the same in these respects where the individual subjective self, ie the "ego", is annihiliate for the sake of percieving a more unified and fuller reality.

I can go further but you get the point.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

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

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:54 pm

Dark matter may be responsible for galaxies not flying apart and may be present in gravitational lensing and the cosmic microwave
background though it is very hard to detect given how it does not interact with either ordinary matter or electromagnetic radiation

Most physicists think it exists but there is currently no actual evidence for it until it can be contained
It passes right through ordinary matter which is why it is practically immune to any type of detection
More sophisticated means of trapping it have to be discovered before it can be properly investigated

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests