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

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 »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:52 am Thought existed before language ever did because it is more primitive and less complex
Do you have a conception of 'thought' that is not based on language? All you have offered so far is "conception is another word for thought". This is equivocation.
surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:52 am To then say that conception of language is based on language itself is demonstrably false
Conception is another word for thought so to initially conceive of a language does not imply actual language
You know when I said you are making the circle bigger? This is exactly it! Illusion.

So I am going to short-circuit your argument like this: You have no conception of conception.
Therefore you have no conception of thought. Therefore you have no conception of language that is not linguistic.

Logocentrism
surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:52 am Language is either written or spoken but conception or thought is neither of these because it is much simpler
Yes. That is how language is USED! Not how language is CREATED.
surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:52 am You can conceive the beginning of a new language in your mind without actually writing it down or saying it out loud
You can't conceive how language is created until you can conceive conception.

This is awesome! Langage is circular (which is not news to me) :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

But the question of how do you 'conceptualise conception' leads to.... creation ;)
Last edited by TimeSeeker on Sat Sep 29, 2018 6:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 6:02 am Science is the study of observable phenomena and nothing else.
Really? What about the dissemination of said studies USING language?
surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 6:02 am And therefore has nothing to say about the ontological
nature of reality. It has nothing to say about reality full stop. ONLY observable phenomena [ the two are not the same ]
If science has nothing to say about the ontological then who does? Philosophers?

How do you SAY anything about ontological if you have no knowledge of the ontological?
How did you acquire knowledge of the ontological?

You've made the circle so big that you can't see your own circular reasoning ;)
surreptitious57
Posts: 4223
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

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

Post by surreptitious57 »

TimeSeeker wrote:
How do you SAY anything about the ontological if you have no knowledge of the ontological?
How did you acquire knowledge of the ontological?
Science treats observable phenomena and the ontological nature of reality as completely separate categories
Since ontology pertains to philosophy and not science although philosophy cannot answer the question either

That is because the role of philosophy is to ask the right questions rather than to provide the right answers
Then neither science nor philosophy can answer the question as to what the ontological nature of reality is
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 »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 6:39 am Science treats observable phenomena and the ontological nature of reality as completely separate categories
Can you really say that about quantum physics?
surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 6:39 am Since ontology pertains to philosophy and not science although philosophy cannot answer the question either

That is because the role of philosophy is to ask the right questions rather than to provide the right answers
Then neither science nor philosophy can answer the question as to what the ontological nature of reality is
OK, but I am asking: if neither science nor philosophy is focusing on ontology then who is? And more importantly - what is ontology then?
surreptitious57
Posts: 4223
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

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

Post by surreptitious57 »

TimeSeeker wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
TimeSeeker wrote:
How do you SAY anything about the ontological if you have no knowledge of the ontological?
How did you acquire knowledge of the ontological?
Science treats observable phenomena and the ontological nature of reality as completely separate categories
Since ontology pertains to philosophy and not science although philosophy cannot answer the question either

That is because the role of philosophy is to ask the right questions rather than to provide the right answers
Then neither science nor philosophy can answer the question as to what the ontological nature of reality is
OK but I am asking: if neither science nor philosophy is focusing on ontology then who is?
Philosophy can most certainly focus on it but it cannot provide definite answers
Indeed not all questions [ scientific or philosophical ] can actually be answered
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 »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 6:47 am Philosophy can most certainly focus on it but it cannot provide definite answers
Indeed not all questions [ scientific or philosophical ] can actually be answered
Lets not answer "all" questions. Lets start baby steps and answer one question.

What are the building blocks (atomics) of ontological reality?

Do you think physics or philosophy can provide a definite answer here?
Who can describe the building blocks better?
surreptitious57
Posts: 4223
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

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

Post by surreptitious57 »

TimeSeeker wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Science treats observable phenomena and the ontological nature of reality as completely separate categories
Can you really say that about quantum physics
Quantum mechanics is definitely stranger than classical physics but the aim is the same
And that is to try and explain reality from a scientific perspective not an ontological one
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 »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 6:56 am Quantum mechanics is definitely stranger than classical physics but the aim is the same
And that is to try and explain reality from a scientific perspective not an ontological one
Ok, but you ARE dodging the question.

What are the building blocks of ontological reality? Quarks and leptons! What are they like (not even going to bother with the mathematics).

I don't see any philosophy here - only quantum physics.

What does philosophy have to say on the matter, and more importantly - in what language is Philosophy going to say it?
surreptitious57
Posts: 4223
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

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

Post by surreptitious57 »

TimeSeeker wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Philosophy can most certainly focus on it but it cannot provide definite answers
Indeed not all questions [ scientific or philosophical ] can actually be answered
Do you think physics or philosophy can provide a definite answer here?
Who can describe the building blocks better?
I do not think that a definite answer to reality can be provided by physics or philosophy
Physics is inductive and philosophy is comparatively less rigorous so both are inadequate

But the scientific method is the most brutal methodology ever devised so if I had to choose one it would be physics
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 »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 7:03 am I do not think that a definite answer to reality can be provided by physics or philosophy
Physics is inductive and philosophy is comparatively less rigorous so both are inadequate
This is the fallacy of gray. You don't have a perfect answer so you say nothing.

I am not asking for a perfect answer. Best guess will do just fine.
surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 7:03 am But the scientific method is the most brutal methodology ever devised so if I had to choose one it would be physics
So philosophy has nothing to say about ontology? ;)
surreptitious57
Posts: 4223
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

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

Post by surreptitious57 »

TimeSeeker wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Quantum mechanics is definitely stranger than classical physics but the aim is the same
And that is to try and explain reality from a scientific perspective not an ontological one
What are the building blocks of ontological reality? Quarks and leptons! What are they like ( not even going to bother with the mathematics )
What does philosophy have to say on the matter and more importantly - in what language is Philosophy going to say it?
The building blocks of physical reality are electrons and quarks as both are regarded as fundamental particles
There are also strings and quantum foam as well as the missing piece of the puzzle namely quantum gravity

Philosophy can say whatever it wants to but it will lack the rigour of physics
There will be multiple interpretations of what this reality is supposed to be
surreptitious57
Posts: 4223
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

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

Post by surreptitious57 »

TimeSeeker wrote:
I am not asking for a perfect answer. Best guess will do just fine
You asked about a definite answer which I could not give
And I do not make predictions for rather obvious reasons
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 »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 7:16 am Philosophy can say whatever it wants to but it will lack the rigour of physics
There will be multiple interpretations of what this reality is supposed to be
OK, but the output of rigour (after all the empiricism, validation, reproduction etc.) is nothing more than valid Mathematical equations.

That IS what physics says. If you were expecting an English answer.... that's a shame ;)

Which is my point about logocentrism. if you are going to be saying stuff about reality. You need a language that matches it more closely than English.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4223
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

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

Post by surreptitious57 »

I prefer not knowing to filling any gaps in knowledge with untested speculation
I can wait the rest of my life to discover nothing new and so I am not bothered
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 »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 7:28 am I prefer not knowing to filling any gaps in knowledge with untested speculation
I can wait the rest of my life to discover nothing new and so I am not bothered
That's a rather consumerist perspective. I prefer to create knowledge.

Just as soon as I figure out what it is.
Post Reply