Evaluating Scientific Theories

[Philosophy Now]

Russell Berg has fifteen criteria for scientificness and he knows how to use them.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/74/Evaluating_Scientific_Theories

[Eodnhoj7]

Russell Berg has fifteen criteria for scientificness and he knows how to use them.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/74/Eva ... c_Theories

Yeah...um, I will just keep this short and focus on one issue: that of quantifcation:

Math is strictly circular reasoning and is subject to randomness an the very act of localizing any phenomenon inevitably leads to not just a state of randomness, as an extension of the observer, but effectively causes an increase in precision in one degree of reality while an increase in obscurity in another.

This multiplies truth into a chaotic state leading to separate languages, perceptions, etc. that effectively leads to further contradiction.

Even promising science based upon a strict empirical paradigm, justified through abstract interpretation, leads to an inherent dualism between platonic and aristotelian thinking resulting in further schools of thought and the methodology itself becomes fragmented and follows the atomist perspective of lucretius where even images take on a role of division...these images effectively being "atomic facts" or modern ghosts of the psyche (in jungian terms) that effectively act like taoist tulpas that are merely thought forms moving reality as an extension of the observer (leading us back to the phenomenology of heidegger and husserl) as an extension of neitzche's perspectivism (which can be observed in the nazi movement having a massive influence in science).

There my rant is done...for now.

[Logik]

Math is strictly circular reasoning and is subject to randomness an the very act of localizing any phenomenon inevitably leads to not just a state of randomness, as an extension of the observer, but effectively causes an increase in precision in one degree of reality while an increase in obscurity in another.

You are basically objecting against this point:

3) Is the theory based on an analytical reductionist approach rather than a synthetic approach?

Reductionism is the attempt to understand complex things by analysing them in terms of their parts or simplest aspects. Reductionism was first used by Thales, when he claimed that all is water. A synthetic approach is the opposite of reductionism, in that it attempts to build a system of explanation from theory and usually results in added layers of complexity normally based on argument alone rather than substantial evidence. Examples are Plato’s forms, Freudian psychoanalysis, Marxist historicism and string theory evoking extra dimensions.

Reductionism relies on the assumption that the scientist has isolated a phenomenon.
Reductionism assumes the scientist is studying a closed system.
Reductionism is tunnel-vision.

Reductionism is an error.

There is only one closed system in existence and it's called The Universe.
Every sub-system within The Universe is open.

Which is why QM can't explain gravity. And never will. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

The closest thing to an objective yardstick for scientific theories is predictive utility.
Everything else is subject to interpretation.

[surreptitious57]

There is only one closed system in existence and its called The Universe

The Universe is actually an isolated system because there is nothing outside of it it can interact with
Even if you define Universe as a single system within a Multiverse it would still be classed as isolated

[Logik]

There is only one closed system in existence and its called The Universe

The Universe is actually an isolated system because there is nothing outside of it it can interact with

Closed system. Isolated system. Potato potatoh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system

A closed system is a physical system that does not allow certain types of transfers (such as transfer of mass and energy transfer) in or out of the system.

Even if you define Universe as a single system within a Multiverse it would still be classed as isolated

Language games.

If you define a universe as an isolated system within a multiverse, I would ask you how you would even begin to empirically determine that we are in a "multiverse" if no transfer of information takes places between isolated universes.

And if transfer of information does take place between universes then the Multiverse is a closed system, while universes within it are open systems.

To avoid this kind of dumbfuckery and perpetual re-categorization just assume that The Universe is The Closed System.

[surreptitious57]

If you define a universe as an isolated system within a multiverse I would ask you how you would even begin to
empirically determine that we are in a multiverse if no transfer of information takes places between isolated universes

And if transfer of information does take place between universes then the Multiverse is a closed system while universes within it are open

To avoid this kind of dumbfuckery and perpetual re categorization just assume that The Universe is The Closed System

The Multiverse hypothesis unfortunately cannot be subject to potential falsification at this point in time but it is still possible it exists
Though I think that till its existence / non existence can be determined we should like you say assume this Universe to be the only one

[Logik]

If you define a universe as an isolated system within a multiverse I would ask you how you would even begin to
empirically determine that we are in a multiverse if no transfer of information takes places between isolated universes

And if transfer of information does take place between universes then the Multiverse is a closed system while universes within it are open

To avoid this kind of dumbfuckery and perpetual re categorization just assume that The Universe is The Closed System

The Multiverse hypothesis unfortunately cannot be subject to potential falsification at this point in time but it is still possible it exists
Though I think that till its existence / non existence can be determined we should like you say assume this Universe to be the only one

Forget falsification. An isolated multiverse is untestable.

Testability requires information transfer from the phenomenon towards the observer. Empiricism.

If the other universes are isolated - there is no information transfer.

[Eodnhoj7]

Math is strictly circular reasoning and is subject to randomness an the very act of localizing any phenomenon inevitably leads to not just a state of randomness, as an extension of the observer, but effectively causes an increase in precision in one degree of reality while an increase in obscurity in another.

You are basically objecting against this point:

3) Is the theory based on an analytical reductionist approach rather than a synthetic approach?

Reductionism is the attempt to understand complex things by analysing them in terms of their parts or simplest aspects. Reductionism was first used by Thales, when he claimed that all is water. A synthetic approach is the opposite of reductionism, in that it attempts to build a system of explanation from theory and usually results in added layers of complexity normally based on argument alone rather than substantial evidence. Examples are Plato’s forms, Freudian psychoanalysis, Marxist historicism and string theory evoking extra dimensions.

Reductionism relies on the assumption that the scientist has isolated a phenomenon.
This is an isolated statement.


Reductionism assumes the scientist is studying a closed system.
Reductionism is a closed system of perpetual divergence. 1 phenomenon branches into another.



Reductionism is tunnel-vision.

Last time I check the spliting of one option into two creates an angle of awareness.



Reductionism is an error.

And how did you reduce this?



There is only one closed system in existence and it's called The Universe.
Every sub-system within The Universe is open.

Which is why QM can't explain gravity. And never will. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Each part is an extension of the whole, hence a whole in itself.

The closest thing to an objective yardstick for scientific theories is predictive utility.
Everything else is subject to interpretation.

Predict what exactly? What is utitlity in an age where everyone is fat and has a roof over there head. Utitility is dead. It is an old school way of percieving reality which, for the current time, has lost its purpose and "meaning". It lost any sense of balance. Utility is about solving imaginary problems, trying to catch the ghosts that haunt us in the night.

Utility is just a reductionist concept...it means nothing other than cutting up reality into little bite sized bits so we can sit back on our asses and feed our fat little egos. What is not useful we "puke out"...then go back to eating more "ideas" as to what should and should not be useful.

[Logik]

Utility is just a reductionist concept...it means nothing other than cutting up reality into little bite sized bits so we can sit back on our asses and feed our fat little egos. What is not useful we "puke out"...then go back to eating more "ideas" as to what should and should not be useful.

Yet you pursue metaphysical truth. What for?

If you like chaos you don't need structure.

[Eodnhoj7]

Utility is just a reductionist concept...it means nothing other than cutting up reality into little bite sized bits so we can sit back on our asses and feed our fat little egos. What is not useful we "puke out"...then go back to eating more "ideas" as to what should and should not be useful.

Yet you pursue metaphysical truth. What for?

If you like chaos you don't need structure.

All structures, according to you are entropic; hence chaotic by nature. I never alluded to what I like or am pursuing.

[Logik]

All structures, according to you are entropic

According to me? That sounds more like your line of reasoning.

Structure is anti-entropy for our monkey brains.

[Eodnhoj7]

All structures, according to you are entropic

According to me? That sounds more like your line of reasoning.

Structure is anti-entropy for our monkey brains.

Uhh...but you argued prior that negentropy is strictly entropy and we are left living in an entropic universe.

[Logik]

Uhh...but you argued prior that negentropy is strictly entropy and we are left living in an entropic universe.

I did?

I said that negentropy is a human/social goal while entropy is a universal law.

[Eodnhoj7]

Uhh...but you argued prior that negentropy is strictly entropy and we are left living in an entropic universe.

I did?

I said that negentropy is a human/social goal while entropy is a universal law.

It was heavily implied at minimum.

But man is part of the universal law, or rather "is the universal law" from the perspective of Protagoras.

[Logik]

It was heavily implied at minimum.

But man is part of the universal law, or rather "is the universal law" from the perspective of Protagoras.

And universal law is extinction.

Man rebels against his fate and seeks to gain control over nature.