The Unreasonable Ineffectiveness of Philosophy in the Natural Sciences

[Souvik]

There is a celebrated essay by the physicist Eugene Wigner called 'The
Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences' in
which he (like so many other physicists) ponders over why mathematics
is so effective in describing Nature (especially the fundamental laws).

On maybe a less sombre note, I'd like to ask why (natural) philosophy
as a formal discipline has been so unreasonably *ineffective* in the
natural sciences of late.

We can start from Aristotle who figured 'by just thinking about it'
that an object 10 times heavier would fall 10 times faster till he was
refuted formidably ages later by Galileo's experiments. We see similar
trends in modern physics too -- just when someone figures out what the
philosophy of studying nature should be, i.e. 'empericism' or
'positivism' etc, something experimental evidence pops up that dashes
that paradigm.

Like Steven Weinberg effectively says: We(physicists)have become like
hounds sniffing out clues to the truth, piece by piece on the ground.
It seems impossible to make any progress in the correct direction from
the lofty heights of philosophy.

Natural philosophy being 'the mother' of natural science, especially
physics, I wonder why it has been so unreasonably ineffective with
hardly any worthwile contribution to our world-view.

-Souvik

[Sam Carana]

Interesting topic, Souvik! Why are the names of people like Aristotle and Galileo mentioned so often in discussions like this? Aren't they all famous for their impact on politics, rather than for the originality of their ideas?  

 

Aristotle was a disciple of Plato, who advocated Aristocracy (hence Aristotle's name). Plato in turn was a disciple of Socrates, who is so often celebrated by people with aristocratic political convictions as the founder of science and as a martyr for freedom of speech and the Truth. Aristotle was also the tutor (343-334 bc) of Alexander the Great, an outright dictator who built an empire that stretched from his native Macedonia into Egypt and India. Isn't this why Aristotle is given so much credit at public schools? Aren't all these people merely famous for their POLITICAL impact? Moreover, are their political ideas "correct" in the first place? If you happen to agree politically with them, you may see them as heroes, but in what light should they be seen epistemologically?

 

Similarly, Galileo wasn't the first one to come up with the idea that Earth revolved around the Sun. Galileo became famous because he defied the Church and in doing so challenged their authority to teach. But Galileo got his idea directly from Copernicus. And well before that time, Pythagoras and his followers (Pythagoreans) already argued that Earth was a sphere revolving around the Sun in a predictable way. Some go back even further and see evidence of such "knowledge" in Stonehenge, the Pyramids and ancient Chinese manuscripts.

 

Epistemologically interesting is the view behind it. What do they believe in? Pythagoreans believe that numbers constituted the true nature of things and that all relations were numerical. As evidence in support of their belief, they present the Pythagorean Theorem, which states that in a right-angled triangle, the square of the hypothenuse (opposite side) is always equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides.  

 

But in those days, such views were challenged by someone like Heraclit (Heraclitus, Herakleitos or Ηρακλειτος in greacă), who rejected the idea of an origin of the universe, who rejected the very idea of a universe as a mere figment of our imagination, and who  rejected universal laws governing nature as artificial and static perversions of reality. In one of the surviving quotes, he said that "much learning does not teach understanding, otherwise it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras.."  Flux and change itself is seen as more durable than universal laws.

 

Indeed, this is an old hat! The debate dates back to ancient times and it continues today. This is primarily an epistemological debate, not a scientific debate. Part of this debate is the question whether science itself goes hand in hand with a specific political view. Some may feel uncomfortable with that and prefer to close their eyes for what is so obvious,  i.e. that they are in fact taking a very specific political position in the process. They may reject opposite views as "subjective", "unscientific" or "political", but this only proves that they're rejecting what epistemology itself is all about. 
 

Sam

[Souvik]

Sam Carana wrote:
> Similarly, *Galileo* wasn't the first one to come up with the idea that

> Earth revolved around the Sun. Galileo became famous because he defied the
> Church and in doing so challenged their authority to teach.

I was referring to Galileo's refutation of Aristotle's law of falling
bodies.
I feel that that was an important landmark for science because it
emphasised experimentation. Aristotle probably never had bothered to
seriously watch objects of different weight fall before pronouncing
that objects fall with speeds proportional to their weight.

The reason I provided this example is because it illustrates the
problem with the philosopher's ideal of being able to just think your
way through to the truth.

-Souvik

[Sam Carana]

So, are you saying that physicists can get closer to the truth than philosophers, because the latter lacked the weight of reality behind them? Are you saying that a scientist was more inclined to give up a theory, if reality showed that it didn't add up? And what are you? A scientist? The keywords in your view are "science" and "truth". What makes you think that you aren't actually a philosopher who defies reality by stubbornly holding on to an irrational belief in truth? The epistemological question is indeed whether such "truth" does exist in reality, other than as part of your political view. People like you simply presume "truth" in principle and adjust any theories to fit the outcome, as long as your concept of "truth" is preserved in such theories. Even when reality indicates the direct opposite, i.e. when experiments clearly show that your pre-assumed dogma that "truth must be the outcome" does not hold, you will hang on it. Even if everyone is witnessing your entire deterministic house of cards falling apart, you will still insist it proudly stands there defying my "political" view that it is not. Here you go: "Pfff..."

 

Quote: "If you keep dancing close enough to one pole of a magnet, you start confusing magnetism with gravity."

 

Sam Carana

[Souvik]

Sam Carana wrote:

> Are you saying that a scientist was more inclined to give up a theory, if
> reality showed that it didn't add up? And what are you? A scientist? The
> keywords in your view are "science" and "truth". What makes you think that
> you aren't actually a philosopher who defies reality by stubbornly holding
> on to an irrational belief in truth?

It isn't an irrational belief because it is simplest possible belief
that can experimentally explain a wide range of phenomena.

The belief that there is no objective reality has explained squat.

> The epistemological question is indeed
> whether such "truth" does exist in reality, other than as part of your
> political view. People like you simply presume "truth" in principle and
> adjust any theories to fit the outcome, as long as your concept of "truth"
> is preserved in such theories. Even when reality indicates the direct
> opposite, i.e. when experiments clearly show that your pre-assumed dogma
> that "truth must be the outcome" does not hold, you will hang on it.

Give me a reference to a experiment that does this.

-Souvik

[Sam]

>> (Sam) What makes you think that you aren't actually a

>> philosopher who defies reality by stubbornly holding
>> on to an irrational belief in truth?
>

> (Souvik) It isn't an irrational belief because it is

> simplest possible belief that can experimentally explain a
> wide range of phenomena.

It is irrational if the complexity of reality is clearly compromised
by, if not in conflict with a dogmatic belief in simplicity. If science
seeks to cover all possible events, the rules needed to list all
exemptions and special cases would become incomprehensible. At some
stage, science stops explaining and starts confusing. Realists
therefore turn away from science and stick to technology that works for
them, without claiming absolute truth and the like. The epistemological
question is, who is more real?

Sam

[goozlefotz]

Sam wrote:
> It is irrational if the complexity of reality is clearly compromised
> by, if not in conflict with a dogmatic belief in simplicity. If science
> seeks to cover all possible events, the rules needed to list all
> exemptions and special cases would become incomprehensible. At some
> stage, science stops explaining and starts confusing. Realists
> therefore turn away from science and stick to technology that works for
> them, without claiming absolute truth and the like. The epistemological
> question is, who is more real?
>
> Sam

Sam, you have no clue of which you speak.

[Souvik]

Do you understand the concept of: A simple differential equation can
give rise to complex, widely varied solutions?

[Physical laws are usually encoded as differential laws. The situations
they produce in the world correspond to their solutions.]

It's like a game of chess or checkers: The laws governing the
individual pieces are simple. But when they all interact, the game
becomes incredibly complex.
The fundamental laws of physics, as we have them today (in partially
unfinished form) are laws that explain *everything* we've seen so far,
WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS.

There are a whole hierarchy of patterns in nature we have uncovered.
The deepest layer of patterns with no further explanation in underlying
patterns are called the 'fundamental laws'.

-Souvik
PS: I would second goozle in this that Sam doesn't have a clue about
these things and types whatever pops out of his brain. He just needs to
read -- even pop science would be recommended at this stage.

[goozlefotz]

It is true that mathematics is the language of science, but not just
any mathematics. Starting with Newton's invention of differential
calculus, the mathematics of science was mostly invented by scientists,
with the mathematicians following along behind, wringing their hands
about whether this or that could be proven. The "delta function" comes
to mind as an example. I do sometimes wonder if a whole different
formulation could have existed and whether the mechanistic philosophy
in vogue at the time of Newton had any influence on the origin of
mechanics. So, "Analysis" as a subject came after physicists were
wrestling with learning to solve DE's. I guess "Whittaker and Watson"
was the peak of that field. As soon as mathematicians realized that
partial DE's did not, in general, have closed form solutions they lost
interest and went on to other things. I haven't kept up on it, but
I'll bet that physicists are still creating their own mathematics as
they go along. Remember the old saying: "Rigor for the mathematician
is rigor mortis for the physicist". Along the same line, I wonder if
the "uncertainty priciple" is not more of a consequence of Fourier
Analysis than a physical reality. A function and its Fourier Transform
intrinsically have a mathematical uncertainty between them and in QM
the momentum is the FT of the position. Anyway, just musing about this
stuff...

[Sam Carana]

On 8/11/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

The fundamental laws of physics, as we have them today (in partially unfinished form) are laws that explain *everything* we've seen so far, WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS.

 

They don't. You "explain" what you like to see, "nature" as defined from your narrow political perspective. Even when your "laws" are blatantly and obviously in conflict with reality, you will claim your model is correct, but may need some adjusting. If reality points out that you were heading down a dead-end-street, you'll still claim that your model is correct, but that it isn't complete yet and that you need more money from taxpayers. You change your model at your convenience, you change your definition of "nature" at your convenience, to better fit the test results into the model. You claim to know the "truth" and that your model is a true copy of reality, while your own tests show that things do not square up with reality in your model. And when epistemologists point this out to you, you resort to insults, like a little boy throwing a tantrum.

[goozlefotz]

JohnC, you amaze me. The less you know about a subject the more
willing you are to babble on about it. You obviously know absolutely
nothing about science, so you rattle on as though you were an expert.
Let's see: You love GWB and right wing politics. You hate Democrats
and left wing politics. You hate scientists. You pretend to be an
epistimologist. Did I leave anything out?

If you are an epistimologist you won't mind telling me your alphabet
soup, will you? Just to show what a fair guy I am, here is mine:

David L. Granteer, MSEE, PE
LCDR (Cryptology) USNR (Ret)
Life Senior Member of the IEEE
ABD for Ph.D. in physics
Two patents on flat panel display circuitry

[goozlefotz]

Watch him jump on me for misspelling his favorite word...

[Souvik]

So, what about nature can we not explain?

[You keep making wild assertions without examples or evidence. Very
unnerving.]

[Souvik]

Largely true. But there are a few cases where the mathematicians were
there first. When Einstein wanted to describe gravitation as curvature
in spacetime, he found a whole literature on curved space by Riemann.
Sometimes mathematicians will have explored something first but
physicists will not know about them. So, they'll just re-invent the
wheel. Like Heisenberg re-invented matrix algebra. Pauli re-invented
(on the spot, apparently at a seminar) the whole theory of quaternions
in his notation of spinors. Dirac re-invented Clifford algebra. I guess
the reason is physicists have to get to the answer by hook or crook --
so they'll just make up their own tools as they go along. What
*fascinates* me is that their tools are often explored previously by
mathematicians on grounds of *mathematical beauty*.

Another cool thing that goes on these days is that theoretical
physicists are beginning to uncover 'deep' mathematical non-trivial
relationships because they have a physical situation in mind and can
see through it more clearly. In my current interest in conformal field
theory, one can practically see through the mathematics with physical
insight and then tell the mathematicians that such and such
polylogarithm of whatever has roots at blah an blah and blah. And the
mathematicians will be dumbfounded! :-)

The uncertainty principle *manifests* itself as the property of Fourier
transforms you're talking about in real space. You must then ask, why
are x and p the Fourier transforms of each other? -- and the answer
lies in [x,p]=ih.
(The wavefunction doesn't live in 3-D space, it lives in Hilbert space
(non-relativistic QM) or Fock space (QFT) -- the real reasons lie
there.)

Rigor for the mathematician... I liked that :)

[goozlefotz]

Oh, yes, but a mathematicion will never come running over to the
physicists office and say that he has developed just the thing for
solving some kind of a physics problem. More likely the physicist is
grumbling in his beer with his mathematician buddy about not being able
to do some thing or another and the mathematician will look at him like
he is from outer space because he does not know about some beautiful
piece of mathematics that does just what he wants.
You know, I have an old prejudice that I will never let go of, and that
is that if we ever come up with a GUT it will be beautiful - like
poetry written in the language of mathematics. When I see methods that
look clumsy I assume that they will be replaced in due time by
something prettier. I hope so, anyway.

[Souvik]

goozlefotz wrote:
> Oh, yes, but a mathematicion will never come running over to the
> physicists office and say that he has developed just the thing for
> solving some kind of a physics problem. More likely the physicist is
> grumbling in his beer with his mathematician buddy about not being able
> to do some thing or another and the mathematician will look at him like
> he is from outer space because he does not know about some beautiful
> piece of mathematics that does just what he wants.

Ed Witten is primarily a mathematician (with little knowledge of
experimental down to earth physics) but now trained in and contributing
to critically in String Theory. But yeah, you're right: literature in
mathematics is much vaster than theoretical physics. Because it doesn't
have to be confined to what has physical significance. So most
mathematicians I know can't pull out beautiful mathematics off the top
of their head.

> You know, I have an old prejudice that I will never let go of, and that
> is that if we ever come up with a GUT it will be beautiful - like
> poetry written in the language of mathematics. When I see methods that
> look clumsy I assume that they will be replaced in due time by
> something prettier. I hope so, anyway.

Yeah. You know, Maxwell wrote 25 or so equations when he first compiled
his equations for electrodynamics. He was writing out all components
explicitly. It all looked very clumsy till vector notation came about,
and then it became four equations. And then tensor notation brings it
down to one simple equation. Notation change can always compactify
visually the information content of a theory. What is essential is that
the notation change reveals mathematics of a more general beauty.

String theory, as it stands today, is mathematically clumsy. If any
element of this theory is to survive in a final theory, most people
hope we will uncover the level of abstraction it is written in.

-Souvik

[Sam Carana]

On 8/12/05, goozlefotz <gran...@yahoo.com> wrote:

JohnC, you amaze me.  The less you know about a subject the more willing you are to babble on about it.  You obviously know absolutely nothing about science, so you rattle on as though you were an expert. Let's see: You love GWB and right wing politics.  You hate Democrats and left wing politics.  You hate scientists.  You pretend to be an epistimologist.  Did I leave anything out?

Hi David, yes, you are a fair guy and I rarely accused you of anything, did I, except that you have a somewhat negative view of epistemology in general and of me in particular, and quite unnessecarily so.

 

Many scientists feel attracted to epistemology. They wrongly believe they are great philosophers. But one doesn't have to be a scientist to be a good epistemologist. In fact, being a scientist may hold someone back from seeing the larger picture. Many scientists wrongly believe that, since they studied one particular thing, they know all about everything. That's their loss. I don't hate scientists for that, I just spell it out for them - some get mad and some see the light.

 

I'm not typically right wing in politics, nor am I a typical left wign person. I just like to put forward specific concepts, such as school vouchers, as this does so easily unmask the political views of people who pretend to be so objective, yet express very specific political views.
 

Like you, David, I have much respect for people who have achieved something, but I have little tolerance for people who pretend to know a lot, but at closer look haven't got anything to say.

 

Sam

[Sam Carana]

On 8/12/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

String theory, as it stands today, is mathematically clumsy. If any element of this theory is to survive in a final theory, most people hope we will uncover the level of abstraction it is written in.

String theory is a big step in the right direction, away from the singularity trap that so many scientist fall into. However, its shortcoming is that it merely replaces singularity with a duality. Apparently, it takes an epistemologist to point that out and epistemologists can do so quite easily and will be happy to offer their views to scientists, but it's the scientists who have such prejudice towards epistmology that they turn a blind eye.

[Sam Carana]

On 8/12/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

So, what about nature can we not explain?

[You keep making wild assertions without examples or evidence. Very unnerving.]

It was you who came up with the concept "nature", as if you knew what it was. Are you now admitting that you were just making assertions? What is nature? The scientist: "Nature is what we are researching". The epistemologist: "What if the outcome of your research points out that you didn't know what you were talking about?" The scientist: "Oh, then we simply redefine nature." Very unnerving.... 

[goozlefotz]

Sam Carana wrote:
> It was you [souvik] who came up with the concept "nature", as if you knew what it

> was. Are you now admitting that you were just making assertions? What is
> nature? The scientist: "Nature is what we are researching". The
> epistemologist: "What if the outcome of your research points out that you
> didn't know what you were talking about?" The scientist: "Oh, then we simply
> redefine nature." Very unnerving....

The above is simply a bunch of dictionary words strung together in
random order with no meaning at all.

[Souvik]

The "What if... " question remains what if. Give a concrete example of
research pointing out we didn't know what we were talking about.

And also give an example, with references, to a reputable scientist who
said "Ok, then... redefine nature."

-Souvik
PS: Sam, why are you always making up false responses from people? The
other time you converted my saying 'a grain of truth' to me claiming
the whole truth and proceeded to comment on something I purposely
didn't say. You're a big bowl of wrong!

[Souvik]

What singularity, what duality are you talking about? I'm sorry, but
there is no such thing in the transition at any level of abstraction
between our Standard Model and String Theory. Sam, if you don't know
something, just shut up!

If you think you know something, try to be more specific about it when
you speak -- instead of blabbering some 'singularity' 'duality' out of
context.

-Souvik

[Sam Carana]

On 8/12/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

The "What if... " question remains what if. Give a concrete example of research pointing out we didn't know what we were talking about. And also give an example, with references, to a reputable scientist who said "Ok, then... redefine nature."

-Souvik

 

Reputable scientists will not claim to know the truth before even testing things out. It's people like you who give science a bad name.

[Sam Carana]

OK, let's call your bluff. When did you first hear or read about String Theory?

 

[goozlefotz]

Sam Carana wrote:
>
> OK, let's call your bluff. When did you first hear or read about String
> Theory?
>

Hoo Boy! You done picked the wrong hand to call! Souvik has four aces
in that deparment!

[Sam Carana]

On 8/12/05, goozlefotz <gran...@yahoo.com> wrote:

OK, let's see those cards..

[goozlefotz]

To Souvik: You have nobly tried to carry on a rational conversation
with Sam, to no avail. There is to need to continue to frustrate
yourself; he is not lucid anyway. I've more meaningful converstions
with a parrot.

[Souvik]

I work on Conformal Field Theory for a living. That is the mathematical
machinery underlying String Theory (the other essential machinery being
Topology). I don't directly contribute to String Theory, but I've had
plenty of experience with its gritty details and overarching philosophy
-- that is a requirement in my field.

-Souvik

[Souvik]

It is BECAUSE we test things out that we know our theories work. It is
BECAUSE these theories help us make novel devices that we know they
contain a grain of truth.

So, I'm still waiting for your experimental evidence for why you think
what we call patterns in nature, like falling objects, are really
patterns in our head. I can refer you to the Einstein Podolsky Rosen
paper for an extensive review of what constitutes objective reality --
and there are experimental tests for it. What have pro epistemologists
contributed?

-Souvik

[Sam Carana]

Well, there's your problem. You approach things from a scientific perspective, resulting in an a-priori rejection of epistemology. I'm happy to accept you as a scientist, but you shouldn't pose as an epistemologist. What you perceive as ineffectiveness of philosophy in natural sciences, results from your "scientific" definition of nature, as if you had found this grain of truth that was out of reach of philosophy. But from a philosophical perspective, such an attitude is rather pathetic.  

[Sam Carana]

On 8/13/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Reputable scientists will not claim to know the truth before even testing things out. It's people like you who give science a bad name.

It is BECAUSE we test things out that we know our theories work. It is BECAUSE these theories help us make novel devices that we know they contain a grain of truth.

 

No, your problem is that you turn things around. You presume truth. Whether you claim there is a grain of truth or a huge chuck of truth is irrelevant. You claim truth exist, before you start testing. And what do you do when tests indicate that this truth you were chasing turns out to be more elusive? Yes, you redefine what was truth, to suit your test results. You hang on to a singular truth, even when your tests indicate that your theory doesn't add up. You din't have truth before you started testing and you didn't have truth after testing. You only know that your theory didn't add up. So, what do you do? You redefine your theory, falsely claiming that you had exclusive access to this grain of truth all along. It's a scheme, admit it!

So, I'm still waiting for your experimental evidence for why you think what we call patterns in nature, like falling objects, are really patterns in our head. I can refer you to the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paper for an extensive review of what constitutes objective reality -- and there are experimental tests for it. What have pro epistemologists contributed?

The evidence is contributed by scientists on a daily basis, each time one of their theories doesn't add up. The evidence can be found in the way scientists are currently overprivileged in society, which gives them the undeserved status that leads them to falsely believe they had a better grip over reality than other people. The evidence can be found if you hold up a mirror and ask yourself what you're doing, what motivates you and what principles drive you. Epistemology asks such questions, souvik, whether you like it or not. If you feel personally questioned by that, then this only shows that you identify yourself primarily as a scientist.

[tomcat]

Philosophy, and with it natural philosophy, represents the highest
level of abstract thought. Science, on the other hand, deals with
material, things that can be felt with the hand or broken with a
hammer.

"Lofy heights" does, indeed, describe one's perspective when everything
is taken into account, and not just observing a simple nut or bolt.
But both disciplines are viewing the same world, whether judged as
phenomena -- or as things made of iron. They must, therefore, relate
one to the other. And, each should offer guidance and correction to
the other as well.

It is interesting that physicists have a 'membrane' theory. This helps
them to understand the dimensions of our world. Membranes are not
always hard and fast, but are flexible and changing. First these
elements, then this result, explainable only if other -- unseen and
unfelt -- regions of reality exist. Regions that the physcists have
difficulty with based on scientific method, but mathematics insists on
them: for every plus there is a negative.

When everything is taken into account and abstraction taken to the
limit, the world of natural philosophy becomes things, but never a
'thing in itself'! Things swim and group, they are visible and
invisible, spoken and unspeakable. In short: everything.

What, then, is the world of natural philosophy when even the swimming
of groups and the grouping of groups are yet a new and different class
of things? When even 'thinking about thinking about' . . . generates
new groups, one after the other.

The world to the natural philosopher is then simply the groupings
themselves, groupings that are not always hard and fast, but are
flexible and changing. And, this lofty view allows for a group
swimming with other groups, some visible and some invisible, some
spoken and some unspeakable.

So, perhaps, there is room here for common ground between the scientist
and the philosopher. Are we a 'group of membranes' or a 'membrane of
groups'? Or, a 'group of groups' or a 'membrane of membranes'? Moot
point?

Perhaps, what logically applies to the groups also applies to the
membranes, and vice versa.


tomcat

[Souvik]

You see, any theoretical physicist working in these arenas are
epistemologists in a large way. We learnt long back that the *only* way
we have to learn about nature is by observing what is out there and
looking for patterns.

Let me know if there's another way. Like revelation or something :)

-Souvik

[goozlefotz]

Sam Carana wrote:
>
> Well, there's your problem. You approach things from a scientific
> perspective, resulting in an a-priori rejection of epistemology. I'm happy
> to accept you as a scientist, but you shouldn't pose as an epistemologist.
> What you perceive as ineffectiveness of philosophy in natural sciences,
> results from your "scientific" definition of nature, as if you had found
> this grain of truth that was out of reach of philosophy. But from a
> philosophical perspective, such an attitude is rather pathetic.
>

The only human endeavor more useless than theology is philosophy. What
have philosophers ever done for mankind?

[Souvik]

Sam Carana wrote:
> On 8/13/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Reputable scientists will not claim to know the truth before even testing
> > > things out. It's people like you who give science a bad name.
> > >
> >
> > It is BECAUSE we test things out that we know our theories work. It is
> > BECAUSE these theories help us make novel devices that we know they contain
> > a grain of truth.
>
> No, your problem is that you turn things around. You presume truth. Whether
> you claim there is a grain of truth or a huge chuck of truth is irrelevant.
> You claim truth exist, before you start testing. And what do you do when
> tests indicate that this truth you were chasing turns out to be more
> elusive? Yes, you redefine what was truth, to suit your test results. You
> hang on to a singular truth, even when your tests indicate that your theory
> doesn't add up. You din't have truth before you started testing and you
> didn't have truth after testing. You only know that your theory didn't add
> up. So, what do you do? You redefine your theory, falsely claiming that you
> had exclusive access to this grain of truth all along. It's a scheme, admit
> it!

Can you give some concrete examples of such instead of talking in the
air.

>
> So, I'm still waiting for your experimental evidence for why you think what
> > we call patterns in nature, like falling objects, are really patterns in our
> > head. I can refer you to the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paper for an extensive
> > review of what constitutes objective reality -- and there are experimental
> > tests for it. What have pro epistemologists contributed?
> >
> The evidence is contributed by scientists on a daily basis, each time one of
> their theories doesn't add up. The evidence can be found in the way
> scientists are currently overprivileged in society, which gives them the
> undeserved status that leads them to falsely believe they had a better grip
> over reality than other people. The evidence can be found if you hold up a
> mirror and ask yourself what you're doing, what motivates you and what
> principles drive you. Epistemology asks such questions, souvik, whether you
> like it or not. If you feel personally questioned by that, then this only
> shows that you identify yourself primarily as a scientist.

So, let's have a theory that doesn't add up.

Oh, I am primarily a natural philosopher / scientist. But it is *after*
questioning the different modes of questioning nature that I find the
scientific method the most effective. In fact, I see no alternative to
experimentation. You can't just sit under a bodhi tree meditating and
have the full design of the universe fall onto your lap! (The only one
I know who did that was Gautum Buddha :P)

-Souvik

PS: A demonstration of how dumb (yeah, I mean just dumb) can be found
in a journal called 'Social Text' which used to be a very erudite
journal of post-modern epistemology. A physicist submitted a rather
jargon filled nonsense paper with soundbites on how reality doesn't
exist, and it actually got published! These people really lack the
ability to think clearly, it is as simple as that.

[Souvik]

Now that's some serious Tao funk, man!
Dude!!!!!!!
Do you sell this shit...? For how much is a hit?

[Souvik]

Sam Carana wrote:
> The evidence can be found in the way
> scientists are currently overprivileged in society, which gives them the
> undeserved status that leads them to falsely believe they had a better grip
> over reality than other people.

There is a reason science and scientists enjoy a privileged position in
society. It is called *PREDICTIVE POWER*. Science can *predict* what
would happen if we twist nature's arm a certain way. That enables us to
create highly non-intuitive gadgets like lasers, Josephson junctions,
fission/fusion bombs and the like. The reason it can predict with such
accuracy the results of subtle arm twists, is because it has some
objective understanding of the principles that govern nature.

Yes, one of the reasons we know relativity must have a grain of truth,
is because it *predicted* the colossal energy of the fission bomb.
After it literally melted off the skin from two cities, people could
not deny the fact that our newly gained subtle knowledge (which only
three people in the world then fully understood) represented something
very very real and powerful. In a pragmatic world, that was an
outstanding reason to privilege the holders of such devastating
knowledge.

... after such knowledge, what forgiveness?

-Souvik

[goozlefotz]

I was thinking in terms of practical value. Philosophy is great fun as
an intellectual exercise. I wish I knew more about it.

[tomcat]

Keep in mind that, regardless of discipline, it is always the same
world. That we are limited to perception is a known fact. Everything
beyond that is extrapolation.

Scientists extrapolate; epistemologists extrapolate. Scientists use
mathematics proper, while epistemologists use logic formal. And, all
of it is subject to error.

Epistemologists work in both the subjective realm as well as the
objective, and have the additional complexity of correlating the two.
Scientists focus on the objective.

String theory, of which I only know a little, is but another 'thing' in
our world. Dimensions, whether 6 or 12, do not disturb the
epistemologist. We have been chasing the One for a long time, knowing
full well it can never be had. But string theory takes us one step
closer.

I suspect that enormous power will come from its study. The closer one
gets to The One, the more powerful he becomes.

tomcat

[Sam Carana]

How can you claim to be an epistemology, whether in a large way or a little grain? You prove to be the opposite of an epistemologist. There are many ways of observation, speculation, study, analysis and doing research. One scientist will take one approach. Another scientist will take another approach. A third scientist will take yet another approach, while perhaps rejecting the label scientist. By contrast, you are a politician seeking to silence all others out of fear that disagreements with your political view may expose your scheme. You simply insist there was only one way, because you only want it your way. Even among politicians, that's unacceptable.

[Sam Carana]

On 8/13/05, goozlefotz <gran...@yahoo.com> wrote:

The only human endeavor more useless than theology is philosophy.  What have philosophers ever done for mankind?

So, you have an inclination to insult philosophers. Perhaps you forgot to take your medication. Not very smart and not something anyone here was waiting to hear. Instead, what contribution could you make to this group?

[Souvik]

Sam Carana wrote:
> How can you claim to be an epistemology, whether in a large way or a little
> grain? You prove to be the opposite of an epistemologist. There are many
> ways of observation, speculation, study, analysis and doing research. One
> scientist will take one approach. Another scientist will take another
> approach. A third scientist will take yet another approach, while perhaps
> rejecting the label scientist. By contrast, you are a politician seeking to
> silence all others out of fear that disagreements with your political view
> may expose your scheme. You simply insist there was only one way, because
> you only want it your way. Even among politicians, that's unacceptable.

*WHY DON'T YOU SUGGEST AN ALTERNATIVE TO EXPERIMENTATION AND INFERENCE,
IN OUR EFFORTS TO UNDERSTAND REALITY?* WITHOUT THAT, YOU'RE JUST
ANOTHER CRACKPOT FULL OF GAS.

So far, you've negated the basic premise of science: the idea that
experimentation / observation can lead to any clues about the nature of
reality. Because, like you maintained, we are studying our perception
of reality and not reality. Now it seems to me you're toning it down to
'there are many ways within science'.

In my opinion, there is only one way to fundamental physics:
1. Guess
2. Calculate consequences of guessed theory
3. Match with experiment. If no match, shut the fuck up and go back to
step 1. If match, then bask in glory for a while.

There, I've chalked my stance out as vividly as I can. If you have an
alternative, we're all ears.

-Souvik

[Souvik]

Pointing out to philosophers that they haven't made any contribution to
society (inspite of having claimed to be able to do the most) is fair
criticism.

If you take it as an insult, so be it!

It's just that if you walk into an academic class of philosophy these
days, you get to hear obsolete and often dopey ideas being incompletely
discussed and written about -- for no better reason than to get a
degree -- all at the expense of taxpayers. 'Philosophers' get to eat
without contributing *anything* to society beyond their professors
occassionally auditing introductory quantum mechanics classes.
Academia, in this field, has become a RACKET.

-Souvik

[Sam Carana]

On 8/13/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Can you give some concrete examples of such instead of talking in the air.

 

I just did! Your own words scream out circular rhetoric. You presume truth, then - in an attempt to advance a political view - you pretend that your assumption of truth was more than that, i.e. knowledge of truth and that your view was derived from truth. To others who have different political views, you say that they lack something, because they didn't assume truth. It's a simplistic trick of a simplistic person posing as a bad philosopher. Other people will quickly realize that this circular rhetoric goes around in your head, especially if people like me expose such a scheme. But don't attack me for such exposure, you said it all yourself! You may accuse philosophers of lacking something ( e.g. your truth, your simplicity, your way), but other people will see you as lacking many things and may, e.g., they see you as someone talking in the air and they will agree that taxpayers should no longer be forced to fund such a scheme.

PS: A demonstration of how dumb (yeah, I mean just dumb) can be found in a journal called 'Social Text' which used to be a very erudite journal of post-modern epistemology. A physicist submitted a rather jargon filled nonsense paper with soundbites on how reality doesn't exist, and it actually got published! These people really lack the ability to think clearly, it is as simple as that.

Yes, it's a shame that there are so many good philosophers who rarely get published. You may have scored high marks in science classes, you may have read a lot of books and you may hold political views that are in conflict with post-modernism, but all that doesn't make you a good philosopher.

[Sam Carana]

On 8/13/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sam Carana wrote:

There is a reason science and scientists enjoy a privileged position in society. It is called *PREDICTIVE POWER*. Science can *predict* what would happen if we twist nature's arm a certain way. That enables us to create highly non-intuitive gadgets like lasers, Josephson junctions, fission/fusion bombs and the like. The reason it can predict with such accuracy the results of subtle arm twists, is because it has some objective understanding of the principles that govern nature.

 

Accuracy? Prediction? Any business person will make decisions using predictive power. Any artist will perform on the basis that their act will have impact. All of them will be honest enough to admit they're only using their chosen methods in the hope that they work. It's only people like you who seek to advance a specific political view, who have the audacity to claim a monopoly over the truth.

Yes, one of the reasons we know relativity must have a grain of truth, is because it *predicted* the colossal energy of the fission bomb. After it literally melted off the skin from two cities, people could not deny the fact that our newly gained subtle knowledge (which only three people in the world then fully understood) represented something very very real and powerful. In a pragmatic world, that was an outstanding reason to privilege the holders of such devastating knowledge.

... after such knowledge, what forgiveness?

Because of the devastating effect of weapons of mass destruction it makes sense to demand that such know-how isn't publicly available. That's why a pledge for scientists makes sense. That's why it makes sense to expose the overprivileged position of scientists, especially where they hide behind objectivity and independence to escape liability and are in fact out to advance a specific political view.

[Souvik]

No idea what the fuck you just said!

Just try making an atom bomb without a good knowledge of physics.
You're just jumping from idea to idea incoherently now. Like Zinnic
said, you seem to enjoy making a fool of yourself. Get a life.

[Souvik]

Sam Carana wrote:
> On 8/13/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Can you give some concrete examples of such instead of talking in the air.
>
> I just did! Your own words scream out circular rhetoric. You presume truth,
> then - in an attempt to advance a political view - you pretend that your
> assumption of truth was more than that, i.e. knowledge of truth and that
> your view was derived from truth. To others who have different political
> views, you say that they lack something, because they didn't assume truth.
> It's a simplistic trick of a simplistic person posing as a bad philosopher.
> Other people will quickly realize that this circular rhetoric goes around in
> your head, especially if people like me expose such a scheme. But don't
> attack me for such exposure, you said it all yourself! You may accuse

> philosophers of lacking something (e.g. your truth, your simplicity, your

> way), but other people will see you as lacking many things and may, e.g.,
> they see you as someone talking in the air and they will agree that
> taxpayers should no longer be forced to fund such a scheme.

I asked you for an alternative to the scientific method. You gave none.

> PS: A demonstration of how dumb (yeah, I mean just dumb) can be found in a
> > journal called 'Social Text' which used to be a very erudite journal of
> > post-modern epistemology. A physicist submitted a rather jargon filled
> > nonsense paper with soundbites on how reality doesn't exist, and it actually
> > got published! These people really lack the ability to think clearly, it is
> > as simple as that.
> >
> Yes, it's a shame that there are so many good philosophers who rarely get
> published. You may have scored high marks in science classes, you may have
> read a lot of books and you may hold political views that are in conflict
> with post-modernism, but all that doesn't make you a good philosopher.

You missed the point: physicists submit nonsense papers to top-notch
post-modern philosophy journals and *get published*. That goes to say
how inane ly stupid these philosophers are -- they'll just fall for
high sounding words for the most part. It's pitiful.

With all arrogance, I consider myself a good philosopher because I can
make things that work with my philosophy.

[Sam Carana]

On 8/14/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Because of the devastating effect of weapons of mass destruction it makes
> sense to demand that such know-how isn't publicly available. That's why a
> pledge for scientists makes sense. That's why it makes sense to expose the
> overprivileged position of scientists, especially where they hide behind
> objectivity and independence to escape liability and are in fact out to
> advance a specific political view.

No idea what the fuck you just said!

Just try making an atom bomb without a good knowledge of physics. You're just jumping from idea to idea incoherently now. Like Zinnic said, you seem to enjoy making a fool of yourself. Get a life.

You may hide behind ignorance when it suits you and claim exclusive access to the truth when convenient, but you'll wake up when it hurts in the hip-pocket. All you prove it that you have no argument against proposals to stop funding and other privileges that scientists get on the basis of empty rhetoric and incorrect political views. It just adds strenght to demands for a pledge for scientists and calls to impose more liability onto scientists.

[Souvik]

Sam Carana wrote:
> On 8/13/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sam Carana wrote:
> >
> > There is a reason science and scientists enjoy a privileged position in
> > society. It is called *PREDICTIVE POWER*. Science can *predict* what would
> > happen if we twist nature's arm a certain way. That enables us to create
> > highly non-intuitive gadgets like lasers, Josephson junctions,
> > fission/fusion bombs and the like. The reason it can predict with such
> > accuracy the results of subtle arm twists, is because it has some objective
> > understanding of the principles that govern nature.
>
> Accuracy? Prediction? Any business person will make decisions using
> predictive power. Any artist will perform on the basis that their act will
> have impact. All of them will be honest enough to admit they're only using
> their chosen methods in the hope that they work. It's only people like you
> who seek to advance a specific political view, who have the audacity to
> claim a monopoly over the truth.

There is always the implicit assumption of any theory that it is a
*theory*. There could be better ones with higher predictive power. That
is what theorists do -- guess at better theories and methods. That is
how Newton's law of gravitation got replaced by Einstein's and etc...

[Souvik]

Have you read ANYTHING about the Manhattan project? Why scientists from
all across were flown in (and not post modern philosophers :P)?

Have you read ANYTHING or know ANYTHING at all?

[Sam Carana]

On 8/14/05, Souvik <souvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

There is always the implicit assumption of any theory that it is a *theory*. There could be better ones with higher predictive power. That is what theorists do -- guess at better theories and methods. That is how Newton's law of gravitation got replaced by Einstein's and etc...

Aaahh... so instead of claiming to have based the theory on the illusive grain of truth, you now change your story to the idea that a theory is based on a guess that it will work well. Not that it will work or will not work. That it will work well! That does indeed make more sense, because it leaves open the possibility that another approach may also work well, perhaps even better, depending on what criteria you use. But that's not what you said earlier, when you claimed credit for all approaches on the pretence to have exclusive access to the truth.

[Souvik]

1. Enroll yourself in an English Comprehension course from your nearest
school.
2. When you claim someone's said something, bring in a quote /
reference.

-Souvik

[tomcat]

I have noticed the same behavior from rocket scientists touting their
laws. They claim that a 1 inch perfect model of a Saturn V will go to
the Moon as easily as the full size original. Their mathematical
formulas tell them it will. I tell them they are wrong. And, they
respond much as you describe.

tomcat

[zinnic]

tomcat wrote:
> Keep in mind that, regardless of discipline, it is always the same
> world. That we are limited to perception is a known fact. Everything
> beyond that is extrapolation.
> Scientists extrapolate; epistemologists extrapolate. Scientists use
> mathematics proper, while epistemologists use logic formal. And, all
> of it is subject to error.
> Epistemologists work in both the subjective realm as well as the
> objective, and have the additional complexity of correlating the two.
> Scientists focus on the objective.

Science endeavours to extend the limits of the possible by incremental
advances in the 'knowledge' that increase our ability to control the
environmental 'reality'. No matter what that 'actually is'.
When scientists develop a 'very good' mirror, epistemologists play
games with words and meaning, pronounce the mirror'not perfect' and
therefore of no real value. Scientists look to utility, epistemologists
nitpick.
Tell me, in plain words, what do epistemologists contribute with their
word games on the 'meaning' of meaning, and on what represents a
'justified true belief'.
The words I placed in inverted commas above have meaning in their
general sense but lose all meaning when their absolute sense is
conjured by 'philosophers'. The inherent inexactitude of language
proscibes its use to describe absolutely!
Human life and perception may be likened to a moving point on a curve
asymptotically approaching the 'absolute'. Philosophical extrapolation
into the infinity of this absolute contributes little to the
perceptions and understanding of 'ordinary folk'.

> String theory, of which I only know a little, is but another 'thing' in
> our world. Dimensions, whether 6 or 12, do not disturb the
> epistemologist.

Nothing disturbs the naysaying 'epistemologists'. They pronounce "this
may not be absolutely right". How insightful! Even fundamentalists
accept that it is only their particular faith that is absolutely right.

>We have been chasing the One for a long time, knowing
> full well it can never be had.

Just as productive as a dog chasing its tail?

>But string theory takes us one step closer. I suspect that enormous >power will come from its study. The closer one gets to The One, the >more powerful he becomes.

Is that related to the inverse square of the distance between one and
'The One'?. Who he?

[goozlefotz]

zinnic wrote:
>
> Is that related to the inverse square of the distance between one and
> 'The One'?. Who he?
>

He me!

[simon]

man, i think there is a misunderstandood in all of this.
talk about epistemology with a philosopher is a complicated thing.
maybe we need more a science of science than a philosophy of science.
in that case, we are able to demand some effectiveness to that
discipline instead triying to make a philosopher understand some
"technical details" that he will never accept.
or we can sit here and wait for an open-minded philosopher who doesnt
try to adapt the science to old philosophic concepts, but make a
philosophy that englobes it (again, that's the attitudeof a man of
science, not the one of a philosopher!!).

[tomcat]

zinnic wrote:

Philosophers design some of their works for themselves and others with
scientists/engineers in mind. A work on 'the meaning of meaning' is
primairly for other philosophers. On the other hand, 'justified true
belief' might be a work of interest of scientists/engineers as well as
other philosophers.

Philosophy has a technical language just as scientists do. Technical
languages do sometimes cause confusion. Scientists say "iron" while an
M.D. says "hemoglobin." Sometimes philosophers pick on each other. An
example is when a philosopher said "the absolute enters into but does
not participate in change." I am still trying to figure that out
myself!

Yes, I use a lot of the presocratic paradigms in my thinking. I do
this because disguising the presoctratic simplicity leads to much
confusion. The problem of the 'One and the Many' is the distinction
between 'Being' and 'knowledge'.

The One is always the goal of act and thought. It is our only true
object; everything else reduces to properties which are nothing in
themselves -- such as 'red'. Whether or not a scientist/engineer
realizes it he is after the One as well, in every thought, experiement,
and theory. It is always to reach, to have, to hold, to control, the
object that we desire. Objects such as absolute zero, quantum dots,
singularities, etc., are elusive and hard to tame. No matter how much
we learn, there is always more to learn ahead of us.

tomcat

[tomcat]

In a 'science of science' world they might put you into a test tube,
subject you to extremes of temperature and radiation just to see what
you do. Logical positivism is a lot like a 'science of science'. It
was popular in the 30's and 40's, especially in Germany.

For the positivists it was not improper to do these things because of
their verifiability criterion of meaning. If a statement was
unverifiable in principle then it had no meaning. Sounds good until
you realize it applies to people as well as things. No souls to worry
about! Don't talk about . . . pain and agony . . . they don't have
meaning. So, don't argue when you are grabbed and dunked in boiling
water so 'scientists' can record your behavior. Your pain, your agony,
your soul, are all meaningless.

Well, the upshot was that the verifiability criterion of meaning had no
meaning -- by its own verifiability principle. Neither did historical
statements, which to some extent every statement is. And, talk about
the future was meaningless too.

Better stick to 'philosophy of science'.

The scientific method does not deal well with private, subjective,
introspective things. Many scientists have the view that everything is
matter. False. To use the scientific method on matter is to admit to
'observation', and observation is non-material, soul related,
perception.

Philosophy is the study of an all inclusive class of things which, by
chance, includes science. Philosophy is even contained within itself.
Hence, meta-philosophy!

tomcat

[simon]

oh, please, let talk seriously about this.
the fact that i study science doesnt mean that i have no soul ( if it
exists), or that ill deny anything that is out my "computational
understanding". personally, talking with philosophers and writers
across my life, the only thing that i can conclude is that they thing
that i have no soul ithout know me. who is neglecting it then?
besides, im not interested in that kind of discussion.
what i wanted to mean was that the specialization is ussually seen as a
source of arrogance and ignorance by the philosophers (ex, Ortega y
Gasset), but its much more than that. In fact, this kind of
predisposition makes the discussions more boring and quite superficial:
talking about the reality itself and repeating that "the science its
not the ultimate knowledge" is and old tale. In some sense that could
be the point why psilosophy cant aboard science in all its aspects. The
reject to the specialization can lead to dogmatism and to the absence
of "results", what is that a scientist would inconsciously evaluate to
conclude if a theory is succesfully or not.

By the way, is there a "philosophy of the measure"?
I wonder what a philosopher can say about what does a person do when is
measuring something.
(Naturally, if we want to discuss rigorously if thats truth or not, we
can stay here for a long time, i dont object). Anyway, we must remember
that scientist do not confront the reality directly, but the theories
are elaborated to confront the "results", and i think that there is an
important point that hasnt been treated properly ( with some brilliant
exceptions).

[Souvik]

tomcat wrote:
> Philosophy has a technical language just as scientists do. Technical
> languages do sometimes cause confusion. Scientists say "iron" while an
> M.D. says "hemoglobin." Sometimes philosophers pick on each other. An
> example is when a philosopher said "the absolute enters into but does
> not participate in change." I am still trying to figure that out
> myself!
>
> Yes, I use a lot of the presocratic paradigms in my thinking. I do
> this because disguising the presoctratic simplicity leads to much
> confusion. The problem of the 'One and the Many' is the distinction
> between 'Being' and 'knowledge'.
>
> The One is always the goal of act and thought. It is our only true
> object; everything else reduces to properties which are nothing in
> themselves -- such as 'red'. Whether or not a scientist/engineer
> realizes it he is after the One as well, in every thought, experiement,
> and theory. It is always to reach, to have, to hold, to control, the
> object that we desire. Objects such as absolute zero, quantum dots,
> singularities, etc., are elusive and hard to tame. No matter how much
> we learn, there is always more to learn ahead of us.
>
>
> tomcat

The time-honoured tradition of (wannabe?) philosophers farting vague
nonsense continues.
[Does he even know what a quantum dot is?!]

[tomcat]

simon wrote:
>
> By the way, is there a "philosophy of the measure"?
> I wonder what a philosopher can say about what does a person do when is
> measuring something.
> (Naturally, if we want to discuss rigorously if thats truth or not, we
> can stay here for a long time, i dont object). Anyway, we must remember
> that scientist do not confront the reality directly, but the theories
> are elaborated to confront the "results", and i think that there is an
> important point that hasnt been treated properly ( with some brilliant
> exceptions ).

Man and the Double Line

A line can be taken as one line, or as two lines touching together, or
as any number of lines, the first starting where the last finished.
And this, moreover, can be taken to an infinite progression. Measure,
according to the 'double line' is an act of mind. Man is the measure
of all things.

The Black Box

Certain experiments are regarded as "black box" experiments.
Scientists, unable to directly see an object observe its affects.

We cannot, however, directly see anything! Even chairs and basketballs
elude us. We can observe a ball's color and shape. It's size and
hardness. But if we paint the ball red does it become a new ball?
What if we crush it a little so it is no longer as round as before?
Deflate it and is it the same ball? Ditto with the ball's hardness.
Now it is soft. Is it the same ball?

We would normally say it is the same thing, just painted red, crushed,
or deflated. But if color, shape, size, and touch are not the ball,
then where is the ball?

All the same is true of a chair, or any other thing you wish to name.

The 'thing in itself' eludes observation, always giving us properties
instead. Scientists claim that every instant a thing's properties
change because of molecular activity, however slight that change is.

Everything is a 'black box', not just some electron microscope thing.
If things were directly apprehended there could be no error regarding
them, and no need of science -- or philosophy.

It is a black box world regarding not just the One, but the Many as
well.

tomcat

[goozlefotz]

I don't know what a "quantum dot" is...
I suspect we have a sophomore philosophy student here, trying to pack
as much of what s/he heard in class as possible into one paragraph.

[Souvik]

A quantum dot is circle of 50 or so atoms placed carefully on a
semiconducting substrate with the tip of a microscope (STM/AFM) needle
in a circle. Electrons inside that circle of atoms vividly condense
into Bessel functions -- the stationary solution of the Schrodinger
equation with a circular boundary condition. (Nowadays, any artificial
potential well is called a quantum dot.) It's just an engineering feat.

[goozlefotz]

Thank you. I'm leaving on vacation today. CUL!

[zinnic]

tomcat wrote:
.> Philosophers design some of their works for themselves and others

with
> scientists/engineers in mind. A work on 'the meaning of meaning' is
> primairly for other philosophers. On the other hand, 'justified true
> belief' might be a work of interest of scientists/engineers as well as
> other philosophers.

Not when philosophers (e.g. Gettier's problem) 'conjure up' particular
circumstances that apparently invalidate JTB (justified true belief).
The general sense conveyed by this term is well understood, and is
useful as a criterion by which to assess the validity of what we
believe to be knowledge. Along come the 'epistemologists' to
demonstrate that in particular cirumstances the definition of JTB is
problematic. They create the problem by ignoring the approximation and
relativity inherent in the meaning of words.

> Philosophy has a technical language just as scientists do. Technical
> languages do sometimes cause confusion. Scientists say "iron" while an
> M.D. says "hemoglobin."

Wrong!. Iron is a metallic element. Hemoglobin is a complex biological
molecule containing iron. No scientist would ever refer to iron as
hemoglobin!.
(to be continued)
Snip

[zinnic]

(Continuation of previous post)
tomcat wrote:

>Sometimes philosophers pick on each other. An
> example is when a philosopher said "the absolute enters into but does
> not participate in change." I am still trying to figure that out
> myself!
> Yes, I use a lot of the presocratic paradigms in my thinking. I do
> this because disguising the presoctratic simplicity leads to much
> confusion. The problem of the 'One and the Many' is the distinction
> between 'Being' and 'knowledge'.

I am trying to figure out what it is you mean by the last sentence. Do
you mean that the 'one' represents 'being' and the 'many' represents
'knowledge'? That the one is the 'subjective', and the 'many' the
'objective'?
I am working on it!

> The One is always the goal of act and thought. It is our only true
> object; everything else reduces to properties which are nothing in
> themselves -- such as 'red'. Whether or not a scientist/engineer
> realizes it he is after the One as well, in every thought, experiement,
> and theory. It is always to reach, to have, to hold, to control, the
> object that we desire. Objects such as absolute zero, quantum dots,
> singularities, etc., are elusive and hard to tame. No matter how much
> we learn, there is always more to learn ahead of us.
>
>

Again, I find it difficult to follow your reasoning (?). By "true
object" do you mean true objectives? If not, would you provide an
example of an 'object in itself' which can be defined independently of
it's properties. The "objects' you list seem to me to be concepts
rather than 'objects in themselves'.
Regards....Zinnic

[tomcat]

zinnic wrote:
>
> Not when philosophers (e.g. Gettier's problem) 'conjure up' particular
> circumstances that apparently invalidate JTB (justified true belief).
> The general sense conveyed by this term is well understood, and is
> useful as a criterion by which to assess the validity of what we
> believe to be knowledge. Along come the 'epistemologists' to
> demonstrate that in particular cirumstances the definition of JTB is
> problematic. They create the problem by ignoring the approximation and
> relativity inherent in the meaning of words.
>
>

> Wrong!. Iron is a metallic element. Hemoglobin is a complex biological
> molecule containing iron. No scientist would ever refer to iron as
> hemoglobin!.

You are right, words do have "approximation and relativity." Many a
bloody battle has been fought when both sides 'really' believed the
same thing, but had stated them differently.

I am not altogether wrong on the iron/hemoglobin issue, however. It is
iron that absorbs and carries oxygen to the cells. Yes, other
molecules probably get involved, but the same is true of steel girders.

Philosophers are trained to be critical in their readings. Part of the
value of philosophy are the critiques made of other fields. When
technical language is the cause the whole thing can be irritating. But
there are other times when gross errors are made by scientists,
engineers, etc.

I have been told by learned men that increasing the size of a rocket
does not increase it's range. I replied that a 1 inch perfect replica
of a Saturn V will not, I repeat 'not', go to the Moon. Am I wrong?

tomcat

[tomcat]

zinnic wrote:
> I am trying to figure out what it is you mean by the last sentence. Do
> you mean that the 'one' represents 'being' and the 'many' represents
> 'knowledge'? That the one is the 'subjective', and the 'many' the
> 'objective'?
> I am working on it!
>

> Again, I find it difficult to follow your reasoning (?). By "true
> object" do you mean true objectives? If not, would you provide an
> example of an 'object in itself' which can be defined independently of
> it's properties. The "objects' you list seem to me to be concepts
> rather than 'objects in themselves'.
> Regards....Zinnic

In modern philosophy, begun by Descartes, the European Continent went
rationalist. They believed that "I think, therefore, I am." They took
'reasoning' to be the primordial element of reality.

England, on the other hand, became empiricist. They stood by "To be is
to be perceived." Sense data are the elements of mind, not thinking.

These two schools set up the battlefield of today's philosophy. But,
there is one other! Atomism is still around. Most scientists
subscribe to it.

I am fascinated by knowing that everything I see and touch are . . .
electrons! Since, electrons are the shells of atoms then we do not
touch, see, or feel the atoms themselves, but rather the electron
shells. All tangible objects are bound electrons, with static
electricity and lightening being unbound electrons.

So, here I am talking about the One and the Many. Presocratic, you
know.

Well, the rationalists found they could not have thinking without
'things' being thought about. The empiricists found they could not
have sense data without 'grouping' them somehow. Scientists found that
atoms have to be 'observed'.

So, all 3 positions had to include the others. While atoms are not as
abstract as thinking and sense data, they have to be included because
to deny them would be . . . silly. Atoms have even been photographed.

What I find is a world of things, but not things in themselves, i.e.,
the chairs and tables are not the universals appealed to in the act of
seeing. And, I find that when I try to look behind the curtain of
sense data, that I don't see anything at all. Black box, and all that.

But I know something, universals, thought, God, strings, or something
or other has to be behind the curtain. Since, in principle, it is not
possible to 'see' behind the curtain and since space and time don't
make sense 'behind the curtain', I regard it as One.

What we are confronted with are Many things, and one thing leads to
another, and another. We move through space and time. As we attempt
to discover more we continue our motion which generates yet another
thing.

To escape this circular situation requires looking behind the curtain.
But we can't do that.

So, we have the One and the Many. The One is the 'object' of our
search, things in themselves, God, mathematical objects, etc. And, we
have the multitude of things that change, decay, and are never perfect.

In short, we know the imperfect (Many) but seek the perfect (One),
which forever remains out of grasp. All the concepts in philosophy
that come after the presocratic problem of the One and the Many, can be
understood with it. It cuts these concepts down to size.

tomcat

[Souvik]

I think my original question is satisfactorily answered.
:-)

And no, tomcat, you don't touch electrons in the outer shells. The
atoms in your fingertip feel the *pressure of electrostatic repulsion*
of the electrons on the outermost shells of the atoms of the table
surface. And that gets transmitted via sensory nerves, via your spinal
cord, to your brain where that information manifests itself as the
sensation of 'touch'.

[zinnic]

tomcat wrote:
> zinnic wrote:
> > I am trying to figure out what it is you mean by the last sentence. Do
> > you mean that the 'one' represents 'being' and the 'many' represents
> > 'knowledge'? That the one is the 'subjective', and the 'many' the
> > 'objective'?
> > I am working on it!
> >
> > Again, I find it difficult to follow your reasoning (?). By "true
> > object" do you mean true objectives? If not, would you provide an
> > example of an 'object in itself' which can be defined independently of
> > it's properties. The "objects' you list seem to me to be concepts
> > rather than 'objects in themselves'.
> > Regards....Zinnic
>
>

Snip (history of modern philosophy)

Snip (naive electronics).

> So, here I am talking about the One and the Many. Presocratic, you
> know.

Snip (what you cannot see but you know must be behind the "curtain".

Snip (the one and the many repetition).

Gee! In your reply, you forgot to address the questions in my post.

[Souvik]

zinnic wrote:
> Gee! In your reply, you forgot to address the questions in my post.

Well, at least he answered my original question to a degree. The answer
being philosophers today are largely full of vague technobabble.

It's amazing *how many* students you'll see with such vague peripheral
understanding of things I find sagely sitting in today's philosophy
classes. Muttering gaseous nonsense that never amount to anything. Sad.

People should be eligible to work for a philosophy degree only after
having some competence and a degree in something more concrete -- like
the basic sciences / politics. It is especially true of modern physics,
because it has raced so far ahead of the common man's intuition. It is
simply not possible to pop into a university after high school and
decide to major in epistemology without having a rigorous understanding
of where knowledge is. That you can only get from a down and dirty
involvement with science, not by reading pop-science books on your
armchair. I mean, it is possible, but should not be.

Yeah, you can study Aristotle and Plato all you want, but of what
consequence is beating a dead horse?

Philosophy, as a discipline, needs to be re-structured ENTIRELY if it
is to have any relevance at all to society.

-Souvik

[tomcat]

zinnic wrote:
> > > I am trying to figure out what it is you mean by the last sentence. Do
> > > you mean that the 'one' represents 'being' and the 'many' represents
> > > 'knowledge'? That the one is the 'subjective', and the 'many' the
> > > 'objective'?
> > > I am working on it!
> > >
> > > Again, I find it difficult to follow your reasoning (?). By "true
> > > object" do you mean true objectives? If not, would you provide an
> > > example of an 'object in itself' which can be defined independently of
> > > it's properties. The "objects' you list seem to me to be concepts
> > > rather than 'objects in themselves'.
> > > Regards....Zinnic
> >
> Snip (history of modern philosophy)
>
> Snip (naive electronics).

> Snip (what you cannot see but you know must be behind the "curtain".

>
> Snip (the one and the many repetition).
>
> Gee! In your reply, you forgot to address the questions in my post.

You seem to be responding to with irritation to 'critical analysis', in
which philosophers are highly trained. Can't blame you. It irritates
me sometimes too.

I should not be expected to defend critical analysis by 'others', but
only that which I personally do. Usually I try to either avoid or
minimize it. When every word spoken is taken to task, there is little
time spent on the overall concept.

Some philosophers, however, do exactly that -- take every word to task.

-----------

You seem to regard the vague, the One and the Many distinction, as
completely vacuous. It is not. It is very abstract, however. Just
ask me about instances of it and I will explain it's use in that
instance.

-----------

The 'unseeable', 'unknowable' side of the curtain is also very
irritating. But the 'other side' of what is presented to us both
exists and is, in itself, unseeable. Both scientist and philosopher
has to deal with this.

Both scientist and philosopher has to theorize because of it. And,
inevitably, those theories will prove . . . wrong. Yes, it is
irritating.

But we can make progress, and that is good! Science has shown that
increased sophistication means greater power and comfort, despite the
inherent flaw that each and every theory has. Of course, that is a
theory too!

Another infinite regress? Well, we can never get rid of them, can we?

I guess that a theory of the inherent flaw is a theory. Now we need a
theory of the 'theory of the inherent flaw', then a theory of that, and
so on and so forth. Meta-theories -- what will they think of next?

tomcat

[zinnic]

Tomcat- I am mildly irritated that your ramblings lead nowhere except
to the trivial conclusion that humans (a part) will never achieve
Absolute comprehension of reality (the whole), whatever that is!
I am more irritated by your suggestion that I provide YOU with
instances of the "One and the Many distinction" despite your admission
that it is "vague" and "very abstract".
Gee! You want ME to instantiate a concept that I regard "as completely
vacuous"? I am just not up to it. Help me here!

Scientists and philosophers do not deal with the "unseeable" and
"unknowable" but concentrate on validating theories that bring us
better approximations to "reality".
I suspect that your One is the ultimate Fundamental, the Many its
consequences. How that advances our understanding is simply beyond me!

[tomcat]

zinnic wrote:
> Tomcat- I am mildly irritated that your ramblings lead nowhere except
> to the trivial conclusion that humans (a part) will never achieve
> Absolute comprehension of reality (the whole), whatever that is!
> I am more irritated by your suggestion that I provide YOU with
> instances of the "One and the Many distinction" despite your admission
> that it is "vague" and "very abstract".
> Gee! You want ME to instantiate a concept that I regard "as completely
> vacuous"? I am just not up to it. Help me here!
>
> Scientists and philosophers do not deal with the "unseeable" and
> "unknowable" but concentrate on validating theories that bring us
> better approximations to "reality".
> I suspect that your One is the ultimate Fundamental, the Many its
> consequences. How that advances our understanding is simply beyond me!

What is "reality"?

tomcat

[zinnic]

Let us say that my 'perception' of "reality" is real enough for me! I
gather that your perception is not enough for you!

[tomcat]

> gather that your perception is not enough for you.

That is correct.

tomcat

[Souvik]

So what's your alternative to perception of reality?

-Souvik

[tomcat]

> > > > What is "reality"?
> > > >
> > > Let us say that my 'perception' of "reality" is real enough for me! I
> > > gather that your perception is not enough for you.

> > That is correct.
> >
> > tomcat
>
> So what's your alternative to perception of reality?
>
> -Souvik

It is easy to accept what one knows as good enough. When you do that
you have stopped growing.

I, of course, have a perception of reality. It is always under
reexamination and, therefore, changing.

"Reality" simply means 'thingality'. I am still searching for
'things'.

In the world that surrounds me, nothing is perfect. An ashtray for
instance, would only be perfect if it eliminated ash before it formed.
It would make no noise, use no electricity, have 0 dimensions, and last
forever.

tomcat

[Byrne]

Science or natural philosophy is only a subsection of philosophy,
it is like philosophy with constraints.
Take the expression natural philosophy, nature can be defined
as the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is
recognized, recognition of these characteristics should stem from
their perception in reality/nature through observation, but perception
is only the amalgamation of conceptual ideas to fit what was observed,
so you can still conceptualise (philosophy) but you must keep within
what nature/reality actually is, i.e. it must fit.

[tomcat]

Every theory has to describe what really is. Though there were
mathematical 'recreations' that much later proved to be valuable.
Boolean algebra was one of them.

But still, in one way or another, theories have to touchbase with what
we experience.

Sometimes people think of philosophy as describing strange barren
abstract worlds. What is actually happening is that the world we live
in is being 'analyzed' and a lot has to be left out, especially the
concrete lively stuff we enjoy.

Kant gives one the impression that the world is simply a 'manifold' and
what comes to my mind is a stained glass window looking thing. Hegel
creates the vision of some etheral spirit named "I think" floating
around as the 'real' world.

But I believe that both Kant and Hegel were talking about the rich
world of experience that we take for granted. It was the barren
abstraction of their 'analysis' that gave those grim looking visions.

Parminedes gave the impression that the One of his reality was a bland
sphere hiding somewhere. Heraclitus talked of constant change, flux,
and movement, of things existing briefly then disappearing.

Somewhat disturbing, but he was aware of the same world we all live in.
He was simply pointing out that time does pass and things do change.
He regarded change as the one constant in our existence.

Plato said the reality were the perfections of geometry, circles,
cones, pyramids, and the like. But he knew about trees, fish, and
people too. He regarded mathematical things as remaining when all else
passes away, so they were true existence by his way of thinking.

So philosophy touches base with our actual world more than it first
appears to. If it didn't then no one would read and preserve the many
volumes that have been written over the millenia.

tomcat