Philosophy of Science
ROD JACKSON
instrumentalism is "loopy" and that "scientific realism" is the way to
go. Yet is sems obvious to me that science cannot obtain truth (how does
the finite come to knowledge of the infinite?) and so it seems to me that
instrumentalism is much more reasonable. Does anyone think otherwise?
RAZA 2000
--
"I could say 'I love you', you could say 'it isn't true'
but how could you say that about someone who died for you!" PETRA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Web Page - http://student.uq.edu.au/~s321702/index.html
Torkel Franzen
>Yet is sems obvious to me that science cannot obtain truth (how does
>the finite come to knowledge of the infinite?) and so it seems to me that
>instrumentalism is much more reasonable. Does anyone think otherwise?
Well, how does the two-legged come to knowledge of the four-legged?
Peter H.M. Brooks
Of course, to the hey-wow, 'two' and 'four' don't have that nice
mystical ring like 'finite' and 'infinite' have...
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Beethoven was an innovator of form, Mozart an innovator of substance.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ROD JACKSON
>s32...@student.uq.edu.au (ROD JACKSON) writes:
> >Yet is sems obvious to me that science cannot obtain truth (how does
> >the finite come to knowledge of the infinite?) and so it seems to me that
> >instrumentalism is much more reasonable. Does anyone think otherwise?
> Well, how does the two-legged come to knowledge of the four-legged?
umm empirically I guess... Not sure what your point is though? Are you
saying that from observing one 4 legged creatue (say a horse) we can then
say that *all* horse have 4 legs, so if we see a "horse" that has had two
legs choped off it is not a horse merely because of it's loss of legs?
Torkel Franzen
>umm empirically I guess... Not sure what your point is though?
So the finite comes to knowledge of the infinite empirically as well
(assuming the universe to be infinite). And, of course, by
mathematical reasoning, if we're talking about mathematical
infinities.
Peter H.M. Brooks
s32...@student.uq.edu.au (ROD JACKSON) wrote:
> Torkel Franzen <tor...@sm.luth.se> writes:
>
> >s32...@student.uq.edu.au (ROD JACKSON) writes:
>
> > >Yet is sems obvious to me that science cannot obtain truth (how
does
> > >the finite come to knowledge of the infinite?) and so it seems to
me that
> > >instrumentalism is much more reasonable. Does anyone think
otherwise?
>
> > Well, how does the two-legged come to knowledge of the four-legged?
>
> umm empirically I guess... Not sure what your point is though? Are you
> saying that from observing one 4 legged creatue (say a horse) we can
then
> say that *all* horse have 4 legs, so if we see a "horse" that has had
two
> legs choped off it is not a horse merely because of it's loss of legs?
>
discourse as the point, thank you for the example of the latter case.
Steve H
<tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote:
> So the finite comes to knowledge of the infinite empirically as well
> (assuming the universe to be infinite).
Isn't the point of empiricism to know, not to assume?
Steve...
Steve H
<pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <8n9gdq$6rf$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>,
> s32...@student.uq.edu.au (ROD JACKSON) wrote:
> > Torkel Franzen <tor...@sm.luth.se> writes:
> >
> > >s32...@student.uq.edu.au (ROD JACKSON) writes:
> >
> > > >Yet is sems obvious to me that science cannot obtain truth (how
> does
> > > >the finite come to knowledge of the infinite?) and so it seems to
> me that
> > > >instrumentalism is much more reasonable. Does anyone think
> otherwise?
> >
> > > Well, how does the two-legged come to knowledge of the four-legged?
> >
> > umm empirically I guess... Not sure what your point is though? Are you
> > saying that from observing one 4 legged creatue (say a horse) we can
> then
> > say that *all* horse have 4 legs, so if we see a "horse" that has had
> two
> > legs choped off it is not a horse merely because of it's loss of legs?
> >
> There's missing the point and there's not being in the same universe of
> discourse as the point, thank you for the example of the latter case.
Don't thank him, he doesn't appear to have missed the point all.
Whereas you on the other hand wouldn't appear to be able to recognise a
point even if someone were to poke your eye out with one.
Interesting how the "scientist" responds to criticism with such a lack
of dignity.
One further point (I thought I'd state that for your benefit Peter). If
scientific realism is indeed the only truth, or should I say the only
means of revealing the truth, why does it need to be defended so
rigorously?
Steve...
Torkel Franzen
> Isn't the point of empiricism to know, not to assume?
I'm afraid I understand neither the import of your question, nor its
relevance.
ROD JACKSON
>s32...@student.uq.edu.au (ROD JACKSON) writes:
umm you've lost me here...
I don't understand what you mean of as "infinite knowledge"?
ROD JACKSON
>> umm empirically I guess... Not sure what your point is though? Are you
>> saying that from observing one 4 legged creatue (say a horse) we can
>then
>> say that *all* horse have 4 legs, so if we see a "horse" that has had
>two
>> legs choped off it is not a horse merely because of it's loss of legs?
>>
>There's missing the point and there's not being in the same universe of
>discourse as the point, thank you for the example of the latter case.
Ok, then would you be so kind as to point me in the correct direction,
because I'm afraid that I don't see it?
Torkel Franzen
> I don't understand what you mean of as "infinite knowledge"?
What do you mean by "infinite knowledge"?
Mr Enigmatic
"Torkel Franzen" <tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote in message
news:vcbn1ig...@beta13.sm.luth.se...
> s32...@student.uq.edu.au (ROD JACKSON) writes:
>
> >Yet is sems obvious to me that science cannot obtain truth (how does
> >the finite come to knowledge of the infinite?) and so it seems to me
that
> >instrumentalism is much more reasonable. Does anyone think otherwise?
>
> Well, how does the two-legged come to knowledge of the four-legged?
Irrelevant
Mr Enigmatic UK www.metaphysics.freeserve.co.uk
Peter H.M. Brooks
Mr Enigmatic <mr.eni...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:7Clm5.8207$pR4.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
question.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
--
Nihilism satisfies the nihilist which is at least
something to be said for it.
Steve H
<tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote:
Then you're obviously not as clever as you presume yourself to be.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Steve H <sjho...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> One further point (I thought I'd state that for your benefit Peter).
If
> scientific realism is indeed the only truth, or should I say the only
> means of revealing the truth, why does it need to be defended so
> rigorously?
>
admittedly, mathematics, which is another road to truth. Science, in a
sane world, wouldn't need much defence - apart from the evidence all
around us that it works. However, there are still those who wish to
shroud their, and other people's, minds in bullshit. This is sad and it
is important to do ones bit to point out bullshit.
Peter H.M. Brooks
s32...@student.uq.edu.au (ROD JACKSON) wrote:
> Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >> umm empirically I guess... Not sure what your point is though? Are
you
> >> saying that from observing one 4 legged creatue (say a horse) we
can
> >then
> >> say that *all* horse have 4 legs, so if we see a "horse" that has
had
> >two
> >> legs choped off it is not a horse merely because of it's loss of
legs?
> >>
> >There's missing the point and there's not being in the same universe
of
> >discourse as the point, thank you for the example of the latter case.
>
> Ok, then would you be so kind as to point me in the correct direction,
> because I'm afraid that I don't see it?
>
difficult (or impossible) for a 'finite' person to understand the
'infinite'. Torkel made the observation that it wasn't difficult for a
two legged person to understand a four legged one. He thus demonstrated
that the original point was bogus in that it made the baseless claim
that the number of a person was relevant - it is as relevant as the
number of legs a person has.
Torkel Franzen
>Then you're obviously not as clever as you presume yourself to be.
Right, but such bantering apart, is there any actual content to your comment?
Steve H
> Ok, then would you be so kind as to point me in the correct direction,
> because I'm afraid that I don't see it?
Hello Rod,
I'm afraid that you are unlikely to get any such assistance from those
two, which is fine because I don't really think you need it.
You asked, what was in my opinion, a perfectly reasonable question, and
hoped, I assume, for an equally reasonable answer. Unfortunately all
you recieved was conceit and pomposity, which alas is only to be
expected from such tragic examples of homo ignoramus. Either your
question was too complex for them to understand, or they simply did not
have an answer. In each case, one who is wise would have either asked
for clarification, or said nothing, hoever wisdom is not something I
would readily associate with this type of individual.
If you have spent any time browsing this, or other, newsgroups you may
already be aware of the pseudo-intellectual snobbery which individuals
such as these attempt to pass off as reasoned debate. Rather than
provide a clear, reasonable response, they attempt to belittle
enquirers with high-brow nonsense which is of little to no academic
worth whatsoever. Of course this is usenet and people are entitled to
say what they wish no matter how badly it reflects upon them, c'est la
vie I suppose. After all, you know what they say about fools.
Anyway, back to your original question. Actually I agree with you,
scientific realism and empiricism are a hopelessly flawed methods of
interpreting the universe. I have many arguments to back up this claim
which I simply don't have the time to go into now (furthermore, you
were at this point only asking for opposing views). However, I would be
happy to discuss them with you at a later date should you so wish.
Steve...
Steve H
Peter H.M. Brooks
Steve H <sjho...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:160820001657099590%sjho...@mac.com...
> Anyway, back to your original question. Actually I agree with you,
> scientific realism and empiricism are a hopelessly flawed methods of
> interpreting the universe. I have many arguments to back up this claim
> which I simply don't have the time to go into now (furthermore, you
> were at this point only asking for opposing views). However, I would be
> happy to discuss them with you at a later date should you so wish.
>
points but don't have the space and time to make them.
Every time you take the train or open a tin you are proving through your use
of science derived technology that scientific realism works perfectly well
in interpreting the universe.
Of course, if you prefer fairy tales or hey-wow bullshit you can certainly
go for them instead - but you won't get very far with your understanding.
If you want to dispute this, why not demonstrate a magic flying carpet as
proof that mythology is as good a way of interpreting the universe?
Peter H.M. Brooks
Torkel Franzen
> Rather than
> provide a clear, reasonable response, they attempt to belittle
> enquirers with high-brow nonsense which is of little to no academic
> worth whatsoever.
Aw, I don't think "two-legged" or "four-legged" is all that
highbrow! As for "academic worth", surely we should care more
about the quality and contents of our arguments than about
their "academic worth"?
Torkel Franzen
> Yes.
Well, what might that be? For example, do you in fact - as your
comment on the face of it would seem to suggest - take my reference to
the assumption that the universe is infinite to be in some way
relevant to a supposed "empiricist" claim that that the universe is
infinite, and if so, how?
ROD JACKSON
>s32...@student.uq.edu.au (ROD JACKSON) writes:
I mean a universal(s).
Like *all* crows are black, as opposed to one all observed crows being
black.
ROD JACKSON
>> Ok, then would you be so kind as to point me in the correct direction,
>> because I'm afraid that I don't see it?
>>
>Pity, it is quite simple really. The original claim was that it was
>difficult (or impossible) for a 'finite' person to understand the
>'infinite'. Torkel made the observation that it wasn't difficult for a
>two legged person to understand a four legged one. He thus demonstrated
>that the original point was bogus in that it made the baseless claim
>that the number of a person was relevant - it is as relevant as the
>number of legs a person has.
Umm ok thanks for the clarificatin. It seems my original question was not
as clear as I would have liked it to be.
If I understand what you wrote correctly, thenn you are saying that -
Person A can understand Person B and because it is possible foor one
person to understand another person then the "number" of the person (or
letter as I am using them) doesn't matter, such that Person A could also
understand Person Z. However this is not addressing my original question,
probably due to my lack of clarity.
Let me expand - I was not saying that people could not know, or understand
things.
Science makes many general claims. Instrumentalism as I understand it
(which is not very well :) claims that we can only be sure of the
emperically verified "truths" of science but the unempirical ones (like
quarks) have pragmatic value but we cannot know if they are "true" or
not. Whereas "Scientific Realism" (as I underrstand it), claims that
science does either have truth or is close to the truth.
My point was then - how can this be? If we take the claim "All crows are
black", how do we know if it is true or close to the truth. Well in our
experience all the crows *wee know of* are Black. But what if it turns out
that we discover that there iis a purple crow, in fact there is a planet
of purple crows. Doesn't this mean that no only was the claim *all* crows
are black is false but that it wasn't even close to the truth if there is
in fact many more non-black crows. [I am of course ignoring the fact that
a colour isn't a propeerty of ann object, just for the sake of the
example].
ROD JACKSON
>Hello Rod,
Hey.
>I'm afraid that you are unlikely to get any such assistance from those
>two, which is fine because I don't really think you need it.
I appears to have been a misunderstanding, mainly due to my lack of
eloquence...
>You asked, what was in my opinion, a perfectly reasonable question, and
>hoped, I assume, for an equally reasonable answer.
:) That woull be nice :)
>Anyway, back to your original question. Actually I agree with you,
>scientific realism and empiricism are a hopelessly flawed methods of
>interpreting the universe. I have many arguments to back up this claim
>which I simply don't have the time to go into now (furthermore, you
>were at this point only asking for opposing views). However, I would be
>happy to discuss them with you at a later date should you so wish.
I am always willing to discuss it...
ROD JACKSON
>Every time you take the train or open a tin you are proving through your use
>of science derived technology that scientific realism works perfectly well
>in interpreting the universe.
I don't think people don't recognise the *pragmatic* value of
science. However is pragamtism enough to warrant the "truth" of its
claims. Ptolemny (sp?) devised a very pragmatic view of the motion of the
planets (my astronomy lecturer says that it can still be used today to
accurately predicte where a planet will be), however no scientist (that I
am aware of), today, thinks there is any truth to the claims of cycles and
epi-cycles...
ROD JACKSON
>Steve H <sjho...@mac.com> writes:
> > Yes.
You appear to be implying that an empiricist does not have an
epistemological basis for claiming the universe to be infinite (as they
haven't *observed* it to be such), is this correct?
Torkel Franzen
> You appear to be implying that an empiricist does not have an
> epistemological basis for claiming the universe to be infinite (as they
> haven't *observed* it to be such), is this correct?
No, I don't know anything about any of that. My original comment was
So the finite comes to knowledge of the infinite empirically as well
(assuming the universe to be infinite). And, of course, by
mathematical reasoning, if we're talking about mathematical
infinities.
This, you will recall, was in response to the question how the finite
can know the infinite. Apparently this question presupposed that the
universe is infinite, hence my parenthetical assumption. Whether the
universe is in fact infinite is irrelevant to my simple point, which
was that the problem "how can the finite know the infinite?" is
completely bogus.
Torkel Franzen
> I mean a universal(s).
>
> Like *all* crows are black, as opposed to one all observed crows being
> black.
Why do you call that "infinite knowledge"? After all, presumably
there are only finitely many crows.
Peter H.M. Brooks
ROD JACKSON <s32...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:8nets1$6o0$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> > Science makes many general claims. Instrumentalism as I understand it
> (which is not very well :) claims that we can only be sure of the
> emperically verified "truths" of science but the unempirical ones (like
> quarks) have pragmatic value but we cannot know if they are "true" or
> not. Whereas "Scientific Realism" (as I underrstand it), claims that
> science does either have truth or is close to the truth.
>
Science is the
body of knowledge obtained by use of the scientific method. This method, if
anything,
is what is held to be effective in establishing how the world works, and
evidence in
support of this is the success both in predicting non-obvious and often
counter-intuitive
outcomes to experiments that later prove accurate and in enabling a coherent
description
of the real world to be built. Scientists know that a model, even a good
one, is an approximation
to reality, but these approximations are good enough to have been used to
build bridges,
space craft and nuclear powerstations.
>
> My point was then - how can this be? If we take the claim "All crows are
> black", how do we know if it is true or close to the truth. Well in our
> experience all the crows *wee know of* are Black. But what if it turns out
> that we discover that there iis a purple crow, in fact there is a planet
> of purple crows. Doesn't this mean that no only was the claim *all* crows
> are black is false but that it wasn't even close to the truth if there is
> in fact many more non-black crows. [I am of course ignoring the fact that
> a colour isn't a propeerty of ann object, just for the sake of the
> example].
>
existed that
had, apart from the gene for colour, exactly the same genes as a standard
crow,
then we would see it as a mutation or as a different species [depending on
how
we defined species]. Just as, in the real world, we are happy to say that
crows
are black even though we know that albino crows exist - they are a noted and
know exception to the general rule. The existance of this exception doesn't
mean
that the general rule isn't useful, only that it is qualified - you are
generally safe
on putting your money on the proposition that the next crow you see will be
black.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> writes:
>
> >Every time you take the train or open a tin you are proving through your
use
> >of science derived technology that scientific realism works perfectly
well
> >in interpreting the universe.
>
> I don't think people don't recognise the *pragmatic* value of
> science. However is pragamtism enough to warrant the "truth" of its
> claims. Ptolemny (sp?) devised a very pragmatic view of the motion of the
> planets (my astronomy lecturer says that it can still be used today to
> accurately predicte where a planet will be), however no scientist (that I
> am aware of), today, thinks there is any truth to the claims of cycles and
> epi-cycles...
>
Science
is a process of investigation that improves its results over time. We can
say that
what we have today is the best approximation and we can see how previous
theories
that provided a pretty good fit have been replaced by theories that produce
a better
fit - as you point out above. Usually, however, the previous theories are
not thrown
out altogether, but refined. So, if you want to examine the motion of
billiard balls on
a billiard table, Newtonian mechanics is ideal, but, if you wish to examing
the movement
of galaxies or electrons it isn't.
Peter H.M. Brooks
went on
forever and crows as a species continued to exist forever then the total
crow population, living
and dead would be tending towards infinite. Of course, we know that the
solar system has
only a finite life, so, since we don't expect crows to invent space travel,
it is likely that they
will cease to exist quite soon relative to 'forever'.
abcd...@my-deja.com
>
> What do you mean by "infinite knowledge"?
>
Do you really understand knowledge? What is knowledge? Where does
knowledge come from? How does knowledge come? ,,,,,,,
If you couldn't answer this questions, please, look at the home page:
http://www.angelfire.com/ga/chaok , you would find it and more.
This home page has also the whole text of the "New Labour Theory of
Value" in Chinese and English.
Reading without thinking is nonsense!!!
Man said there are many mafia misuse internet, how could we fight
against such pigs??? Have you any good ideas?
---------------------------------
-
Steve H
> You appear to be implying that an empiricist does not have an
> epistemological basis for claiming the universe to be infinite (as they
> haven't *observed* it to be such), is this correct?
No. Epistemology is not dependent upon observation. What I am implying
is that they do not have an empirical basis for such a claim.
Steve H
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> Steve H <sjho...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:160820001657099590%sjho...@mac.com...
> > Anyway, back to your original question. Actually I agree with you,
> > scientific realism and empiricism are a hopelessly flawed methods of
> > interpreting the universe. I have many arguments to back up this claim
> > which I simply don't have the time to go into now
> >
> LOL! That is a very old chestnut, the claim that you have a whole string of
> points but don't have the space and time to make them.
Exactly what did you not understand about the following statement:
> >(furthermore, you
> > were at this point only asking for opposing views). However, I would be
> > happy to discuss them with you at a later date should you so wish.
>
> Every time you take the train or open a tin you are proving through your use
> of science derived technology that scientific realism works perfectly well
> in interpreting the universe.
Actually, I'm proving that the science derived technology works well
(or at least up to a point), not scientific realism, and when that
train crashes or the tin opener breaks I'm proving that it doesn't.
Such an example adds no weight to your argument that scientific realism
is the only means of interpreting the universe. I'm not disputing the
ability of science to produce new technologies, what I'm disputing is
the claim that scientific realism is the only means of obtaining truth.
I would even go as far as to question the very nature of truth itself.
> Of course, if you prefer fairy tales or hey-wow bullshit you can certainly
> go for them instead - but you won't get very far with your understanding.
Understanding of what? Surely you realise that understanding is
subjective and entirely dependent upon what I wish to understand. If,
for example, I did wish to believe in fairy tales, who are you to tell
me I'm wrong?
> If you want to dispute this, why not demonstrate a magic flying carpet as
> proof that mythology is as good a way of interpreting the universe?
What on earth are you talking about? Anyway, it is through mythology
that we now have science. Which leads me to a second point. Science is
itself simply another form of mythology.
Steve...
Steve H
> about the quality and contents of our arguments than about
> their "academic worth"?
My point exactly.
Steve...
Peter H.M. Brooks
> In article <8nee53$3ki$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, Peter H.M. Brooks
> <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> Understanding of what? Surely you realise that understanding is
> subjective and entirely dependent upon what I wish to understand. If,
> for example, I did wish to believe in fairy tales, who are you to tell
> me I'm wrong?
>
Otherwise,
I am quite safe in saying that, whilst fairy tales may usefully be studied
to see
what common fears motivated them, they are not an accurate reflection of
a past reality - to show you that you are wrong it only requires quoting
known
history.
>
> > If you want to dispute this, why not demonstrate a magic flying carpet
as
> > proof that mythology is as good a way of interpreting the universe?
>
> What on earth are you talking about? Anyway, it is through mythology
> that we now have science. Which leads me to a second point. Science is
> itself simply another form of mythology.
>
>
is
is a method, and myths are not about methods.
Steve H
> Pity, it is quite simple really. The original claim was that it was
> difficult (or impossible) for a 'finite' person to understand the
> 'infinite'. Torkel made the observation that it wasn't difficult for a
> two legged person to understand a four legged one. He thus demonstrated
> that the original point was bogus in that it made the baseless claim
> that the number of a person was relevant - it is as relevant as the
> number of legs a person has.
I'm sorry but this simply doesn't wash. Of course the number of people
involved and the number of legs an individual has is of no consequence,
but this has no relevance to the original question. Furthermore, when
you're banding around terms like "understanding" you have to be quite
clear as to what you mean. What does it mean for us to "understand" a
horse, or an ape, or a cow, or a cat? Furthermore, what does it mean
for us to understand the universe or the infinite? If you're going to
attempt an explanation of something then do so carefully. Otherwise you
are only going to confuse the situation further, as is the case here.
Steve H
<tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote:
> Steve H <sjho...@mac.com> writes:
>
> > Yes.
>
> Well, what might that be? For example, do you in fact - as your
> comment on the face of it would seem to suggest - take my reference to
> the assumption that the universe is infinite to be in some way
> relevant to a supposed "empiricist" claim that that the universe is
> infinite, and if so, how?
That's better, a reasonable question.
You mention a "supposed" empiricist claim, that's interesting. Either
there is such a claim or there isn't. However, for a point of argument,
let us *assume* that there is.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, I understand empiricism to be the
validation of a truth or knowledge claim through the accumulation and
analysis of "factual" data. Such data is then used to prove or disprove
a hypothetical premise. Therefore, an empirical certainty is a
hypothesis which the "facts" prove to be correct. Now we have a
hypothesis claiming the universe to be infinite, but this cannot be
proved or, more importantly, refuted, therefore it cannot be considered
as an empirical certainty. It is, in other words, an assumption. If we
now relate this back to your statement:
> So the finite comes to knowledge of the infinite empirically as well
> (assuming the universe to be infinite).
It should now become clear that as we cannot empirically prove that the
universe is infinite, then it cannot be empirically "known" that this
is so. Judging by your statement therefore, you are attempting to take
an assumption as an empirical fact.
This was the reason behind my statement. I am interested to hear your
opinions on this.
Steve...
Torkel Franzen
> It should now become clear that as we cannot empirically prove that the
> universe is infinite, then it cannot be empirically "known" that this
> is so. Judging by your statement therefore, you are attempting to take
> an assumption as an empirical fact.
An odd misunderstanding, apparently arising from your not taking the
context of my comment into account. I trust that my other response
about this has clarified the matter.
Steve H
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> Steve H <sjho...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:170820001220368622%sjho...@mac.com...
> > In article <8nee53$3ki$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, Peter H.M. Brooks
> > <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> > Understanding of what? Surely you realise that understanding is
> > subjective and entirely dependent upon what I wish to understand. If,
> > for example, I did wish to believe in fairy tales, who are you to tell
> > me I'm wrong?
> >
> Bring out your magic carpet and I may well start seeing your point.
Ok, lets go over this again slowly for your benefit.
1) I didn't say I did believe in flying carpets and fairy tales as
accurate representations of reality, I was simply using them as a
hypothetical argument (let me remind you that they were initially your
examples). With me so far?
2) My point being, even if I did believe in them who are you to tell me
I'm wrong. You would have no idea why I believed in them, nor what form
that belief structure took. In short, you could not know my own
perceptions of reality. For all you know I could perhaps actually see
fairies and djinn.
> Otherwise,
> I am quite safe in saying that, whilst fairy tales may usefully be studied
> to see
> what common fears motivated them, they are not an accurate reflection of
> a past reality - to show you that you are wrong it only requires quoting
> known history.
So are you saying that known history is a true and accurate account of
past reality? Think carefully about this one if you intend to answer.
> > > If you want to dispute this, why not demonstrate a magic flying carpet
> as
> > > proof that mythology is as good a way of interpreting the universe?
If you insist. I offer you the "flying carpet" otherwise known as
religion. Now (before you go off half cocked again) I'm not saying that
I personally believe religion to be a good way of interpreting the
universe, but there are an awful lot of people who do. The point being
is has historically been a very pervasive means of interpretation.
> Your view of science clearly sees it as mythology. However, all that science
> is is a method, and myths are not about methods.
Firstly, you seem to have a very limited understanding of what both
science, and mythology, actually *are*. Secondly, you take things far
too literally don't you, where's your sense of the abstract?
Let me explain. Mythology is a belief structure (well actually
"mythology" is the study of such belief structures, but that is beside
the point here). Now the important words here are "belief" and
"structure". Specific myths are not random nor are they arbitrarily
defined. Rather they are carefully constructed in accordance with a
specific cultural environment. What is this if not a method. Do you
really think these things occur by accident? As for science, well
science is also a belief structure only, rather than simply accepting
that things occur, science attempts to find out why. Of course science
uses a strict methodology to do this, but this is not the fundamental
essence of science per se. It is instead the means by which science
seeks to validate the claims it makes as "truth" over mere supposition
or blind faith.
Steve...
Steve H
<tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote:
Yes I noted your clarification. However, I was simply replying to your
query which was based upon my initial interpretation of your comment.
Furthermore, whatever the misunderstanding, it was not due to the
contextual element surrounding your comment, but the ambiguity.
Steve...
Peter H.M. Brooks
> In article <8ngiic$a70$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, Peter H.M. Brooks
> <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
> > Steve H <sjho...@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:170820001220368622%sjho...@mac.com...
> > > In article <8nee53$3ki$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, Peter H.M. Brooks
> > > <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> > > Understanding of what? Surely you realise that understanding is
> > > subjective and entirely dependent upon what I wish to understand. If,
> > > for example, I did wish to believe in fairy tales, who are you to tell
> > > me I'm wrong?
> > >
> > Bring out your magic carpet and I may well start seeing your point.
>
> Ok, lets go over this again slowly for your benefit.
>
> 1) I didn't say I did believe in flying carpets and fairy tales as
> accurate representations of reality, I was simply using them as a
> hypothetical argument (let me remind you that they were initially your
> examples). With me so far?
>
>
> 2) My point being, even if I did believe in them who are you to tell me
> I'm wrong. You would have no idea why I believed in them, nor what form
> that belief structure took. In short, you could not know my own
> perceptions of reality. For all you know I could perhaps actually see
> fairies and djinn.
>
territory. If, however, you are not schizophrenic, but truly wish to claim
something
for these, then you have to roll out the magic carpet.
>
> > Otherwise,
> > I am quite safe in saying that, whilst fairy tales may usefully be
studied
> > to see
> > what common fears motivated them, they are not an accurate reflection of
> > a past reality - to show you that you are wrong it only requires quoting
> > known history.
>
> So are you saying that known history is a true and accurate account of
> past reality? Think carefully about this one if you intend to answer.
>
historians
use contemporary sources, so can be as accurate as those sources are - myths
don't
even have that level of credibility.
>
> > > > If you want to dispute this, why not demonstrate a magic flying
carpet
> > as
> > > > proof that mythology is as good a way of interpreting the universe?
>
> If you insist. I offer you the "flying carpet" otherwise known as
> religion. Now (before you go off half cocked again) I'm not saying that
> I personally believe religion to be a good way of interpreting the
> universe, but there are an awful lot of people who do. The point being
> is has historically been a very pervasive means of interpretation.
>
of showing
the people who do believe this where they make their mistake.
>
> > Your view of science clearly sees it as mythology. However, all that
science
> > is is a method, and myths are not about methods.
>
> Firstly, you seem to have a very limited understanding of what both
> science, and mythology, actually *are*. Secondly, you take things far
> too literally don't you, where's your sense of the abstract?
>
> Let me explain. Mythology is a belief structure (well actually
> "mythology" is the study of such belief structures, but that is beside
> the point here). Now the important words here are "belief" and
> "structure". Specific myths are not random nor are they arbitrarily
> defined. Rather they are carefully constructed in accordance with a
> specific cultural environment. What is this if not a method. Do you
> really think these things occur by accident? As for science, well
> science is also a belief structure only, rather than simply accepting
> that things occur, science attempts to find out why. Of course science
> uses a strict methodology to do this, but this is not the fundamental
> essence of science per se. It is instead the means by which science
> seeks to validate the claims it makes as "truth" over mere supposition
> or blind faith.
>
method,
not a 'belief system', however you may have been taught.
The only reason for wishing to label science a 'belief system' is to try to
equate
it to mythologies. This is bogus.
Steve H
> > 2) My point being, even if I did believe in them who are you to tell me
> > I'm wrong. You would have no idea why I believed in them, nor what form
> > that belief structure took. In short, you could not know my own
> > perceptions of reality. For all you know I could perhaps actually see
> > fairies and djinn.
> >
> Indeed. If you do may well have schizophrenic delusions, they go with the
> territory. If, however, you are not schizophrenic, but truly wish to claim
> something
> for these, then you have to roll out the magic carpet.
Schizophrenic delusions? Something else you obviously have no knowledge
of. Actually it could be Quixotism, but that is beside the point. What
exactly do you not understand about the word "hypothetical"? Is it
really so difficult to see what I am saying here?
> > So are you saying that known history is a true and accurate account of
> > past reality? Think carefully about this one if you intend to answer.
> >
> I have said, see above, that they are better than mythology. In particular
> historians
> use contemporary sources, so can be as accurate as those sources are - myths
> don't
> even have that level of credibility.
Credibility is in the mind of the believer. I asked you to think
carefully about your answer here, what went wrong? Historians use
contemporary sources? Contemporary to what? To now? Well that wouldn't
really be history then would it? Contemporary to each other? Probably,
but does not mean that they are necessarily true or accurate. There is
a long history of history (excuse the pun) fabricating the evidence to
justify a particular end. Similar to mythology really (if you examine
it on an anthropological level) which is in itself a historical account
of a particular culture taken from their own persepective.
> > > > > If you want to dispute this, why not demonstrate a magic flying
> carpet
> > > as
> > > > > proof that mythology is as good a way of interpreting the universe?
> >
> > If you insist. I offer you the "flying carpet" otherwise known as
> > religion. Now (before you go off half cocked again) I'm not saying that
> > I personally believe religion to be a good way of interpreting the
> > universe, but there are an awful lot of people who do. The point being
> > is has historically been a very pervasive means of interpretation.
> >
> Truth and reality are not to be decided by democratic means. It is a matter
> of showing
> the people who do believe this where they make their mistake.
Really? Now this is very telling. Look at your comments from a previous
post:
Rod Jackson wrote:
RJ> Instrumentalism as I understand it
RJ> (which is not very well :) claims that we can only be sure of the
RJ> emperically verified "truths" of science but the unempirical ones
RJ> (like quarks) have pragmatic value but we cannot know if they are
RJ> "true" or not. Whereas "Scientific Realism" (as I underrstand it),
RJ> claims that science does either have truth or is close to the
truth.
You replied:
PB> I think that this is the first problem. Science doesn't make these
PB> claims. Science is the body of knowledge obtained by use of the
PB> scientific method. This method, if anything, is what is held to be
PB> effective in establishing how the world works, and evidence in
PB> support of this is the success both in predicting non-obvious and
PB> often counter-intuitive outcomes to experiments that later prove
PB> accurate and in enabling a coherent description of the real world
PB> to be built. Scientists know that a model, even a good one, is an
PB> approximation to reality.
[I have quoted the entire passage so I cannot be accused of taking your
comments out of context.]
If truth and reality are not decided by democratic means and if science
isn't making these non-democratic assertions of what is truth, then who
is? Do you honestly think "science" is simply a body of knowledge
obtained through a particular method? Do you really think science is
neutral??? How exactly do you envision this scientific process? Just
add a pinch of scientific method to reality and "poof" there you have
it, instant truth. Come on man, shake the cobwebs out of your brain and
wake up to the real world. Truth (for want of a better word) is a
negotiation not an absolute, even science accepts that. As you have
said yourself, science presents us with a model, a description of the
world, not a definitive account.
> > Let me explain. Mythology is a belief structure (well actually
> > "mythology" is the study of such belief structures, but that is beside
> > the point here). Now the important words here are "belief" and
> > "structure". Specific myths are not random nor are they arbitrarily
> > defined. Rather they are carefully constructed in accordance with a
> > specific cultural environment. What is this if not a method. Do you
> > really think these things occur by accident? As for science, well
> > science is also a belief structure only, rather than simply accepting
> > that things occur, science attempts to find out why. Of course science
> > uses a strict methodology to do this, but this is not the fundamental
> > essence of science per se. It is instead the means by which science
> > seeks to validate the claims it makes as "truth" over mere supposition
> > or blind faith.
> >
> You put the cart before the horse here. The essense of science is the
> method,
> not a 'belief system', however you may have been taught.
No, the essence of science is the production of knowledge. The methods
employed are scientific (ie pertaining to science). Although scientific
method is intrinsic to science, it is not the essence of science.
> The only reason for wishing to label science a 'belief system' is to try to
> equate
> it to mythologies. This is bogus.
Wrong again. The reason (by no means the only reason) for equating
science to a belief system, is that it is a belief system. A belief
system based upon methodological reasoning not blind faith. Why do I
get the feeling I'm repeating myself?
It appears that you are totally out of your depth (again) here Peter.
When faced with a reasoned argument your own goes to pieces. What I
find particularly interesting here is your own fanatical belief in
science. You provide no evidence that you actually understand what you
are talking about, yet you soldier on regardless. All you present to me
is the same hopeless rhetoric that I would expect from any other
zealot. That's hardly rational now is it? I suggest you brush up on
your layman's knowledge and get together a solid argument, before you
embarrass yourself again.
Steve...
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> > > 2) My point being, even if I did believe in them who are you to tell
me
> > > I'm wrong. You would have no idea why I believed in them, nor what
form
> > > that belief structure took. In short, you could not know my own
> > > perceptions of reality. For all you know I could perhaps actually see
> > > fairies and djinn.
> > >
> > Indeed. If you do may well have schizophrenic delusions, they go with
the
> > territory. If, however, you are not schizophrenic, but truly wish to
claim
> > something
> > for these, then you have to roll out the magic carpet.
>
> Schizophrenic delusions? Something else you obviously have no knowledge
> of. Actually it could be Quixotism, but that is beside the point. What
> exactly do you not understand about the word "hypothetical"? Is it
> really so difficult to see what I am saying here?
>
actually see
faireis and djinn', now, if you don't it doesn't necessarily apply. In other
words,
yes, I do understand your use of the word hypothetical and point out the
implications
of the hypothesis being the case. Fairly simple, really.
>
> > > So are you saying that known history is a true and accurate account of
> > > past reality? Think carefully about this one if you intend to answer.
> > >
> > I have said, see above, that they are better than mythology. In
particular
> > historians
> > use contemporary sources, so can be as accurate as those sources are -
myths
> > don't
> > even have that level of credibility.
>
> Credibility is in the mind of the believer. I asked you to think
> carefully about your answer here, what went wrong? Historians use
> contemporary sources? Contemporary to what? To now? Well that wouldn't
> really be history then would it? Contemporary to each other? Probably,
> but does not mean that they are necessarily true or accurate.
>
the
period they are examining. Credibility can be more objectively established
than
just 'in the mind of the believer'. If this were not so the bullshit of
relativism would
hold sway.
>
> There is
> a long history of history (excuse the pun) fabricating the evidence to
> justify a particular end. Similar to mythology really (if you examine
> it on an anthropological level) which is in itself a historical account
> of a particular culture taken from their own persepective.
>
isn't
a reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Most historians have been
scrupulously honest and you can establish their level of honesty by
comparing
what they say with other historians and the archival record.
you
have to face the fact that science is a method. If you wish to consider the
relative
merits of various scientific models you need to use the method.
>
> > > Let me explain. Mythology is a belief structure (well actually
> > > "mythology" is the study of such belief structures, but that is beside
> > > the point here). Now the important words here are "belief" and
> > > "structure". Specific myths are not random nor are they arbitrarily
> > > defined. Rather they are carefully constructed in accordance with a
> > > specific cultural environment. What is this if not a method. Do you
> > > really think these things occur by accident? As for science, well
> > > science is also a belief structure only, rather than simply accepting
> > > that things occur, science attempts to find out why. Of course science
> > > uses a strict methodology to do this, but this is not the fundamental
> > > essence of science per se. It is instead the means by which science
> > > seeks to validate the claims it makes as "truth" over mere supposition
> > > or blind faith.
> > >
> > You put the cart before the horse here. The essense of science is the
> > method,
> > not a 'belief system', however you may have been taught.
>
> No, the essence of science is the production of knowledge. The methods
> employed are scientific (ie pertaining to science). Although scientific
> method is intrinsic to science, it is not the essence of science.
>
thing
that distinguishes science from bullshit is the method - proved by the
effectiveness
of the results and the ability of the method to find out and correct any
errors
over time.
>
> > The only reason for wishing to label science a 'belief system' is to try
to
> > equate
> > it to mythologies. This is bogus.
>
> Wrong again. The reason (by no means the only reason) for equating
> science to a belief system, is that it is a belief system. A belief
> system based upon methodological reasoning not blind faith. Why do I
> get the feeling I'm repeating myself?
>
argument
that I have pointed out above. Move on.
>
> It appears that you are totally out of your depth (again) here Peter.
> When faced with a reasoned argument your own goes to pieces. What I
> find particularly interesting here is your own fanatical belief in
> science. You provide no evidence that you actually understand what you
> are talking about, yet you soldier on regardless. All you present to me
> is the same hopeless rhetoric that I would expect from any other
> zealot. That's hardly rational now is it? I suggest you brush up on
> your layman's knowledge and get together a solid argument, before you
> embarrass yourself again.
>
with
the issue - in particular the fact that the scientific method, unlike the
methods
used to produce mythologies, is self-healing in relation to reality.
ROD JACKSON
>What on earth are you talking about? Anyway, it is through mythology
>that we now have science. Which leads me to a second point. Science is
>itself simply another form of mythology.
You havn't by any chance read - Paul Freyabran (sp?) have you?
ROD JACKSON
> So the finite comes to knowledge of the infinite empirically as well
> (assuming the universe to be infinite). And, of course, by
> mathematical reasoning, if we're talking about mathematical
> infinities.
>This, you will recall, was in response to the question how the finite
>can know the infinite. Apparently this question presupposed that the
>universe is infinite, hence my parenthetical assumption. Whether the
>universe is in fact infinite is irrelevant to my simple point, which
>was that the problem "how can the finite know the infinite?" is
>completely bogus.
You will remember though that the "finite/infinite" was in relation to two
philosophies of science - namely "Instrumentalism" and "Scientific
Realism." Now the Scientific Realists claims that science either has truth
or is close to having the truth.
This appears to be fallacious to me, in so far as - The universe is very
large (I previously said infinite, but only because I am lazy :), now the
largeness of the universe means that most scientific theories cannot be
test across the whole of the space-time contiunum. Thus we cannot know if
the theories are true or even if they are close to being true.
ROD JACKSON
>s32...@student.uq.edu.au (ROD JACKSON) writes:
I called it infinite because the set of crows is potentially an open set.
Even granting that it is true that there will only ever be a finite number
of crows, the number is still very large, which was the main reason to use
the word infinite.
ROD JACKSON
>> Whereas "Scientific Realism" (as I underrstand it), claims that
>> science does either have truth or is close to the truth.
>>
>I think that this is the first problem. Science doesn't make these claims.
Then you are not defendinng "Scientific Realism".
>Science is the
>body of knowledge obtained by use of the scientific method. This method, if
>anything,
>is what is held to be effective in establishing how the world works, and
>evidence in
>support of this is the success both in predicting non-obvious and often
>counter-intuitive
>outcomes to experiments that later prove accurate and in enabling a coherent
>description
>of the real world to be built.
So since has pragmatic value but does not necessarily obtain truth?
> Scientists know that a model, even a good
>one, is an approximation
>to reality, but these approximations are good enough to have been used to
>build bridges,
>space craft and nuclear powerstations.
But the question is this - is the model that is "close to
approximating" reality, the wy eality actually is or is it merely a model.
For example Alchemists believed that lead could be turned into gold. So
the "Scientific Realists" (SR) of the medieval era would have held that
this is true or close to true. The 18th centuray Chemists hwoever, came to
believe that each element was made of it's own particular substance and so
alchemy was obviously false. So the SR of the 18th Century would have
believed that alchemy was false. Whereas current scientific thought is
that there are more fundamental particles that make up each element and so
it is theoritically true that one could turn lead to gold. Thus the SR of
the present time would say alchemy is true.
Now either alchemy is true or it is not. What gaurentee do we have that
in the future science will not discover some reason whylead cannot be
turned into Gold? How then, in view of this uncretainty and in light of
history can we claim that science leads us to "truth" (while still being
very useful never the less)?
>In this particular case, the matter is simple. If a purple coloured bird
>existed that
>had, apart from the gene for colour, exactly the same genes as a standard
>crow,
>then we would see it as a mutation or as a different species [depending on
>how
>we defined species]. Just as, in the real world, we are happy to say that
>crows
>are black even though we know that albino crows exist - they are a noted and
>know exception to the general rule. The existance of this exception doesn't
>mean
>that the general rule isn't useful, only that it is qualified - you are
>generally safe
>on putting your money on the proposition that the next crow you see will be
>black.
So a crows being black is an analytic truth. Does this mean that science
can only provide us with definitions?
ROD JACKSON
>At any one time, there will only be finitely many crows. However, if time
>went on
>forever and crows as a species continued to exist forever then the total
>crow population, living
>and dead would be tending towards infinite. Of course, we know that the
>solar system has
>only a finite life, so, since we don't expect crows to invent space travel,
>it is likely that they
>will cease to exist quite soon relative to 'forever'.
Yes, but conversely the complete set of crows is much larger than the seet
of observed crows, which was the point I am trying to get across.
ROD JACKSON
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>Do you really understand knowledge? What is knowledge? Where does
>knowledge come from? How does knowledge come? ,,,,,,,
Knowledge is (philosophically) defined as Justified, True, Belief.
>Reading without thinking is nonsense!!!
:)
>Man said there are many mafia misuse internet, how could we fight
>against such pigs??? Have you any good ideas?
O.o Eh??
ROD JACKSON
Umm yeah and so if one is an "Empiricist" then one cannot make the claim
that the universe is infinite...
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Torkel Franzen <tor...@sm.luth.se> writes:
> This appears to be fallacious to me, in so far as - The universe is very
> large (I previously said infinite, but only because I am lazy :), now the
> largeness of the universe means that most scientific theories cannot be
> test across the whole of the space-time contiunum. Thus we cannot know if
> the theories are true or even if they are close to being true.
>
I think that you will come to regret that laziness.
If the universe is very big, that in now way prevents us from understanding
how
it works. Remember how big the number of atoms in a raindrop is.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > > Why do you call that "infinite knowledge"? After all, presumably
> >there are only finitely many crows.
>
> Even granting that it is true that there will only ever be a finite number
> of crows, the number is still very large, which was the main reason to use
> the word infinite.
>
really
doesn't mean 'very big'. A googolplex is very, very big, but nowhere near
infinite.
If you want to, in future, refer to an enormous number, try 'very big' it
will
work every time - infinite never will.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> >> science does either have truth or is close to the truth.
> >>
> >I think that this is the first problem. Science doesn't make these
claims.
>
>
science. It is
a negative label, not a position. It is the politically correct attack on
science so it has
no substance.
>
> >Science is the
> >body of knowledge obtained by use of the scientific method. This method,
if
> >anything,
> >is what is held to be effective in establishing how the world works, and
> >evidence in
> >support of this is the success both in predicting non-obvious and often
> >counter-intuitive
> >outcomes to experiments that later prove accurate and in enabling a
coherent
> >description
> >of the real world to be built.
>
>
'pragmatic' in
the sense that it is empirical. The nature of truth is that it can be
tested, if a truth cannot
be tested, then it is ipso facto, not a truth - testing, in this context,
includes logical or
philosophical as well as empirical tests.
When Pilate asked 'What is truth', he asked an important question. On
defining feature of
truth is that it must be testable, it need not be universal. After all, it
was true that all soldiers
wore leather armour, this is no longer true, but it was empirically true at
the time.
>
> > Scientists know that a model, even a good
> >one, is an approximation
> >to reality, but these approximations are good enough to have been used to
> >build bridges,
> >space craft and nuclear powerstations.
>
> But the question is this - is the model that is "close to
> approximating" reality, the wy eality actually is or is it merely a model.
>
You give youself away by the use of the word 'merely'. It is a model, and
many people
trust their lives to it, if you wish to call it mere, that is your choice,
but has no intrinsic
meaning.
>
> For example Alchemists believed that lead could be turned into gold. So
> the "Scientific Realists" (SR) of the medieval era would have held that
> this is true or close to true. The 18th centuray Chemists hwoever, came to
> believe that each element was made of it's own particular substance and so
> alchemy was obviously false. So the SR of the 18th Century would have
> believed that alchemy was false. Whereas current scientific thought is
> that there are more fundamental particles that make up each element and so
> it is theoritically true that one could turn lead to gold. Thus the SR of
> the present time would say alchemy is true.
>
There were no scientists (what you wish to label 'scientific realists'
around at
the time) the scientific method was being developed. So the comparison is
not historically valid.
>
> Now either alchemy is true or it is not. What gaurentee do we have that
> in the future science will not discover some reason whylead cannot be
> turned into Gold? How then, in view of this uncretainty and in light of
> history can we claim that science leads us to "truth" (while still being
> very useful never the less)?
>
Look, if you really want to believe in bullshit, nobody is stopping you. You
don't
have to come here and discuss it with me. However the fact that alchemy
helped
in the production of science is clearly true - read a recent ( I forget the
author at
the moment) biography of Newton. The fact that alchemy with its wrong goals,
but
sound methods produced science doesn't mean that science is alchemy!
>
> >In this particular case, the matter is simple. If a purple coloured bird
> >existed that
> >had, apart from the gene for colour, exactly the same genes as a standard
> >crow,
> >then we would see it as a mutation or as a different species [depending
on
> >how
> >we defined species]. Just as, in the real world, we are happy to say that
> >crows
> >are black even though we know that albino crows exist - they are a noted
and
> >know exception to the general rule. The existance of this exception
doesn't
> >mean
> >that the general rule isn't useful, only that it is qualified - you are
> >generally safe
> >on putting your money on the proposition that the next crow you see will
be
> >black.
>
> So a crows being black is an analytic truth. Does this mean that science
> can only provide us with definitions?
>
No, I was making a philosophical, not a scientific point.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> >went on
> >forever and crows as a species continued to exist forever then the total
> >crow population, living
> >and dead would be tending towards infinite. Of course, we know that the
> >solar system has
> >only a finite life, so, since we don't expect crows to invent space
travel,
> >it is likely that they
> >will cease to exist quite soon relative to 'forever'.
>
> of observed crows, which was the point I am trying to get across.
>
their
number - that is what science addresses.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> abcd...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> >--------------------------------------------------------------
> >Do you really understand knowledge? What is knowledge? Where does
> >knowledge come from? How does knowledge come? ,,,,,,,
>
> Knowledge is (philosophically) defined as Justified, True, Belief.
>
> >Reading without thinking is nonsense!!!
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Steve H <sjho...@mac.com> writes:
>
>
> >> You appear to be implying that an empiricist does not have an
> >> epistemological basis for claiming the universe to be infinite (as they
> >> haven't *observed* it to be such), is this correct?
>
> >No. Epistemology is not dependent upon observation. What I am implying
> >is that they do not have an empirical basis for such a claim.
>
> Umm yeah and so if one is an "Empiricist" then one cannot make the claim
> that the universe is infinite...
>
claim that
the universe is infinite. It is a simple matter. Using induction;
1. If for all places X,Y,Z, there is another place X+1,Y+1,Z+1
2. Then, if we accept the principle of induction, there are infinite places.
3. Then, if we do not accept the principle of induction we will have to
spend
the rest our our natural lives and those of our great-great-grandchildren
attempting
to find an X,Y,Z that isn't there.
Torkel Franzen
> This appears to be fallacious to me, in so far as - The universe is very
> large (I previously said infinite, but only because I am lazy :), now the
> largeness of the universe means that most scientific theories cannot be
> test across the whole of the space-time contiunum. Thus we cannot know if
> the theories are true or even if they are close to being true.
This of course depends on what you require of knowledge. A person
of a skeptical bent may claim that you can't know that the earth
isn't in fact located within a big sphere and that the stars etc
are projections on the inside of that sphere.
Steve H
<s32...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> Steve H <sjho...@mac.com> writes:
>
>
> >> You appear to be implying that an empiricist does not have an
> >> epistemological basis for claiming the universe to be infinite (as they
> >> haven't *observed* it to be such), is this correct?
>
> >No. Epistemology is not dependent upon observation. What I am implying
> >is that they do not have an empirical basis for such a claim.
>
> Umm yeah and so if one is an "Empiricist" then one cannot make the claim
> that the universe is infinite...
Exactly. That is precisely my point. They cannot empirically prove it,
so they cannot claim it. Which is why I made that comment about
empiricism and assumption in the first place.
Steve H
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> ROD JACKSON <s32...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:8nhgrk$2jb$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> > Torkel Franzen <tor...@sm.luth.se> writes:
>
> > This appears to be fallacious to me, in so far as - The universe is very
> > large (I previously said infinite, but only because I am lazy :), now the
> > largeness of the universe means that most scientific theories cannot be
> > test across the whole of the space-time contiunum. Thus we cannot know if
> > the theories are true or even if they are close to being true.
> >
> I think that you will come to regret that laziness.
Not as much as you'll regret ever getting involved in this debate.
> If the universe is very big, that in now way prevents us from understanding
> how
> it works. Remember how big the number of atoms in a raindrop is.
Totally irrelevant. The only parts of the universe we can attempt to
understand are those parts we have experience of. There are parts of
the universe which we have no experience of where things may happen in
an entirely different manner to that which we expect. I suggest you
read Stephen Hawkins.
Steve...
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > Umm yeah and so if one is an "Empiricist" then one cannot make the claim
> > that the universe is infinite...
>
> Exactly. That is precisely my point. They cannot empirically prove it,
> so they cannot claim it. Which is why I made that comment about
> empiricism and assumption in the first place.
>
is infinite would have to take infinite time. Consider this alternative.
Assume
that somebody has established that only one of two things can be true.
A. The universe extends infinitely in all directions.
B. The universe is closed with maximum diameter D.
Now, if a consequence of B is that a signal sent out in one direction will
arrive in
the opposite direction some time T later, then a test for B would be to send
out such
a signal and wait time T. If no signal turns up (and we are excluding
possibilities like
the signal being absorbed by a star in the way for the purpose of this
thought
experiment) in time T, then we have established A.
In the above circumstance (or any other one where a normal observation can
prove
the result) it is possible for an empiricist to demonstrate that the
universe is infinite.
--
So, now bring them in, for I will play the cook,
And see them ready 'gainst their mother comes.
- Titus Andronicus
Steve H
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> ROD JACKSON <s32...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:8nhh02$g7v$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> > > > Why do you call that "infinite knowledge"? After all, presumably
> > >there are only finitely many crows.
> >
> > I called it infinite because the set of crows is potentially an open set.
> > Even granting that it is true that there will only ever be a finite number
> > of crows, the number is still very large, which was the main reason to use
> > the word infinite.
> >
> You should be careful of such careless use of the word 'infinite'
Practice what you preach. The amount of general, non specific, and
basically incorrect terms you have been banding around in your posts is
staggering. This one of the reasons I've had such little difficulty in
tearing your argument to pieces.
Steve...
Steve H
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> Nobody defends 'scientific realism' it is an invention by the detractors of
> science. It is
> a negative label, not a position. It is the politically correct attack on
> science so it has
> no substance.
So what the fuck have you been arguing about for all this time? Have
you ever heard of the word consistency Peter? If so, try applying it to
your arguments. Another reason why I've had little difficulty in
tearing them to pieces.
Steve...
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Practice what you preach. The amount of general, non specific, and
> basically incorrect terms you have been banding around in your posts is
> staggering. This one of the reasons I've had such little difficulty in
> tearing your argument to pieces.
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
actually have to do it.
I know that you may find it difficult to understand, but it is quite
possible to
show your position invalid even when you do use a politically charged
word to define it.
Oh, and another thing, different points require different arguments to
refute
them - this does not necessarily imply inconsistency. It is also sometimes
necessary to use different examples, analogies etc. to make the points
clear, again, this does not imply inconsistency.
Still, if you really do want to get cross and run away from the debate
claiming
victory, you were welcome to do it. If not, what, apart from the ad hominem
do you wish to contribute as a point?
Steve H
> > So since has pragmatic value but does not necessarily obtain truth?
> Truth in this case (as opposed to logical or philosophical truth) is
> 'pragmatic' in
> the sense that it is empirical. The nature of truth is that it can be
> tested, if a truth cannot
> be tested, then it is ipso facto, not a truth - testing, in this context,
> includes logical or
> philosophical as well as empirical tests.
You are mistaking truth for truth claims.
> When Pilate asked 'What is truth', he asked an important question. On
> defining feature of
> truth is that it must be testable, it need not be universal. After all, it
> was true that all soldiers
> wore leather armour, this is no longer true, but it was empirically true at
> the time.
Not so, as not *all* soldiers wore leather armour. Furthermore, I
disagree with your interpetation of Pilates question. By querying the
nature of truth he was emphasising the ambiguity of such a nature.
> > But the question is this - is the model that is "close to
> > approximating" reality, the wy eality actually is or is it merely a model.
> >
> You give youself away by the use of the word 'merely'. It is a model, and
> many people
> trust their lives to it, if you wish to call it mere, that is your choice,
> but has no intrinsic
> meaning.
Nether has this comment.
> > For example Alchemists believed that lead could be turned into gold. So
> > the "Scientific Realists" (SR) of the medieval era would have held that
> > this is true or close to true. The 18th centuray Chemists hwoever, came to
> > believe that each element was made of it's own particular substance and so
> > alchemy was obviously false. So the SR of the 18th Century would have
> > believed that alchemy was false. Whereas current scientific thought is
> > that there are more fundamental particles that make up each element and so
> > it is theoritically true that one could turn lead to gold. Thus the SR of
> > the present time would say alchemy is true.
> There were no scientists (what you wish to label 'scientific realists'
> around at
> the time) the scientific method was being developed. So the comparison is
> not historically valid.
You really have reached a whole new level of stupidity here. Who
exactly do you think were involved in the development of the scientific
method? The comment is entirely valid (historically and otherwise) you
simply don't have the ability to address it.
> > Now either alchemy is true or it is not. What gaurentee do we have that
> > in the future science will not discover some reason whylead cannot be
> > turned into Gold? How then, in view of this uncretainty and in light of
> > history can we claim that science leads us to "truth" (while still being
> > very useful never the less)?
> Look, if you really want to believe in bullshit, nobody is stopping you. You
> don't
> have to come here and discuss it with me.
Today's bullshit maybe tommorrow's fact. Furthermore, nobody is forcing
you to discuss anything here. If you don't like the discussion you know
exactly what you can do. In the meantime, if you wish to continue,
please try and keep up.
> However the fact that alchemy
> helped
> in the production of science is clearly true - read a recent ( I forget the
> author at
> the moment) biography of Newton. The fact that alchemy with its wrong goals,
> but
> sound methods produced science doesn't mean that science is alchemy!
Nobody is saying that it is Peter.
> > >In this particular case, the matter is simple. If a purple coloured bird
> > >existed that
> > >had, apart from the gene for colour, exactly the same genes as a standard
> > >crow,
> > >then we would see it as a mutation or as a different species [depending
> on
> > >how
> > >we defined species]. Just as, in the real world, we are happy to say that
> > >crows
> > >are black even though we know that albino crows exist - they are a noted
> and
> > >know exception to the general rule. The existance of this exception
> doesn't
> > >mean
> > >that the general rule isn't useful, only that it is qualified - you are
> > >generally safe
> > >on putting your money on the proposition that the next crow you see will
> be
> > >black.
> > So a crows being black is an analytic truth. Does this mean that science
> > can only provide us with definitions?
> No, I was making a philosophical, not a scientific point.
No you were not. I don't think you'd know a philosophical point if one
came up and introduced itself to you.
Steve...
Steve H
> You have to do a little more than simply claim to destroy an argument - you
> actually have to do it.
I know, and I have.
> I know that you may find it difficult to understand, but it is quite
> possible to
> show your position invalid even when you do use a politically charged
> word to define it.
And that word is?
> Oh, and another thing, different points require different arguments to
> refute
> them - this does not necessarily imply inconsistency. It is also sometimes
> necessary to use different examples, analogies etc. to make the points
> clear, again, this does not imply inconsistency.
Ahh... it appears we have reached the lame excuse stage. Actually no,
it should be possible to address a variety of points without changing
your argument.
> Still, if you really do want to get cross and run away from the debate
> claiming
> victory, you were welcome to do it. If not, what, apart from the ad hominem
> do you wish to contribute as a point?
Cross? Oh, I used the word fuck so I must be cross. No, I just find it
to be a useful means of expression. In place of cross read
incredulous. And where did you get the impression I was running away,
I'd rather stick around and continue contributing to your humiliation.
As for my points, I realise that you may not have the ability to
understand them, yet they are there nevertheless.
Steve...
Steve H
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
The errors in this argument aside, this is entirely hypothetical. It is
not actual empirical proof, which is what we were discussing. You are
simply applying a particular logic to a problem and claiming that a
definitive answer is therefore possible. We can do this with anything.
Steve...
Steve H
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> Steve H <sjho...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:180820001158420659%sjho...@mac.com...
> > Practice what you preach. The amount of general, non specific, and
> > basically incorrect terms you have been banding around in your posts is
> > staggering. This one of the reasons I've had such little difficulty in
> > tearing your argument to pieces.
> >
> Where precisely did you manage that?
Oh please pay attention.
Steve H
<tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote:
I don't see this as a matter of skepticism, though I do agree with you
on your point about knowledge. This in fact appears to be the main
issue here, what do we require of knowledge? Is enough simply to know
what we do about the universe and apply that to our lives until we know
more? Or should we step beyond that knowledge and assume that just
because we know this much everything else must be the same?
Steve...
Mr Enigmatic
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:8nj511$bg2$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...> news:180820001144550971%sjho...@mac.com...
But T can assume any value apart from infinity. So T can be as large as it
likes. In effect then we might be waiting an arbitrary large period of time
before hypothesis A is verified. For however long has elapsed, it is
possible that the Universe may be yet larger still (without being infinite).
Mr Enigmatic UK www.metaphysics.freeserve.co.uk
Steve H
> yes, I do understand your use of the word hypothetical and point out the
> implications
> of the hypothesis being the case. Fairly simple, really.
Good. At least that's a start.
> Contemporary means at the same time - in other words, at the same time as
> the
> period they are examining.
Credibility can be more objectively established
> than
> just 'in the mind of the believer'. If this were not so the bullshit of
> relativism would
> hold sway.
What I meant by that is that credibility is dependent upon an
individual believing something to be credible.
> That fraud and fabrication has occurred is a reason to be sceptical. It
> isn't
> a reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Most historians have been
> scrupulously honest and you can establish their level of honesty by
> comparing
> what they say with other historians and the archival record.
1) I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. History has its
uses, I use it myself. You simply cannot claim historical precedent or
historical credibility without seriously backing it up.
2) I'm not disputing that many historians are indeed honest. What I'm
saying is that the sources and archives they use may not be honest. Or
at least, not entirely accurate.
> If you wish to argue relativism, as you have been,
> you
> have to face the fact that science is a method. If you wish to consider the
> relative
> merits of various scientific models you need to use the method.
Actually, I'm not arguing for relativism, there are other alternatives
you know. What I'm arguing against is sciences claim for authority over
truth.
> > No, the essence of science is the production of knowledge. The methods
> > employed are scientific (ie pertaining to science). Although scientific
> > method is intrinsic to science, it is not the essence of science.
> >
> It is the essence in that, without it, there would be no science.
Without, food, water, and a breathable atmosphere there would be no
life, but that is not the essence of life. However, this is simply a
semantic point and of no relevance to the discussion.
> The one
> thing
> that distinguishes science from bullshit is the method - proved by the
> effectiveness
> of the results and the ability of the method to find out and correct any
> errors
> over time.
You're very fond of this word "bullshit", care to define it?
> > > The only reason for wishing to label science a 'belief system' is to try
> to
> > > equate
> > > it to mythologies. This is bogus.
> > Wrong again. The reason (by no means the only reason) for equating
> > science to a belief system, is that it is a belief system. A belief
> > system based upon methodological reasoning not blind faith. Why do I
> > get the feeling I'm repeating myself?
> Because you aren't taking in the argument. You wish only to apply the bogus
> argument
> that I have pointed out above. Move on.
How do you figure that? I am simply providing an accurate analogy, one
that has obviously got you stumped. You can't dismiss it and you'd
obviously rather eat your own liver than agree with it, but I'm not
going to drop it.
> > It appears that you are totally out of your depth (again) here Peter.
> > When faced with a reasoned argument your own goes to pieces. What I
> > find particularly interesting here is your own fanatical belief in
> > science. You provide no evidence that you actually understand what you
> > are talking about, yet you soldier on regardless. All you present to me
> > is the same hopeless rhetoric that I would expect from any other
> > zealot. That's hardly rational now is it? I suggest you brush up on
> > your layman's knowledge and get together a solid argument, before you
> > embarrass yourself again.
> That is quite a nice little ad hominem.
Thanks.
> However, since you fail to grapple
> with
> the issue - in particular the fact that the scientific method, unlike the
> methods
> used to produce mythologies, is self-healing in relation to reality.
Yes? Since I fail to grapple with the issue...and?
Actually don't bother. As is quite evident I'm completely on top of the
issue, you on the other hand do seem to be floundering. If you think
that mythologies are not "self-healing in relation to reality" (not
that I'm entirely sure what you mean by this, but I'm willing to let it
slide and run on what I assume you mean) then you don't know very much
about mythology. Which is evidence enough for my previous statement
about floundering.
Steve...
Steve H
Enigmatic <mr.eni...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Precisely. Hence this can only ever be a hypothetical argument with no
actual basis in reality. Therefore it cannot be empirically "proved".
Steve...
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > > For example Alchemists believed that lead could be turned into gold.
So
> > > the "Scientific Realists" (SR) of the medieval era would have held
that
> > > this is true or close to true. The 18th centuray Chemists hwoever,
came to
> > > believe that each element was made of it's own particular substance
and so
> > > alchemy was obviously false. So the SR of the 18th Century would have
> > > believed that alchemy was false. Whereas current scientific thought is
> > > that there are more fundamental particles that make up each element
and so
> > > it is theoritically true that one could turn lead to gold. Thus the SR
of
> > > the present time would say alchemy is true.
>
> > There were no scientists (what you wish to label 'scientific realists'
> > around at
> > the time) the scientific method was being developed. So the comparison
is
> > not historically valid.
>
> You really have reached a whole new level of stupidity here. Who
> exactly do you think were involved in the development of the scientific
> method? The comment is entirely valid (historically and otherwise) you
> simply don't have the ability to address it.
>
by chemists. If you read the biography of Newton, who had a foot in both
camps, so to speak, you can see that the two are not comparable. Alchemy
believed in magic, science doesn't. Newton was a genius in spotting that,
the
bogus spells of the alchemical methods that (like all magic) had the get out
of jail free clause embedded in them of inherent infalsifiability, could be
looked at in a different way - the dawning of the scientific method where
experiment rather than authority was the key.
>
> > However the fact that alchemy
> > helped
> > in the production of science is clearly true - read a recent ( I forget
the
> > author at
> > the moment) biography of Newton. The fact that alchemy with its wrong
goals,
> > but
> > sound methods produced science doesn't mean that science is alchemy!
>
> Nobody is saying that it is Peter.
>
the
belief of a chemist.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> > I know that you may find it difficult to understand, but it is quite
> > possible to
> > show your position invalid even when you do use a politically charged
> > word to define it.
>
> And that word is?
>
As you like to put it - do try to keep up. 'Scientific Realism' was the
phrase.
>
> > Oh, and another thing, different points require different arguments to
> > refute
> > them - this does not necessarily imply inconsistency. It is also
sometimes
> > necessary to use different examples, analogies etc. to make the points
> > clear, again, this does not imply inconsistency.
>
> Ahh... it appears we have reached the lame excuse stage. Actually no,
> it should be possible to address a variety of points without changing
> your argument.
>
Again, try to keep up. There is a difference between 'arguments' [as you see
in my paragraph] and 'argument' [as you see in yours]. The difference makes
your attempted point irrelevant.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > > Exactly. That is precisely my point. They cannot empirically prove
it,
> > > so they cannot claim it. Which is why I made that comment about
> > > empiricism and assumption in the first place.
> not actual empirical proof, which is what we were discussing. You are
> simply applying a particular logic to a problem and claiming that a
> definitive answer is therefore possible. We can do this with anything.
>
have
shown that it is not in principle impossible. So, if you now wish to change
your
ground and claim that it is not practically possible, fair enough.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Is [it] enough simply to know
> what we do about the universe and apply that to our lives until we know
> more? Or should we step beyond that knowledge and assume that just
> because we know this much everything else must be the same?
>
necessarily assume that everything else must be the same, but, rather, that
it is possible to construct experiments to establish if a projection of a
difference
or similarity is valid.
So we should actively use our knowledge to predict what likely truths may
yet be found, and then construct experiments so that we can add them to
our canon.
Simple assumptions of similarity would be foolish.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Mr Enigmatic <mr.eni...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Gyan5.20650$Lv6.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> But T can assume any value apart from infinity. So T can be as large as
it
> likes. In effect then we might be waiting an arbitrary large period of
time
> before hypothesis A is verified. For however long has elapsed, it is
> possible that the Universe may be yet larger still (without being
infinite).
>
bound.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > > But T can assume any value apart from infinity. So T can be as large
as it
> > likes. In effect then we might be waiting an arbitrary large period of
time
> > before hypothesis A is verified. For however long has elapsed, it is
> > possible that the Universe may be yet larger still (without being
infinite).
>
> actual basis in reality. Therefore it cannot be empirically "proved".
>
conditions,
then that would determine the time necessary to make the experiment - so it
could be empirically proved.
If you are making a second point that you have some evidence that there is
no
such upper bound, fair enough, but it wasn't the point of the hypothesis.
Unless,
of course, you can suggest a reason why there isn't an upper bound in
principle.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> > That fraud and fabrication has occurred is a reason to be sceptical. It
> > isn't
> > a reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Most historians have
been
> > scrupulously honest and you can establish their level of honesty by
> > comparing
> > what they say with other historians and the archival record.
>
> 1) I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. History has its
> uses, I use it myself. You simply cannot claim historical precedent or
> historical credibility without seriously backing it up.
> 2) I'm not disputing that many historians are indeed honest. What I'm
> saying is that the sources and archives they use may not be honest. Or
> at least, not entirely accurate.
>
historians (like the occasional journalis) attempt to find independant
sources
to verify or contradict what they find. Historians spend quite a lot of
their
time looking for sources to confirm or contradict existing views of
important
events and this, in itself, provides an element of correction to historical
accounts. Certainly it is one good reason why historians are generally
suspicious
of 'history' that is less than a century.
>
>
> > If you wish to argue relativism, as you have been,
> > you
> > have to face the fact that science is a method. If you wish to consider
the
> > relative
> > merits of various scientific models you need to use the method.
>
> Actually, I'm not arguing for relativism, there are other alternatives
> you know. What I'm arguing against is sciences claim for authority over
> truth.
>
but, since
it is tautological truth it isn't all that impressive. Science is the best
known method for
arriving at a close approximation to truth.
>
> > > No, the essence of science is the production of knowledge. The methods
> > > employed are scientific (ie pertaining to science). Although
scientific
> > > method is intrinsic to science, it is not the essence of science.
> > >
> > It is the essence in that, without it, there would be no science.
>
> Without, food, water, and a breathable atmosphere there would be no
> life, but that is not the essence of life. However, this is simply a
> semantic point and of no relevance to the discussion.
>
of
my point it is an important necessity. If the rest of 'science' were to
remain the
same, but the method modified - say, for example, that the peer review
process
were removed - then the result would no longer be reliable as science, in
fact it
would not be science at all.
The only way you can tell the difference between a bogus result and a
scientific
result is by looking at the method used - either could be produced by a
'scientist' or
a 'non-scientist', only the method matters.
This is considerably more than a mere point of necessity and most certainly
not a
semantic point!
>
> > The one
> > thing
> > that distinguishes science from bullshit is the method - proved by the
> > effectiveness
> > of the results and the ability of the method to find out and correct any
> > errors
> > over time.
>
> You're very fond of this word "bullshit", care to define it?
>
Bullshit differs from horseshit in that bullshit is something that isn't
true, whilst horseshit is
something that is not true in all possible worlds.
>
> > > > The only reason for wishing to label science a 'belief system' is to
try
> > to
> > > > equate
> > > > it to mythologies. This is bogus.
>
> > > Wrong again. The reason (by no means the only reason) for equating
> > > science to a belief system, is that it is a belief system. A belief
> > > system based upon methodological reasoning not blind faith. Why do I
> > > get the feeling I'm repeating myself?
>
> > Because you aren't taking in the argument. You wish only to apply the
bogus
> > argument
> > that I have pointed out above. Move on.
>
> How do you figure that? I am simply providing an accurate analogy, one
> that has obviously got you stumped. You can't dismiss it and you'd
> obviously rather eat your own liver than agree with it, but I'm not
> going to drop it.
>
I have answered it many times. Science is not a belief system, it is a
process. This
is a fundamental fact about science that you need to understand - without
it, you
can never understand science.
> > However, since you fail to grapple
> > with
> > the issue - in particular the fact that the scientific method, unlike
the
> > methods
> > used to produce mythologies, is self-healing in relation to reality.
>
> Yes? Since I fail to grapple with the issue...and?
>
> Actually don't bother. As is quite evident I'm completely on top of the
> issue, you on the other hand do seem to be floundering. If you think
> that mythologies are not "self-healing in relation to reality" (not
> that I'm entirely sure what you mean by this, but I'm willing to let it
> slide and run on what I assume you mean) then you don't know very much
> about mythology. Which is evidence enough for my previous statement
> about floundering.
>
The word is usually 'foundering'. I think that you need to come up with the
goods and show what mythologies are self-healing in relation to reality and
how they do it. Claiming that they do and anybody who disagrees simply
doesn't understand mythology is rather lame and, I am afraid, not an
argument
worth a fig.
Steve H
> > > There were no scientists (what you wish to label 'scientific realists'
> > > around at
> > > the time) the scientific method was being developed. So the comparison
> is
> > > not historically valid.
> >
> > You really have reached a whole new level of stupidity here. Who
> > exactly do you think were involved in the development of the scientific
> > method? The comment is entirely valid (historically and otherwise) you
> > simply don't have the ability to address it.
> >
> by chemists.
*I* was doing nothing of the sort. The equation being made by Rod was
that alchemy at the time was considered to be true, as is science (well
at least by scientists) now. Is that so difficult to grasp?
> You were arguing (above) that the belief of an alchemist was comparable to
> the
> belief of a chemist.
Where did I say that? What I was saying was that there were scientists
around when scientific method was being developed. I never said that
they believed in the same things. If they did then there would be no
need for a separate discipline. Keep to the points being made Peter. If
you don't understand them just ask.
Steve...
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> > > > There were no scientists (what you wish to label 'scientific
realists'
> > > > around at
> > > > the time) the scientific method was being developed. So the
comparison
> > is
> > > > not historically valid.
> > >
> > > You really have reached a whole new level of stupidity here. Who
> > > exactly do you think were involved in the development of the
scientific
> > > method? The comment is entirely valid (historically and otherwise) you
> > > simply don't have the ability to address it.
> > >
held
> > by chemists.
>
> *I* was doing nothing of the sort. The equation being made by Rod was
> that alchemy at the time was considered to be true, as is science (well
> at least by scientists) now. Is that so difficult to grasp?
>
be
true in the same way as science is now, it was considered true in a
completely
different magical manner.
Try to realise that when people disagree with you it is often because you
are wrong,
not that they don't understand.
>
> > You were arguing (above) that the belief of an alchemist was comparable
to
> > the
> > belief of a chemist.
>
> Where did I say that? What I was saying was that there were scientists
> around when scientific method was being developed. I never said that
> they believed in the same things. If they did then there would be no
> need for a separate discipline. Keep to the points being made Peter. If
> you don't understand them just ask.
>
Your whole attempt at a point founders because alchemy and science
are not similar and to try to compare the way one was viewed with the
other is simply flawed.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Steve H
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> Steve H <sjho...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:180820001334484410%sjho...@mac.com...
> >
>
> > > I know that you may find it difficult to understand, but it is quite
> > > possible to
> > > show your position invalid even when you do use a politically charged
> > > word to define it.
> >
> > And that word is?
> >
> As you like to put it - do try to keep up. 'Scientific Realism' was the
> phrase.
That's two words (he he). But seriously, I think you've gotten yourself
a little confused again here. Are you suggesting that I am arguing from
the point of scientific realism? If so, then you've totally lost the
plot here. If not then your above comment makes absolutely no sense at
all. An explanation of exactly what you mean would be appreciated.
> > > Oh, and another thing, different points require different arguments to
> > > refute
> > > them - this does not necessarily imply inconsistency. It is also
> sometimes
> > > necessary to use different examples, analogies etc. to make the points
> > > clear, again, this does not imply inconsistency.
> >
> > Ahh... it appears we have reached the lame excuse stage. Actually no,
> > it should be possible to address a variety of points without changing
> > your argument.
> >
> Again, try to keep up. There is a difference between 'arguments' [as you see
> in my paragraph] and 'argument' [as you see in yours]. The difference makes
> your attempted point irrelevant.
Oh really Peter! Now that is pathetic. Forget the lame excuse stage,
your now at the "talking entirely out of your arse stage". Different,
as in entirely unrelated, points do perhaps require different, or
separate, arguements. Unfortunately for you that is not the case here.
Firstly, the point was scientific realism, which in the first instance
you were defending, and then you decide to refute as a political slur
aimed at the scientific community. Secondly, there was only one
argument surrounding this particular point. In fact, there is really
only one argument goint on here, one that encompasses several points.
Now read my comment again, go away, and feel stupid.
Steve...
Peter H.M. Brooks
> In article <8njhh3$ico$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, Peter H.M. Brooks
> <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
> > Steve H <sjho...@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:180820001334484410%sjho...@mac.com...
> > >
> >
> > > > I know that you may find it difficult to understand, but it is quite
> > > > possible to
> > > > show your position invalid even when you do use a politically
charged
> > > > word to define it.
> > >
> > > And that word is?
> > >
> > As you like to put it - do try to keep up. 'Scientific Realism' was the
> > phrase.
>
> That's two words (he he). But seriously, I think you've gotten yourself
> a little confused again here. Are you suggesting that I am arguing from
> the point of scientific realism? If so, then you've totally lost the
> plot here. If not then your above comment makes absolutely no sense at
> all. An explanation of exactly what you mean would be appreciated.
>
phrase - well done!
I am happy to help clarify. You use the term 'scientific realism' as if it
is not
a straw man, but a real position. This reveals your political bent in the
matter
as nobody holds the peculiar position claimed to be held by the non-existant
'scientific realists'.
>
> > > > Oh, and another thing, different points require different arguments
to
> > > > refute
> > > > them - this does not necessarily imply inconsistency. It is also
> > sometimes
> > > > necessary to use different examples, analogies etc. to make the
points
> > > > clear, again, this does not imply inconsistency.
> > >
> > > Ahh... it appears we have reached the lame excuse stage. Actually no,
> > > it should be possible to address a variety of points without changing
> > > your argument.
> > >
> > Again, try to keep up. There is a difference between 'arguments' [as you
see
> > in my paragraph] and 'argument' [as you see in yours]. The difference ma
kes
> > your attempted point irrelevant.
>
> Oh really Peter! Now that is pathetic. Forget the lame excuse stage,
> your now at the "talking entirely out of your arse stage". Different,
> as in entirely unrelated, points do perhaps require different, or
> separate, arguements.
>
Well done again! You have indeed understood that your bogus point
has been revealed.
>
> Unfortunately for you that is not the case here.
> Firstly, the point was scientific realism, which in the first instance
> you were defending, and then you decide to refute as a political slur
> aimed at the scientific community. Secondly, there was only one
> argument surrounding this particular point. In fact, there is really
> only one argument goint on here, one that encompasses several points.
>
You misunderstood my defence, it wasn't of the strawman called 'scientific
realism' that you brought back from the obscurity where it belongs, but
a defence of the scientific method [not science as I hope you now
understand].
Of course, now that you reveal yourself the expert, maybe you can give us
all
a lesson on how 'several points' are so clearly different from 'arguments'.
In my
little way I have been happy to accept that several arguments [all of which
are in
their little way points] can be used to support an overarching argument. I
look forward
in eager anticipation to seeing how you put me right on this.
>
> Now read my comment again, go away, and feel stupid.
>
You will have to help me here - how does it feel, Steve? I am of a
curious bent and always keen to learn new things.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
So, now bring them in, for I will play the cook,
And see them ready 'gainst their mother comes.
- Titus Andronicus
...
ROD JACKSON
>> This appears to be fallacious to me, in so far as - The universe is very
>> large (I previously said infinite, but only because I am lazy :), now the
>> largeness of the universe means that most scientific theories cannot be
>> test across the whole of the space-time contiunum. Thus we cannot know if
>> the theories are true or even if they are close to being true.
>>
>I think that you will come to regret that laziness.
Maybe, sorry.
ok, instead of the word "infinite" I will try and use the word
"universal". Where a universal is something that is true across the entire
space-time continum. So a universal could be infinite or finite depending
on the time-span of our universe. According to modern scientific thought
it is finite, but very large, which time having both a beginning and an
end.
> If the universe is very big, that in now way prevents us from
> understanding how it works.
If certain assumptions are made (which happen to be true). If those
assumptions are not true then it may not be possible. One of those
assupmtions would be the "consitency of nature". That is, the way things
worked in the past they will work in the future (ie. "natural law" doesn't
change across time). Similarly "natural law" does not change across space.
Now, are there any good reasons for holding these assumptions?
Obviously they have great pragmatic value...
> Remember how big the number of atoms in a raindrop is.
Umm no I don't actually ;)
My point was not really about the number, but the scope. That is if we
claimed the followinng universal - there are at least 10 000 atoms in in
each raindrops. If we then observe that it is true for 1 billion raindrops
does this mean that it is true?
A universal is something that can be disproved by *one* counter example.
So as soon as we see a rain drop with less than 10 000 atoms in it it
would become false.
Now if there is only one counter example we could still claim that the
'universal' was still "close to the truth". But when does it stop being
close to the truth? How many counter example would we need? Would there
have to be more counter example than actaul example (i.e 50%)?
Now there appear to be some was to get around this problem.
1) We could claim that science, in fact, makes no claims about
universals.
Could we really in all honesty claim this? Is F=ma supposed to be true of
all forces for some forces that are restricted to a certain time or a
certain location? Surely is supposed to be a universal 'law'...
2) We could claim something that has less than 10 000 atoms *by
definition* is not a raindrop.
Are there any arguements against this type of objection?
RAZA 2000
--
"I could say 'I love you', you could say 'it isn't true'
but how could you say that about someone who died for you!" PETRA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Web Page - http://student.uq.edu.au/~s321702/index.html
ROD JACKSON
>Nobody defends 'scientific realism' it is an invention by the detractors of
>science. It is
>a negative label, not a position. It is the politically correct attack on
>science so it has
>no substance.
Maybe no "scientist" does, I wouldn't know. But I do know philosophers of
science take it very seriously. My lecturer claimed that it was much more
reasonable than instrumentalism and he identified himself as a "Scientific
Realist".
I guess the question is are there any other competeing philosophies of
science that don't fit under those two categories? Supposedly Karl
Popper's "Philosophy of Science" doesn't...
>> So since has pragmatic value but does not necessarily obtain truth?
>>
>Truth in this case (as opposed to logical or philosophical truth) is
>'pragmatic' in
>the sense that it is empirical. The nature of truth is that it can be
>tested, if a truth cannot
>be tested, then it is ipso facto, not a truth - testing, in this context,
>includes logical or
>philosophical as well as empirical tests.
ok, in western philosophical tradition there are three main views on what
truth is.
Correspondance - Something is true iff it corresponds to the way the world
actualy is. Eg. "Snow is white" is true iff it is the case that Snow is
white.
Pragmatic - Something is true iff it is of practial use. Ie predictions
can be made from the hypothesis that we can utilise (ptolemnies view of
the "planetary orbits" is true under this viw of truth).
Coherence - Something is true iff it can be integrated with prexisting
beliefs.
While coherence is used in science within what Khun called a 'paradigm'
(sp?), it seems that it is useless in determining which paradigm is
correct (Eg. Netwon's Laws Vs Relativity).
Pragmatic seems to be flawed as nobody accepts Ptolemy's view of orbits as
being true, in this day and age (even though it retains it's pragatic
quality of being able to accurately predict where the planets will be).
Which leaves us with correspondence theory (which I'm told, is what most
western philosophers believe is the "best" theory of truth today).
>When Pilate asked 'What is truth', he asked an important question. On
>defining feature of
>truth is that it must be testable, it need not be universal. After all, it
>was true that all soldiers
>wore leather armour, this is no longer true, but it was empirically true at
>the time.
Obviously there can be non-unniversal truths. But does science "aim" at
these? If it does how could it make predictionns about that "unknown"?
>> But the question is this - is the model that is "close to
>> approximating" reality, the wy eality actually is or is it merely a model.
>>
>You give youself away by the use of the word 'merely'.
Sorry for the ephyeme (sp??)
> It is a model, and many people
>trust their lives to it, if you wish to call it mere, that is your choice,
>but has no intrinsic meaning.
So science has pragamtic value - on that we seem to all agree.
>> For example Alchemists believed that lead could be turned into gold. So
>> the "Scientific Realists" (SR) of the medieval era would have held that
>> this is true or close to true. The 18th centuray Chemists hwoever, came to
>> believe that each element was made of it's own particular substance and so
>> alchemy was obviously false. So the SR of the 18th Century would have
>> believed that alchemy was false. Whereas current scientific thought is
>> that there are more fundamental particles that make up each element and so
>> it is theoritically true that one could turn lead to gold. Thus the SR of
>> the present time would say alchemy is true.
>>
>There were no scientists (what you wish to label 'scientific realists'
>around at
>the time) the scientific method was being developed. So the comparison is
>not historically valid.
Well either way it doesn't matter if there were or weren't the
*philosophical* point is that *if* there were SR at that time they would
have had to have believed such and such...
>> Now either alchemy is true or it is not. What gaurentee do we have that
>> in the future science will not discover some reason whylead cannot be
>> turned into Gold? How then, in view of this uncretainty and in light of
>> history can we claim that science leads us to "truth" (while still being
>> very useful never the less)?
>>
>Look, if you really want to believe in bullshit, nobody is stopping you. You
>don't
>have to come here and discuss it with me. However the fact that alchemy
>helped
>in the production of science is clearly true - read a recent ( I forget the
>author at
>the moment) biography of Newton. The fact that alchemy with its wrong goals,
>but
>sound methods produced science doesn't mean that science is alchemy!
Obviously, and I didn't mean to say that a modern scientist would accept
all the claims of alchemy. What I meant was the hypothesis "Lead can be
turned to Gold" is either true or false (let us label that hypothesis
A). So according to a SR A was true in medieval times, A was false in 18th
Century times and then A "became" true again in modern times. Is there any
reason that A will not later be shown to be false in the future.
>> So a crows being black is an analytic truth. Does this mean that science
>> can only provide us with definitions?
>>
>No, I was making a philosophical, not a scientific point.
I was trying to expand onn your philosophical point. Hopefully if we keep
looking at these issues they will become clear in our minds (or at least
my mind :)
ROD JACKSON
>> Yes, but conversely the complete set of crows is much larger than the seet
>> of observed crows, which was the point I am trying to get across.
>>
>The point you miss is that what is important is the nature of crows, not
>their
>number - that is what science addresses.
ok, so science address the "essences" of things.
Now the question should be is there any examples of something that science
has "discovered" two things with different essences and yet classified
them as the same thing?
ROD JACKSON
>s32...@student.uq.edu.au (ROD JACKSON) writes:
> This of course depends on what you require of knowledge.
I am using the word knowledge in the philosophical sense, which is
"Justified, true, belief".
> A person
>of a skeptical bent may claim that you can't know that the earth
>isn't in fact located within a big sphere and that the stars etc
>are projections on the inside of that sphere.
Well this is one of the problems - How many models could predict the same
outcomes? This is a very important question, if there are many then one
*cannot* claim that science obtains correspondance with reality, except
where we have empirically verified that it does correspond (so
"quarks" could not be considered true). However it could still retain it's
pragmatic value (which we all seem to agree it does have). However if only
*one* model can make a set of predictons that no other model can, then we
can say that science does lead to correspondance with reality *even* in
areas where we have not had a chance to empirically veryify them...
What do you think?
ROD JACKSON
>> *I* was doing nothing of the sort. The equation being made by Rod was
>> that alchemy at the time was considered to be true, as is science (well
>> at least by scientists) now. Is that so difficult to grasp?
>>
>It is easy to see the point, but it is wrong. Alchemy was not considered to
>be
>true in the same way as science is now, it was considered true in a
>completely
>different magical manner.
So if we could distingush the different viws of "truth" then we would be
making some progress. Does anyone know how alcheemy was held to be true?
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Then you're obviously not as clever as you presume yourself to be.
In order not to upset the anonymous penner of this phrase, I left it
for a while before commenting on it.
I think that , for this group, it has some important resonances.
If some people really believe that all philosophy is is an attempt to
prove themselves clever, as appears the case, it would be better
if such people kept themselves away from usenet.
If you are clever it is perfecly apparent to you and those who surround
you that you are. Even so, clever people make mistakes and have barmy
notions, this much is well known.
However, the purpose of this group, as is the purpose of other
uk.philosopy.*
groups is not to parade cleverness - though, certainly, all will be happy
for
its assistance. The purpose is rather to discuss philosophy. To suggest that
a human being is to stupid, or unread in philosophy to engage in debate is
to frustrate the very purpose of philosophy.
A really clever philosopher (or really clever person, for that matter) can,
using
his ability, make the obscure, complex and complicated easy to understand to
the less clever. This is a skill indeed. Any fool can (and if you know many
lawyers or civil servants, does) make the simple obscure.
I think that for the truly clever, secure in his cleverness, philosophy is
an
opportunity for altruism. Of course, bores are always with us, and, in
making
this plea I am in danger of being one myself - fortunately it is only a
fairly brief
posting that the clever person won't need more than a few seconds to peruse
and understand. However, apart from those who clearly wish to disrupt
proceedings
(few of which I have observed here), those who join discussion in this
usenet
forum are keen to engage in discussion, maybe even philosophical discussion.
I
would plead that foolish penis size competition be avoided.
Is it not gentlemanly to assume, until proved otherwise, that your opponent
(if
you have a macho need to cast him as such) is intelligent and willing to
engage
in both promoting his point and learning.
Enough. Fuckwits will surely continues to express their fuckwittedness, but,
I
thought it worth while to try (even if it is futile) to raise the standard
of debate.
After all, I would see one of the objectives of philosophy to be to help
ordinary
people to understand, or at least question their understanding, of their
life, the
world and to begin to enjoy the fruits of questioning these. I would hate to
think
that any arrogant sod should prevent ordinary people from joining the
discussion -
though, of course, such people may find themselves a bit buffeted,
unnecessary
discourtesy isn't necessary.
--
Rev. Peter H.M. Brooks
Peter H.M. Brooks
ROD JACKSON <s32...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:8nka4s$5g3$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> writes:
>
>
> >> *I* was doing nothing of the sort. The equation being made by Rod was
> >> that alchemy at the time was considered to be true, as is science (well
> >> at least by scientists) now. Is that so difficult to grasp?
> >>
> >It is easy to see the point, but it is wrong. Alchemy was not considered
to
> >be
> >true in the same way as science is now, it was considered true in a
> >completely
> >different magical manner.
>
> So if we could distingush the different viws of "truth" then we would be
> making some progress. Does anyone know how alcheemy was held to be true?
>
Certain peculiar
historical figures were said to have manage to achieve the creation of the
'philosopher's
stone' et al. The cryptic nature of the reciepts given and the arcane
language and
symbolism was held to be proof of their likely success.
Somewhat in the way that deconstructionists, sociologists, and their ilk
have their merry way
with the unprotected minds of undergraduates today.
Plus ce change..
--
Torkel Franzen
> I am using the word knowledge in the philosophical sense, which is
> "Justified, true, belief".
This is indeed a time-honored formula, but it provides no clue as
to what is "justified."
> Well this is one of the problems - How many models could predict the same
> outcomes? This is a very important question, if there are many then one
> *cannot* claim that science obtains correspondance with reality, [..]
Sure we can. For example, the mere fact that any number of stories
can be invented to account for the present state of the solar system
is in no way an obstacle to a claim that science has found the true
story, the one that corresponds with reality.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Torkel Franzen <tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote in message
news:vcb3dk1...@beta13.sm.luth.se...
> s32...@student.uq.edu.au (ROD JACKSON) writes:
>
> > I am using the word knowledge in the philosophical sense, which is
> > "Justified, true, belief".
>
> This is indeed a time-honored formula, but it provides no clue as
> to what is "justified."
>
other two
either.
Philip Baker
<s32...@student.uq.edu.au> writes
>I don't think people don't recognise the *pragmatic* value of
>science. However is pragamtism enough to warrant the "truth" of its
>claims. Ptolemny (sp?) devised a very pragmatic view of the motion of the
>planets (my astronomy lecturer says that it can still be used today to
>accurately predicte where a planet will be), however no scientist (that I
>am aware of), today, thinks there is any truth to the claims of cycles and
>epi-cycles...
>
The Ptolemaic system is alive and well: 'in the next few days there will
be problems with your love life while Venus is in retrogression' etc,
etc.
--
Philip Baker
http://www.thalasson.com
http://www.textual.net
Philip Baker
<s32...@student.uq.edu.au> writes
>
>ok, in western philosophical tradition there are three main views on what
>truth is.
>
>Correspondance - Something is true iff it corresponds to the way the world
>actualy is. Eg. "Snow is white" is true iff it is the case that Snow is
>white.
>
>Pragmatic - Something is true iff it is of practial use. Ie predictions
>can be made from the hypothesis that we can utilise (ptolemnies view of
>the "planetary orbits" is true under this viw of truth).
>
>Coherence - Something is true iff it can be integrated with prexisting
>beliefs.
There are a few others. I think the deflationary theory of truth has a
certain simple elegance: to assert P is true is to assert P.
>
>
>While coherence is used in science within what Khun called a 'paradigm'
>(sp?), it seems that it is useless in determining which paradigm is
>correct (Eg. Netwon's Laws Vs Relativity).
>
>Pragmatic seems to be flawed as nobody accepts Ptolemy's view of orbits as
>being true, in this day and age (even though it retains it's pragatic
>quality of being able to accurately predict where the planets will be).
>
>Which leaves us with correspondence theory (which I'm told, is what most
>western philosophers believe is the "best" theory of truth today).
I'm not at all sure about this, although I've always thought that if you
needed a theory of truth, common sense would demand the correspondence
theory but common sense isn't necessarily right.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Philip Baker <ph...@thalasson.com> wrote in message
news:Wl59r1A7...@thalasson.com...
> In article <8neu54$3eg$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, ROD JACKSON
> <s32...@student.uq.edu.au> writes
> >I don't think people don't recognise the *pragmatic* value of
> >science. However is pragamtism enough to warrant the "truth" of its
> >claims. Ptolemny (sp?) devised a very pragmatic view of the motion of the
> >planets (my astronomy lecturer says that it can still be used today to
> >accurately predicte where a planet will be), however no scientist (that I
> >am aware of), today, thinks there is any truth to the claims of cycles
and
> >epi-cycles...
> >
>
> The Ptolemaic system is alive and well: 'in the next few days there will
> be problems with your love life while Venus is in retrogression' etc,
> etc.
>
planets discovered by astonomers and to claim that they can now
fit them into their calculations. They don't acknowledge the debt
that often, though.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
`If you wish to do good, be sure to do so only in minute particulars.'"
William Blake
Steve H
> be
> true in the same way as science is now, it was considered true in a
> completely
> different magical manner.
> Try to realise that when people disagree with you it is often because you
> are wrong,
> not that they don't understand.
I take it your speaking from your own experience. I disagree with
people because I have a different point of view, not because someone is
necessarly wrong. However, in this case I do believe you are wrong, and
unless you can come up with a solid argument to convince me otherwise I
will continue to believe that. But the thing is Peter, you are wrong so
mant times, on so many different points, that I very much doubt that is
going to happen.
> >
> > > You were arguing (above) that the belief of an alchemist was comparable
> to
> > > the
> > > belief of a chemist.
> >
> > Where did I say that? What I was saying was that there were scientists
> > around when scientific method was being developed. I never said that
> > they believed in the same things. If they did then there would be no
> > need for a separate discipline. Keep to the points being made Peter. If
> > you don't understand them just ask.
> >
> Your whole attempt at a point founders because alchemy and science
> are not similar and to try to compare the way one was viewed with the
> other is simply flawed.
You didn't answer my question. I never said what you believed I said
therefore it is your argument that is without a point. Furthermore, why
don't you actually provide some evidence for your claims rather than
simply disagree. If my argument is so flawed go ahead and prove it. Any
idiot can simply refute a point without providing any solid evidence
for the refutation.
Steve...