anti-physicalist emphasis
Jennifer Armstrong
Idealist emphasis?
Why are po moers idealists? I mean, think of the Idealist philosophers -
Kant, Plato, Paul of Tarsus, Heidegger...and you will immediately sense a
resonance.
On the other hand, po mo seems only superficially: Nietzschean, Marxist, and
may be anti Freud but can enjoy the Idealism (anti-body gestures) of Lacan.
Interesting I think.
Oh, and please answer this straight away. J A does not like to be kept
waiting!
--
--
James Owens
Could it be the epistemological aspect? For materialism, the world
presents reality to you. For idealists, your mind presents reality to you.
--
"For it is only of the new one grows tired. Of the old one never tires."
-- Kierkegaard, _Repetition_
James Owens, Ottawa, Canada
Jennifer Armstrong
is...
For example at what point does "the mind' become "the body" when a dog is
sitting on a thorn and refuses to get up?
The "body" --likewise -- becomes "the mind" when I discover that there is a
more effective way to throw a punch, for example, than to try to put a lot
of power into it. I can use leverage--eg. twist my hips, like a golfer
does, on the delivery.
...
--
--
http://www.geocities.com/ja2000ja/
"James Owens" <ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:d3qs8f$rq4$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
Jennifer Armstrong
--
--
http://www.geocities.com/ja2000ja/jennypomo2.htm
"Jennifer Armstrong" <scrat...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:42607...@news.iprimus.com.au...
James Whitehead
saying,
> Idealist emphasis?
>
> Why are po moers idealists? I mean, think of the Idealist philosophers -
> Kant, Plato, Paul of Tarsus, Heidegger...and you will immediately sense a
> resonance.
>
> On the other hand, po mo seems only superficially: Nietzschean, Marxist,
and
> may be anti Freud but can enjoy the Idealism (anti-body gestures) of
Lacan.
>
One of the features of Po-mo is the ability to re-interpret *almost*
freely - so deconstruction becomes heir to Marxism... Nietzschean philosophy
a pro-feminist humanism... and at the same time superficial and deep... and
the mind body problem an inevitable outcome of reductionism philosophical
reasoning - and that is all....
Jennifer Armstrong
> >
>
> One of the features of Po-mo is the ability to re-interpret *almost*
> freely - so deconstruction becomes heir to Marxism... Nietzschean
philosophy
> a pro-feminist humanism... and at the same time superficial and deep...
and
> the mind body problem an inevitable outcome of reductionism philosophical
> reasoning - and that is all....
>
Yep. But I wasn't talking about the mind-body "problem" per se, just the
apparently disappearing body that we usually find in po mo. Whence it gone?
Brains on sticks and the like. If you can change someone's way of thinking
about something you don't often eliminate their problem, whatever it may be.
Sure, that strategy works on occasion. But life is not quite
that...linguistic.
Ned Ludd
Linguistic medicines cure linguistic diseases.
Ned
Jennifer Armstrong
>
> Ned
Mais ceci n'est pas tout le monde, n'est-ce pas? Et pour les autres?
Est-ce que tout le monde est maladif?
Ned Ludd
>
>> Linguistic medicines cure linguistic diseases.
>
> les autres? Est-ce que tout le monde est maladif?
>
Oh, God, Tish, I love it when you make me use babelfish!
---
But isn't this is not everyone?
And for the others?
Is everyone morbid?
---
Well, yes, they're all a little bit twisted.
Pomo has an anti-physicalist, antimaterialist, almost idealist
emphasis, and is only superficially Nietzschean, Marxist, and
possibly anti-Freud.
Happy?
Ned
Jennifer Armstrong
But isn't this is not everyone?
And for the others?
Is everyone morbid?
Look mum! I'm speaking Po mo.
James Whitehead
>
>
> > >
> >
> > One of the features of Po-mo is the ability to re-interpret *almost*
> > freely - so deconstruction becomes heir to Marxism... Nietzschean
> philosophy
> > a pro-feminist humanism... and at the same time superficial and deep...
> and
> > the mind body problem an inevitable outcome of reductionism
philosophical
> > reasoning - and that is all....
> >
>
> Yep. But I wasn't talking about the mind-body "problem" per se,
"For example at what point does "the mind' become "the body" when a dog is
sitting on a thorn and refuses to get up?"
seems if nit to raise it - imply it...
>just the
> apparently disappearing body that we usually find in po mo. Whence it
gone?
> Brains on sticks and the like. If you can change someone's way of thinking
> about something you don't often eliminate their problem, whatever it may
be.
> Sure, that strategy works on occasion. But life is not quite
> that...linguistic.
I dont think po-mo is about the elimination of problems? Certainly not the
removal of philosophical problems - but the development of them... my
account of the mind body problem is not particularly po-mo....
Jennifer Armstrong
> "For example at what point does "the mind' become "the body" when a dog is
> sitting on a thorn and refuses to get up?"
>
> seems if nit to raise it - imply it...
>
Only from the point of view of a theoretical context within western
history -- but I may be wrong that this is the hidden and unconscious
context which most people wrap around their worlds. IN any case, my point
went deeper. Further. Faster...
As you should have been able to tell!
James Whitehead
> >
> > "For example at what point does "the mind' become "the body" when a dog
is
> > sitting on a thorn and refuses to get up?"
> >
> > seems if nit to raise it - imply it...
> >
>
> Only from the point of view of a theoretical context within western
> history -- but I may be wrong that this is the hidden and unconscious
> context which most people wrap around their worlds. IN any case, my point
> went deeper. Further. Faster...
>
> As you should have been able to tell!
No i couldnt tell, and i'm still in the dark regarding the point you were
trying to make... to restate my point ... definitions - observations etc
whether deep or fast - as single perspectives do not properly relate to
po-mo. Not talking specifically about a particular area of post modernity-
but if we are trying to - then the field of say philosophy no longer has its
fences... i always think architecture is a better place to start. For a
start this makes use of technology in an obvious way - whereas the book form
hides it - the impact of the word processor on writing etc.
>
Jennifer Armstrong
> > As you should have been able to tell!
>
> No i couldnt tell, and i'm still in the dark regarding the point you were
> trying to make... to restate my point ... definitions - observations etc
> whether deep or fast - as single perspectives do not properly relate to
> po-mo. Not talking specifically about a particular area of post
modernity-
> but if we are trying to - then the field of say philosophy no longer has
its
> fences... i always think architecture is a better place to start. For a
> start this makes use of technology in an obvious way - whereas the book
form
> hides it - the impact of the word processor on writing etc.
>
> >
>
intuitively to prompts]
Ok, this Heideggerean button isn't working. Is there some other button I
can try?
G*rd*n
Content of 20th-century physics. What does materialism mean
in the presence of Quantum Mechanics? It's not a bunch of
billiard balls any more.
James Whitehead
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:d43ah3$5po$1...@reader1.panix.com...
"buttons & balls" - isnt this a Bob Hope tune?
James Whitehead
in the Hitch Hikers Guide - lifts with pre-cognition dont require buttons..
same with levers.... mechanical systems as finite machines just wont do -
there is a ghostly otherness about them now - not to play the quantum card -
G - has done this- but the law of the excluded middle no longer holds- bye
bye binary.... in the po-mo world - context is all!
John Smith
But there's still a physical reality, its just more complex. Outside of
a few who hold to the strict Copenhagen school of thought (and even
there most will agree that you don't need an outside observer to
collapse a wavefunction...anything that increases entropy will do),
you won't find physicists who believe reality is effected by human
beliefs (as opposed to our conception of reality, which almost every
physicist knows is just the best current model).
And there's still matter in modern physics, it just shifts form between
matter and energy. Most physicists I know think post modernists
are people who claim not to believe in gravity but are still afraid to
walk off the roofs of tall buildings.
G*rd*n
>>> Why does po mo have an anti-physicalist, antimaterialist...what am I
>>> saying,
>>> Idealist emphasis?
>>>
>>> Why are po moers idealists? I mean, think of the Idealist philosophers -
>>> Kant, Plato, Paul of Tarsus, Heidegger...and you will immediately sense a
>>> resonance.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, po mo seems only superficially: Nietzschean, Marxist,
>>> and
>>> may be anti Freud but can enjoy the Idealism (anti-body gestures) of
>>> Lacan.
>>>
>>> Interesting I think.
>>>
>>> Oh, and please answer this straight away. J A does not like to be kept
>>> waiting!
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com>:
> > Content of 20th-century physics. What does materialism mean
> > in the presence of Quantum Mechanics? It's not a bunch of
> > billiard balls any more.
"John Smith" <someon...@spamisevil.com>:
> But there's still a physical reality, its just more complex. Outside of
> a few who hold to the strict Copenhagen school of thought (and even
> there most will agree that you don't need an outside observer to
> collapse a wavefunction...anything that increases entropy will do),
> you won't find physicists who believe reality is effected by human
> beliefs (as opposed to our conception of reality, which almost every
> physicist knows is just the best current model).
>
> And there's still matter in modern physics, it just shifts form between
> matter and energy. Most physicists I know think post modernists
> are people who claim not to believe in gravity but are still afraid to
> walk off the roofs of tall buildings.
But I wasn't talking about physicists. As with history and
art, people go to science, take what they want, and turn it
into a variety of novel shapes, scandalizing the proprietors
of the farm.
As it happens, 20th-century physics seems to give license to
various kinds of indeterminacy, ambiguity and polyvalence,
where only a few generations before everything was as square,
solid and settled as a brick.
It is not surprising that philosophers, among others, picked
up on this opportunity to offer new and exciting products to
their customers.
John Smith
> "Jennifer Armstrong" <scrat...@iprimus.com.au>:
Okay, I've no argument with that. Certainly there is no
shortage of popularizations like "The Tao of Physics" or
"The Dancing Wu-Lu Masters" that would lend itself to
anyone who wanted to interpret quantum mechanics to
suit their own beliefs. Lately I've seen advertisements
for quantum healing from a local health food store, though
I haven't been quite curious enough to go in and find
out what they mean.
-JS2
James Whitehead
"John Smith" <someon...@spamisevil.com> wrote in message
news:116g1c4...@corp.supernews.com...
The post-modernist quite reasonably claims that one (people and many
flightless animals) was afraid of walking off the roofs of tall buildings
before any theory of gravity- if scientists once were prepared to do this
but now do not because of some theory - then i would argue this appears a
strange thing... and not visa versa.
Scientists may no longer view the world as billiard balls but view it in
some other way - but it (the world) generally remains unchanged despite the
alteration of scientific theory...
James Whitehead
Scientists shouldn't get uptight when their language is (miss)
appropriated - when they have (miss) appropriate their terms in the first
place-
e.g. Quark, Atom, Quantum, Electron.........and elsewhere the use of Hebrew
letters (and ancient greek) to lend some rhetorical force to their sales
pitch- or else what? why? Even the Big Bang - was it big and did it go bang?
If science appropriates - and miss appropriate general terms like "time" ..
"real" ... "observation" ... that should not create problems for us... a
good question for me is why the scientist is frightened to step of the tall
building...
James Owens
"John Smith" (someon...@spamisevil.com) writes:
> "G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> But I wasn't talking about physicists. As with history and
>> art, people go to science, take what they want, and turn it
>> into a variety of novel shapes, scandalizing the proprietors
>> of the farm.
>>
>> As it happens, 20th-century physics seems to give license to
>> various kinds of indeterminacy, ambiguity and polyvalence,
>> where only a few generations before everything was as square,
>> solid and settled as a brick.
>>
>> It is not surprising that philosophers, among others, picked
>> up on this opportunity to offer new and exciting products to
>> their customers.
>
> Okay, I've no argument with that. Certainly there is no
> shortage of popularizations like "The Tao of Physics" or
> "The Dancing Wu-Lu Masters" that would lend itself to
> anyone who wanted to interpret quantum mechanics to
> suit their own beliefs. Lately I've seen advertisements
> for quantum healing from a local health food store, though
> I haven't been quite curious enough to go in and find
> out what they mean.
Physicist don't help matters when they talk as though they've figured
out God. And when they name things "Truth" and "Beauty," is this healthy
irreverence or smartass immaturity? Anyway it could be postmodern.
G*rd*n
> >> > Content of 20th-century physics. What does materialism mean
> >> > in the presence of Quantum Mechanics? It's not a bunch of
> >> > billiard balls any more.
"John Smith" <someon...@spamisevil.com>:
> >> But there's still a physical reality, its just more complex. Outside of
> >> a few who hold to the strict Copenhagen school of thought (and even
> >> there most will agree that you don't need an outside observer to
> >> collapse a wavefunction...anything that increases entropy will do),
> >> you won't find physicists who believe reality is effected by human
> >> beliefs (as opposed to our conception of reality, which almost every
> >> physicist knows is just the best current model).
> >>
> >> And there's still matter in modern physics, it just shifts form between
> >> matter and energy. Most physicists I know think post modernists
> >> are people who claim not to believe in gravity but are still afraid to
> >> walk off the roofs of tall buildings.
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com>:
> > But I wasn't talking about physicists. As with history and
> > art, people go to science, take what they want, and turn it
> > into a variety of novel shapes, scandalizing the proprietors
> > of the farm.
> >
> > As it happens, 20th-century physics seems to give license to
> > various kinds of indeterminacy, ambiguity and polyvalence,
> > where only a few generations before everything was as square,
> > solid and settled as a brick.
> >
> > It is not surprising that philosophers, among others, picked
> > up on this opportunity to offer new and exciting products to
> > their customers.
"John Smith" <someon...@spamisevil.com>:
> Okay, I've no argument with that. Certainly there is no
> shortage of popularizations like "The Tao of Physics" or
> "The Dancing Wu-Lu Masters" that would lend itself to
> anyone who wanted to interpret quantum mechanics to
> suit their own beliefs. Lately I've seen advertisements
> for quantum healing from a local health food store, though
> I haven't been quite curious enough to go in and find
> out what they mean.
Not all the adaptations are necessarily as meretricious as
_The_Tao_of_Physics_. (Many New-Agey books seem to miss the
weirdness of contemporary science in favor of the older, more
familiar, not very weird weirdness of established religions
or the occult.) I was thinking more of science as leading a
change in style, rather than providing explicit materials.
JS2
"James Whitehead" <x...@yyy.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d4a8st$tti$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
No, scientists always believe in an objective reality (there's no point
in doing science otherwise). They don't necessarily (in fact, usually
don't) believe that the current state of knowledge is complete or
even necessarily accurate, just that its the best available. That
things fall down is for a scientist a feature of object reality (or
more exactly that mass attracts mass and the earth and you have
mass etc...I assume you'll let me take shortcuts in description),
whatever the current theory is.
Now if all post modernism is saying is that scientific theory is just
a model of objective reality, then they're not saying anything that
every physicist hasn't said since Michelson-Morely couldn't find
an ether drift and Planck had problems with black body radiation.
Or come to think of it, since Hume. But my understanding was
(at least from a friend who considers herself a post modernist
and who's conversations have had me lurking here, since some
of what she says is pretty interesting) that postmodernists
took a stronger position ... that objective reality itself (as opposed
to just our understanding of it) is a social construct. More l
ike Berkeley than the logical positivists.
-JS2
JS2
>
> "John Smith" <someon...@spamisevil.com> wrote in message
> news:116gdke...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
> Scientists shouldn't get uptight when their language is (miss)
> appropriated -
They don't. They get uptight when their theories are
misrepresented. If you want to use the terms of physics,
no one cares, as you point out, physicists are pretty
easy going about naming ... language isn't of prime
importance in physics, with the exception of the language
of mathematics. And you should see what mathematicians
say about the way physicists do math.
On the other hand, if you're going to say that quantum
theory proves that A is happening, you have to expect
a physicist to point out when it doesn't.
> "real" ... "observation" ... that should not create problems for us... a
> good question for me is why the scientist is frightened to step of the
> tall
> building...
Okay, I'll bite. Why shouldn't the scientist be afraid of stepping
off the tall building? Gravity is a physical concept...
-JS2
JS2
>
> Physicist don't help matters when they talk as though they've figured
> out God.
I've never heard one say that (well, not since Lord Kelvin
anyway, who thought that physics was about to end, since
it had explained everything, with the exception of two small
clouds on the horizon...the lack of an ether drift and problems
with infinite energy from black body radiation. As has been
pointed out, if nothing else, Lord Kelvin knew how to pick
his clouds...the first led to the theory of relativity, the second
to quantum mechanics). Do you have more recent examples?
If you read the journals, you'll see that most of the time
they're only too aware of the difficulties in even simple
systems ... most of it is approximations of one kind or another,
because we can't effectively solve the non-linear equations
that are our best descriptions of real systems.
>And when they name things "Truth" and "Beauty," is this healthy
> irreverence or smartass immaturity? Anyway it could be postmodern.
Probably a bit of both. Labels aren't considered important
in physics except as reminders to equations. What's important
is how symbols relate to one another (ie the math).
Part of the reason is that a lot of modern physics can't be
visualized by minds that evolved to deal with the macroscopic
world. How do you visual the particle-wave duality? Or a
4-vector (we won't even start on super string theories 11
dimensional spaces). But at the same time people need a
physical intuition of what's happening so physicists tended
to bend (or even break) old words to fit new concepts.
When it got to the point of quarks and gluons, the folks
involved thought that modifying old concepts was more
confusing than helpful, so they came up with names that
clearly weren't descriptive in this case, and which I guess
they found amusing. I suppose it was a way of reminding
themselves to lighten up.
-JS2
JS2
That's an interesting point. Can you give some examples
of what you mean by a change in style?
-JS2
James Whitehead
"JS2" <someon...@spamisevil.com> wrote in message
news:116htke...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "James Whitehead" <x...@yyy.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d4a9f9$k36$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "John Smith" <someon...@spamisevil.com> wrote in message
> > news:116gdke...@corp.supernews.com...
> >>
>
> > Scientists shouldn't get uptight when their language is (miss)
> > appropriated -
>
> They don't. They get uptight when their theories are
> misrepresented.
If they dont want their theories misrepresented they should keep them in
maths or Latin like the Catholic Church once did - once translated into a
common language they should be wise enough to realise this is what happens.
But of course they have the dilemma of needing cash from the general public-
whilst wanting knowledge that is far from general....
> If you want to use the terms of physics,
No - the terms ATOM QUARK are used by science to glam up the work - where
there is no scientific reason - use of terms like "STRANGE" DARK MATTER -
BIG BANG etc WIMPs the list goes on - if they just had particle A B C with
properties 1, 2, 3 it just would sound so cool. And of course (elsewhere)
they seek the TOE. (which must then settle the God thing?) Like the
Catholic Church one did they sell junk with the promise that its somehow
holy - i.e. The International Space Station is justified by the promise of a
cure for cancer... etc..
> no one cares, as you point out, physicists are pretty
> easy going about naming ... language isn't of prime
> importance in physics, with the exception of the language
> of mathematics. And you should see what mathematicians
> say about the way physicists do math.
>
> On the other hand, if you're going to say that quantum
> theory proves that A is happening, you have to expect
> a physicist to point out when it doesn't.
>
The evidence is the other way around - The dying person (from the roof) is
doing just this regardless of QM or Classical Physics- QM and CP are just
stories- if they prove the broken bones etc OK - if not its the theories
which are wrong - not the event.
> > "real" ... "observation" ... that should not create problems for us... a
> > good question for me is why the scientist is frightened to step of the
> > tall
> > building...
>
> Okay, I'll bite. Why shouldn't the scientist be afraid of stepping
> off the tall building? Gravity is a physical concept...
>
Gravity is a story - might be a good one or not - i'm not a scientist but
i'm just scared of high buildings - before i even think why... my question
is genuine - does the scientist figure out first - then if the sums add up
become scared? We had a Dog once who would Howl in the car whenever we went
over 70 mph (the UK speed limit-) could he read the signs and the dashboard?
> -JS2
>
>
James Whitehead
"JS2" <someon...@spamisevil.com> wrote in message
news:116ht9m...@corp.supernews.com...
I think Hawking has accepted the imposibilty of this - (Godeling Physics)
but still continues to do science...
>They don't necessarily (in fact, usually
> don't) believe that the current state of knowledge is complete or
> even necessarily accurate, just that its the best available. That
> things fall down is for a scientist a feature of object reality (or
> more exactly that mass attracts mass and the earth and you have
> mass etc...I assume you'll let me take shortcuts in description),
> whatever the current theory is.
You may well think that the Universe is understanandable - but as you cant
see outside of this understanding the practice is self fulfilling. That is -
and i think Kant spotted this - what we think and what is there are totally
different things.
>
> Now if all post modernism is saying is that scientific theory is just
> a model of objective reality, then they're not saying anything that
> every physicist hasn't said since Michelson-Morely couldn't find
> an ether drift and Planck had problems with black body radiation.
I cant speak for Po-Mo or maybe i can - then "objective reality" is what we
would like to deconstruct... the only tools we appear to work with is our
subjective imaginations - which is odd? Isnt the idea of "objective reality"
just another form of the wish for God - by a consciousness aware of its own
pointless and fatal journey. The scientist now dying at the foot of the
building is comforted by knowing his theories will outlive him - there is
something out there called objective reality... AKA God, AKA Mommy &
Daddy... But neither are we are saying there is No Objective Reality - or
No Santa Claus - but exploring this phenomena without fear of authority..
> Or come to think of it, since Hume. But my understanding was
> (at least from a friend who considers herself a post modernist
> and who's conversations have had me lurking here, since some
> of what she says is pretty interesting) that postmodernists
> took a stronger position ... that objective reality itself (as opposed
> to just our understanding of it) is a social construct. More l
> ike Berkeley than the logical positivists.
>
Maybe it is a social construct - but what drives us into it - is the same
thing that drives people into church? Though i can account for science and
art in social terms i cant account for myself that way? Even the idea of
society seems then problematic.
> -JS2
>
>
G*rd*n
> > _The_Tao_of_Physics_. (Many New-Agey books seem to miss the
> > weirdness of contemporary science in favor of the older, more
> > familiar, not very weird weirdness of established religions
> > or the occult.) I was thinking more of science as leading a
> > change in style, rather than providing explicit materials.
"JS2" <someon...@spamisevil.com>:
> That's an interesting point. Can you give some examples
> of what you mean by a change in style?
In the 19th century we observe a sort of triumphalist
physics that knew almost everything. In the 20th we begin to
hear remarks like Bohr's "It is wrong to think that the task
of physics is to find out how nature _is_. Physics concerns
only what we can _say_ about nature." Or Haldane's "My
own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than
we suppose, but queerer than we _can_ suppose." In other
words, humility and a retreat from authority on the part of
official science have come into fashion (a bit -- there were
and are many who disagree vehemently with these _dicta_).
JS2
Okay, no argument here on the change from the 19th to the
20th century view of the language of physical knowledge.
Thought I doubt I'd call the retereat a fashion; its more or
less drummed into you as an undergraduate and only becomes
heavier in graduate studies ... physics aims at best fit models
of the universe. There's no claims of absolute knowledge
(in fact that's considered to be impossible), and the assumption
is that current models will eventually be outdated or even
just plain wrong. I think you underestimate the change in
the physics psyche from the shock of the collapse of
Newtonian mechanics. And I'm wondering who the many
physicists who disagree (even mildly, let alone vehemently) with
this; I've never met a single physicist who thinks that what's
currently known is more than an approximate model for
reality.
It might be different in other sciences (biologists in
particular I find still believe in laws of physics, and are
often surprised at physicists refusal to consider their
theories more than just models ... it often comes up
in creationist/evolution debates, and sometimes the
biologists feel they've been stabbed in the back by
physicists reluctance to take a stronger stance on
how solid a scientific theory is).
-JS2
JS2
>
> No - the terms ATOM QUARK are used by science to glam up the work - where
> there is no scientific reason - use of terms like "STRANGE" DARK MATTER -
> BIG BANG etc WIMPs the list goes on - if they just had particle A B C with
> properties 1, 2, 3 it just would sound so cool. And of course (elsewhere)
> they seek the TOE. (which must then settle the God thing?) Like the
> Catholic Church one did they sell junk with the promise that its somehow
> holy - i.e. The International Space Station is justified by the promise of
> a
> cure for cancer... etc..
Couple of points. As a practical matter, most new particles are called
by the greek equivalent of A B C, simply because it would be
confusing in dialogue to use english letters. The older particles
have more pictorial names for historical reasons. Properties 1 2 3 etc
would be almost impossibly hard to teach, again as a practical
matter; we'd be up in the thousands, and our minds just don't
recall numbers that well ... we need some sort of descriptive
base.
But that aside, physicists don't care who uses physical terms
in themselves. Its a math based discipline, not a nomenclature
based one. Call your latest theory of sociology gluon
mechanics if you want; the physicists will think you're unimaginative
and probably a bit goofy, but they won't protest.
As for the TOE, you're misunderstanding what that means.
Its an attempt to unify the basic known forces in a single
mathematical model. Even if it succeeds (say in super
string theory), no physicist believes that it would be more than
a useful model for describing aspects of reality (though all
hope it would be that). God doesn't come into it (or
any other physical theory ... unless you believe that
creationist science is a real science).
> The evidence is the other way around - The dying person (from the roof) is
> doing just this regardless of QM or Classical Physics- QM and CP are just
> stories- if they prove the broken bones etc OK - if not its the theories
> which are wrong - not the event.
Sure, but you're speaking like a physicist now. The fact that things
fall to the earth (ignoring things like helium balloons and other such
nit picking) is part of object reality. The theories of why they
fall are just theories; no physicist is going to argue that they're more
than that. But if you say that there's no object reality that makes
things fall in the first place, then you seperate yourself from
the beliefs of physicists.
>> Okay, I'll bite. Why shouldn't the scientist be afraid of stepping
>> off the tall building? Gravity is a physical concept...
>>
> Gravity is a story - might be a good one or not - i'm not a scientist but
> i'm just scared of high buildings - before i even think why... my question
> is genuine - does the scientist figure out first - then if the sums add up
> become scared? We had a Dog once who would Howl in the car whenever we
> went
> over 70 mph (the UK speed limit-) could he read the signs and the
> dashboard?
No, science is very empirical in nature. You've got the process wrong.
The scientist notices that things fall, and then tries to figure out why...
experimental observations come before theory. Then the theory has
to predict new, as yet unseen phenomina. If it fails to do that, or if
the experiments fail to go as predicted, the theory is discarded, not
the observations (ie that things fall).
-JS2
JS2
>> No, scientists always believe in an objective reality (there's no point
>> in doing science otherwise).
>
> I think Hawking has accepted the imposibilty of this - (Godeling Physics)
> but still continues to do science...
Um, not sure what you mean by Godeling Physics...Godel was
a mathematician, mainly the logic of math, not sure he actually
did any physics, though he shared a building with Einstein in
Princeton, so I guess its possible. It certainly hasn't caught
on if he did ...
As for Hawkings, from everything I've read he takes the standard
line - physics makes models of reality. Hopefully the models
will improve in time, but they're just approximations. This is
what you'll find in every physics course from first year til
your PhD, and what you'll get from talking to any physicist
since the start of quantum mechanics and relativity almost
a century ago. The belief is that there is an objective
reality, but its unknowlable in an absolute sense. The best
we can do is make models that describe and predict some of its
behavior. To the extent that you're reading this over the internet,
most physicists would insist that there has been at least
some success in modelling aspects of reality's behavior.
> You may well think that the Universe is understanandable - but as you cant
> see outside of this understanding the practice is self fulfilling. That
> is -
> and i think Kant spotted this - what we think and what is there are
> totally
> different things.
Physicists will agree that what there is and what there is are
different ... hence the emphasis on models for the last century.
Where they'll differ with you is on the word totally: if we're
100% wrong, how is it possible that we've created our
current technology based on those models? A physicist
would say that object reality is unknowable, but that it
is possible to model reality's behavior to a certain extent.
> I cant speak for Po-Mo or maybe i can - then "objective reality" is what
> we
> would like to deconstruct... the only tools we appear to work with is our
> subjective imaginations - which is odd? Isnt the idea of "objective
> reality"
> just another form of the wish for God - by a consciousness aware of its
> own
> pointless and fatal journey. The scientist now dying at the foot of the
> building is comforted by knowing his theories will outlive him - there is
> something out there called objective reality... AKA God, AKA Mommy &
> Daddy... But neither are we are saying there is No Objective Reality - or
> No Santa Claus - but exploring this phenomena without fear of authority..
I think at this point you're talking about individuals and their beliefs.
I suspect the need for some sort of object reality is as varied as the
people who have it. I'll believe someone who claims to understand
what's behind human ideas and beliefs when they can demonstrate
to me that they can perfectly predict the behavior of everyone they
meet under a wide range of circumstances. People and minds are
complex, and physicists are smart enough to know we're no where
near to knowing how to model what goes on in our heads. If you
have kids, you'll have seen for yourself how they slowly learn to
interact with the world, and the huge number of things which
influence them (for good or for bad). If I can figure out my kids
(or my wife, for that matter), then I'll start working on understanding
on psychological needs of humanity as a whole. Which is not
to say I think you're wrong, just that I don't have the foggiest
idea if you're wrong or not.
> Maybe it is a social construct - but what drives us into it - is the same
> thing that drives people into church? Though i can account for science
> and
> art in social terms i cant account for myself that way? Even the idea of
> society seems then problematic.
Its a good question, but I don't think its one that anyone
can answer at the moment. The strange thing is I thought I
understood what drives humans better before I had kids.
Now I'm left shaking my head most of the time...and I have
good kids. Most of the time they surprise me in positive
ways. But surprise me they always do.
-JS2
G*rd*n
>>>> Not all the adaptations are necessarily as meretricious as
>>>> _The_Tao_of_Physics_. (Many New-Agey books seem to miss the
>>>> weirdness of contemporary science in favor of the older, more
>>>> familiar, not very weird weirdness of established religions
>>>> or the occult.) I was thinking more of science as leading a
>>>> change in style, rather than providing explicit materials.
"JS2" <someon...@spamisevil.com>:
>>> That's an interesting point. Can you give some examples
>>> of what you mean by a change in style?
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com>:
>> In the 19th century we observe a sort of triumphalist
>> physics that knew almost everything. In the 20th we begin to
>> hear remarks like Bohr's "It is wrong to think that the task
>> of physics is to find out how nature _is_. Physics concerns
>> only what we can _say_ about nature." Or Haldane's "My
>> own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than
>> we suppose, but queerer than we _can_ suppose." In other
>> words, humility and a retreat from authority on the part of
>> official science have come into fashion (a bit -- there were
>> and are many who disagree vehemently with these _dicta_).
"JS2" <someon...@spamisevil.com>:
> Okay, no argument here on the change from the 19th to the
> 20th century view of the language of physical knowledge.
> Thought I doubt I'd call the retereat a fashion; its more or
> less drummed into you as an undergraduate and only becomes
> heavier in graduate studies ... physics aims at best fit models
> of the universe. There's no claims of absolute knowledge
> (in fact that's considered to be impossible), and the assumption
> is that current models will eventually be outdated or even
> just plain wrong. I think you underestimate the change in
> the physics psyche from the shock of the collapse of
> Newtonian mechanics. And I'm wondering who the many
> physicists who disagree (even mildly, let alone vehemently) with
> this; I've never met a single physicist who thinks that what's
> currently known is more than an approximate model for
> reality.
>
> It might be different in other sciences (biologists in
> particular I find still believe in laws of physics, and are
> often surprised at physicists refusal to consider their
> theories more than just models ... it often comes up
> in creationist/evolution debates, and sometimes the
> biologists feel they've been stabbed in the back by
> physicists reluctance to take a stronger stance on
> how solid a scientific theory is).
There was a big debate on the Net several years ago about the
ontological status of physical laws. (Gravity is real, but
is the law of gravity real? That sort of thing, along with
brains in vats of course.) Many true believers rushed to the
barricades including a number of people I believe worked or
at least majored in sciences or mathematics. I gathered from
the exchanges that many who consider themselves as having a
scientific outlook, or to be skeptics, have not yet gotten
the word. Nevertheless, the cat (Schroedinger's?) has been
out of the bag for many years now.
JS2
>
> There was a big debate on the Net several years ago about the
> ontological status of physical laws. (Gravity is real, but
> is the law of gravity real? That sort of thing, along with
> brains in vats of course.) Many true believers rushed to the
> barricades including a number of people I believe worked or
> at least majored in sciences or mathematics. I gathered from
> the exchanges that many who consider themselves as having a
> scientific outlook, or to be skeptics, have not yet gotten
> the word. Nevertheless, the cat (Schroedinger's?) has been
> out of the bag for many years now.
Hm, hard to believe any were physicists, especially if you
were discussing gravity. Currently one fundamental problem
in physics is that general relativity can't be quantized; either
it or quantum mechanics must be fundamentally flawed (note
the must - its possible that both are, but at least one must be.
Currently super string theory looks to be the best way of
unifying the forces, which might mean that both QM and GR are
flawed). Physicists look at this and shrug; every physicist
expects that every theory will eventually be replaced by a
better theory, so conflicts are just part of the game. You use
the model which works for your particular needs and continue
trying to refine your little corner of the model.
Philosophy students on the other hand are more likely (based
only on my very limited personal experience with a few of them)
seem to feel the conflict between QM and GR should shake
the physics community. I wonder if these were the folks
taking part in your discussion?
-JS2
Jennifer Armstrong
only on my very limited personal experience with a few of them)
seem to feel the conflict between QM and GR should shake
the physics community. I wonder if these were the folks
taking part in your discussion?
-JS2
Of course there are different kinds of philosophy students -- or so one
would hope. I'm not sure how many of them demand an immediate and
accessibly uniform description of the universe...Postmodernists (some), on
the other hand, often want to upset the whole chess board when they do not
find immediate solutions -- it is obviously upsetting to some, on an
existential level. They should be forced to wait...ad infinitum.
G*rd*n
> > ontological status of physical laws. (Gravity is real, but
> > is the law of gravity real? That sort of thing, along with
> > brains in vats of course.) Many true believers rushed to the
> > barricades including a number of people I believe worked or
> > at least majored in sciences or mathematics. I gathered from
> > the exchanges that many who consider themselves as having a
> > scientific outlook, or to be skeptics, have not yet gotten
> > the word. Nevertheless, the cat (Schroedinger's?) has been
> > out of the bag for many years now.
"JS2" <j...@spam.is.evil.com>:
> Hm, hard to believe any were physicists, especially if you
> were discussing gravity.
Everything was discussed -- gravity being merely an example.
The discussion raged along from about January 1996 to at
least May or June, and then Sokal's Hoax came along. You
can search for such threads as "Science Illiteracy in the
USA" and "My Letter to the New York Times", alt.postmodern,
any time in 1996. Warning: they are long, with lots of
flammage.
"JS2" <j...@spam.is.evil.com>:
> Currently one fundamental problem
> in physics is that general relativity can't be quantized; either
> it or quantum mechanics must be fundamentally flawed (note
> the must - its possible that both are, but at least one must be.
> Currently super string theory looks to be the best way of
> unifying the forces, which might mean that both QM and GR are
> flawed). Physicists look at this and shrug; every physicist
> expects that every theory will eventually be replaced by a
> better theory, so conflicts are just part of the game. You use
> the model which works for your particular needs and continue
> trying to refine your little corner of the model.
>
> Philosophy students on the other hand are more likely (based
> only on my very limited personal experience with a few of them)
> seem to feel the conflict between QM and GR should shake
> the physics community. I wonder if these were the folks
> taking part in your discussion?
I thought string theory was now passé. But I'm not up
on these things.
JS2
> I thought string theory was now passé. But I'm not up
> on these things.
Well, now its called super string theory (among other things).
You're right the original string theory has been abandoned,
or perhaps it should be said, has evolved. But most physicists
are lazy, and just call it string theory for short ... and there are
a number of variations on it, which are starting to look as if they're
equivalent. Like I said, physics is about modelling, not ultimate
truth, and the models evolve and adapt as necessary. Sort of like
the way you'd hope your mechanic looks at any problems your car
might be having ... you wouldn't want him or her to have a fixed
idea of what's going on in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Anyway, its been interesting. I know next to nothing about
post modernism, and was just lurking a bit because of some
conversations with a friend. It seems to be much more
reasonable than how she'd represented it. Have fun.
-JS2
James Whitehead
>
> "James Whitehead" <x...@yyy.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d4d58n$evv$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> >> No, scientists always believe in an objective reality (there's no point
> >> in doing science otherwise).
> >
> > I think Hawking has accepted the imposibilty of this - (Godeling
Physics)
> > but still continues to do science...
>
> Um, not sure what you mean by Godeling Physics...Godel was
> a mathematician, mainly the logic of math, not sure he actually
> did any physics, though he shared a building with Einstein in
> Princeton, so I guess its possible. It certainly hasn't caught
> on if he did ...
>
> As for Hawkings, from everything I've read he takes the standard
> line - physics makes models of reality. Hopefully the models
> will improve in time, but they're just approximations. This is
> what you'll find in every physics course from first year til
> your PhD, and what you'll get from talking to any physicist
> since the start of quantum mechanics and relativity almost
> a century ago. The belief is that there is an objective
> reality, but its unknowlable in an absolute sense. The best
> we can do is make models that describe and predict some of its
> behavior. To the extent that you're reading this over the internet,
> most physicists would insist that there has been at least
In a recent article in New Scientist and elsewhere Hawkings admitted that
Physics falls prey to the Godel principle - and change his views regarding
the ability of physics to know... other work has been done by Chatin (sp) -
we here in po-mo have rehearsed these many times- picking up other threads
as far as string theory its a fairly abstract activity - i dont have the
reference here but the guy whose into string theory relies on aesthetics for
proof... etc. Physics have admitted that what they do does not correspond
to the observed world - Hawkings does not look at the world - first - but
creates elegant mathematical models... but as i say this is old ground -
what is interesting is the idea of an "objective reality" which is not part
of physics at all - or if it is forms a religious basis. Hindus believe the
given world is not real at all - the idea of a given reality lies in the
belief in a God / Creator - ensuring that the world is real / true etc...
and understandable to humans - i.e. made for them. Given such an ontology
the rest flows - until recently...
>
> > You may well think that the Universe is understanandable - but as you
cant
> > see outside of this understanding the practice is self fulfilling. That
> > is -
> > and i think Kant spotted this - what we think and what is there are
> > totally
> > different things.
>
> Physicists will agree that what there is and what there is are
> different ... hence the emphasis on models for the last century.
> Where they'll differ with you is on the word totally: if we're
> 100% wrong, how is it possible that we've created our
> current technology based on those models? A physicist
> would say that object reality is unknowable, but that it
> is possible to model reality's behavior to a certain extent.
>
Its not needed - the idea of a reality - the models can stand by themselves-
they are only wrong if you have the idea of a metaphysical truth out there
which we can compare... logically silly.. like the idea of getting ever
closer.... whereas science produces generalizations - in a world of
difference. I suppose some think po-mo sets out to show science as wrong -
but it doesnt - just set out to explore it...
To put it simply all science produces is generalizations - which sadly are
by some thought as laws...
Mounard le Fougueux
> "James Whitehead" <x...@yyy.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d4d58n$evv$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>
>>>No, scientists always believe in an objective reality (there's no point
>>>in doing science otherwise).
>
> Um, not sure what you mean by Godeling Physics...Godel was
> a mathematician, mainly the logic of math, not sure he actually
> did any physics, though he shared a building with Einstein in
> Princeton, so I guess its possible. It certainly hasn't caught
> on if he did ...
>
> As for Hawkings, from everything I've read he takes the standard
> line - physics makes models of reality. Hopefully the models
> will improve in time, but they're just approximations.
...
> The belief is that there is an objective
> reality, but its unknowlable in an absolute sense. The best
> we can do is make models that describe and predict some of its
> behavior.
1. In the popular media (and I include PhiSci as part of popular media),
there is assumed to be a distiction between "scientific models" as
apposed to "scientific laws". Furthermore it is assumed that at some
point in time "science realized" its error in assuming that it was laws
and reduced its expectations to simply being models or approximations.
This artificial distinction is due (as is most philosophic error) to
assuming that since there are two linguistic descriptions of science
(metaphors) that there must necessarily be two "kinds" of science (in
the old days philosophers would probably have talked about two
"substances" of science ). Thus the existance of a multiplicity of
metaphors give a psychological reality to a multiplicity of sciences,
where in fact there are none - another example of linguistic ghosts that
haunt philosophy.
2. The term "laws of science" of course psychologically invoke the
notion of "Authority" and "authoritarianism" that G@rd@n alluded to
earlier. The idea of (the laws of ) science as being authoritarian is
due exclusively to rigidly authoritarian hierarchical groups who feel
threatened by the rationality and empiricism of science:
- in the renaissance it was the Catholic church (see the Trials of
Galileo) that was threatened by the impudence of science making univeral
truth claims without the authority of the church.
- in the 19th century it was both established and nonconformist churches
whose authority was felt to be under attack by the new Darwinian ideas
of evolution.
- In the US, conservative religious groups are trying to remove
evolutionaty biology from school textbooks under the arguement that
"science is only a theory" equal in authority to religious "theories".
- in the US, postmodernist theoreticians likewise assault the
"privledged metanarrative that science is imposing on society" - in this
they are defending their turf from scientific review.
3. Science can be thought of as a set of laws of and as modeling the
universe, without any contradiction.
The sense of contradiction seems to occur because the "laws of nature"
seems to be associated with the ideas of "ultimate laws" of "ultimate
truth". The idea of "ultimate truth" seems to be associated with science
by association with its adversaries.
Religion has always claimed to be the "ultimate truth", so in the
popular mind, since science claims be be better at explaining reality,
it must possess a "more ultimate truth" then religion. A mistaken
assumption.
Likewise, religious defenders of biblical and religious authority are
mystified that science can possibly challenge them based only on
"theories" and other provisional truths.
the idea of "ultimate truth" is a purely metaphysical concept that can,
by nature, never have any physcial or mathematical meaning - much like
the concept of god.
Science since its origins consisted of making mathematically consistent
formulations (models) of physically measurable quantities (which are
therefore testable and therefore buildable!) The more important (i.e.
far reaching) are called laws. Examples are Newtons laws, Carnots laws,
Maxwells Laws, etc. Laws are simply equations which interrelate
physically measurable quatities.
All physical equations since day one have been provisional in the sense
that:
1. they are trying to descibe a particular system in a particular
context under a particular well defined set of circunstances. Change the
system to be described, and the equations or boundary consitions will
change as well. When trying to measure a carpet, a 2-dimensional model
of the earths surface is better then an 11-dimensional one. It Depends.
2. Science and engineering use andvances in mathematics to build their
models (i.e. their equations or laws). as the math tools advance so do
the models, or laws. It is understood that the sciences and engineering
will advance as the mathematical tools advance. Sometimes the opposite
occurs: problems in sciences induce research in mathematics which in
turn are used in other branches of the sciences.
3. Sciences depend on technology which advances observation: Galileo
undertood that with better optics and telescopes he would be able to
reach better understanding of our planetary system.
4. Since science can be thought of as a set of laws, then progress in
formulating new scientific laws can be thought of much like the way laws
change in countries - one set of laws otherthrow another. Just like in
England new Norman Laws violently and disruptively overthrew Saxon laws.
Thus the idea continues with the notion that Newton overthrew Galileo
and Kepler, Einstein other threw Newton, etc.
Granted that this is a phsychologically coherent perspective, but
unfortunately it is completely wrong - reguardless of how many thomas
kuhn books get sold every year.
Perhaps we can also say that Euclid overthrew Pythagorus, or that Cauchy
overthrew Euler, or that Weierstrass overthrew Decarte or that Cantor
overthew Riemann.
Unfortunately the "paradigm" if Scienctific Models (laws or theories)
overthrowing other scientific Models (or laws of theories) came to
science from philosophy because that is how philosophy "progresses" - by
philosophical trends dialectically overthrowing one another -
idealism(Kant) versus Nietchze, modernism vs postmodernism, Popper
versus Wittgenstein, Derrida versus Searle, Exisitentialism versus
Analysis, etc..
Philosophial schools, much like the egos of their champions, are
mutually exclusive and change only by overthrow. Science doesn't operate
in that fashion. However that is the image of science created by those,
who like very bad portrait painters can only paint crude images of
themslves when tring to paint others. Also, unfortunately, philosophers
of science spend too much time studying the philosophy of science rather
then science.
Scientific models don't overthrow earlier models, but MUST contain the
accurate results of their predecessors within the new theories.
For example, Electromagnetic theory (as referred to by the name Maxwells
equations) didn't overthrow geometrical optics. EMag theory is
formulated using more sophisticated mathematics then geometrical optics,
but nonetheless yields the same results in the same way in the domain
of interest that geometrical optics "focuses" on.
Likewise, Quantum mechanics doesn't overthrow classical mechanics, but
solves problems that classical mechanics cann't , yet yields the same
results in those areas where classical mechanics originnaly succeeded.
Did the idea of Complex numbers "overthrow" real numbers? It IS true
that thinking changed (progressed) with complex numbers, but complex
numbers contain real numbers within themselves. Those earlier problems
that were easily solved by real numbers are still easily solved by real
numbers. But some problems formerly intractable using real numbers are
now easily solvable using complex numbers ( using the "laws of complex
numbers" i.e. their theorums).
Are commplex numbers "laws"? - yes, they are theorums and are consistent.
Are complex numbers "generalizations" ? they generalize upon their
predecessor (real numbers). Yes.
Are complex numbers "models"? Are complex numbers better "models" then
real numbes?
Yes - yes a vastly greater range of physical systems can be solved
easily using complex numbers that weren't solvable restricting onself to
real numbers.
Did Complex numbers "overthrow" real numbers?
Obviously not - real numbers still live as a subset of complex numbers.
(As are integers and rational numbers)
Are complex numbers a different "paradigm" from real numbers?
Complex numbers are more powerfull then real numbers and have more
properties. But the term "paradigm" implies some kind of incompatability
- either psychological, or political or organizational, like different
religious beliefs. As such, complex numbers are NOT a different paradigm
from real numbers (they are not "incompatible").
Are complex numbers the "ultimate truth"?
No - 1. because "Ultimate truth" is undefined. 2. - no theorum prevents
further generalizations. Also nothing prevents the discovery of further
mathematical contructs that might lead to the solution of even greater
scopes of problems.
Bye (must go paint the bathroom)
James Whitehead
> "privledged metanarrative that science is imposing on society" - in this
> they are defending their turf from scientific review.
>
> 3. Science can be thought of as a set of laws of and as modeling the
> universe, without any contradiction.
One can think of all kinds of things without contradiction...
>
> The sense of contradiction seems to occur because the "laws of nature"
> seems to be associated with the ideas of "ultimate laws" of "ultimate
> truth". The idea of "ultimate truth" seems to be associated with science
> by association with its adversaries.
>
> Religion has always claimed to be the "ultimate truth", so in the
> popular mind, since science claims be be better at explaining reality,
> it must possess a "more ultimate truth" then religion. A mistaken
> assumption.
How is it we recognise religion from science? It appears that science is
just what scientists call what they do - and nothing much more...
>
> Likewise, religious defenders of biblical and religious authority are
> mystified that science can possibly challenge them based only on
> "theories" and other provisional truths.
>
> the idea of "ultimate truth" is a purely metaphysical concept that can,
> by nature, never have any physcial or mathematical meaning - much like
> the concept of god.
The idea of truth is metaphysical.... as is the idea of generalisations -
found both in science and religion..
>
> Science since its origins consisted of making mathematically consistent
> formulations (models) of physically measurable quantities (which are
> therefore testable and therefore buildable!) The more important (i.e.
> far reaching) are called laws. Examples are Newtons laws, Carnots laws,
> Maxwells Laws, etc. Laws are simply equations which interrelate
> physically measurable quantities.
But this ignores much of science - Biology Botany Geology Evolution
theory - Psychology... Sociology ... and extends to cosmology and physics
now - as these too have un-measurable elements. Perhaps you are referring
to natural philosophy? Anyway how is stamp collecting different from certain
forms of Botany? Other than by the choice of name.
[...]
You appear to have conflated Science with a very narrow form of physics?
And the inability to put an atom in a box perfectly - yet alone a cat should
pose a pause for thought...
Mounard le Fougueux
> ................
>
>>"privledged metanarrative that science is imposing on society" - in this
>>they are defending their turf from scientific review.
>>
>>3. Science can be thought of as a set of laws of and as modeling the
>>universe, without any contradiction.
>
>
> One can think of all kinds of things without contradiction...
Yes and no.
>
>
>>The sense of contradiction seems to occur because the "laws of nature"
>>seems to be associated with the ideas of "ultimate laws" of "ultimate
>>truth". The idea of "ultimate truth" seems to be associated with science
>>by association with its adversaries.
>>
>>Religion has always claimed to be the "ultimate truth", so in the
>>popular mind, since science claims be be better at explaining reality,
>>it must possess a "more ultimate truth" then religion. A mistaken
>>assumption.
>
>
> How is it we recognise religion from science? It appears that science is
> just what scientists call what they do - and nothing much more...
Right! A scientist's got to do what a scientist's got to do. (p.s.:
that's also very logocentric of you!)
>>Likewise, religious defenders of biblical and religious authority are
>>mystified that science can possibly challenge them based only on
>>"theories" and other provisional truths.
>>
>>the idea of "ultimate truth" is a purely metaphysical concept that can,
>>by nature, never have any physcial or mathematical meaning - much like
>>the concept of god.
>
>
> The idea of truth is metaphysical.... as is the idea of generalisations -
> found both in science and religion..
I find your statement above metaphysical as well. In fact maybe
everything is metaphysical, except nothing is not metaphysical, or if
not, perhaps metaphysics has no "differance" (french pronounciation)...
What is the generalizationn of "God" - "Gods"? or vice versa?
>
>
>>Science since its origins consisted of making mathematically consistent
>>formulations (models) of physically measurable quantities (which are
>>therefore testable and therefore buildable!) The more important (i.e.
>>far reaching) are called laws. Examples are Newtons laws, Carnots laws,
>>Maxwells Laws, etc. Laws are simply equations which interrelate
>>physically measurable quantities.
>
>
> But this ignores much of science - Biology Botany Geology Evolution
> theory - Psychology... Sociology ... and extends to cosmology and physics
> now - as these too have un-measurable elements.
ok, i'll byte, whats unmeasureable in physics?
Perhaps you are referring
> to natural philosophy?
I'm afraid I don't know much about natural philosophy except that the
British seem to do it alot.
Anyway how is stamp collecting different from certain
> forms of Botany? Other than by the choice of name.
Not much, except botanists sometimes get to name their plants, but
stamp collectors have their stamps pre-named. Also, butterfly collectors
use pins and ether, whereas stamp collectors use "hinges". Both use
tweezers.
>
>
>
> [...] {signifying short attention span }
>
> You appear to have conflated Science with a very narrow form of physics?
1. more precisely I put mathematics at the very heart of the scientific
revolution.
2. turtles on turtles: Physicists use math, chemists use physics,
biologists use chemistry, psychologists use biology, and advertisers use
psychology...
Some sciences are more concerned creating the basic sicetific tools, and
other sciences use those tools to solve particular problems, some of
which are historical rather then purely scientific, but done using
rigorous scietific methods and tools.
An example would be a forensic pathologist who is basically doing
history: what happened when to cause this person's death. Similarly
paleontology is a form of history, done using scientific method and
tools (i.e. math, physics and chemistry).
3. I've heard of the inflationary theory of the Universe, as well as the
Deflationary theory of the Universe. are you proposing a new
Conflationary theory of the Universe?
> And the inability to put an atom in a box perfectly - yet alone a cat should
> pose a pause for thought...
Cats are always posing - they are the runway-models of the animal kingdom.
James Whitehead
"Mounard le Fougueux" <Foug...@daeventhorizon.com> wrote in message
news:E5adneghxYe...@adelphia.com...
> James Whitehead wrote:
> > ................
> >
> >>"privledged metanarrative that science is imposing on society" - in this
> >>they are defending their turf from scientific review.
> >>
> >>3. Science can be thought of as a set of laws of and as modeling the
> >>universe, without any contradiction.
> >
> >
> > One can think of all kinds of things without contradiction...
>
> Yes and no.
Its been said that - that is all mathematics is - contradiction and
tautology - which is pretty empty - and so if that in turn is the basis for
science then it too becomes contentless. Without even bothering with the
problems of mathematics science always needs something else - otherwise its
nothing more than mathematics... and this something else lacks the rigour
(not that this is guaranteed ) of mathematics.
>
> >
> >
> >>The sense of contradiction seems to occur because the "laws of nature"
> >>seems to be associated with the ideas of "ultimate laws" of "ultimate
> >>truth". The idea of "ultimate truth" seems to be associated with science
> >>by association with its adversaries.
> >>
> >>Religion has always claimed to be the "ultimate truth", so in the
> >>popular mind, since science claims be be better at explaining reality,
> >>it must possess a "more ultimate truth" then religion. A mistaken
> >>assumption.
> >
> >
> > How is it we recognise religion from science? It appears that science
is
> > just what scientists call what they do - and nothing much more...
>
> Right! A scientist's got to do what a scientist's got to do. (p.s.:
> that's also very logocentric of you!)
But within science they stand on a metaphysics which is decidedly religious-
a belief in a consistent universe where there is no definite evidence...
>
> >>Likewise, religious defenders of biblical and religious authority are
> >>mystified that science can possibly challenge them based only on
> >>"theories" and other provisional truths.
> >>
> >>the idea of "ultimate truth" is a purely metaphysical concept that can,
> >>by nature, never have any physcial or mathematical meaning - much like
> >>the concept of god.
> >
> >
> > The idea of truth is metaphysical.... as is the idea of
generalisations -
> > found both in science and religion..
>
> I find your statement above metaphysical as well. In fact maybe
> everything is metaphysical, except nothing is not metaphysical, or if
> not, perhaps metaphysics has no "differance" (french pronounciation)...
The act of my sitting here typing is not metaphysical- though the statement
might appear so - it isn't. By metaphysics above i was alluding to the
ideas behind/beyond science...
>
> What is the generalizationn of "God" - "Gods"? or vice versa?
Both are non specific -
>
> >
> >
> >>Science since its origins consisted of making mathematically consistent
> >>formulations (models) of physically measurable quantities (which are
> >>therefore testable and therefore buildable!) The more important (i.e.
> >>far reaching) are called laws. Examples are Newtons laws, Carnots laws,
> >>Maxwells Laws, etc. Laws are simply equations which interrelate
> >>physically measurable quantities.
> >
> >
> > But this ignores much of science - Biology Botany Geology Evolution
> > theory - Psychology... Sociology ... and extends to cosmology and
physics
> > now - as these too have un-measurable elements.
>
> ok, i'll byte, whats unmeasureable in physics?
Almost if not everything... but certainly cosmologists cannot experiment and
this now applies i thought to string theory and much of physics which lies
beyond practical if not theoretical measurement.
>
> Perhaps you are referring
> > to natural philosophy?
>
> I'm afraid I don't know much about natural philosophy except that the
> British seem to do it alot.
Its what Newton did...
>
> Anyway how is stamp collecting different from certain
> > forms of Botany? Other than by the choice of name.
> Not much, except botanists sometimes get to name their plants, but
> stamp collectors have their stamps pre-named. Also, butterfly collectors
> use pins and ether, whereas stamp collectors use "hinges". Both use
> tweezers.
> >
> > [...] {signifying short attention span }
Where is your evidence for that?
>
> >
> > You appear to have conflated Science with a very narrow form of physics?
>
> 1. more precisely I put mathematics at the very heart of the scientific
> revolution.
Thats nice - my hero is Faraday - who knew no maths but did one heck of
allot of science. So i'd put observation at the centre - you can have
science without mathematics but you cant get science from just mathematics
alone- perhaps mathematics itself needs other objects - but that another
story...
>
> 2. turtles on turtles: Physicists use math, chemists use physics,
> biologists use chemistry, psychologists use biology, and advertisers use
> psychology...
Neither do psychologists need biology - and many do not.... biology provides
very little for psychology - it began with observation- such a determined
line you offer would give advertisers a degree of certainty they do not
have - (and all the other disciplines) - and why limit it to this - if such
a determinist chain can be established then why aren't physicists employed
by sachi and sachi - or why for that matter physicists go in for making
pop-tunes...
>
> Some sciences are more concerned creating the basic sicetific tools, and
> other sciences use those tools to solve particular problems, some of
> which are historical rather then purely scientific, but done using
> rigorous scietific methods and tools.
>
> An example would be a forensic pathologist who is basically doing
> history: what happened when to cause this person's death.
Yet with a good lawer it amounts to nothing....
Similarly
> paleontology is a form of history, done using scientific method and
> tools (i.e. math, physics and chemistry).
You have to find the bones first....
>
> 3. I've heard of the inflationary theory of the Universe, as well as the
> Deflationary theory of the Universe. are you proposing a new
> Conflationary theory of the Universe?
If i go onto the street i'll see many cars - so i assume they all must have
been created at one time in one giant fireball - i'm led to this in
particular by the amazing similarities - dimensions and properties of my
observations which i can calculate mathematically to produce statistics to
underpin my claims.
>
> > And the inability to put an atom in a box perfectly - yet alone a cat
should
> > pose a pause for thought...
>
> Cats are always posing - they are the runway-models of the animal kingdom.
Who would you rather have as a defence lawyer- OJ Simpson's Lawyer or a
noble physicist....