What is philosophical metaphysics?
TRINITINE
for expressing ideas on science related too philosophical metaphysics. For
those who don't know what philosophical metaphysics is, here is an explanation:
Philosophical metaphysic is what is beyond physics, beyond science. It is the
seeking for ultimate principles, purposes, perfections, and perspective that
are ultimate premises from which most, if not all knowledge may be deduced. It
seeks for the ultimate standards by which to judge the truth of all values. It
seeks for ultimate truths to which all rational persons can agree. It seeks for
whagt can unify all knowledge into a Grand Unifying Theory.
Metaphysics relates to science because its ultimate principles are the same
that apply to all knowledge, making a unity of theology-philosophy-science.
Trinitine
Davin C. Enigl
>The title of this newsgroup is: sci.philosophy.meta. I assume this means it is
>for expressing ideas on science related too philosophical metaphysics.
I see this newsgroup as talking about what the process called science
assumes as a reasonable (rational) metaphysics. That is the
*rational* process, e.g., The accumulation of objective knowledge in:
The search for truth, the search for tentative truth, the search for
approximation to truth, the search for explanation of phenomena.
(Usually this means pancritical rationalism, critical empiricism
and/or critical rationalism from an epistemological view (if you can
even do that with metaphysics).
There are several different metaphysics that the scientific process is
based on that are rational to me.
For example: the body-mind problem (monism, dualism, pluralism), the
problem of cause and effect, the problem of substance (usually
rejected by modern science in favor of field/process fundamental
physical categories), assumed regularity of physics in different parts
of the universe, the problem of event frameworks (how events can cause
things).
> For
>those who don't know what philosophical metaphysics is, here is an explanation:
>
>Philosophical metaphysic is what is beyond physics, beyond science.
>It is the
>seeking for ultimate principles, purposes, perfections, and perspective that
>are ultimate premises from which most, if not all knowledge may be deduced. It
>seeks for the ultimate standards by which to judge the truth of all values. It
>seeks for ultimate truths to which all rational persons can agree. It seeks for
>whagt can unify all knowledge into a Grand Unifying Theory.
Today, metaphysics tends to be "pre-suppositions" of the scientific
process.
There also tends to be an argument that there is NOT only one
metaphysics say . . . for thought, thinking, knowledge formation:
eliminativism in the philosophy of mind -- impossibility of
theological knowledge, (I think) and postmodernism -- (I think)
rejects objective knowledge. Also, realism, anti-realism,
materialism, fideism, solipsism, transcendental idealism, idealism, .
. .
. . . some of these I believe are NOT rationally held and are not good
subjects for this science-oriented newsgroup. I don't think this ng
was intended to be a theological related ng. So, I further don't
think this is a good place to discuss theology and science unification
metaphysics. I have notices when this discussion gets going it often
leads directly into incompatible epistemologies (e.g, religious
fundumentalism vs. science or solipsism (pure mind) vs. some for of
physicalism, etc. Even idealism (immaterialism) vs. a physics external
world/materialism/realism). Then the discussion degrades right out of
science and into nothing useful for this science-oriented newsgroup.
NOT that these things shouldn't be discussed, but these things seem
off-topic to me for this ng. There is plenty to discuss: E.g., Why
should the universe be discoverable at all? Why is it regular? Why
does quantum physics seem so metaphysical? Why does quantum physics
predict time travel and the reversal of cause and effect?
>Metaphysics relates to science because its ultimate principles are the same
>that apply to all knowledge, making a unity of theology-philosophy-science.
One of the most respected philosophers of science, Rudolf Carnap
rejected any possibility of metaphysics and said so in his Schilpp
volume and his Scheinprobleme in der Philosophie (metaphysical
problems are pseudo-problems. In other words he though metaphysics as
meaningless "hot-air." He was to my mind, the most gifted logical
positivist of the Vienna Circle.
This goes back to Hume and to Wittgenstein who said in his
"Tractatus", only science can make meaningful statements because of
verification of the statements as true, after that there are no
meaningful unanswerable questions left (because the answers can't be
verified). [I disagree with this BTW, I only point it out because
logical positivism still has influence today (Quine), even after its
refutation by Popper and others].
>Trinitine
Good post Trinitine.
Interesting Ian
"Davin C. Enigl" <en...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3b326f99...@news.earthlink.net...
I think you have the wrong idea about what this newsgroup is about.
As far as I'm aware it is a newsgroup for the discussion of
*philosophical* issues, concentrating mainly on *metaphysics* and the
*philosophy of science*. I don't think that it is intended purely for
the speculative physics you have in mind, although I would imagine
people would not mind you occasionally discussing this subject area.
There are other newsgroups more appropriate for such speculative
physics though. On the other hand this is the only newsgroup I am
aware of which is explicitly about metaphysics and the philosophy of
science. My absolute favourite subjects ever!! Please do not deter
people from talking about those topics that this newsgroup is supposed
to discuss. I repeat, this is the only newsgroup of its type!
|
| >Metaphysics relates to science because its ultimate principles are
the same
| >that apply to all knowledge, making a unity of
theology-philosophy-science.
|
| One of the most respected philosophers of science, Rudolf Carnap
| rejected any possibility of metaphysics and said so in his Schilpp
| volume and his Scheinprobleme in der Philosophie (metaphysical
| problems are pseudo-problems. In other words he though metaphysics
as
| meaningless "hot-air." He was to my mind, the most gifted logical
| positivist of the Vienna Circle.
If he totally rejected metaphysics it doesn't say much for those who
respect him.
Interesting Ian ICQ 76975385
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ian.wardell/index.htm
Steve Merrick
news:3b326f99...@news.earthlink.net...
> I see this newsgroup as talking
> about what the process called science
> assumes as a reasonable (rational)
> metaphysics. That is the
> *rational* process, e.g., The
> accumulation of objective knowledge...
[Apologies to contributors who've seen this argument before.]
Can I stop you there?
Given that human perception is not objective, how do you propose to
verify any objective knowledge you may come across? If you can't
(objectively) verify such knowledge, then it isn't objective, is it?
Please note that, while I consider the search for *objective* knowledge
to be pointless, IMO the search for knowledge is certainly *not*
pointless. Why concentrate on knowledge which is only of use to
creatures with objective perception, when we could direct our energies
towards understandings of use to humans?
--
Steve Merrick
And ye harm none, do what ye will.
Davin C. Enigl
<Steve....@Marconi.com> wrote:
>"Davin C. Enigl" <en...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:3b326f99...@news.earthlink.net...
>
>> I see this newsgroup as talking
>> about what the process called science
>> assumes as a reasonable (rational)
>> metaphysics. That is the
>> *rational* process, e.g., The
>> accumulation of objective knowledge...
>
>[Apologies to contributors who've seen this argument before.]
>
>Can I stop you there?
>
>Given that human perception is not objective, how do you propose to
>verify any objective knowledge you may come across? If you can't
>(objectively) verify such knowledge, then it isn't objective, is it?
Yes it can be objective because the knwledge is not personal
subjectiove perception after critical rationalism takes place i.e.,
testing the theory against realist. In other words criticism. Read
more in Popper's Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, or
David Miller's Critical Rationalism, or Radnizky and Bartley's
Evolutionary Epistemology Rationality and the Sociology of Knowledge.
Here is a summary of this approach:
Summary of non-authoritarian pan-critical rationalism:
(1) There are no ultimate sources of knowledge.
(2) All we can do is ask if an assertion is true in that it agrees
with the facts.
(3) Previously held beliefs that agreed with the facts continue to be
held by tradition. (There is nothing wrong with this -- in
principle).
(4) Antitraditionalism is not important for its own sake -- in
principle. But all tradition is open to critical examination and may
be over thrown if found to be wrong.
(5) Knowledge cannot start from nothing (i.e., not from tabula rasa)
and knowledge cannot start from observation. The advancement of
knowledge comes from modification and correction of earlier knowledge
(the basis for traditional beliefs).
(6) Neither knowledge nor reason is beyond criticism (nor are they
sources of ultimate authority).
(7) Absolute precision is impossible. Definitions and meanings lead
to the fallacy of infinite regress, therefore cannot be important.
Clarity is achieved by understanding illustrative examples.
(8) Every solution creates new problems. This makes our knowledge
finite and our ignorance not only intractable but also infinite -- in
principle.
(9) The above numbered theses are open to criticism.
Now we come to the implications for my metaphysical conceptualization
of reality:
Metaphysical beliefs are rationally-held or irrational-held - 3), 5).
Nobody "knows" for sure who is right, (1),(7). But are the beliefs
rationally held, (2), (8)? From (1), *proof* of a metaphysical
theory is impossible as it is with any theory. Only rational
(tentative,(7)) disproof is possible, from (2), (4), (6), (8).
Rationality (1) through (8) is the best way (6) humans make what we
hope are the best decisions, assessments, judgments and cull out the
worst (in this case metaphysical) theories. I'm sorry we don't have
anything better: lets create a concept for something better than
rationality (6): Unicornality (mystical perfection does not exist
rationally).
My metaphysical theory preference is: Transcendental Realism. There
are rational reasons for this: There is a physical world independent
of me called reality (2), (3), (5). When I close my eyes, the world
just keeps on going (2), 3). Before I was born and after I die, it
still exists (2), (3), (5). There are parts of reality we humans may
-- in principle -- never get to explore, explain or predict (5), (6)
-- a transcendental world (meta-reality) -- it may or may not (4)
interact with the world of reality. So far my beliefs have not been
disproved (4).
I give the scientific theories (3), (4), (5) credit to solve technical
problems (8) and build the technology because they get closer and
closer to reality (2). That is not an assertion outside of my
rationally based metaphysic. As I say, if you think I am wrong,
please feel free to tell me why (1) my transcendental realism *can't*
(4) let theories get closer to reality and to truth (2).
>Please note that, while I consider the search for *objective* knowledge
>to be pointless, IMO the search for knowledge is certainly *not*
>pointless. Why concentrate on knowledge which is only of use to
>creatures with objective perception, when we could direct our energies
>towards understandings of use to humans?
Science, via testing, negates erroneous propositions (finds the wrong
theories). That is why scientific theories change for the better.
The result is the power to create new technology. I conclude that
this allows for a true advancement of knowledge because I would rather
fly 2000 miles in a jet aircraft than ride 2000 miles on the back of a
donkey. Science, culls out the errors and gets close enough to the
truth to solve problems. That is why we have the technology for you
to send me a message. That is science's main job. Ethics then takes
over . . . but that's not science, that's another story.
Davin C. Enigl
<Steve....@Marconi.com> wrote:
>"Davin C. Enigl" <en...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:3b326f99...@news.earthlink.net...
>
>> I see this newsgroup as talking
>> about what the process called science
>> assumes as a reasonable (rational)
>> metaphysics. That is the
>> *rational* process, e.g., The
>> accumulation of objective knowledge...
>Given that human perception is not objective, how do you propose to
>verify any objective knowledge you may come across? If you can't
>(objectively) verify such knowledge, then it isn't objective, is it?
Another aspect to this is the *refutation* (see below) that all
"perception" *must" be not objective (e.g., the immaterialism of Hume,
Berkeley, and Mach).
To me, the "Given that human perception is not objective" is an
aspect of anti-realism/immaterialism (e.g., Bohr) metaphysics. The
metaphysical anti-realists would say objective perception is
subjective via the immaterialism of Hume, Berkeley, or Mach. These
anti-materialist people are at least (I hope) epistemological realists
(and not epistemological anti-realists -- there would be nothing to
"know" at all).
They say, human perceptions are *always* suspect. Which I think is
true, yet I disagree that this stops-us-cold because I think if we
learn where human perception goes wrong and we can correct it (e.g.,
Einstein's relativity and the quantum physics learned from Bell's
proof).
Of course (as I have said before on this ng) "evidence" supporting
anti-realism (e.g, paranormalism theories) is just "data"
as-yet-to-be-interpreted to a metaphysical realist.
So the metaphysical realists will say: Why *cannot* the universe work
just as well without the anti-realist's speculation? Why adopt
anti-realism? Unfortunately, to be consistent, the metaphysical
anti-realists (who are epistemological realists), *must* accept that
metaphysical anti-realism might be wrong. (BTW: The True Believers
who are both metaphysical *and* epistemological anti-realists have
refuted themselves, because of their *own* standards.)
However, if we change "all perception is suspect and can't be
corrected for" *to* "some perceptions *can* be corrected for" I
think there *are* fruitful times to adopt a hybrid of realism with
anti-realism. Example (1): Kant's transcendental idealism of
space/time -- yet he believed in physical objects and refuted other
aspects of idealism (immataerailism)
Example (2): Anti-realism does not apply for such unobservables as
fermions (leptons and quarks) and boson (and Higgs) interactions.
Those we *can* correct for, now that we have learned more about have
nature really is and not just appears to be (quantum physics).
Example (3): Einstein's Relativity: We can correct for erroneous
perception of time and space at high velocities. That is, we *can*
tell how nature *really* is . . . we, correct for human perception
errors. This is not about taking a poll of what authoritarian
scientists think or evangelize.
Example (4): If I understand metaphysical anti-realism (e.g.,
Berkeley): Bell's proof is a refutation of anti-realism (refutes
Berkeley's "perceptions" limit to knowledge) . . . because in Bell's
proof humans have no perceptions at all (even in principle, humans
can have no perception) before observation/measurement. Therefore the
spin-orientation must be indeterminate (in realty, *not* perception)
according to the language we have (so far) invented to describe nature
how nature really is. This is not humans subjectively "saying"
(speculating), about nature's true nature. This *is* nature's true
nature for this specific area at least. And that lead to optimism
about finding more true nature(s) of nature.
We *must* know that nature *is* this way and not simply an appearance
"as if" it *appears* as real nature. It is not a matter of human
subjectivity or inductive reasoning and it is even *more* than
intersubjective testing of a theory (more than corroboration vs.
falsification).
It transcends the perception (*appearance* of nature) and crosses over
to the *reality* of nature. (e.g., agrees and corroborates my
metaphysical transcendental realism). This is also anti-Bohr and
pro-Einstein, in general.
My question is: Do we need a meta-language before we start talking
about blending "anti-realism" into realism . . . similar to Tarski's
meta-language for the correspondence theory of truth?
If not, is the whole anti-realism just going to be further dismantled
by future (epistemological transcendental realistic) discoveries about
the true nature of nature? Will anti-realism blend into realism as
knowledge advances? Or, will there be some aspects of anti-realism
that survive, such as spacetime idealism?
Davin C. Enigl
wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 09:18:32 +0100, "Steve Merrick"
><Steve....@Marconi.com> wrote:
>
>>"Davin C. Enigl" <en...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:3b326f99...@news.earthlink.net...
>>
>>> I see this newsgroup as talking
>>> about what the process called science
>>> assumes as a reasonable (rational)
>>> metaphysics. That is the
>>> *rational* process, e.g., The
>>> accumulation of objective knowledge...
>>
>>[Apologies to contributors who've seen this argument before.]
>>
>>Can I stop you there?
>>
>>Given that human perception is not objective, how do you propose to
>>verify any objective knowledge you may come across? If you can't
>>(objectively) verify such knowledge, then it isn't objective, is it?
Verification is a logical positivist term that I *object* to because
it is a fallacy of inductive reasoning. I have posted this before,
here is a summary of my position:
You said "verify?" The alternate to disproof is "tentative
corroboration"of knowledge, not verification. Any verification is
impossible if you mean "errorless" knowledge. Fortunately, objective
knowledge needs no verification, it only needs tentative
corroboration.
Look at the *asymmetry* of proof (verification) vs. disproof.
Asymmetric, i.e., from a direction of logical transmission point of
view.
Verification is inductive and disproof is deductive. Deductive
disproof requires one test. Inductive proof is *impossible* because
it requires infinite "evidence" that must not change or "improve" on
the old theory, ever. Plus, objective data is not "evidence" except
in the context of a "claim" of a theory and then it becomes subject to
criticism. See my post on logical transmissibility or Bartley's
Rationality Versus the Theory of Rationality in Critical Approaches to
Science and Philosophy (1999 edition).
Testing the theory is what demarcates objective scientific knowledge
from pseudo-scientific speculation: read Popper's The Logic of
Scientific Discovery (1945) or Feynman's The Meaning of It All or
Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe, or David Deutsch's The Fabric of
Reality or W. W. Bartley's Retreat to Commitment or David Miller's
Critical Rationalism.
Further, if searching for objective knowledge is pointless, but
searching for knowledge is not? I take that you approve of subjective
knowledge? You must mean that errors in human perceptions "can't be
over come by learning how to correct for the misconceptions" caused by
errors in human perceptions? If so, this is an unsupportable (and
pessimistic) belief because corrections of human perceptions happen
all the time.
----------------------------
There are three fallacies that I can see:
1) Inductive inference from facts about some objective knowledge
relying on human perception that is suspect and currently
uncorrectable, to a claim about all objective knowledge, that all
human perception is suspect and never correctable.
2) Inductive inference that because things do not behave in a familiar
or expected way, means that they (in this case objective knowledge) do
not exist. Scientific objective is often counter-intuitive and
counter commonsense, that does not mean objective knowledge does not
exist, or is wrong.
3) The fallacy that because some metaphysics (e.g., realism,
materialism, physicalism) does not view external existence as does
some other metaphysics do (e.g., anti-realism, immaterialism), means
that objective knowledge does not exist, or that no rational choice
can be made.
---------------------------
So, why can't this "realistic realism" approach to correcting human
perception be evolutionary? Do you want examples? It is very
pessimistic not to even try to correct perception. Look at a two a
dimensional painting that uses geometric perspective vs. a painting
that does not, or look at the difference in Newton's uncorrected vs.
Einstein's (newly) corrected perception. Do you see what I am getting
at?. The fact, that we have not learned (and will not learn) to
correct *everything* is no reason to reject everything in objective
scientific knowledge as pointless.
Davin C. Enigl
below. I will try and post my response for the rest of the group.]
In a message dated 6/26/2001 1:57:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
Steve....@marconi.com writes:
> Knowledge needs no verification, as you say. It is as correct as the
> predictions
> made using it.
Right.
> The more often it proves correct, the more confidence we have
> that it *is* correct.
No, I do not believe that or . . . Newton's theory would still hold
and Einstein would have been laughed at. There would be no
possibility of Quantum mechanics if what you say is was actually
happening. There is much more "proof" for Newton, 300 years worth.
But your logic, we should be more confident with Newton.
> I am *very* confident that the Sun will appear to rise
> in
> the sky tomorrow morning, just as it did today. I don't waste my time
> wondering
> whether this is objectively true.
No, that is inductive reasoning (again) . . . which is illogical and
impossible.
I have *no* confidence in the Sun rising. In fact, in my theory of
cosmology, in about another 5 billion years it won't (it might even
nova)! YET: since 5 billion years is a long time from now . . . THAT,
is why I do not worry about it. I do *not* base my confidence in
INDUCTION of past experience (too shaky and illogical and impossible),
but I DO base my confidence in an objective *deductively* well
corroborated cosmological theory. Which is being subjected to tests
and is so far not been improved upon by disproof from a new/alternate
theory.
-- Davin
----------------------------
Appendix:
Dear Davin,
I'm afraid I can't post to sci.philosophy.meta; there's something
wrong with my
newsreader, or my news server, I don't know which. Here are two
replies to notes
you have posted recently. I hope it's OK to send them to you by email?
Regards,
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Davin C. Enigl" <en...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3b335b61...@news.earthlink.net...
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 09:18:32 +0100, "Steve Merrick"
> <Steve....@Marconi.com> wrote:
>
>>"Davin C. Enigl" <en...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:3b326f99...@news.earthlink.net...
>>
>>> I see this newsgroup as talking
>>> about what the process called science
>>> assumes as a reasonable (rational)
>>> metaphysics. That is the
>>> *rational* process, e.g., The
>>> accumulation of objective knowledge...
>>
>> Given that human perception is not objective,
>> how do you propose to verify any objective
>> knowledge you may come across? If you can't
>>(objectively) verify such knowledge, then
>> it isn't objective, is it?
>
> Yes it can be objective because the knowledge
> is not personal subjective perception after
> critical rationalism takes place i.e.,
> testing the theory against realist.
> In other words criticism.
Sanity check: I'm not sure I understand your reply. Are you saying
that
your philosophy enables you to 'recapture' the objectivity lost via
human perception?
[I use "objective" in the sense that the truth value of an objective
claim is independent of the beliefs or conceptions of people. Cf.
Collins English Dictionary, Millennium Edition: "objective adj. 1.
existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions;"]
When you say "testing the theory against realist", I assume you mean
"testing the theory against reality"? It is in this testing that the
non-objective nature of human perception prevents the *objective*
verification of the results of these tests. This is my point.
Then you go on to mention criticism. Do you mean that you are testing
theory against your personal world-model (or that of your critics), as
opposed to the real world?
--
Steve Merrick
"Verbing weirds language."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Davin C. Enigl" <en...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3b376dee...@news.earthlink.net...
> You said "verify?" The alternate to disproof
> is "tentative corroboration" of knowledge, not
> verification. Any verification is impossible
> if you mean "errorless" knowledge. Fortunately,
> objective knowledge needs no verification, it
> only needs tentative corroboration.
Surely *objective* knowledge *must* be verifiable (even if it *needs*
no
verification)? If a piece of knowledge is objectively true, then it
must be
possible to show it's true. If you can't show it's true, you can't
know it's
true, by objective standards. The impossibility of doing this
demonstrates (to
me, if no-one else) the pointlessness of objectivity.
My point is a relatively minor one: that (for human beings)
objectivity is a
myth, a distraction, an intellectual curiosity. I make the point (as
regularly
as I can! :) because the spectre of objectivity needlessly (IMO)
constrains
present-day seekers after knowledge and understanding. The objective
perspective
is too demanding, too absolute. Anything but complete success is
failure.
My failing (i.e. non-objective) perceptions are accurate (say) 99
times out of
100. This is acceptable and workable. Perceptual perfection would be
nice, but
it is not a precondition for success in a real world. The test of
knowledge is
to use it to predict the behaviour of the real world (or some aspect
of it); the
knowledge is as good as the results of the prediction. Our perception
of the
knowledge, and its results, is *probably* accurate. [Because our
non-objective
perception isn't *always* accurate doesn't mean it's *never*
accurate.] This is
quite sufficient to work with. "Tentative corroboration" sounds
something like
this. If this is what you're saying, then I agree.
Knowledge needs no verification, as you say. It is as correct as the
predictions
made using it. The more often it proves correct, the more confidence
we have
that it *is* correct. I am *very* confident that the Sun will appear
to rise in
the sky tomorrow morning, just as it did today. I don't waste my time
wondering
whether this is objectively true.
--
Steve Merrick
"Verbing weirds language."
Davin C. Enigl
OK, you see we *do* agree somewhat. All I am saying is we objectively
know disproof. And, that to me, counts as objective knowledge
(backwards though it may be). This is not a matter of "probably"
disproved or of errors in human perception.
From there we proceed to advance this "backwards" corroborated,
tentative, yet objectively-aquired, knowledge, by . . . more
corroborations and refutations.
-- Davin
Davin C. Enigl
Steve....@marconi.com writes:
> My point is a relatively minor one: that (for human beings) objectivity is a
> myth, a distraction, an intellectual curiosity. I make the point (as
> regularly
> as I can! :) because the spectre of objectivity needlessly (IMO) constrains
> present-day seekers after knowledge and understanding. The objective
> perspective
> is too demanding, too absolute. Anything but complete success is failure.
Then, for you, science is impossible and can make no progress. You
say objectivity is "too demanding" and I agree it is hard. But you
expect too much. It is *your* expectation that is "too demanding" . .
. so demanding in fact that you would destroy science.
So, I say, your _right_: proof "IS too demanding," if fact it IS
IMPOSSIBLE! BUT I *also* say disproof is not too demanding -- we
know when we get a better theory, not by proof of the new theory but
by disproof of the old theory.
The difference is the *direction* of logical transmission: inductive
proof vs. deductive disproof.
-- Davin
Davin C. Enigl
> Surely *objective* knowledge *must* be verifiable (even if it *needs* no
> verification)?
No, that is backwards to my direction of logical transmissibility
(LT). *Disproof* is possible because it is deductive. *Proof* is
impossible because it is inductive. No matter how much (inductive)
data supports (proves) . . . I only need *one* new piece of data to
overturn (disprove) all of your hard work.
Just look at poor Newton (absolute time and space), by your direction
of LT (proof), he was verified for 300 years, then by my direction of
LT (disproof) , he was refuted once Einstein (actually time and space
are relative, not absolute) saw the errors in Newton's theory. So,
you choose: which LT direction is more reliable (proof or disproof)?
> If a piece of knowledge is objectively true, then it must be
> possible to show it's true.
I don't think so, because, all knowledge is subject to error. All of
our knowledge is conjectural. Even if we are right and have found
"The Truth," we would not know it for sure.
In fact: Remember, I believe there is (in principle) an infinite
amount of *knowable* truth plus of *un*knowable truth. We can only
create knowledge about a finite part of that, (and can never be sure
when we reached "The Truth") so . . . I would say I am infinitely
ignorant! because my knowledge will always be finite. The more I
know, the more I know I don't know -- cf. Plato's Last Days of
Socrates (Apology 22c).
[Yet, there is hope: "topos" theory of logic. It's a new kind of
mathematics used in "loop Quantum gravity" theory (cf. Lee Smolin's
Three Roads to Quantum Gravity). And, there are better theories,
e.g., not subject to unintentional human interaction, such as Bell's
proof and Relativity.]
> If you can't show it's true, you can't know it's
> true, by objective standards.
I think you are confusing (equating) "certain" truth with objective
knowledge. These are *not* equal. Knowledge can be objective but not
"certain." That's all we can say. Newton was objective, so was
Einstein, so was Bohr. And they are all going to be supersede by
better theories. I *must* say science is in *search* for truth and
advances: Einstein's explanation explains more and is therefore is
better than Newton's. This is an objective difference, not subject to
human subjective "feelings" or "psychology" or sociology (as Thomas
Kuhn might suggest).
> The impossibility of doing this demonstrates (
> to
> me, if no-one else) the pointlessness of objectivity.
Look at it from the opposite logical transmissible i.e., the way of
disproof: I think disproof *is* objective, it is deductive (not
inductive).
There is an objective difference between science and pseudo-science.
One is NOT *just* as unreliable as the other.
-- Davin
Davin C. Enigl
> Then you go on to mention criticism. Do you mean that you are testing
> theory against your personal world-model (or that of your critics), as
> opposed to the real world?
There is so much here I don't know if I can explain the whole thing to
your satisfaction. [Nothing is personal in science. Our theories die
in our stead.]
Objective data is not "evidence" except in the context of a "claim" of
a theory and then it becomes subject to criticism compared to the
*critics* claim. There is a three step procedure for this (I have
already posted this to answer Mr. Interesting Ian). [This procedure
also works for rational selection of metaphysical beliefs. Assuming
we want to be rational (self-consistant, law of identity, excluded
middle, etc.)]
Science is empirically based by looking at the world via the
metaphysics of realism (actual "real" world -- Einstein) or Idealism
("appearance of the real" world but not the "real" world itself --
Bohr). Part of reality is better looked at in realism and part is
better to look as idealism. The absolute part is better looked at via
the realist metaphysics, the relative part is betted looked at via the
idealist metaphysics.
Yet, how can these two be integrated? Here is my answer:
Transcendental Realism. This is similar to Kant and Kant
reconstructed by Popper. The best I can do is say, read Bryan Magee's
book Confessions of a Philosopher. He has the best explanation for
this that I know of. (Magee disagrees with me. He goes with
Transcendental Idealism, yet he is an epistemological realist -- i.e.,
the physical world still exists for both of us).
-----------------
Appendix:
1) You have already seen the non-justificational deductive disproof
vs. tentative corroboration critical rationalism approach (I've posted
it before). I am opposed to induction for this purpose.
2) Details for the three step procedire for testing and theory
evolution:
A. Tell why the new theory still explains everything the old one(s)
explain (747s, atomic bomb, going to the Moon, quantum physics,
relativity theory, etc.),
B. Then how the new theory avoids what ever problems the old theories
have (they have to really be problems, not just speculations that
can't be tested e.g, belief in the paranormal is not addressed --
neither is it asserted nor forbidden by most theories),
C. Then explain/predict something the competing theory (metaphysics or
epistemology or scientific thoery) can't explain/predict that the new
theory can and then give a critical experiment so that the new theory
can be tested conclusively and corroborated and the others falsified
(or vice versa).
Keep in mind the critics will reply and try to falsify the new theory
too. But everone agrees that it is better we find out if error are in
the old and new theories -- somehow rationally that is, not just be
guess, not by faith.
-------------------
-- Davin
Davin C. Enigl
> When you say "testing the theory against realist," I assume you mean
> "testing the theory against reality"?
Yes, brain fart. What I really should have said is testing it against
reality using presupposition of the realist metaphysics. This
metaphysics is able to overcome the objections you raise for the
reasons in my other emails/posts (Cf. Kosso, and the others I listed).
> It is in this testing that the
> non-objective nature of human perception prevents the *objective*
> verification of the results of these tests. This is my point.
First: Yes, but don't you think scientists realize that? And, look to
overcome that objection? The solution to your objections are worked
on: Relativity theory, Quantum theory, those replaced Newton. Your
objection *is* being answered and is widely thought to be solved in
many cased (but not in all cases, yet).
Second: There is no "verification" that is inductive reasoning that
does not exist. The best we can do is corroborate. Read Sir Karl
Popper, or W.W. Bartley III or David Miller.
Third: Your objection is not even a problem at all in some cases
(Bell's proof).
Forth: Your objection has fallacies. That I have already pointed out.
--------------------------
Not that you are wrong for raising objections. But I think the
objections had more weight before than (say) Quantum science (e.g., in
Newton's day and that is when Berkeley stated them. Bohr also
believed this, but I think Einstein refuted Bohr. Just read Kosso and
think this out).
In the future I see your objections becoming less and less relevant as
we learn more. Building a Quantum computer that cannot (not even in
principle) have any human perception at all (other wise, it can't
work), will totally solve your problem (and create other problems not
even thought of yet). BTW: I work on Quantum computer
theory/research.
-------------------------
Appendix:
Verification is inductive and disproof is deductive. Deductive
disproof requires one test. Inductive proof is *impossible* because
it requires infinite "evidence" that must not change or "improve" on
the old theory, ever. Plus, objective data is not "evidence" except
in the context of a "claim" of a theory and then it becomes subject to
criticism. See my post on logical transmissibility or Bartley's
Rationality Versus the Theory of Rationality in Critical Approaches to
Science and Philosophy (1999 edition).
There are three fallacies that I can see in you objection (posted
before):
1. Inductive inference from facts about some objective knowledge
relying on human perception that is suspect and currently
uncorrectable, to a claim about all objective knowledge, that all
human perception is suspect and never correctable.
2. Inductive inference that because things do not behave in a familiar
or expected way, means that they (in this case objective knowledge) do
not exist. Scientific objective is often counter-intuitive and
counter commonsense, that does not mean objective knowledge does not
exist, or is wrong.
3. The fallacy that because some metaphysics (e.g., realism,
materialism, physicalism) does not view external existence as does
some other metaphysics do (e.g., anti-realism, immaterialism), means
that objective knowledge does not exist, or that no rational choice
can be made.
. . . So, why can't this "realistic realism" approach to correcting
human perception be evolutionary? Do you want examples? It is very
pessimistic not to even try to correct perception. Look at a two a
dimensional painting that uses geometric perspective vs. a painting
that does not, or look at the difference in Newton's uncorrected vs.
Einstein's (newly) corrected perception. Do you see what I am getting
at?. The fact, that we have not learned (and will not learn) to
correct *everything* is no reason to reject everything in objective
scientific knowledge as pointless.
------------------------------
Davin C. Enigl
[I am going to send separate emails for better organization. I hope
you do not mind. The responses get too long otherwise. I have been
accused of diarrhea if the word processor.]
In a message dated 6/26/2001 1:57:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
Steve....@marconi.com writes:
> [I use "objective" in the sense that the truth value of an objective
> claim is independent of the beliefs or conceptions of people. Cf.
> Collins English Dictionary, Millennium Edition: "objective adj. 1.
> existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions;"]
In general, I think using dictionary definitions leads to infinite
regress. [for instance we might misunderstand "truth value," that
leads to the Tarski truth "correspondence" metalanguage, etc., etc.,
etc.)
I like examples of the understanding better. But in this case it
looks as if we are talking about the same idea: independence from
human error of perception. This is exactly why Bell's proof shows
science can be totally objection (via your definition above). This
happens in Quantum science and relativistic science. Those will be
soon superseded by Quantum gravity (or something else).
-- Davin
Davin C. Enigl
> Sanity check: I'm not sure I understand your reply. Are you saying that
> your philosophy enables you to 'recapture' the objectivity lost via
> human perception?
>
It is not really "recapture,"but I suppose that could happen too.
Rather, here I use the "correction" *before* the error happens, not
after. . . . Because we already know the error *will* happen, so why
not adjust for it right now? -- we should! (Example: absolute time
(Newton) vs. relative time (Einstein)).
The main idea is that correction is built-into the new experiments
once you know what to correct for. And this can be found out by
empirical experiments independent of the old human perception error.
[A new error might also be introduced, but that is not inevitable and
future correction will also be possible. Science is very much an
evolutionary process of improvement, in that more knowledge mean more
solutions to problems (in this case the problem you brought up).]
The solution to your problem is also to say that human perception is
*not* even needed to know nature's real reality. E.g., in Bell's Proof
humans are not even used at all -- they *can't* be used (that is one
of the "corrections"). So there is no perception to mess things up at
all.
Here is an example: Newton's absolute time and Einstein's relative
time. Newton would be unable to explain why some particles from say
SLAC (linear accelerator) have longer life times when going faster.
Einstein would explain this easily, time slowed down for their
reference frame compared to ours. That can be viewed as improvement
in explaining empirical data or in general can be used as a correction
of Newton's theory caused by human perception error he used to
formulate his theory.
Your other questions are good ones, but I do not see how I can explain
in less than what Kosso did in his 196 page book (and even that was
probably condensed).
In an ng it is difficult to get everything into my description of the
explanation. I am a writer and ngs help me get the bugs out of my
writing before I publish. [This might be why I have never been
rejected for publication. So I try and practice getting my thought in
order first.] Example: I am sure a person not familiar with the above
scientific approach will not understand it, as you have also not
understood (but at least you are trying).
I can do one other thing for you. What I can do is what I also
suggested to Mr. Interesting Ian and that is read Kosso's book (he
said he will do that). There are several books I could suggest.
(Warning: I do not totally agree with any of the books I read.) Cf.
Kosso, Peter. Appearance and Reality (1998) I think that is the best
book for understanding this concept. I am not asking you to become a
"believer," just to understand.
And, I really DO understand your objection -- in fact that is why this
(Kosso's) was written -- to try and find a way around your observation
(Berkeley's too? generally: The immaterialists) . I will admit your
objection is not well received by scientists because they think it is
a pseudo-problem (why fix if it is not broken. Most would not even
talk to you, unfortunately, for them). Your objection has problems
(of course, so do mine), i.e., the fallacies as I have already pointed
out. But even my favorite philosopher, Sir Karl Popper has problems
and I do not agree with everything he said either. I am working on a
writing project called "Beyond Popper."
-----------------------
Also, you might like the new book I am reading says about the same
thing as Kosso and is by Lee Smolin Three Roads to Quantum Gravity.
Or Richard Feynman's book The Meaning of It All, or one of Sir Karl
Popper books, or Introductory Readings in the Philosophy of Science
(this last one is not as good -- disorganized).
------------------------
Of course if you only want to read about metaphysical beliefs more
(possibly) in-line with yourself , I have some suggestions:
Tipler's The Physics of Immortality
Barrow and Tipler's The Anthropic Cosmological Principle
Kafatos and Nadeau's The Conscious Universe
Zohar's The Quantum Self
Lorie and Clark's History of the Future (anti-realist, anti-science)
Hayward's Shifting Worlds Changing Minds Where the Sciences and
Buddhism Meet (philosophy of mind anti-realist)
Garner's Beyond Morality (an anti-realist approach to ethics)
(I have all of these books in my private library BTW, so I must not
disagree with them too strongly, just mostly disagree).
I would not suggest the following journals [pseudo-science] (but look
at them anyway to see the difference between science and
pseudo-science): Nexus, 21st Century Science and Technology, Infinite
Energy or Science and Spirit.
--Davin
John W
itself is deterministic whereas metaphysics is not.) I belive the
basis of this view on psyhics comes from the Western belief that the
soul is only very small and undoubtably limited, and the rest we call
the power of the mind. Easterners argue this with the soul is the
life inside the mind, the nature of the psyche, while the mind is this
life force animated. Psysics I assert is also a part of psysics not
yet known, which makes this area of metapsysics gray. To simply put
it, psysics is to be held by no deterministic definition, just as
metapsysics is not to be held by a deterministic definition. This may
sputter up more gray, but at least it is not intensified so we may now
have a better view of it.
--------
The power of imagination is what makes man infinite. -John Mecir
--------
John Wyles
sam
> You suggest as though metaphysics is 'outside physics', (ie. psysics
> itself is deterministic whereas metaphysics is not.) I belive the
> basis of this view on psyhics comes from the Western belief that the
> soul is only very small and undoubtably limited, and the rest we call
> the power of the mind. Easterners argue this with the soul is the
> life inside the mind, the nature of the psyche, while the mind is this
> life force animated. Psysics I assert is also a part of psysics not
> yet known, which makes this area of metapsysics gray. To simply put
> it, psysics is to be held by no deterministic definition, just as
> metapsysics is not to be held by a deterministic definition. This may
> sputter up more gray, but at least it is not intensified so we may now
> have a better view of it.
physics or psychics?
John W
wrote:
Yes, physics would be what I meant. Sorry if I confused you sam, or
anyone reading this thread. Looks like I just dropped th H and kept
right on going without even giving second glance. I am a poor
speller, but I hope you can all still read my posts regardless.
sam
better an H than an H-bomb, eh, there, Mandrake?
John W
>
Paul Hanley
wrote:
I'm with you here--I'd like to see more discussions on metaphysics
(and epistemology, etc.) and the philosophy of science.
<snip>
orangie
<3b326f99...@news.earthlink.net>:
> see this newsgroup as talking about what the process called science
>assumes as a reasonable (rational) metaphysics.
oof. that's a dead end. it's like asking automakers to determine what the
definition of "dead", is for the purposes of making cars. the automakers
can do a religion thing and say that "no one really dies". that's what most
of the posts here amount to.
you have to define "science" first. then determine if the methods of
science can yield a concept. it this seems trivial, then you shouldn't be
talking philosophy. you should be a parish priest.
mike
orangie
<9guv05$mgs$1...@newsfeed.pit.comms.marconi.com>:
>Given that human perception is not objective, how do you propose to
>verify any objective knowledge you may come across?
this is a philosophical speculation. you haven't even got into what a
"human perception" might look like. are you a parrish priest for the
religion of Sagan?
mike
orangie
<3b3ff3bc....@news-byoa.prodigy.net>:
the "meta" meant only that it came after the physics section. it may or may
not have been meant as an explaination of how a physics was possible.
how is a physics possible, by the way? how do we know we're not just
picking out a figure in the carpet?
mike
sam
for all the masses
of billlyons
and billioyns
Steve Merrick
> Steve....@Marconi.com (Steve Merrick) wrote in
> <9guv05$mgs$1...@newsfeed.pit.comms.marconi.com>:
>
> >Given that human perception is not objective, how do you propose to
> >verify any objective knowledge you may come across?
>
> this is a philosophical speculation.
And this is a philosophy ng, so where's your problem?
> Are you a parish priest for the religion of Sagan?
Are you someone who only pens smart-ass put-downs, or do you have
anything constructive to say?
--
Steve Merrick
"Who cares, wins"
orangie
>>
>> >Given that human perception is not objective, how do you propose to
>> >verify any objective knowledge you may come across?
>>
>> this is a philosophical speculation.
>
>And this is a philosophy ng, so where's your problem?
>
>
"the human perception is not objective" is speculation. you're using it as
a hammer. it's an opinion, and if we don't examine our opinion's bases then
we're just doing talk radio. you're not doing philosophy, you're just
getting off using some words you've not created on your own. if this were
just the start of a inquiry, then the words in your sentence would be fine.
but, you're using them to put someone to the test... your lie detector's
broken.
what is philosophy for you? tell me what philosophy actually is, so that i
can not make this mistake again.
you should read all my posts, and ask for clarification, before you jerk
out the phrase "smart-ass putdowns". what you probably want is the
philosophy debate group. it's not really about philosophy, but maybe you
can structure the discussion so that Philosophy becomes the topic of the
debate -- "is there such a thing as philosophy?", and not the excuse for
just saying what comes off the top of your head.
mike
Gianfranco Soncini
www.angelfire.com/co/cosmomodulation
"John W" <deggi3@hotmail..com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3b425c93....@news-byoa.prodigy.net...
sam
the shroud of turin is a hoax
relativity is not math
and every week someone comes in this newsgroup who has figured out the
flaw in einstein
why not be creative and do something innovative
rather than be so petulant towards an old dead guy?
if matter cannot become energy
how does a nuclear weapon operate?