Do clever people outsmart themselves?

[David Mo]

There are lot of questions only I can answer to my satisfaction. That does not make them "wholly subjective". The answer might not be obvious or cut and dried, but that simply means I might not be sure of the answer, not that the answer is wholly subjective.

I agree. This is why we say that you know, even without a scientific evidence. Our friend Joe has not this problem because he walks down the street with a convoy of scientific equipment and knows scientifically everything.

 

[David Mo]

Of course not. To people like David "science" is just a codeword for ideas that need to supported and "philosophy" is just a codeword for ideas that don't.

Hell if anything it's even more basic than that.

With science... you can be wrong. I've yet to see how you can be wrong (outside of not agreeing with David) in David's worldview.

Very simple. Participating in a debate and proposing ideas and reasons realising what the others say . Which you don't.

For example: science can say that a certain emotion produces or is produced by certain substances in the brain. But it cannot explain why certain works of art produce certain effects in the brain that others do not. That's what aesthetics is all about. And so far there is no scientific explanation of the beauty or evolution of artistic styles. If to evaluate the aesthetic impact of a work were thing to add or to remove fluids in the brain the art galleries would be directed by neurologists. This is not the case. Therefore aesthetics is not science.

 

[David Mo]

Wow. You just don't get it. I am neither distancing myself from reductionism nor embracing it. I don't think about science philosophically and think it is a waste of time to do so.

What I am saying is your entire diatribe is absurd pedantic nonsense. I also didn't say that science was right 99 percent of the time. I said it was the best way to determine what is true 99 percent of the time. That maybe an exaggeration. There are probably lots of day to day things that we accept to be true that don't require a structured method of discovery.

Still, if it is important to understand something and feel confident. I'm going with science.

You're not interested in the philosophy of science. It is your right. Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Penrose, Feynman, Hawking and other great scientists were interested in philosophy of science. So do I.

By the way. I don't understand what are you doing in a forum on philosophy. There are other threads dedicated to science in this forum . You will be more at ease there. Is it not so?

 

[David Mo]

Sure. Point made, and point taken, like I already said. In theory at least, one can measure the chemicals in the brain, or whatever, to arrive at an objective answer. No disagreement there.

Also to measure intensity, sincerity, direction or permanence of love? As I understand it, brain fluids can reveal an intense falling in love, but there are other less crazy forms of love that are not reflected.
I think we often confuse what science measures with the phenomenon as it occurs. Sometimes in order to obtain objectivity, science sacrifices complexity. I am referring to the human being, especially.

 

[HansMustermann]

I do not deny that you have a practical knowledge of how to fill your car's tank. It is based on a series of instructions you have been given by the company (principle of authority) and some immediate experience about where the tank inlet is, how the pump works, etc. That is knowledge. That's the thesis I'm defending. But, no matter how clever you think you are in doing so, that's not science.

If you want to realize the difference between science and mere practical knowledge, compare your knowledge of refueling your car with that of the NASA team designing a Martian exploration module. For example, do you realize that when you load your car with gasoline you don't control a lot of variables about operation of the motor, combustible, etc. and that the NASA team does?

Finally, neither the NASA team can be absolutely sure of controlling all the variables involved in its experiment. The same thing happens in any scientific explanation. Science is not absolute knowledge. But that doesn't make you Einstein when you refuel your car. Among other things because science is not only knowing how to do something but why. Among other things because it is one thing not to have absolute certainty of the variants and another not to have or idea of any. Among other things it would be very long to detail. I hope you realize the differences.

So, basically, just more nonsense flailing?

You haven't shown any reason why the scientific method is not just as applicable. Just because you said so, and apparently because NASA does more advanced stuff, so I guess nothing short of that qualifies then.

 

[David Mo]

So, basically, just more nonsense flailing?

You haven't shown any reason why the scientific method is not just as applicable. Just because you said so, and apparently because NASA does more advanced stuff, so I guess nothing short of that qualifies then.

Watch what I tell you:


I'm not denying that a scientific study can be made of the consumption of your car. It should be sufficient for a team from a university or a car firm to take care of it.

I am saying, and please note it, that is not what you usually do. You apply other kinds of knowledge that are not scientific. Lesser rigorous but knowledge at least.

 

[halleyscomet]

I know love is more than chemistry.

 

[Dave Rogers]

In science there is no concept of "sufficient" control. Any lack of rigour in the control of variables makes your experiment fail. Any Physics student will tell you.

That's a bit of a bugger for the medical sciences then. If only they could have come up with some way to account for the impossibility of rigorously controlling all possible variables in a complex biological system, that could do something useful like assigning a level of confidence to their results based on a hypothetical branch of mathematics that dealt with large amounts of uncertain data. But clearly that can only lead to experiments failing, so we can never have such a thing as medical science, and "evidence-based medicine is an oxymoron.

Human sciences have problems with control of variables. Medicine is not an exception. Therefore it is not as exact as physics.

Which contradicts the statement you made earlier, that there is no such thing as 'sufficient' control; the fact that you are able to refer to a scale of differing levels of control between different branches of science requires that control of variables is not absolute in all branches of science. Yet experiments do not 'fail' in all branches of science except physics (where, I should point out, perfect control of variables is still an unrealisable ideal rather than a reality); experiments may be carried out to yield results to a level of confidence depending on the level of control achievable.

Only someone prfoundly ignorant of the way science operates in reality, rather than in some philosophical abstraction, could seriously make a comment such as "Any lack of rigour in the control of variables makes your experiment fail."

Dave

 

[Darat]

I agree. This is why we say that you know, even without a scientific evidence. Our friend Joe has not this problem because he walks down the street with a convoy of scientific equipment and knows scientifically everything.

And this is yet more evidence that as I said your view of science is rather like a biblical literalist.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Very simple. Participating in a debate and proposing ideas and reasons realising what the others say . Which you don't.

You don't want a debate. You want everyone to gush over how deep you are but all you do is spout off gibberish.

For example: science can say that a certain emotion produces or is produced by certain substances in the brain. But it cannot explain why certain works of art produce certain effects in the brain that others do not.

Well that's just wrong.

You're not interested in the philosophy of science. It is your right. Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Penrose, Feynman, Hawking and other great scientists were interested in philosophy of science. So do I.

You listing off a list of scientist you know is no more impressive then you listing off a list of philosophers you know and you understand them about as well.

You've lost the north of the debate. We are discussing whether in everyday life we use other types of knowledge that are not science. I don't think you go with an MRI down the street. And I don't advise you to try to use it on your wife. I don't think she will took it too well.

Oh what kind of crap is this? I'm not the one arguing that science can't explain love. I'm comfortable calling everyday observations science, you're the one demanding I bring in a full on lab and when I do you have a problem with that.

Grow up. Stop acting deepity and getting huffy when people see through it.

 

[HansMustermann]

You're not interested in the philosophy of science. It is your right. Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Penrose, Feynman, Hawking and other great scientists were interested in philosophy of science. So do I.

1. Err, no. Nothing you've been pursuing in the sub-thread you've spawned and you're answering in has anything to do with the philosophy of science. In fact, for the last at least two pages you've defended the idea that you can get knowledge without any of that evidence and scientific method and stuff. And why if you can't get NASA level science, you can just give up and believe stuff anyway.

That's not the philosophy of science, that's the "philosophy" of magical thinking.

So, you know, please stop your usual motte-and-bailey fallacious arguing style of retreating into "I only claimed X", where X is a much smaller and more defensible claim.


2. Again, scientists do a lot of things in their free time. They have a lot of interests.

Einstein for example was also, shall we say, really into sex. In fact, as activities other than science go, womanizing was probably his biggest interest.

Bohr lived in a house that literally had a beer tap, connected with a pipe to a nearby brewery. You know, like other people have a running water tap. That guy had running beer

Heisenberg, sure, was quite obsessed with philosophy, but then he was also obsessed with classical music and was an accomplished pianist.

Feynman, now that's a fun guy. He tried acting, he has cracking safes as a hobby, he drove a large van decorated with physics diagrams, and he used a topless bar as a sort of office. A lot of his writing was in fact done at a table in the topless bar. He also claimed to have synaesthesia, e.g., seeing certain letters in different colours.

Etc.

It doesn't somehow make any of those an alternative to science by association. Just because Feynman spent more time within line of sight of naked tits than anywhere near a lab, doesn't mean that appreciating tits is an alternative to science. And just because Einstein was into womanizing, doesn't mean that Quagmire from Family Guy is the wisest man ever

 

[Chanakya]

The demarcation problem you mention is very serious.

Yeah, I did think it might be interesting to have the take of actual practitioners of science, people who actually do science, on this.

I do not believe that there is a precise limit between what is science and what is not. But broadly speaking, the distinction can be made. I suppose you would agree that putting gasoline in the tank is not science.

Well, thinking about this, yes and no. Depends on who's doing this, and why, and how. At least that is how it appears to me.

Most people, or at least many people, don't really know about the 'how' of the mechanism of cars with any great certitude, they simply do what they've seen everyone else do, unthinkingly as it were. I guess that's probably not science, although yes, they are "following the evidence" in a very broad sense.

After all, you can think of Aztecs following the evidence, in this same broad sense, when they sacrificed people to the sun god, and hey presto, the sun shone out again the next day.

I guess -- IMO, and I could be wrong -- someone filling gasoline in their car can be thought of as science, in the sense of really following the evidence in any sense other than the purely trivial, if they actually took the trouble to understand the mechanism in some detail, and especially if they actually -- this is kind of a joke, but only kind of -- one day filled their car with water instead of gasoline, to see if that also might work.

 

[Chanakya]

Also to measure intensity, sincerity, direction or permanence of love? As I understand it, brain fluids can reveal an intense falling in love, but there are other less crazy forms of love that are not reflected. I think we often confuse what science measures with the phenomenon as it occurs. Sometimes in order to obtain objectivity, science sacrifices complexity. I am referring to the human being, especially.

I really don't know enough about this to comment, one way or the other.

But at least in theory, I guess every kind of crazy form of everything, including love, can be reduced to brain chemicals and neural firings, right? Perhaps not in practice, and perhaps not at this time, but at least in theory.

 

[acbytesla]

You're not interested in the philosophy of science. It is your right. Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Penrose, Feynman, Hawking and other great scientists were interested in philosophy of science. So do I.

By the way. I don't understand what are you doing in a forum on philosophy. There are other threads dedicated to science in this forum . You will be more at ease there. Is it not so?

Sure they were.

Frankly, I don't know what you're talking about 95 percent of the time. And I doubt the problem is me.

I have no problem talking about philosophy and I have no problem talking about science. But the philosophy of science almost seems like an oxymoron. There may be philosophical reasons we may or may not conduct a specific experiment and there may be a philosophical argument about what science has discovered. But talking about the philosophy of science seems like some form of masturbation. Personally, I am not interested in a circle jerk.

 

[David Mo]

Which contradicts the statement you made earlier, that there is no such thing as 'sufficient' control; the fact that you are able to refer to a scale of differing levels of control between different branches of science requires that control of variables is not absolute in all branches of science. Yet experiments do not 'fail' in all branches of science except physics (where, I should point out, perfect control of variables is still an unrealisable ideal rather than a reality); experiments may be carried out to yield results to a level of confidence depending on the level of control achievable.

Only someone prfoundly ignorant of the way science operates in reality, rather than in some philosophical abstraction, could seriously make a comment such as "Any lack of rigour in the control of variables makes your experiment fail."

Dave

There is no contradiction.

Maximum rigor does not mean absolute certainty. In science the maximum rigour in the control of variables is enforceable. The loss of control implies the loss of validity in the conclusions. That is why in the human sciences the difficulties in controlling variables is one of the main problems.If you read articles on psychology, for example, you would see that this is the great reproach they make to each other. Such a loss of control would be inadmissible in the physical sciences.

I don't see where you see the contradiction. There is no "sufficient" control. Either you control the variable age, sex or education, for example, or you don't control it. If you do not control it and it is a variable that influences the result, your study loses its validity. I have just read how the conclusions of an experiment on differences between men's and women's brain locations were rejected because the age of women had not been controlled and thus a variable that was not collected at work had crept in.

 

[David Mo]

And this is yet more evidence that as I said your view of science is rather like a biblical literalist.

What evidence are you talking about? You're out of control.

 

[David Mo]

Well that's just wrong.


I'm not the one arguing that science can't explain love. I'm comfortable calling everyday observations science, you're the one demanding I bring in a full on lab and when I do you have a problem with that.

You haven't get the irony. I don't know if I have to explain it to you. Then the joke is lost. I'll try anyway.

It is one thing to say that science can explain something through the use of complex technology and under laboratory conditions. For example, how many layers of paint does Leonardo's Virgin of the Rocks have.
Another thing is that someone can know something without that technology and in everyday life. In everyday life you cannot directly know the layers of Leonardo's the Virgin of the Rock. You can say at most that you like the red color of the angel's mantle. Or that it is a vermilion red.

If you see the difference we can move on to the second part of the explanation.

I would like to know how you explain scientifically the reasons why someone prefers Rembrandt to Tintoretto. Ah, sure, with the MRI you carry in your backpack! (Don't sweat it. It's another irony).

 

[David Mo]

Well, thinking about this, yes and no. Depends on who's doing this, and why, and how. At least that is how it appears to me.

Most people, or at least many people, don't really know about the 'how' of the mechanism of cars with any great certitude, they simply do what they've seen everyone else do, unthinkingly as it were. I guess that's probably not science, although yes, they are "following the evidence" in a very broad sense.

After all, you can think of Aztecs following the evidence, in this same broad sense, when they sacrificed people to the sun god, and hey presto, the sun shone out again the next day.

I guess -- IMO, and I could be wrong -- someone filling gasoline in their car can be thought of as science, in the sense of really following the evidence in any sense other than the purely trivial, if they actually took the trouble to understand the mechanism in some detail, and especially if they actually -- this is kind of a joke, but only kind of -- one day filled their car with water instead of gasoline, to see if that also might work.

Your problem is that you don't make any demarcation between science and non-science. If looking out the window and seeing it raining is as scientific as thinking the theory of relativity, our language becomes a puree. If they are two different things, where is the difference? I would say that in the use of a method: the hypothetical deductive (hypothetyco-deductive)

Of course I do. You can study the mechanics of the engine , learn some science and apply it. But that's not the case I was raising. I spoke of the daily activity of a person who refers to areas in which he is not an expert.

I really don't know enough about this to comment, one way or the other.

But at least in theory, I guess every kind of crazy form of everything, including love, can be reduced to brain chemicals and neural firings, right? Perhaps not in practice, and perhaps not at this time, but at least in theory.

I would say that the advance of neuroscience indicates that there is a relationship of dependence between our mental activity and some activities of the brain. But that relationship is far from being detailed and understood for the most part. Establishing those details is more of a program than a certainty.

 

[David Mo]

2. Again, scientists do a lot of things in their free time. They have a lot of interests.

(...)
It doesn't somehow make any of those an alternative to science by association. Just because Feynman spent more time within line of sight of naked tits than anywhere near a lab, doesn't mean that appreciating tits is an alternative to science.

I don't know how to tell you that I don't think philosophy is an alternative to science. Here I put it in Swahili just in case:

Falsafa sio mbadala wa sayansi.

If you mean to say that the scientists I quoted were devoted to philosophy in their spare time, we can say so. But that doesn't make philosophy a porn hobby. Unlike watching sadomasochistic videos, the scientists I spoke of wrote books talking about philosophy, published articles on philosophy of science in prestigious journals, gave lectures where they explained their point of view, argued heatedly among themselves, etc. There is a very clear explanation: many parts of philosophy are directly related to science. See boob magazines, no.

Remember that:

FALSAFA SIO MBADALA WA SAYANSI!

 

[HansMustermann]

I don't know how to tell you that I don't think philosophy is an alternative to science.

So then what you're saying is that you're just doing a red herring on your own sub-thread about getting some knowledge in other ways then the scientific method?

Here I put it in Swahili just in case:

Falsafa sio mbadala wa sayansi.

Cute. Retarded, but cute

If you mean to say that the scientists I quoted were devoted to philosophy in their spare time, we can say so. But that doesn't make philosophy a porn hobby. Unlike watching sadomasochistic videos, the scientists I spoke of wrote books talking about philosophy, published articles on philosophy of science in prestigious journals, gave lectures where they explained their point of view, argued heatedly among themselves, etc. There is a very clear explanation: many parts of philosophy are directly related to science. See boob magazines, no.

Remember that:

FALSAFA SIO MBADALA WA SAYANSI!

1. You're still doing a by association fallacy. I mean, by that kind of logic, Newton spent a lot of time and effort on alchemy, therefore alchemy must be related to science

2. "Related to" is still irrelevant to the topic of getting knowledge by other means than science. I mean, astrology is technically related to astronomy, but that doesn't say much.