The study of atoms in the brain doesn't explain the redness of red;Materialism = FAKE

[Dave Rogers]

The conclusion is that theoretical reductionism is false and the reasoning is given in Fodor's “Special sciences, or the disunity of science as a working hypothesis”

I've looked this up, and I need to read it in more detail; but I think Fodor's arguments aren't all that strong. His example of Gresham's Law seems to me to suffer from a failure of imagination, and his addressing of the reduction of psychology to neurology is both speculative and, I suspect, out of date. And, in fact, his conclusion is not that theoretical reductionism is "false," but that it is "not required, and […] probably not true."

I have never met anyone who will insist that theoretical reductionism is true.

I have never met anyone who will insist that quantum mechanics is "true", but it's an incredibly useful way to predict physical effects. There are many instances where theoretical reductionism is useful, and others where it hasn't yet been shown to be useful. It seems a sweeping overstatement to characterize this as "false".

Dave

 

[RedStapler]

It’s reliable experiment for toxicity in an unknown plant

I asked if it is an experiment not if it is useful. That was introduced by you as a cheap distraction. Not falling for it. Try to stay on topic. And it is still 100% useful ,btw, also for healing properties.

but a poor experiment to judge healing properties for the same reason such simple experiments won’t tell you if homeopathy works.

Homeopathy never works, so the testing for it is very easy. If you gave an ancient greek a big bowl full of globuli, they could 100% reliably test its healing properties. Where do you pull all these irrelevant distractions from?

Now back to you, probably pulling the 'ole placebo effect.

 

[Robin]

Then we come to philosophy. That's certainly a grey area. Personally, I have very little patience with it.

I also have very little patience with it, as I have set out elsewhere. But I don't ignore the value it does have.

 

[Pixel42]

Perhaps philosophy is gradually turning into science in the same way that alchemy turned into chemistry and astrology turned into astronomy. In which case a modern day philosopher may end up as anachronistic as a modern day alchemist or astrologer.

Just a thought.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Perhaps philosophy is gradually turning into science in the same way that alchemy turned into chemistry and astrology turned into astronomy. In which case a modern day philosopher may end up as anachronistic as a modern day alchemist or astrologer.

Just a thought.

To paraphrase Douglas Adams, there are those who would say this has already happened.

Dave

 

[David Mo]

So, do we agree that testing a plant for healing properties is an experiment, no matter how much it is not "modern" science?

You called it experimentation and science.
The correct thing to say is that it's observation and not science.

The difference between science and mere observation is that science is legal-experimental knowledge and non-science is governed by simple generalization.
If I were not afraid of causing a nervous crisis I would have mentioned Aristotle. But I abstain, because in this forum can be dangerous.

NOTE: For the moment I restrain my comment to natural sciences. If you want to speak also of human sciences, say it.

 

[David Mo]

Perhaps philosophy is gradually turning into science in the same way that alchemy turned into chemistry and astrology turned into astronomy. In which case a modern day philosopher may end up as anachronistic as a modern day alchemist or astrologer.

Just a thought.

Philosophy has given much ground to science since the Renaissance. That means it has drifted into other branches of knowledge. Today no serious philosopher dares to question scientific knowledge in its field. Those internet-philosophers you quote don't know. I've never heard of them in philosophy textbooks or articles on paper.

Note: I am not a philosopher by profession, but for reasons that do not matter now, I have lived surrounded by philosophers and I know something of the terrain.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

At what point does a child touching a hot surface become an experiment?
There isn't a hard demarcation between science and non science, or even between science and (dog help us) philosophy. But we can certainly agree that science is the most reliable source of knowledge about the universe. So at this point I'm inclined to leave it at that.

Whaddaya know, it became one way back in post 648!

 

[RedStapler]

You called it experimentation and science.
The correct thing to say is that it's observation and not science.

The difference between science and mere observation is that science is legal-experimental knowledge and non-science is governed by simple generalization.


NOTE: For the moment I restrain my comment to natural sciences. If you want to speak also of human sciences, say it.

Well, guess I'll ignore your distraction and word games (am I doing philosophy right now ?) and assume that we agree on the experiment thing, no matter how often you dishonestly try to call an experiment "observation" for no good reason.

I'll also try to restrain myself from talking to you ever again.

If I were not afraid of causing a nervous crisis I would have mentioned Aristotle. But I abstain, because in this forum can be dangerous.

Dangerous in the way that you fear for your health or dangerous in the way that you fear your fragile ego could be damaged by someone namecalling your preciousssssssss philosophy?

 

[Robin]

I've looked this up, and I need to read it in more detail; but I think Fodor's arguments aren't all that strong. His example of Gresham's Law seems to me to suffer from a failure of imagination, and his addressing of the reduction of psychology to neurology is both speculative and, I suspect, out of date. And, in fact, his conclusion is not that theoretical reductionism is "false," but that it is "not required, and […] probably not true."

What, wait, you are criticising him for not expressing certainty about his conclusion?

I have never met anyone who will insist that quantum mechanics is "true", but it's an incredibly useful way to predict physical effects. There are many instances where theoretical reductionism is useful, and others where it hasn't yet been shown to be useful. It seems a sweeping overstatement to characterize this as "false".

Most scientists I have spoken to put it rather stronger than "false". "Nonsense", even "bollocks".

One professor of astrophysics challenged me to find even one scientist who didn't think it was nonsense.

 

[Dave Rogers]

What, wait, you are criticising him for not expressing certainty about his conclusion?

No, I'm pointing out that your representation of it as "false" was too certain.

Most scientists I have spoken to put it rather stronger than "false". "Nonsense", even "bollocks".

One professor of astrophysics challenged me to find even one scientist who didn't think it was nonsense.

Well, in my career as a professional scientist, I don't think I've ever met one who felt it important enough to offer an opinion. I still find Fodor's arguments not entirely convincing. But your point was that we know theoretical reductionism to be false because of philosophy; even Fodor doesn't go that far.

Dave

 

[Robin]

No, I'm pointing out that your representation of it as "false" was too certain.

So he said 'probably not true', in other words probably false. I think you are splitting hairs.

 

[Robin]

I still find Fodor's arguments not entirely convincing. But your point was that we know theoretical reductionism to be false because of philosophy; even Fodor doesn't go that far.

He said 'probably not true', ie probably false.

Unless you were interpreting me as saying 'false beyond any possible doubt' then you are quibbling.

 

[Dave Rogers]

So he said 'probably not true', in other words probably false. I think you are splitting hairs.

Well, we're talking about philosophy after all. But, no, I'm not. You represented the status of theoretical reductionism as definitely refuted as an example of obtaining knowledge about reality from philosophy. "Probably false" is not the same as "false".

Dave

 

[Robin]

"Probably false" is not the same as "false".

You are splitting hairs as I said.

And surely you are not saying that any source of knowledge is useless unless it can tell you something beyond any possible doubt?

 

[Dave Rogers]

And surely you are not saying that any source of knowledge is useless unless it can tell you something beyond any possible doubt?

You're quite right, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that, for whatever reason, you chose to over-state your case.

Now, let's suppose that, in some future time, Gresham's Law - to take the example chosen - were found to be reducible, possibly via psychology, neurology, biology and chemistry, to a combination of physical laws. Would you at that point consider no longer proven the claim that theoretical reductionism is false? If yes, then you're following the scientific method. If no, then you're denying reality. Has philosophy, then, really taught us something science could not?

Dave

 

[Robin]

I'm saying that, for whatever reason, you chose to over-state your case.

Garbage. I answered your question in good faith. You chose to interpret my "false" as meaning "false beyond any possible doubt" and that shows me that you are not even interested in an honest debate.

 

[Wudang]

Are you then claiming that "probably false" and "false" mean the same? That should spark some debate.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Garbage. I answered your question in good faith. You chose to interpret my "false" as meaning "false beyond any possible doubt" and that shows me that you are not even interested in an honest debate.

Okay, so you're saying "X is false" is an identical statement to "X may be true but probably is not." I'll bear that in mind in everything else you say. For example, when you say "Philosophy is a tool for investigating reality," I presume you mean "Philosophy is probably a means of investigating reality, but may not be." Are you happy with that statement being attributed to you?

Dave

 

[JoeMorgue]

Are you then claiming that "probably false" and "false" mean the same? That should spark some debate.

We've had this meta-debate already in the Invisible Dragon Thread.

Demanding a specific level of certainty only in one topic for no clearly defined reason is dishonest. It's basically just another version of JAQing off.

Ted: "Is there polka dotted bear riding on my roof?
Bill: "No."
Ted: "Is there an invisible, undetectable dragon in my garage?"
Bill: "No."
Ted: "Is there a teapot orbiting Saturn?"
Bill: "No."
Ted: "Is there a God?"
Bill: "Oh jeez... well I don't know... I mean I can't say for certain... I don't want to make a definitive statement... let me hem and haw for 20 minutes before saying 'I can't be sure'...."

Then yes let's cut the crap, Bill is saying there is a God.

And this is, essentially, the same dishonest argument.

Ted: "Do we understand every single step of every single process of how the endocrine system handles hormone production?"
Bill: "Well no, but science will figure it out one day."
Ted: "Do we understand every single step of every single process of how the neurological system produces the mental state generally referred to as consciousness?"
Bill: "No and that means it's a philosophical debate and that's where God has to have hidden our souls."

Same thing. Putting something you want to be true in one specific unanswered question for no reason. Classic Woo of the Gaps.