Does anything exist?

[Thermal]

Yet Again, no one is arguing for a soul. That's your weird hangup.

My wife is a psychologist. Her interest is in a person standing in front of her that she evaluates or helps. It might make you happy to try and reduce that to chemistry. Vaya con dios. She is taking a real person and helping them live a more rewarding life.

Pretend it's a chemistry experiment if it blows your dress up. The rest of us will see it as people helping people.

Eta: and if you think you can treat a learning disorder by squirting a chemical in the brain, please let the rest of us in on your technique.

If you are just talking about observing how the brain works and what it does, your post is less than useless.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Not in the context of the post. Here, it was limited to that poster's proud parading of informal logical fallacies, which (I think) it is agreed fall solidly under philosophy's wing.

I love it when they start rattling off different types of fallacies, not realizing where they came from.

Incidentally, you've probably heard of it, but if not, there is the Wikipedia Philosophy phenomenon. I'm sure that'll ruffle a few feathers around here.

 

[Chanakya]

I have no 'dog in this fight', whether there is a simple Yes/No answer, and whether that answer be yes or no . . .
but I am reminded of this example, I beleive it dealt with using philosophy to analyse 'what a cell does' vs 'properties of a cell' . . . I found the link to the research and it does have the word philosophy in the title 'https://elifesciences.org/articles/46563' - but more than that it does endorse hte use of philosophy.
I also remember a theoretical physicist who claims to bounce ideas/wording of his scientific questions and interpretations - I don't remember his name but he was from UK so there's that. He also claimed that philosophy hels to lay the foundation of questions science can and will eventually get to.
All I or anyone has to do is find 1+ examples of philosophy and science in collaberation - and the examples to support the opposite to demonstatrate it's a muddle.

I ran across this some time ago and had been planning to post it. Your post Chanakya seems as good time as any.

Recent contribution of philosophy to science, before I read it I didn’t consider philosophy had much at all to contribute to science these days.

Opinion: Why science needs philosophy


While it’s an OP ED piece it does contain useful information.

To summarize:

Conceptual Clarification and Stem Cells.

An apparently unnamed philosopher (simply noted as “one of us”) has clarified the definition of properties relating to the “stemness” of cells. Categorizing them based on the type of tissue.



The article then goes on to note the application to dug targeting stating..



Further the article notes the application of the same philosophical framework to the study of organoids.

Immunogenicity and the Microbiome.

In this case it was a philosophical critique of the immune self–nonself framework that has led to two significant scientific contributions. Noting that further the critique contributed to changing the notion of an organism “being a genetically homogenous self” indicating a more “symbiotic integration and immune tolerance approach to an organism’s interaction with microbes.

Influencing Cognitive Science.

This section speaks to the contribution of philosophy to theories of the mind, noting..





It further notes that while Fodor’s theory has been, “revised and challenged, researchers continue to use, tweak, and debate his approach and basic conceptual toolkit.”

The next part of this section goes on to assert that “The false-belief task constitutes another key instance of philosophy’s impact on the cognitive sciences. Philosopher Daniel Dennett was the first to conceive the basic logic of this experiment as a revision of a test used for evaluating theory of mind, the ability to attribute mental states to oneself and others (13).”

The false-belief task

Later noting how Philosophy has helped the cognitive sciences shed problematic and outdated assumptions driving change.

Philosophy and Scientific Knowledge.

This last section deals more generally with the contribution of philosophy to the sciences. Most notable giving recommendations to “help bridge the gap between science and philosophy.”.

Read both those articles linked to, just now. One of the authors is common to both articles, and the second paper also directly references the first.

I couldn't quite see any direct link, though, myself, between philosophy and science, in those two articles.

That is, they do discuss how inputs from philosophy have helped with formulating hypotheses, but it seemed ... I don't know, kind of haphazard. That is, say you read Asimov and get ideas from his psychohistory or his laws of robotics (both of which has actually happened in actual research). Or you play chess and you get some ideas from the kinds of moves. That's the kind of thing that seems to be going on here.

As far as I could tell, to posit that philosophy can directly and generally inform science, as these articles do, seemed to be a bit of a stretch to me, from what was discussed in those two articles.

 

[Belz...]

Yet Again, no one is arguing for a soul.

No one's ever directly arguing it. But you can see the underlying thinking behind the arguments made, and often it leads back to this: mind can't just be brains. Gee, I wonder what that means.

 

[Belz...]

I love it when they start rattling off different types of fallacies, not realizing where they came from.

Logic. They came from logical implication. It's mathematical, essentially.

 

[Thermal]

No one's ever directly arguing it. But you can see the underlying thinking behind the arguments made, and often it leads back to this: mind can't just be brains. Gee, I wonder what that means.

It depends. If someone is arguing about what we ultimately *are*, I mostly don't give a **** for all intents and purposes. The simple, practical relationship in, say, psychology, is that of interacting with another human being. That they are ultimately a bag of chemicals with electrical impulses bouncing around in there is of no practical interest 99.999% of the time. And that 0.001% is not currently the topic. The goalposts are flying around a little too much on that front.

 

[Belz...]

It depends. If someone is arguing about what we ultimately *are*, I mostly don't give a **** for all intents and purposes. The simple, practical relationship in, say, psychology, is that of interacting with another human being. That they are ultimately a bag of chemicals with electrical impulses bouncing around in there is of no practical interest 99.999% of the time. And that 0.001% is not currently the topic. The goalposts are flying around a little too much on that front.

Sure, it depends. But we've seen how the conversation about mind ends up 99.999% of the time. At some point you stop giving people the benefit of the doubt. Now, whether that applies to you is another matter, but I can understand Joe's frustration.

I hope you won't mind the abject comparison, but it's like holocaust deniers. At some point you just start with the assumption that they're also antisemites. It just saves time.

 

[Thermal]

Sure, it depends. But we've seen how the conversation about mind ends up 99.999% of the time. At some point you stop giving people the benefit of the doubt. Now, whether that applies to you is another matter, but I can understand Joe's frustration.

I hope you won't mind the abject comparison, but it's like holocaust deniers. At some point you just start with the assumption that they're also antisemites. It just saves time.

No, I get the comparison. I just don't think advocating a psychologists POV to her subject is even remotely a pretense for religious proselytizing. People are what it's all about. Acting like they are less is to negate much of the human experience. No bueno.

And yes, I get his frustration. Took me a couple years to realize he was not suffering from dementia or hallucinations, but is running an ongoing meta-argument with other people from the past in his head. He does not really acknowledge that someone is saying something other than what someone else once said on a musty script. Whatever his level of frustration may be, disagreeing with him is exponentially more so to those who assume he is living in the here and now.

 

[The Man]

You didn't say it. But you did it. Always trust what people do over what they say.

Nope, all I did was write stuff, since I didn’t write that, I didn’t do that in that writing of that stuff. Are you actually claiming that I made something real simply by talking about it? If not, it certainly is not something that I did.

As I noted, in another post, that conceptual construct aren’t real (other than simply being such conceptual constructs) doesn’t prevent them for being used. While that usage can be real (can have outcomes in the real world) those concepts don’t become real simply because of that usage.

Take your assertion above, what you think I did doesn’t become real simply because you think it, say it or even if we are discussing it. While you are, in reality, trying to use that conceptual construct also doesn’t make it real. That we are in fact discussing it does mean it can have some impact on the real world even as simply, at least, that discussion. What you think I did are simply electro chemical impulses in your brain, they don’t become my actions even if we are discussing it.

Well, you're wrong again, then.

Nope, the theoreticals are the basis of science. As I explained and you simply ignored. They determine how we set up experiments, what observations we look for or relations we test for and even how we analyze the data. Particularly particle physics has significantly advanced because we were looking for things that were simply theorized. The Large Hadron Collider was built to test the differences in various particle theories Including looking for the various particles of supersymmetric theories.

The Man, I've explained all this to you before. Following up one question with another to further clarify and explain the object of the discussion is not moving the goalposts. I suggest you look up the concept before you continue to misuse it.

As asserted and ignored, denial and contradiction are not explanation. The object of the discussion was and still is if A and ~A being mutually exclusive is a question of philosophy. There is nothing to follow up on until that question is resolved. If you agree that the question is resolved (not simply responded to) then we can follow up on that resolution. If you don’t agree that the question is resolved, then there is nothing to follow up on. Since you seem to keep missing it, the resolution (answer) was “yes” and the philosophy cited was just an example of an approach that takes such a position. The answer “yes” does not depend upon the example or even your agreement with that answer. However, moving on does depend upon you agreeing that the original question has actually been resolved. Even with no example the answer would still be “yes” as that is just the logical conclusion of your stated position as well as any position that takes contradictions as a conceptual construct and philosophy as dealing with such conceptual constructs.

How about you answer my question? Address the reasons I gave for rejecting your claim. That's the least you can do.

I did address your objections, you again ignored that part of the post. The least you can do is accept the logical implications of your own position. If you simply can’t do just that, how can you be expected to understand any other position, explanation, demonstration or whatever, when you can’t even understand just your own position? You seem to be fixated on the example, which is irrelevant to what form the question itself must take simply to be asked.

You don't seem to understand the concept of demonstration. I'm not interested in what you claim the problem is. I want you to explain it.

What I claim the problem is? What did I claim was even a problem? I did explain it, because you asked, and then you asked about particle annihilation, so I explained that as well and how they differ. Then you asked for the contradiction, again, which I gave before that you had asked me to explain before. At this point it’s gone full circle so you can just loop around yourself or ask something new. As for demonstrations, as I told you, you can demonstrate it for yourself with some simple equipment. For multispectral waves (waves or sounds of more than just one specific tone of frequency) it is the basis , and problem in recording and live (or playback) presentation, of comb filtering.

[joke mode]See, you want a problem, I’ll give you one[/joke mode]

Comb Filtering Explained: What Does a Comb Filter Sound Like?

Comb filters were a major component of analog TVs separating the various signals out of the broadcast or cable transmission wave form.

 

[The Man]

Read both those articles linked to, just now. One of the authors is common to both articles, and the second paper also directly references the first.

I couldn't quite see any direct link, though, myself, between philosophy and science, in those two articles.

That is, they do discuss how inputs from philosophy have helped with formulating hypotheses, but it seemed ... I don't know, kind of haphazard. That is, say you read Asimov and get ideas from his psychohistory or his laws of robotics (both of which has actually happened in actual research). Or you play chess and you get some ideas from the kinds of moves. That's the kind of thing that seems to be going on here.

As far as I could tell, to posit that philosophy can directly and generally inform science, as these articles do, seemed to be a bit of a stretch to me, from what was discussed in those two articles.

Actually the first one was quite specific that the specific classification framework developed by the apparently unnamed philosopher for specifically stemness' as it relates to tissue type was what they were employing and had applications to other fields.

The second was a critique of the immune self–nonself framework. So a specific critique of a theoretical framework. That lead to changes in that framework.

So it's not like just coming across some philosophers writing about some such or other thing that you go 'Hey, perhaps I can use something like those concept or that approach in my field'. Those were particular philosophical works done not only just about particular subfields of biology (stem cell research and immunology) but very particular aspects of those subfields, the definition of 'stemness' in that subfield and the immune self–nonself framework of that other subfield.

 

[IanS]

So you're saying we should get rid of math. Got it!

Yeah, I can believe that you "got it", whatever it was you "got" from those replies, but if "Sir Drinks a Lot", then you'd probably "get" a better understanding" if "Sir Dronks a Lot Less" (at least when replying on the internet) .

 

[The Man]

Turns out the “one of us” mentioned in the first section, as the person who developed the stemness by tissue type definition. Was referring to one of the authors of the article named in the byline. First one named, in fact, Lucie Laplane. PHD in plilosophy and of the Institut d’histoire et de philosophie des sciences et des techniques (UMR8590), CNRS & Panthéon-Sorbonne University, 75006 Paris (Institute for History and Philosophy of Sciences and Techniques)

From reference 1 of the article.

Philosophy of Biology: Towards a classification of stem cells

Their Philosophy of Biology collection of articles

As indicated in the summaries in the last link above. While not some philosophical works happened across by biological researchers. It is also not just the other way around, as philosophers just taking up a topic of biology they happened across. The indication seems to be philosophers working in close coordination with the biological researchers.

 

[Belz...]

Nope, all I did was write stuff

Yes and words have meaning. We can decipher what someone thinks by what they say. But at this point there's no way to get you to admit to anything.

As asserted and ignored, denial and contradiction are not explanation. The object of the discussion was and still is if A and ~A being mutually exclusive is a question of philosophy. There is nothing to follow up on until that question is resolved. If you agree that the question is resolved (not simply responded to) then we can follow up on that resolution. If you don’t agree that the question is resolved, then there is nothing to follow up on. Since you seem to keep missing it, the resolution (answer) was “yes” and the philosophy cited was just an example of an approach that takes such a position. The answer “yes” does not depend upon the example or even your agreement with that answer. However, moving on does depend upon you agreeing that the original question has actually been resolved. Even with no example the answer would still be “yes” as that is just the logical conclusion of your stated position as well as any position that takes contradictions as a conceptual construct and philosophy as dealing with such conceptual constructs.

That's all ridiculous. It's trivially true that one can accept an answer for the sake of argument without agreeing with it, and then ask further questions based on that. You're trying to bog the discussion down for no reason.

I did explain it, because you asked, and then you asked about particle annihilation, so I explained that as well and how they differ.

You provided unreal examples and an interpretation that is far from having been demonstrated to be true.

 

[Chanakya]

Actually the first one was quite specific that the specific classification framework developed by the apparently unnamed philosopher for specifically stemness' as it relates to tissue type was what they were employing and had applications to other fields.

The second was a critique of the immune self–nonself framework. So a specific critique of a theoretical framework. That lead to changes in that framework.

So it's not like just coming across some philosophers writing about some such or other thing that you go 'Hey, perhaps I can use something like those concept or that approach in my field'. Those were particular philosophical works done not only just about particular subfields of biology (stem cell research and immunology) but very particular aspects of those subfields, the definition of 'stemness' in that subfield and the immune self–nonself framework of that other subfield.

Turns out the “one of us” mentioned in the first section, as the person who developed the stemness by tissue type definition. Was referring to one of the authors of the article named in the byline. First one named, in fact, Lucie Laplane. PHD in plilosophy and of the Institut d’histoire et de philosophie des sciences et des techniques (UMR8590), CNRS & Panthéon-Sorbonne University, 75006 Paris (Institute for History and Philosophy of Sciences and Techniques)

From reference 1 of the article.

Philosophy of Biology: Towards a classification of stem cells

Their Philosophy of Biology collection of articles

As indicated in the summaries in the last link above. While not some philosophical works happened across by biological researchers. It is also not just the other way around, as philosophers just taking up a topic of biology they happened across. The indication seems to be philosophers working in close coordination with the biological researchers.

That's right. Actually the two links I was referring to in my comment were LarryS's and yours, in my post up above. I see that wasn't obvious, and I should have clarified: given that you had posted two links yourself, in your post addressed to me, it is natural that those are the two links you'd have thought I'd referred to. As it happens, it turned out that LarryS linked the main article by Lucie Laplane (et al), and you referred the article that referenced that same article, and that latter was also written by Lucie Lapalane, et al, although a different "et al" this time.

So anyway, the articles were kind of heavy going, especially the first --- although very interesting, and entirely relevant to this discussion --- and I'm no expert on this, so it could be I've misread or misunderstood something there, but from where I'm sitting what it looked like is that these guys used the term and the concepts and the taxonomy used in metaphysics to come up with that classification, and that in turn apparently clarified the subject.

Well, fair enough, but that's what it looked like to me, like someone having read Asimov, and happening to stumble on a real-life research scenario where the Laws of Robotics, or the broad idea of and principles psychohistory, happened to provide some insights. I don't really see how it's anything more than that. Because how on earth would philosophers who are not intimately conversant with the subject know the first thing about it? And if they are intimately conversant with the subject, then it is the knowledge of the subject that is the main driving force, in other words science.

Not to pile on on to philosophy, as has been happening in this thread, and I can see how knowledge of philosophy might help both in particular cases like this one, as well as generally, but IMV that is a case to be made for general breadth of knowledge and exposure (as opposed to a narrow focus exclusive on one's own subject), as opposed to a case specifically for philosophy. (James's rephrasing of Kipling, into "What know they of cricket, who only cricket know?", or words to that effect, come to mind. Breadth of knowledge is always a good thing.)

The point that IanS has been making in this thread seems kind of apt, that it is the scientist who is uniquely situated to do the thinking, any kind of thinking, when it comes to science. Others may help, sure, be it philosophers, or science fiction aficionados, or sports enthusiasts, or gamers, or literature buffs, or whoever, with their own particular insights: but I don't see that philosophy is somehow uniquely situated to do this.

For that matter, that superposition thing you were discussing with Belz. I've only read the posts, and don't really know about the subject matter beyond what you've written. But whatever insights QM throws up, how exactly does philosophy uniquely add to it? Whatever "contradictions" QM throws up, that is for physicists to discover, and best left to physicists to interpret. With help from others, sure, including from philosophers (or from scientists themselves dabbling in philosophy), but again, I don't see that philosophy is uniquely situated to be of use here.

If you could explain your POV with a specific example it might help. You seem quite conversant with the QM superimposition thing, so that perhaps, or any other. Not so much the details of what the "contradiction" might be, in the QM example, or the taxonomy (as in Laplane's case), but how specifically --- and not just specifically, but uniquely --- philosophy is of use in making formulations of this nature.

 

[LarryS]

That's right. Actually the two links I was referring to in my comment were LarryS's and yours, in my post up above. I see that wasn't obvious, and I should have clarified: given that you had posted two links yourself, in your post addressed to me, it is natural that those are the two links you'd have thought I'd referred to. As it happens, it turned out that LarryS linked the main article by Lucie Laplane (et al), and you referred the article that referenced that same article, and that latter was also written by Lucie Lapalane, et al, although a different "et al" this time.

So anyway, the articles were kind of heavy going, especially the first --- although very interesting, and entirely relevant to this discussion --- and I'm no expert on this, so it could be I've misread or misunderstood something there, but from where I'm sitting what it looked like is that these guys used the term and the concepts and the taxonomy used in metaphysics to come up with that classification, and that in turn apparently clarified the subject.

Well, fair enough, but that's what it looked like to me, like someone having read Asimov, and happening to stumble on a real-life research scenario where the Laws of Robotics, or the broad idea of and principles psychohistory, happened to provide some insights. I don't really see how it's anything more than that. Because how on earth would philosophers who are not intimately conversant with the subject know the first thing about it? And if they are intimately conversant with the subject, then it is the knowledge of the subject that is the main driving force, in other words science.

Not to pile on on to philosophy, as has been happening in this thread, and I can see how knowledge of philosophy might help both in particular cases like this one, as well as generally, but IMV that is a case to be made for general breadth of knowledge and exposure (as opposed to a narrow focus exclusive on one's own subject), as opposed to a case specifically for philosophy. (James's rephrasing of Kipling, into "What know they of cricket, who only cricket know?", or words to that effect, come to mind. Breadth of knowledge is always a good thing.)

The point that IanS has been making in this thread seems kind of apt, that it is the scientist who is uniquely situated to do the thinking, any kind of thinking, when it comes to science. Others may help, sure, be it philosophers, or science fiction aficionados, or sports enthusiasts, or gamers, or literature buffs, or whoever, with their own particular insights: but I don't see that philosophy is somehow uniquely situated to do this.

For that matter, that superposition thing you were discussing with Belz. I've only read the posts, and don't really know about the subject matter beyond what you've written. But whatever insights QM throws up, how exactly does philosophy uniquely add to it? Whatever "contradictions" QM throws up, that is for physicists to discover, and best left to physicists to interpret. With help from others, sure, including from philosophers (or from scientists themselves dabbling in philosophy), but again, I don't see that philosophy is uniquely situated to be of use here.

If you could explain your POV with a specific example it might help. You seem quite conversant with the QM superimposition thing, so that perhaps, or any other. Not so much the details of what the "contradiction" might be, in the QM example, or the taxonomy (as in Laplane's case), but how specifically --- and not just specifically, but uniquely --- philosophy is of use in making formulations of this nature.

That one post was my only contribution to the philosophy vs science sub-thread as I am not interested in the 'fight', especially posed as a two-man-enter-one-man-exit kinda' battle. I just wanted to show one single case where philosophy can be a method, and that method can have utility in science.
Re A=A and A=!A I don't think we need science or philosophy for this as we'd experience the world differently than we do . . . we'd be walking into and through walls and on occaision pounding nails with donuts.

 

[Chanakya]

That one post was my only contribution to the philosophy vs science sub-thread as I am not interested in the 'fight', especially posed as a two-man-enter-one-man-exit kinda' battle. I just wanted to show one single case where philosophy can be a method, and that method can have utility in science.Re A=A and A=!A I don't think we need science or philosophy for this as we'd experience the world differently than we do . . . we'd be walking into and through walls and on occaision pounding nails with donuts.

And you've done that, very effectively, LarryS. Agreed, fully.

(And hey, nor am I part of this "fight"! But still, it's a topic I do find interesting.)

Question is, is this utility (of philosophy to science) more than just incidental? More than, say, the contribution of sci fi, or of literature in general, for instance?

I think that is a very interesting question --- and that I'm myself not equipped to answer! I'd be interested to see if anyone else can, The Man for instance, or anyone else.

-------

Both were great links, LarryS, that clearly illustrated this issue, yours as well as The Man's.

On the other hand, that you both ended up with the same instance, was that mere coincidence, or might that indicate a dearth of such instances out there?

(To be fair, The Man did come up with another instance as well, the quantum superimposition thing.)

 

[The Man]

That's right. Actually the two links I was referring to in my comment were LarryS's and yours, in my post up above. I see that wasn't obvious, and I should have clarified: given that you had posted two links yourself, in your post addressed to me, it is natural that those are the two links you'd have thought I'd referred to. As it happens, it turned out that LarryS linked the main article by Lucie Laplane (et al), and you referred the article that referenced that same article, and that latter was also written by Lucie Lapalane, et al, although a different "et al" this time.

True, I have to say that I never read LarryS’s link or I would have referenced it. Sorry for the confusion.

So anyway, the articles were kind of heavy going, especially the first --- although very interesting, and entirely relevant to this discussion --- and I'm no expert on this, so it could be I've misread or misunderstood something there, but from where I'm sitting what it looked like is that these guys used the term and the concepts and the taxonomy used in metaphysics to come up with that classification, and that in turn apparently clarified the subject.

Correct, but a direct contribution to that field and potentially, as stated in the articles I did link, contributory to another subfield of biology, was explicitly stated. Sure, technical articles can be that way, technical, but you can still focus on the salient points to this discussion

Well, fair enough, but that's what it looked like to me, like someone having read Asimov, and happening to stumble on a real-life research scenario where the Laws of Robotics, or the broad idea of and principles psychohistory, happened to provide some insights. I don't really see how it's anything more than that. Because how on earth would philosophers who are not intimately conversant with the subject know the first thing about it? And if they are intimately conversant with the subject, then it is the knowledge of the subject that is the main driving force, in other words science.

Again, as I asserted and in the later post and links you quoted, that doesn’t appear to be the case, nor is its antithetical. Instead, a close cooperation between researchers and philosophers that results in changes in research, theory, and methodologies of treatment, as indicated.

Not to pile on on to philosophy, as has been happening in this thread, and I can see how knowledge of philosophy might help both in particular cases like this one, as well as generally, but IMV that is a case to be made for general breadth of knowledge and exposure (as opposed to a narrow focus exclusive on one's own subject), as opposed to a case specifically for philosophy. (James's rephrasing of Kipling, into "What know they of cricket, who only cricket know?", or words to that effect, come to mind. Breadth of knowledge is always a good thing.)

Oh, pile on as much as you want, I have no use of philosophy myself. What passes for philosophy these days is, as others have asserted, often just navel gazing. One of the problems with simply organized thinking not having anything, necessarily, to do with reality. However, as demonstrated by the articles, it can have such relevance.

The point that IanS has been making in this thread seems kind of apt, that it is the scientist who is uniquely situated to do the thinking, any kind of thinking, when it comes to science. Others may help, sure, be it philosophers, or science fiction aficionados, or sports enthusiasts, or gamers, or literature buffs, or whoever, with their own particular insights: but I don't see that philosophy is somehow uniquely situated to do this.

Sure, and that’s the point of the last section of the first link I made that you refer to. That you need a close cooperation between scientists and philosophers that drives such changes, different people thinking different ways. Again, why science, logic or whatever can’t be entirely just philosophical anymore. Otherwise you wouldn’t need others with that particular expertise in that mode of thinking to drive the change of definitions, theory, and in the one case, potentially, treatment.

For that matter, that superposition thing you were discussing with Belz. I've only read the posts, and don't really know about the subject matter beyond what you've written. But whatever insights QM throws up, how exactly does philosophy uniquely add to it? Whatever "contradictions" QM throws up, that is for physicists to discover, and best left to physicists to interpret. With help from others, sure, including from philosophers (or from scientists themselves dabbling in philosophy), but again, I don't see that philosophy is uniquely situated to be of use here.

If you could explain your POV with a specific example it might help. You seem quite conversant with the QM superimposition thing, so that perhaps, or any other. Not so much the details of what the "contradiction" might be, in the QM example, or the taxonomy (as in Laplane's case), but how specifically --- and not just specifically, but uniquely --- philosophy is of use in making formulations of this nature.

Well, as I tried to explain, the point of a TRUE contradictions being actually a matter of a question of physics. Doesn’t, in and of itself, preclude them form being a question of philosophy, also, as I have noted, people hold (cognitive dissonance being a potential result) and deal with contradictory positions rather trivially. So a formal logic that can deal with such contradictory positions and basically just contradictory information in general, better emulates actual human thinking. If the experimentation I linked before is verified. A different approach to logic, physics and even AI may be needed. Heck, as I said, I wouldn't have thought it was so currently, directly useful to just science in general, let alone specifically particular aspects of freak'n biology, of all things. So, I'll leave it up to them, the researches and philosophers, hopefully in such closer coordinated works.

 

[The Man]

And you've done that, very effectively, LarryS. Agreed, fully.

(And hey, nor am I part of this "fight"! But still, it's a topic I do find interesting.)

Question is, is this utility (of philosophy to science) more than just incidental? More than, say, the contribution of sci fi, or of literature in general, for instance?

I think that is a very interesting question --- and that I'm myself not equipped to answer! I'd be interested to see if anyone else can, The Man for instance, or anyone else.

-------

Both were great links, LarryS, that clearly illustrated this issue, yours as well as The Man's.

On the other hand, that you both ended up with the same instance, was that mere coincidence, or might that indicate a dearth of such instances out there?

(To be fair, The Man did come up with another instance as well, the quantum superimposition thing.)

Well, let’s not forget the repository of philosophy of biology articles linked before. Again, an example of how philosophy has had to fragment itself into such subfields, philosophy of biology, philosophy of logic, the more general philosophy of science or the philosophy of whatever, just to keep up with rapid advancements in those particular fields

 

[The Man]

Yes and words have meaning. We can decipher what someone thinks by what they say. But at this point there's no way to get you to admit to anything.

Sure, words have meanings; however, it is the ambiguity of common language that lead to the development of more formal languages, like math, logic, and even science. Again, I don’t give a crap about what you simply think, I think. If you have a problem with what have written, be specific, state what I said and where that lead you to your conclusion and I’ll try to address it. The problems of communication befall the writer (or speaker) more than the reader (or listener). An old saying, can’t remember from whom, ‘a presenter that can’t get their point across to an audience, demonstrates their lack of knowledge of the subject the audience or both’. Neither of which, I will deny. Increasingly, you seem to be having some argument with some caricature in your head. If you expect me to simply take up the mantel of arguing from that caricature’s perspective, (to quote Judas Priest) “you’ve got another think coming”.

I’ve admitted to, explicitly, that not being my thinking, your simple lack of acceptance, in preference of your own thinking of my thinking, ain’t my problem. You must deal with that yourself.

That's all ridiculous. It's trivially true that one can accept an answer for the sake of argument without agreeing with it, and then ask further questions based on that. You're trying to bog the discussion down for no reason.

Nope, accepting for the sake of argument means you will be holding the argument as TRUE for argumentation. That is, honestly, auguring from the position that it is TRUE to see where it goes. You don’t seem to have ever held the answer of “Yes” as TRUE, nor actually addressed the logical augmentation given. Again, your fixation was on the example, not the argument. Anytime you’re willing to actually engage the argument, I will do likewise. If your fixation continues to be on simply and entirely on the example given, as I have said, it doesn’t interest me (and gave you reasons why). If it interests you, have at it, as already noted and attempted to be explained multiple times, the example given doesn’t change the form the question must take (are A AND ~ A mutually exclusive) simply to be asked, which you did, in fact, ask.


However, credit where credit’s due and I said I would help you with the example. While still dismissive as simply “ridiculous”, at least you are quoting some full sections and trying to tone down your argumentation. So, to the example, not the argument of “Yes” to your question,. How paraconsistent and a dialetheistic paraconsistent logic works;

Fundamentally, paraconsistent logics must eliminate the law of exposition or they become trivial (all arguments are provable as TRUE). To do this they must give up one or both of the following.


Disjunction introduction, that, if P is TRUE, then P or Q must be TRUE.

The other is disjunctive syllogism, that, if P is TRUE OR Q is TRUE, then if P is FALSE Q must be TRUE.

Finally, just proof by contradiction is not considered “robust” even in classical logic (using a contradiction to disprove something). That, ~P infers Q AND ~Q, thus it disproves ~P, in that not every negation can formally be proven by simply the inference of a contradiction (without the rule of double negation ~~P then P).

The finial element of a dialetheistic paraconsistent logic is the modification of the law of non-contradiction mentioned before.

That, “Always ~(P AND ~P) but sometimes P AND ~P”, a dialetheia itself.

Essentially, most things provable as TRUE in strictly consistent logic are provable as TRUE in paraconsistent logics or a dialetheistic paraconsistent logic. Though somewhat more restrictive in the provability of arguments, they open the door to inconsistencies that strictly consistent logic just can’t handle. Yet basic human thinking can.

You provided unreal examples and an interpretation that is far from having been demonstrated to be true.

Nope, reflective cancellation and comb flirting (for multi-spectral applications) are real, as cited. While we can certainly argue about interpretations, the argument that the examples given were “unreal” is demonstrability false. Heck, I even gave you an augment that holds such an interpretation, as a contradiction, being FALSE. See, how acceptance for the sake of augmentation actually works?

 

[Belz...]

Nope, accepting for the sake of argument means you will be holding the argument as TRUE for argumentation. That is, honestly, auguring from the position that it is TRUE to see where it goes.

You're just repeating what I just said, after saying "no". You continue to insist that I "don't seem" to have taken the first answer as true when in fact I said so right off the bat and followed it with a question. This is just silly word games by you. It's amazing that you're spending more time arguing about whether I've accepted an answer provisionally when I'm already two or three questions later, than actually answering the important questions. Move on.

Nope, reflective cancellation and comb flirting (for multi-spectral applications) are real, as cited. While we can certainly argue about interpretations, the argument that the examples given were “unreal” is demonstrability false. Heck, I even gave you an augment that holds such an interpretation, as a contradiction, being FALSE. See, how acceptance for the sake of augmentation actually works?

I've asked you in what way it's a contradiction, and I'm still waiting for you to actually demonstrate your claim. You expect me to just take your word for it, but you'll forgive me if you've not earned my trust to that extent.