Do clever people outsmart themselves?

[Robin]

I don't know how that particular conversation went. But you do, so perhaps you can tell me.

Not well for Einstein. You may have noticed that the leading interpretation of QM is still a pragmatic non-realist interpretation.

I expect that philosophising on bawdy limericks might have led to the same result.

 

[Robin]

It is strange that everybody has heard of Schrödinger's Cat but very few people know what his point was, or of the debate that led up to it, or the aftermath.

 

[David Mo]

You take phrases out of context. No wonder you misunderstand them.

This is getting a bit bizarre. You've been asked for a practical use of the philosophy of science, and you've chosen the handling of ad hoc hypotheses; you've then said that you don't actually know how to handle ad hoc hypotheses, but now you seem to be insisting that,

This is what I really said.

However, it has been shown that scientists often use ad hoc hypotheses in their daily work. So what makes the use of an ad hoc hypothesis legitimate? I confess that I am not clear about this. Kuhn made a big fuss by saying that in scientific revolutions science rejects ad hoc hypotheses for reasons that have nothing to do with science. I find it convincing, although I have no criteria to be sure. I need to know more about the history of science than I know.

Confessing that you have a doubt about a specific point of the problem is not "not knowing how to handle a problem"-whatever "handle" means to you. If you have no doubt about anything you are like God. Unfortunately you are not God. You have said some confusing things that you have been unable to explain. I remind you that the wise is the one who knows what he does not know, while the ignorant is the one who does not know what he does not know. That is a very useful philosophical maxim.



You make me say that I accuse you of not knowing that science works to particular standards. You take the opportunity to show off your work as a scientist, but you show your improper handling of the common language when you take out of context the phrase I had written. I had actually written:

It seems to me that what you don't understand is that standard science works with particular rules. These rules serve to solve specific cases more or less effectively. But when there are cases of opposition between alternative theories or indecision of the empirical basis, the scientist begins to consider how particular methods work and whether modifications should be made to the basis of the theory. In other words, it is necessary to interpret what science does.

What I was telling you is that, apart from the task of the scientist who deals with particular subjects, there is another different way of approaching science that worries those scientists who deal with interpreting what they are doing. In other words, there are two levels of facing science and you are only aware of one. As it is demonstrated when you give definitions that you can't explain.

If you would be so kind as to return to the clarifications which I had asked of you perhaps you will be able to realize what I am saying. Remember that the paragraph on which I asked for clarification was this:

“But in fact, the scientific method can handle ad hoc hypotheses; it accepts them only provisionally, tests their validity, and attempts wherever possible to incorporate them into a simpler and more internally consistent framework”.

 

[David Mo]

@David Mo,

This is going nowhere, perhaps we'd best let it go.

I'm glad you raised the subjects of the philosophy of science as well as ad hoc hypotheses. These are not subjects I'm likely to have given any thought to otherwise. And you're right, the best way for me to understand this is to actually read up on this. I was hoping to simply have you share your own understanding clearly with me, but that shortcut is clearly not happening any time soon.

Oh, and yes, I see we do agree on one thing, that the philosophy of science isn't part of the scientific method. That much at least!

Some other discussion, some other topic, some other time, we'll catch up again. Peace!

My invitation to read something on the subject was not to close the debate, but to exchange the information we could get out.

But if you are tired of debating this, there is nothing we can do. On another subject we will be able to cross opinions.

 

[David Mo]

Which is why I asked the question of the others as to what they consider science. Is science only making hypotheses and testing them?

Or is science an attempt to discover what there is, what we can know and how we can know it?

The second definition is too broad. It cover all kinds of knowledge. Or worse yet, any attempt to know something, which makes it a mental activity, rather than a type of knowledge as such. I think we have to separate concepts that refer to different things.
Philosophy is a different kind of knowledge from science because it is analytical only. There are not philosophical experiments.

 

[David Mo]

So would a question like "Does quantum mechanics actually describe reality, or is it just a mathematical model that works?" be a Philosophy of Science question?

If so, what's the answer according to the Philosophy of Science?

I would not like to speak for the physics community, but the consensus seems to be "it actually describes reality ". There are exceptions,for example Stephen Hawking always maintained the old Positivist position that the question was meaningless and that as long as the predictions of the mathematical model correctly described the observations then the theory was correct.

The question now seems to be "what kind of reality is it describing?".

When a physicist separates reality from theory he is using a conventional concept of "reality". In other words, he is talking about something different from what the great theoreticians of quantum mechanics and Hawking talk about.
I have read some texts by scientists about the realism of quantum indeterminacy and I have never seen an explanation of what they mean by "reality" and how they separate reality from theory. If anyone can give me a reference I would appreciate it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If you would be so kind as to return to the clarifications which I had asked of you perhaps you will be able to realize what I am saying.

What you seem to be trying to do is delineate more precisely where the arbitrary line you've drawn around ad hoc hypotheses should in fact be situated, in order that your distinction without a difference looks real. The only problems you seem able to resolve are the ones of your own invention.

Dave

 

[Darat]

I would not like to speak for the physics community, but the consensus seems to be "it actually describes reality ". There are exceptions,for example Stephen Hawking always maintained the old Positivist position that the question was meaningless and that as long as the predictions of the mathematical model correctly described the observations then the theory was correct.

The question now seems to be "what kind of reality is it describing?".

That doesn't answer the question Myriad asked.

 

[Chanakya]

Not well for Einstein.

You make it sound like the two were arm-wrestling!

I ask again: What actual contribution did Schlick really make, to Einstein's actual work?

Show that, and you'll have made your case. Otherwise Schlick is just someone who happened to have managed a chat with a great man.

-------

You've argued your case. You've raised a number of flags that I myself cannot comment on, yet, since I simply don't know enough about them.

Thanks for bringing them up. I'll try to check them out when I can.

But you know what, you still haven't actually shown, yet, that philosophy of science can contribute to science, in current times. You realize this, right? You've thrown out hints and references and names, but not actually made your case.

Take any one case, from among those you've raised -- Schlick, perhaps -- and simply show one, just one, tangible contribution that philosophy of science has made to our current scientific worldview, and clearly explain how it made that contribution. Do that, @Robin, and you'll have made your case. Without that, all we have are hints and references, that may perhaps be valid, and perhaps not.


As for QM interpretations? Again, what has philosophy actually contributed to our actual understanding? It's QM that has fed philosophy, not the other way around. Anyone can speculate.

--------

Yes, one thing that emerges from your posts, and that I find myself agreeing with, is this. Philosophy helps ideate, and in as much some of these ideas might find their way to mainstream science, sure, that's a "concrete" contribution, no doubt about that.

On the other hand, that kind of inspiration is known to come from sci fi as well (e.g., Asimov's laws of robotics), and from all kinds of places and things, so as ideation tool, philosophy is in very mixed company.

But yeah, it's there, contributing at least that much to science. To that extent, I agree philosophy can indeed be said to be part of the scientific method, very broadly speaking. That much at least.

 

[Chanakya]

My invitation to read something on the subject was not to close the debate, but to exchange the information we could get out.

But if you are tired of debating this, there is nothing we can do. On another subject we will be able to cross opinions.

Indeed, yes. I'm tired -- only for the time being! -- of debating this particular topic with you.

And this post of yours hints at an explanation for your bizarre refusal to clearly answer what I've asked you FSM knows how many times:

Rather than seeing these discussions as a means to an end -- and that end would be understanding -- you clearly see them as an end in themselves.

Nor is that necessarily a problem. These discussions, even when not facilitating understanding except only incidentally, can still be fun, and a good mental workout, provided one is in the mood.

We were clearly speaking at cross purposes. That is why I'd felt frustrated at your inability to answer the question, and complained that our discussion wasn't really getting anywhere. Now that this explanation occurs to me, I no longer am, and realize that's "a feature not a bug", as they say.

-------

I trust you won't, now, ask me what my question is? Or rather, I trust that's exactly what you will do?



eta:
Absolutely, we'll "cross opinions" on another topic, or perhaps this same topic another time. Always a pleasure speaking with you, David Mo!

 

[Robin]

You make it sound like the two were arm-wrestling!

I ask again: What actual contribution did Schlick really make, to Einstein's actual work?

Show that, and you'll have made your case. Otherwise Schlick is just someone who happened to have managed a chat with a great man.

.

I wish you would read what I said. I never said Schlick made a contribution. I never gave that impression.

Schlick never made any important contribution to the philosophy of science. I never said he did. He might have if he hadn't been murdered by a Nazi, but he didn't.

I mentioned Schlick to show that Einstein knew he was doing philosophy. I made that perfectly clear as you will see if you read the sentence properly. Please read rather than just skimming and going off on your own tangents and maybe we will make progress.

There are two points here.

1. The debate Einstein was having with the other physicists of the day was a philosophical one.

2. That debate shaped the way the theory of quantum physics developed.

The point I was making was that the philosophy of science is an integral part of science.

That is a pretty major example.

 

[David Mo]

What you seem to be trying to do is delineate more precisely where the arbitrary line you've drawn around ad hoc hypotheses should in fact be situated, in order that your distinction without a difference looks real. The only problems you seem able to resolve are the ones of your own invention.

Dave

I can't respond to such a generic criticism.
What arbitrary line are you talking about? Why do you consider this line arbitrary?
If you don't answer my questions, the discussion becomes impossible.

 

[Robin]

That doesn't answer the question Myriad asked.

You will have to explain yourself, because it seems to answer the question to me.

He asked:

So would a question like "Does quantum mechanics actually describe reality, or is it just a mathematical model that works?" be a Philosophy of Science question?

If so, what's the answer according to the Philosophy of Science?

I answered:

I would not like to speak for the physics community, but the consensus seems to be "it actually describes reality ".

How doesn't that answer it?

(Edit: Do you mean to say that if the answer to the question comes from the physics community then it can't be the answer according to the Philosophy of Science? If so then maybe you haven't been following the debate)

 

[David Mo]

And this post of yours hints at an explanation for your bizarre refusal to clearly answer what I've asked you FSM knows how many times:

Rather than seeing these discussions as a means to an end -- and that end would be understanding -- you clearly see them as an end in themselves.

Once again, your statements seem inexplicable and mysterious to me. What "end" is not of interest to me?

The main problem is that you often ask a question which is flawed in itself and do not accept the reason why this is so.

You want a "concrete example of how philosophy has contributed to science". I replied, "Philosophy helped the fathers of the scientific revolution to change basic concepts of the paradigm of classical physics, such as absolute space or mechanical causality". But you say this is not a "specific example. I see this very specific, but if I ask you why you don't consider it that way, you don't answer anything. Although you continue calling for "a specific solution".

I told you that the problem with your question is that you don't distinguish between the practice of diverse sciences and the interpretation of science. This is a clarification for your question, but you do not say anything about it, but you keep claiming for "a specific solution for science".

I have presented as a specific philosophical contribution the clarification of the ad hoc hypotheses as useful for discrediting pseudosciences. You say that this is not a problem because the method of science solves it easily. I ask you how it is possible. You don't explain this, but you keep asking for "a specific solution for science".

I hope that you will be more receptive to my arguments in a hypothetical new discussion on another subject. Castling is a good move in chess, not in normal discussions. Repeating the same move over and over again regardless of the opponent's moves is not good even in chess.

 

[David Mo]

Take any one case, from among those you've raised -- Schlick, perhaps -- and simply show one, just one, tangible contribution that philosophy of science has made to our current scientific worldview, and clearly explain how it made that contribution.

Easy. Philosophy is very useful for questioning the reductionist positivism, a philosophy very widespread among the common scientific community and the so-called "skeptics". This task is facilitated by the knowledge of the philosophical position of the great scientists of the 20th century.

Of course, this utility is not recognized by people who consider common science as an idol and the great scientists as irrelevant to science... when they attack their idol.

I appreciate the term "common science" introduced by you. It is more expressive than "normal science", usually used in this debate. I will adopt it.

 

[Darat]

You will have to explain yourself, because it seems to answer the question to me.

He asked:

I answered:

How doesn't that answer it?

(Edit: Do you mean to say that if the answer to the question comes from the physics community then it can't be the answer according to the Philosophy of Science? If so then maybe you haven't been following the debate)

What is the answer then? To "
If so, what's the answer according to the Philosophy of Science?"

 

[Robin]

What is the answer then? To "
If so, what's the answer according to the Philosophy of Science?"

Let me put it a third time:

I would not like to speak for the physics community, but the consensus seems to be "it actually describes reality ".

Would you like me to write it a fourth time?

Again, why don't you think that is the answer?

Do you think that because the answer comes from the physics community then the answer cannot be according to the philosophy of science???

If so then you have not been following what I have been saying.

 

[Chanakya]

1. The debate Einstein was having with the other physicists of the day was a philosophical one.

2. That debate shaped the way the theory of quantum physics developed.

The point I was making was that the philosophy of science is an integral part of science.

Sure, if #1 and #2 are true, then that conclusion follows.

So show me how #1 and #2 are true. Please tell me:

1. What part of the discussion did philosophy make a key contribution to, and what was that contribution?

2. In what way exactly did this subset of that discussion, this contribution of philosophy, contribute to QM, and to what within QM?

That's what I keep asking you to do, to explain yourself clearly.

And I agree, if you can answer these two points -- which are simply a request for clear explication/demonstration of the two points you had yourself raised -- satisfactorily, then you'll have made your point.

 

[Chanakya]

I replied, "Philosophy helped the fathers of the scientific revolution to change basic concepts of the paradigm of classical physics, such as absolute space or mechanical causality".

I wish you'd quit knocking down strawmen. I'm not questioning the contribution of philosophy in shaping of the fundamentals of what we know as science. I've said as much, clearly, more than once.

But that was then. Now that that shaping is done, and the scientific method's a given, of what relevance to scientific research is philosophy now, in current times? That's what we're discussing here.

I have presented as a specific philosophical contribution the clarification of the ad hoc hypotheses as useful for discrediting pseudosciences. You say that this is not a problem because the method of science solves it easily. I ask you how it is possible. You don't explain this.

I already have. The scientific method is ample to deal with ad hoc hypotheses, and how it deals with them is no different than how it deals with any other hypothesis. I've said this more than once, and Dave, who's a physicist, backs me up on this.

Whether a hypothesis, ad hoc or otherwise, is worthy of consideration at all and worth examining further, now that is a different question, and it is a subjective question, in the sense that it's ultimately a judgment call, made basis the scientist's expertise and knowledge of his specific field.

The question for you is, and has long been, this: What exactly does philosophy bring to bear on the question of ad hoc hypotheses, that the scientific method and the scientist's domain expertise do not?

This is the question I've asked you repeatedly, and that you keep dancing around and side-stepping instead of answering directly and clearly.

Go ahead, you can still have a shot at it, if you've a mind to, and of course provided you're actually able to: the boldfaced portion.

 

[David Mo]

I wish you'd quit knocking down strawmen. I'm not questioning the contribution of philosophy in shaping of the fundamentals of what we know as science. I've said as much, clearly, more than once.

But that was then. Now that that shaping is done, and the scientific method's a given, of what relevance to scientific research is philosophy now, in current times? That's what we're discussing here.


I already have. The scientific method is ample to deal with ad hoc hypotheses, and how it deals with them is no different than how it deals with any other hypothesis. I've said this more than once, and Dave, who's a physicist, backs me up on this.

Whether a hypothesis, ad hoc or otherwise, is worthy of consideration at all and worth examining further, now that is a different question, and it is a subjective question, in the sense that it's ultimately a judgment call, made basis the scientist's expertise and knowledge of his specific field.

The question for you is, and has long been, this: What exactly does philosophy bring to bear on the question of ad hoc hypotheses, that the scientific method and the scientist's domain expertise do not?

This is the question I've asked you repeatedly, and that you keep dancing around and side-stepping instead of answering directly and clearly.

Go ahead, you can still have a shot at it, if you've a mind to, and of course provided you're actually able to: the boldfaced portion.

If you concede that philosophy was worth to the scientific revolution of 20th (what we know as science today) you should recognize that this is not a thing of the past. We are living into this revolution. And every time that a revolutionary hypothesis is proposed philosophy is somehow implied. And every time that the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics is challenged, philosophy is implied in some way. This is not in the past but right now.

About ad hoc hypotheses: If you think that having the meaning of ad hoc hypotheses is useful philosophy of science is useful because this is a task for it. Common science doesn't provide such definition. As I said before, common scientists can use ad hoc hypotheses or not, but there don't give a specific definition of them. May be I am wrong and you could provide here some examples of scientific articles that discuss such a definition.

In addition your question is flawed. When speaking of philosophy (of science) there are not "solutions". There are not algorithms, mathematical formulas or crucial experiments that decide a question. There are instructions for the use at best . That is to say commonly accepted meanings. The commonly accepted meaning of "ad hoc hypothesis" is “an ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis proposed to explain a fact that contradicts a theory, that is, to save a single theory from being rejected or refuted”. This is the basic consensus. Ulterior questions arise on this base. To reach an overall agreement about them is more complex.

Your assertion that the use of an ad hoc hypothesis in science is subjective is philosophically interesting. It would make happy a subjectivist like Feyerabend who defended the lack of definition between science and pseudoscience. But I doubt very much that it will be accepted by all scientists.