Science V.S. Philosophy

[Pae]

Well let's not forget that there are no absolutes in science.

Suppose the earth exploded at the moment you let go of the wood. It might never hit the ground. This may seem like pointless speculation.....

'

Good point.

 

[Renee Rynn]

Contrary to modern day thinking, the observable world and the material world are not the same. Two people can look at the same thing and yet see two different material views, even when standing beside each other.
Also, you can put something on a table, go to pick it up ten minutes later and observe that it is not there. An hour later after extensive searching, you can walk past the table and see ithe object just where you left it.
It happens to everyone in one way or another.
We do not see electricity or magnets or certain gases, yet they are a very important part of the material world.
Many auras from the colors around you, are not observed and yet they are part of the material world and part of the air and space around you. That is how you can see the color, because its aura has reached your eyes. The body reacts to every color that touches it but without being taught to observe the reaction, how can body reactions to colors be observed in the material world, even though it exists.
So the observable world and the material world are not the same becasue if you dont know what you are looking at, you dont see it even though it is materially there.

 

[PixyMisa]

OK, maybe I see your problem. You think that Science (capitalized) is a system. I'm guessing that you think this because philosophers build systems based on analytic gumbo, and so you assume that everyone else works the same way, because it satisfies your vanity. But you're wrong.

Someone tell epepke of my general opinion of philosophers.

If it were an assumption, then there would be no need to spend so much time trying to find out if it were true.

We're not trying to find out if it is true. We're trying to find out if it is false.

Besides, the investigations resulted in models of symmetry, which are far more nuanced than your suggested "space-time" invariance.

Sigh.

It's theories which exhibit space-time invariance. Otherwise they wouldn't be theories; they'd be assertions.

Anyway, it's also wrong for quite another reason. There are plenty of things in science that are not space-time invariant. If the experiment is to look out the window and try to see the aurora borealis, then you're going to get a different result in Oslo from the one you're going to get in Quito.

That says nothing at all about space-time invariance and everything about lack of experimental control.

The "logical basis" and "inferring" are particular fetishes of philosophers, not of people who do science. Sure, people might do this from time to time, but there's no requirement in science that there has to be a logical basis.

Erk.

At most, it's something that you might as well try, because it has worked well in the past, and so why not?

Yes, exactly! That's induction. You have assumed that inductive logic applies to the natural world. And that means that you have accepted the two axioms I have listed. (And maybe others, but I don't think so.)

And if you find something that seems logically easy, great! But if you don't, you scratch your head, and maybe you can come up with something else, and maybe you can't.

More induction.

You're just simply wrong about this. I'm pretty sure that it's impossible to convey this, but you're just wrong.

Uh huh.

Look, epepke, I'm a sciency type. I'm not a scientist, since I never completed my degree and (more importantly) I don't perform scientific research, but I still think it is worthwhile to understand why it is that we think Science works, and why indeed it does work.

 

[PixyMisa]

I don't think you've understood the ramifications of your position.

You've admitted that the Principle of Uniformity is falsifiable. You've even admitted that it's been tested.

Yep.

What do you think would have happened if it had failed the test (and been falsified)?

Science would have been screwed.

Do you think science as an endeavour would have simply shut up shop, banked the fires, and gone home to lick its wounds? (Just think, thousands of Ph.D. scientists at universities all over the world, suddenly forced to take real jobs!)

No.

You would all have taken up new jobs as trial-and-error-and-hope-for-the-bestists.

That's not what "axiom" means.

Now you're missing my point.

I don't have to believe something in order to examine it "for the sake of argument (and testing)."

In general, certainly not. It's a specific logical construction, the Proof by Contradiction.

However, you will agree, I hope, that the logical structure underlying all of Science is induction? Well, if you don't have induction, there is no logical reason to conclude that any sequence of observations means anything.

Nor, for that matter, do I need to use "logic" or "induction" in order to come up with testable propositions. If the fairies at the bottom of my garden speak to me, and tell me that there's gold ore underneath my house. I can simply grab a shovel and start digging. Maybe I'm right. Maybe I'm wrong. But I can test the proposition without regard to where it cam e from, or whether the process by which I came by it was "logical" or "inductively valid" or any of the other philosophical buzzwords that get thrown around....

Sure.

But you can't construct a theory that way.

 

[epepke]

Yes, exactly! That's induction. You have assumed that inductive logic applies to the natural world. And that means that you have accepted the two axioms I have listed. (And maybe others, but I don't think so.)

Nope. And this is what you don't seem to get. If I do something, it's not because I've assumed that inductive logic applies to the natural world. It's becase, well, what the ****? It's more fun than trying to crank out another grant proposal.

Look, epepke, I'm a sciency type. I'm not a scientist, since I never completed my degree and (more importantly) I don't perform scientific research, but I still think it is worthwhile to understand why it is that we think Science works, and why indeed it does work.

Well, I was a research scientist for 13 years. I walked the walk. And I think that science sometimes works because of the results.

But, really, there isn't anywhere near the level you assume of scientific assumptions. Scientists basically just do what they do. And if they do X instead of Y, it's probably just because that's what they think they can do. Most of these supposed assumptions are really just ad hoc.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If a conclusion works, it works.

And in any event, this has nothing to do with space-time invariance, or whatever.

 

[epepke]

Science would have been screwed.

Wrong again. Scientists would have plodded on, maybe coming up with something else, and maybe not.

But you can't construct a theory that way.

You can construct a theory any way you like. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If it works, it works. It doesn't matter, at all, where it comes from. Guessing is as good a way as any.

 

[PixyMisa]

Without going all philosophery on you, the basic idea of Science is that things that are observed to happen will continue to happen, right?

Yes, you have to control the conditions to get anything valid, but once you have controlled the conditions, you expect to get repeatable results.

And we build theories, which not only explain what is happening but predict what will happen in other places and at other times.

And if you find a case where the prediction is wrong, then the theory is also wrong.

That's induction.

 

[PixyMisa]

Wrong again. Scientists would have plodded on, maybe coming up with something else, and maybe not.

Yes. But Science would have been screwed.

You can construct a theory any way you like. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If it works, it works. It doesn't matter, at all, where it comes from. Guessing is as good a way as any.

Is it predictive? Is it falsifiable?

If so, it works by induction.

 

[epepke]

Without going all philosophery on you, the basic idea of Science is that things that are observed to happen will continue to happen, right?

No.

 

[PixyMisa]

Wrong again. Scientists would have plodded on, maybe coming up with something else, and maybe not.

Think about this for a moment.

What this means is that an observation you make under properly controlled conditions might vary unpredictably.

Any theory you make may turn out to be false under specific, tightly controlled conditions - and then turn out to work when you repeat the experiment.

It's not Science any more.

 

[PixyMisa]

No.

So, what are experiments for then?

What are theories for?

Why bother doing it?

Edit: Or are you saying that there's a more fundamental idea?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But, really, there isn't anywhere near the level you assume of scientific assumptions. Scientists basically just do what they do.

That doesn't mean you aren't making assumptions. It's an assumption: That means you don't have to think about it from day to day.

~~ Paul

 

[epepke]

Yes. But Science would have been screwed.

No. And if it had, then Science (not sure what the capitalization means) according to your idea has been screwed many, many times already. But it did not grind to a halt. Curious that scientists don't seem to notice that it's been screwed.

Is it predictive? Is it falsifiable?

If so, it works by induction.

No. Falsifiability is part of how one can tell if something is amenable to science, but it certainly isn't something that is assumed in science, which is obvious, because if it were, then there would be no point in talking about it.

Predictiveness is something that's widely misunderstood, and I'm not sure how much point there would be in trying to describe it.

Induction is a nice tool, and it's used a lot in science, but I have to remind you once again that your original claim was about "space-time invariance," which has almost but not entirely nothing to do with induction.

 

[PixyMisa]

Nope. And this is what you don't seem to get. If I do something, it's not because I've assumed that inductive logic applies to the natural world.

Did you try to design tightly controlled experiments?

Did you try to construct or test theories?

If so, why?

It's becase, well, what the ****? It's more fun than trying to crank out another grant proposal.

So are a lot of things, but people don't pay you for most of them.

Well, I was a research scientist for 13 years. I walked the walk. And I think that science sometimes works because of the results.

And why does science produce results? I won't argue the point; I agree absolutely that it does produce results.

Why?

But, really, there isn't anywhere near the level you assume of scientific assumptions.

Two. Two assumptions. Compared to most things we do as humans, that is an incredibly small number.

Scientists basically just do what they do.

Yes. That's rather the point.

And in any event, this has nothing to do with space-time invariance, or whatever.

Theories make predictions. That means that they are space-time invariant. They're not mass invariant or charge invariant or velocity invariant or acceleration invariant or any of those. Space and time. Otherwise, no predictions.

 

[PixyMisa]

No. And if it had, then Science (not sure what the capitalization means) according to your idea has been screwed many, many times already.

When? Give me a for instance.

No. Falsifiability is part of how one can tell if something is amenable to science, but it certainly isn't something that is assumed in science, which is obvious, because if it were, then there would be no point in talking about it.

I'm not sure what that actually means. Why do you think you shouldn't talk about your assumptions?

Predictiveness is something that's widely misunderstood, and I'm not sure how much point there would be in trying to describe it.

Try.

Induction is a nice tool, and it's used a lot in science, but I have to remind you once again that your original claim was about "space-time invariance," which has almost but not entirely nothing to do with induction.

Induction in the natural world is entirely about space-time invariance, because induction can only be applied to multiple events, and multiple events cannot happen at the same point in space-time. To make any inference from multiple events, you have to assume that the same rules apply each time. You don't know what the rules are, but you have to assume that they are not changing between observations, because if they are then you cannot make any statements beyond the observations themselves.

 

[PixyMisa]

For example, if you plot a series of observations of the planet Venus, and find that it is in a circular orbit around the sun, that's induction.

Without assuming induction applies to the natural world, all you have is the observations. It was over here yesterday. Where will it be today, or tomorrow? No idea. Can't say.

 

[drkitten]

Any theory you make may turn out to be false under specific, tightly controlled conditions - and then turn out to work when you repeat the experiment.

Isn't that well-known as "Harvard's Law"?

48. Under the most rigorously controlled conditions of pressure, temperature, volume, humidity, and other variables, the organism will do as it damn well pleases.

 

[epepke]

Think about this for a moment.

What this means is that an observation you make under properly controlled conditions might vary unpredictably.

Yeah; it might. And it's happened.

Any theory you make may turn out to be false under specific, tightly controlled conditions - and then turn out to work when you repeat the experiment.

Yeah; it might. And it's happened.

It's not Science any more.

No; you're at least partially wrong. Because then you do more scientific inquiry, and then you're either able to come up with something, or you aren't.

But you're also partially right, but that's what I was getting at when I said that it's a job description. Eventually, some claim might be discarded as not amenable to science. But that just means that this particular thing, right now, does not work with scientific inquiry.

 

[epepke]

I'm not sure what that actually means. Why do you think you shouldn't talk about your assumptions?

I've talked about them, and I've described them.

You either cannot understand, or you disagree. I think you're wrong.

Induction in the natural world is entirely about space-time invariance, because induction can only be applied to multiple events, and multiple events cannot happen at the same point in space-time.

You're wrong. Just plain wrong. Wrong-o, wrong-amatic, wrong-tabulistic.

Perhaps you believe that if you write it over and over again, it will become not wrong, but you're wrong about that.

 

[Pae]

Does anyone think philosophy is useless?