Where is your experience?

[Twiler]

That's a tricky question, as it assumes, right from the start, that there is such a thing as an objective reality that has a determinate composition. Most people assume that the physical models about reality, actually represent (for real) how nature operates "in itself".

The big problem with that is that every scientist of the past believed exactly the same about their own models. What changed from the Ptolemaic POV to the Copernican? Only our models.

There is a different methodology supporting the Copernican model; Ptolmey's epicycles theory can potentially explain any observed movement of planets (or so I've heard) meaning that it isn't falsifiable, and as such wouldn't be considered a scientific theory by today's standards.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

There is a different methodology supporting the Copernican model; Ptolmey's epicycles theory can potentially explain any observed movement of planets (or so I've heard) meaning that it isn't falsifiable, and as such wouldn't be considered a scientific theory by today's standards.

It is falsifiable because it provides precise predictions. And what matters here is that, the entire paradigm, or world view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view) have to change in order to accommodate the new theory (Copernican). Still, both give (to a certain extent) the same results, this is, you can have accurate predictions using both models.

The same goes for Newton and Einstein. We still calculate many things using Newtonian mechanics, because the model is useful enough to make accurate measurements/predictions, but the underlying "real nature of the world" behind both theories, is immensely different.

For Model Dependent Realism, this is a no issue, because there is no a priory assumption regarding any "real underlying reality" that has have a very precise ontology. We use the model we need, without worrying about any "underlying nothing". All that matters is that the model is consistent with observations/predictions.

 

[Twiler]

It is falsifiable because it provides precise predictions. And what matters here is that, the entire paradigm, or world view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view) have to change in order to accommodate the new theory (Copernican). Still, both give (to a certain extent) the same results, this is, you can have accurate predictions using both models.

The same goes for Newton and Einstein. We still calculate many things using Newtonian mechanics, because the model is useful enough to make accurate measurements/predictions, but the underlying "real nature of the world" behind both theories, is immensely different.

For Model Dependent Realism, this is a no issue, because there is no a priory assumption regarding any "real underlying reality" that has have a very precise ontology. We use the model we need, without worrying about any "underlying nothing". All that matters is that the model is consistent with observations/predictions.

Er, no. As any set of observations of planetary movements can fit into Ptolmey's model, it predicts nothing. It's like saying, 'The real number you're thinking of is above, below, or equal to zero.'

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Er, no. As any set of observations of planetary movements can fit into Ptolmey's model, it predicts nothing. It's like saying, 'The real number you're thinking of is above, below, or equal to zero.'

You can predict eclipses with it, or the precise location of planets year after year. How come it doesn't predict anything? It was used for a thousand years.

An excerpt from the Wikipedia article:

Owen Gingerich[2] describes a planetary conjunction that occurred in 1504 that was apparently observed by Copernicus. In notes bound with his copy of the Alfonsine Tables, Copernicus commented that "Mars surpasses the numbers by more than two degrees. Saturn is surpassed by the numbers by one and a half degrees." Using modern computer programs, Gingerich discovered that, at the time of the conjunction, Saturn indeed lagged behind the tables by a degree and a half and Mars led the predictions by nearly two degrees. Moreover, he found that Ptolemy's predictions for Jupiter at the same time were quite accurate. Copernicus and his contemporaries were therefore using Ptolemy's methods and finding them trustworthy well over a thousand years after Ptolemy's original work was published.

 

[punshhh]

For Model Dependent Realism, this is a no issue, because there is no a priory assumption regarding any "real underlying reality" that has have a very precise ontology. We use the model we need, without worrying about any "underlying nothing". All that matters is that the model is consistent with observations/predictions.

Are you concerned with what exists?

 

[Twiler]

You can predict eclipses with it, or the precise location of planets year after year. How come it doesn't predict anything? It was used for a thousand years.

An excerpt from the Wikipedia article:

Hmm. Okay, I must have been wrong.

I now think that it's not that it provides no predictions about future observations, but rather that the general idea of the model isn't derived from past observations; While a specific model of epicycles can be disproved by observing the motion of planets, you can't prove that epicycles don't exist by observing the motion of planets.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Are you concerned with what exists?

No, only with facts, "what exists" is always a fiction of some sort.

 

[Twiler]

No, only with facts, "what exists" is always a fiction of some sort.

Are you referring to a priori knowledge?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Hmm. Okay, I must have been wrong.

I now think that it's not that it provides no predictions about future observations, but rather that the general idea of the model isn't derived from past observations; While a specific model of epicycles can be disproved by observing the motion of planets, you can't prove that epicycles don't exist by observing the motion of planets.

Actually, you can see the planets going forward and then backwards in the sky, to then resume its movement forward, and a VERY elegant way to solve that problem are epicycles. Ultra elegant I should say. It accurately describe the actual observations.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Are you referring to a priori knowledge?

A posteriori would be more accurate, but still, both elements are based on the idea that we can make models about what happens. What I do understand is that our models are just that... MODELS, and that their usability is what makes them valuable. Nothing more.

 

[JoeMorgue]

No, only with facts, "what exists" is always a fiction of some sort.

I'm honestly trying to understand how you create any coherent view of the universe with that as your starting point.

Why bother trying to understand anything if you're gonna tack on a big question mark over the first question you have to ask?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Actually, you can see the planets going forward and then backwards in the sky, to then resume its movement forward, and a VERY elegant way to solve that problem are epicycles. Ultra elegant I should say. It accurately describe the actual observations.

*Head desk* But the entire point of this entire thread is your continuing insistence that "actual observation" is an unwarranted assumption.

 

[Twiler]

A posteriori would be more accurate, but still, both elements are based on the idea that we can make models about what happens. What I do understand is that our models are just that... MODELS, and that their usability is what makes them valuable. Nothing more.

In general terms, how many people share this view with you?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I'm honestly trying to understand how you create any coherent view of the universe with that as your starting point.

Why bother trying to understand anything if you're gonna tack on a big question mark over the first question you have to ask?

If a particular model corresponds with known facts (in a determinate area) then the model is successful. Why bother? light, cars, electricity, astronomy, biology, philosophy, everything works because the underlying models describe some facts accurately. Now, that you cannot jump from this to concluding that there is any underlying "truth", nor an ontology, it is simply don't needed. This is why this is a model that represents skepticism much better than naive realism.

*Head desk* But the entire point of this entire thread is your continuing insistence that "actual observation" is an unwarranted assumption.

What? can you rephrase?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

In general terms, how many people share this view with you?

Incredible few, in fact, I have been presenting (here at JREF) this vision for years now, but it was up to 2011 that it became (a small tiny bit) more popular, as Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow coined the name for it. Previously, the closer idea was Instrumentalism, which is more widely extended. Oh, another POV which would be similar is also not very popular, it is called Epistemological Anarchism

 

[Twiler]

Incredible few, in fact, I have been presenting (here at JREF) this vision for years now, but it was up to 2011 that it became (a small tiny bit) more popular, as Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow coined the name for it. Previously, the closer idea was Instrumentalism, which is more widely extended. Oh, another POV which would be similar is also not very popular, it is called Epistemological Anarchism

I don't think so. I'd imagine that a lot of scientists recognise that they're just dealing with models, they just wouldn't talk about it on a regular basis. The business of science is to build such models, not to consider whether there's any grand truth that they're missing.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I don't think so. I'd imagine that a lot of scientists recognise that they're just dealing with models, they just wouldn't talk about it on a regular basis. The business of science is to build such models, not to consider whether there's any grand truth that they're missing.

I have no idea, but what I'm sure is that most people in here jump smelling woo when presented by any ideas questioning the "truth" of their thinking.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If a particular model corresponds with known facts (in a determinate area) then the model is successful. Why bother? light, cars, electricity, astronomy, biology, philosophy, everything works because the underlying models describe some facts accurately. Now, that you cannot jump from this to concluding that there is any underlying "truth", nor an ontology, it is simply don't needed. This is why this is a model that represents skepticism much better than naive realism.

And the fact that it allows you to dismiss skepticism whenever it suits is just what, a nice side effect?

Riiiiight. Pardon me if I see an ulterior motive in demanding a way of looking at the universe that always gives you an intellectual out.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

And the fact that it allows you to dismiss skepticism whenever it suits is just what, a nice side effect?

Riiiiight. Pardon me if I see an ulterior motive in demanding a way of looking at the universe that always gives you an intellectual out.

Maybe you didn't read well, I said that Model Dependent Realism adjust much better to skepticism than Naive Realism.

 

[Paul2]

That's a tricky question, as it assumes, right from the start, that there is such a thing as an objective reality that has a determinate composition.

But I used your phrasing, your words ("not corresponding with reality" - not an exact quote). I merely wanted clarification on what you said.

You said Naive Realism doesn't correspond with what we know about reality, I'm merely asking for you to provide details.