Philosophy and science

This post (to which I am replying) illustrates why many people think of philosophy as arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's why they look at the name "philosophy" and think of it as "the love of sophistry".

Fritjof Capra is a physicist and a philosopher. Stuart Wilde is an author who writes books on philosophy, for which he gets paid. Subhash Kak is a computer scientist and philosopher. Fred Alan Wolf is a theoretical physicist and philosopher. Jack Sarfatti is a physicist and a philosopher. John Hagelin is a physicist and a philosopher. Roger D. Nelson is a psychologist and a philosopher. Henry Stapp is a particle physicist and a philosopher. Seems like what I've shown is that a little philosophy is all you need to turn a good scientist bad. Your standard appears to be that if anybody has ever done anything outside of the field of philosophy, or if they're someone who has simply written books on philosophical subjects, they can't be considered a "philosopher." That's pretty ridiculous, not to mention it's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Not a fallacy at all since I have already clearly stated what I think a philosopher is. What is your standard?
As far as I am aware non of the people listed have higher qualifications in philosophy, employment as a philosopher, or a publication record in philosophy journals. That, to me, means they are not philosophers....

Someone who philosophises. Like Jar I find the notion of "professional philosopher" fairly risible, but it has to include people who write books on philosophy. Someone paid to produce writings in philosophy is certainly "employed as a philosopher", and many of the individuals I've mentioned actually do have a publication record in your philosophical journals. (Are they even peer-reviewed? What would even be the point of that?)

So by this standard Chopra is a scientist, as is just about every idiot who has wrote a book on their pet theory - Erik von Daniken and the like.The decent philosophy journals are peer reviewed:
Critical Rationalist
Harvard Review
Journal of AI research
Logic and Computation
Minerva
BJPSI'd like to see a publication list for the people supplied, but it actually doesn't alter the argument - the fact is that most of them are physicists so you can't blame philosophers for what they write, even if you do regard them as philosophers, since they obviously have a physics background and therefore should know enough QM to talk intelligently about it. If they can't then perhaps they are just bad academics...there are plenty of those around - people with doctorates in Physics who think relativity is wrong and demonstrate a level of ability I would expect in junior undergraduates.
Check this chappie as an example. Masters in Astronomy and PhD in physics if you can believe it (I checked...they are both from Bonn University which is a perfectly respectable Uni).
How can scientists award higher degrees to this monkey?Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

What does this have to do with the existence of the table at all? I will try, again, to differentiate for you the difference between the table's existence at all vs. our knoweldge of what the table's existence depends on.(Values are for example only, if required I can dig up some real numbers... however, if the values are the point of contention instead of the ideas, once I spend the time to research and identify specific numbers I will expect you to concede your aruguement).Let's start at the beginning...
At our normal scale we see something we call "a table".
"The table" is the thing I can see and can bump my hip into. It looks like... a table... it has length, width and height.
One of the easiest ways to detect the table's existence at this scale is to measure some lengths.
100 people measure the table's length 100 times each.
All measurements are between 4.8 feet and 5.2 feet.
The measurements can be verified indepently of the observer, therefore the table's existence is objective.
At this scale, our idea of the table's existence seems to depend on the length of a smooth table surface.Let's zoom in a bit...
At a much smaller scale, we see kinks over the table, the surface is no longer smooth.
"The table" is a bumpy thing I can see through a microscope. It looks like jagged cliffs.
One of the easiest ways to detect the table's existence at this scale is to measure some lengths.
100 people measure the table's length which is covered in jagged-cliffs.
All measurements are between 4.850 and 5.150 feet.
100 people measure the distance between jagged-cliff-peaks.
All measurements are between 0.001 and 0.002 feet.
The measurements can be verified independently of the observer, therefore the table's existence is objective.
At this scale, our idea of the table's existence seems to depend on the length of a jagged cliff-covered surface.Zooming in a bit more...
We now see atoms and molecules with empty space between them. A significant number of the table's atoms and molecules are grouped more denslely than others (in about the same volume as our larger-scaled table). An insignificant number of the table's atoms are beyond this more-concentrated area and seem to float off quite far and can be removed from the highly-concentrated area.
One of the easiest ways to detect the table's existence at this scale is to measure some lengths.
One of the easiest ways to detect the table's existence at this scale is to calculate and test some probabilities.
100 people measure the length of the highly concentrated area of table-atoms.
All measurements are between 4.999 and 5.001 feet.
100 people measure the longest length from any number of table-atoms to any other number of table-atoms they can find.
All measurements are between 5 feet and up to (say for the sake of this argument...) 7 feet (some group of table-atoms was found attached to some air-atoms a ways away).
100 people calculate the probability that some table-atoms will attach to some air-atoms and break away to a larger distance.
All calculations give a result which exists, but is rather small.
The measurements can be verified independently of the observer, therefore the table's existence is objective.
The calculations can be verfied (and tested) independently of the observer, therefore the table's existence is objective.
At this scale, our idea of the table's existence seems to depend on a highly-concentrated area of table-atoms, but there is philisophical debate about how to identify the small group of atoms found floating off in the air 2 feet away.Zooming in even more...
We now don't see anything at all. Just empty space everywhere. However, we can detect a field of interaction. This field of interaction has a probability of interacting with other fields depending on some very complicated mathematical equations. There is a highly-dense field of interaction detected within the area of the previously detected high- concentration of table-atoms. There is a much less dense field of interaction (but still theoretically detectable) which spreads out for a significant distance (possibly infinite) from where the high-concentration of table-atoms was.. however the probability of this portion of the field to actually have any interaction drops off significantly (although it does still have a theoretical value).
One of the easiest ways to detect the table's existence at this scale is to calculate the probability of interaction between some fields.
100 people calculate the probability of the highly-dense field of interaction with a similar highly-dense field of interaction at a distance of 0.0001 feet.
All calculations give a result which approaches infinity.
100 people calculate the probability of the highly-dense field of interaction with a similar highly-dense field of interaction at a distance of 2 feet.
All calculations give a result which therectically exists, but is infinitesimally small.
The calculations can be verfied (and tested) independently of the observer, therefore the table's existence is objective.
At this scale, our idea of the table's existence seems to depend on fields of interaction, but there is philisophical debate about how to identify where "the table" ends because the fields have theoretically existing values (although infinitesimally small) for significant distances.Can you identify the difference between existence at all and what that existence depends on now?Notice how each view had errors in measurement (variences) but still objective agreement.
Notice how at each view we gained more information. This new information allowed us to develop new ways on how to detect the table.
Notice that the table's "existence at all" is never debated, it's verifiable independent of the observer (using approprate methods for appropriate scales).Our discussion is about existence-at-all, not about whether or not our large-scale methods for measurement are "completely accurate" or "even useful at all" at much smaller scales... that only deals with what the existence of the table depends on. It is naive to assume that our "large scale methods of detection" should remain exactly the same as our "small scale methods of detection" when we gain so much radically different information at those different scales.Our discussion is not about the philisophical musings on what the table's existence depends on. I fully admit that these philisophical arguements exist. However, again, their practicality is called into significant question as the others are discussing with you.Again, please inform me where the philosophy is being injected in this process of verifying the table's existence at all, it's "objective existence". I don't see it anywhere.

No, because science is a field with rigor and philosophy isn't. That necessitates a different standard for someone to be a scientist as opposed to a philosopher.Not everyone who calls themselves a "doctor" really is one, but everyone who calls themselves a "salesman" most likely is. There are different standards for different titles, and basically anybody who philosophizes can be a philosopher - because philosophy is worthless. It's just not that hard to do it, because you're not subject to any standards of rigor whatsoever. Indeed, these are the philosophers you'd presume are most likely to speak accurately about QM and other physics topics, given their formal background in it, and yet here we are. It's obvious that the net effect of philosophy on science is ultimately corruption.

Begging the question , leading to a circular argument which is a tautology,
All claimants to the title philosopher are valid. Some claimaints are worthless. Therefore philosophy is worthless. Therefore all claimants are valid.and round she goes...

The fun thing about tautologies is that they're by definition true.

There is no need to explain again.
You seem determined that the table has physical existence if you can measure a few atoms. I say that is nonsense. For the table to have physical existence there must be a distinct 'entity' which can be objectively agreed. As you reduce scale the distinction is more and more arbitrary. Sure, you can agree that these atoms delineate the edge of a hypothetical structure but that is like drawing a table on the ground with a pencil and insisting that it is a table. Sure, you can tell the difference visually between the pencil line and the plain surface, but in no sense is there a table with distinct physicality. It is entirely a construct - an agreement between people to define a distinct entity based on a perceived difference in two regions of atoms. You could, with equal validity, draw the outline based on a flow of nitrogen molecules past a fixed observation point, or on a difference in atom appearance at a grain boundary in the wood, or at the boundary between veneer and carcass.The smaller you go the less reason there is to pick that one particular system of delineation from thousands of other possibilities and the more arbitrary and subjective the notion of a table becomes, until in the end the table has no more physical existence as a distinct entity than imagined faces in clouds.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

No, since both begging the question and circular argument are fallacies, the best you can say is the conclusion is self-consistent, not that it says anything true about the question.

How are atoms and molecules not distinct entities that are objectively agreed to exist? No, it's not anything like that at all. In fact, it's exactly how we delineate the edges of everything in reality at our normal scale.You basically seem to be saying that it's "not intuitive" to call the highest concentration of atoms... "the table"? Do you have any reason why this might be true?
Lets go back to the larger scale again.
We have a normal table. It has been used as a work-table by someone. We walk into the room and the table is there, with chips in it.. and some chips are strewn across the floor... up to 8 feet away from the table.Using your argument... we are unable to understand that "the table" is still the 5-foot main piece of furniture. It's so difficult to tell the difference between the chips on the floor and the table itself to the point that you consider it "equally valid" to say that the table's length is now 13 feet because some chips are that far away...Do you understand how ridiculous this is?Do you understand how this is an exact analogy of the atom-sized visualization of the table?Normal Scale
-We have a chipped up table in the middle of the room
-We have table-chips scattered across the floor
-I say it is obvious that "the highest concentration of table-material" (the chipped up table in the middle of the room that is still 5 feet long) is "the table"
-You say that "with equal validity" we can draw the outline of "the table" to include all the chips on the floor so that now we can say the length of our table is 13 feet long.
...you don't see the utter ridiculousness of this?Atomic Scale
-We have a significantly higher concentration of table-atoms in the middle of the room
-We have significantly lower concentrations of table-atoms strewn throughout the room
-I say it is obvious that "the highest concentration of table-material" (the higher concentration of table-atoms in the middle of the room that is still 5 feet long) is "the table"
-You say that "with equal validity" we can draw the outline of "the table" to include all the atoms strewn throughout the room regardless of their insignificant concentration compared to the atoms grouped together in the middle of the room. Therefore, we can say that the table takes up the entire room.
...you don't see the utter ridiculousness of this?Why, at a normal scale, would you have no problems understanding that the significantly-lower concentration of "table-material" should be disregarded just because it's obviously no longer part of the main, highly-concentrated area of "table material"... but at a smaller scale all of a sudden you can't seem to relate? The similarities of the analogy cannot be more aligned. Your position is shown to be curiously inconsistent. Unless we decide to stay consistent and we use the exact same method of delineation we use at our normal scale and identify "the table" as that volume which contains the highest concentration of "table-material".

It isn't the same at all.

quote:

---

Using your argument... we are unable to understand that "the table" is still the 5-foot main piece of furniture. It's so difficult to tell the difference between the chips on the floor and the table itself to the point that you consider it "equally valid" to say that the table's length is now 13 feet because some chips are that far away...

---

It isn't difficult at all because we can see the table and we can see the chips. We can see that the table has a distinct outline and we can feel it. It is a size which our senses can cope with in it's entirety and which we have a physical relationship with such that it is useful. We therefore quite ovbviously draw a boundary around the table and it is a table.Now, at smaller scales we can't see the table or the chips. First we see something like this: Now why would we choose to draw our line around the outside of the total cell mass? and why would be think it is one coherent 'thing' rather than a collection of individual 'things'?
As you go down in scale and you begin to see the atoms then of course there is a difference between the atoms of the wood and the atoms of the air, but there are also other regions with similar differences - gaps in the structure of the wood, gaps in the manufacture of the table. It would be just as sensible - in fact more sensible to draw our lines around distinct structures within the table and arrive at a collection of things, rather than a single entity.
So no it isn't analogous in any way at all and no I am not being ridiculous or inconsistent. At small enough scale there are thousands and thousands of distinct structures and why on earth would we want to group them all together into one entity? We have no physical relationship with such a thing, it is not obviously 1 thing, it looks to be thousands or even more.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

Yes, actually, it's pretty much exactly the same. "It isn't difficult at all because we can detect the significantly higher concentration of atoms and we can detect the significantly lower concentration of atoms"
See? Pretty much exactly the same. I understand that perfectly. What this says is that you're not familiar with the smaller scale. And you, personally, feel much safer with your greater familiarity with the larger scale. So, because you're ignorant of the smaller scale, no one else can use the same method of delination for the smaller scale that they use for the larger one.
...not a very convincing arguement. You do understand that we can move the microscope around over the entire surface of the table, right?
You do understand that because the microscope lens is restricted in it's size, this doesn't restrict us from still using it to identify the entire table, right? For the exact same reason we do so at the macroscopic scale... because that's the boundary that seperates the highest concentration of table-material from the insignificant low concentrations of table-material. Just like the work-table surrounded by wood chips. Who says we do? Why would it matter?
Does it matter at the macroscopic scale? Do we care if the table is one coherent thing or a bunch of wood-chips collected together? No, of course we don't... because the only thing we care about is identifying the volume that contains the high concentration of table-material, at all scales. Yup. Just like there's a difference between the table, the air and the wood-chips at the macroscopic level. Yes, things look different at the microscopic scale. So what? It is still very intuitive and very easy to identify a significantly higher concentration of table-material in one area, and a signficantly lower concentration of table-material elsewhere. Your personal discomfort about what the high concentration of table-material looks like to you is irrelevant, and irrational. Because they compose "the highest concentration of table-material" that we can detect. Which is the exact same method we use to identify "the table" at the macroscopic level when it's surrounded by wood chips. Seems rather analogous to me. Again, your personal incredulity with how things "look different" at the microscopic scale has no bearing on a rational approach to identifying the table. A rational approach which is exactly the same approach that we use at the macroscopic scale. Namely, that "the table" is identified by "the highest concentration of table-material".

No that is just not true. We identify a monitor as a monitor. Why? There are loads of different materials with different densities, but we ignore those to concentrate on the one difference in density - the difference between the 'solid' and the surroundings. So the argument that we define things, like the table, by "the highest concentration of table-material" is not only begging the question and tautologous, it cannot be generalised.If houses on a new estate are arranged in a cross shape, does the cross shape exist as a physical entity? Or is it just a load of houses?
We interpret that question all the time using chauvanistic principles which are very much the realm of philosophy.PS - It does not say I am not familiar with the smaller scale - or at least any less familiar than most. I'm familiar with most of the physics we have on it, which is, I would argue, a greater familiarity than most. I have no experiential data directly - non of us have - which is why I am actually NOT arguing from personal incredulity.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.