|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: I bid farewell | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2883 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
"that CPT is both conjectural and viable theory."
This is an oxymoran. And I do believe you are nearly the only one left on this forum that thinks CPT is a "viable theroy."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5250 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
crashfrog writes: If you're being asked to defend a scientific proposal or model, and you're referencing Popper instead of evidence, then what you're doing is nonsense. Spot on!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 979 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Crash writes:
Exactly.
...if you're being asked to defend a scientific proposal or model, and you're referencing Popper instead of evidence, then what you're doing is nonsense. None of that philosophy is relevant to convincing scientists, or anybody else for that matter, that you have a compelling model.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1457 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Man, I'm on today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5810 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Two mistakes have been made in this thread, and both center on the same problem, a serious lack of understanding of the history and function of philosophy and science, as well as philosophy in science.
On one hand there is a lack of understanding that methodological naturalism as a tool has been given so much empirical support that it is currently the best viable tool (not to mention how it works in application) for research, and on the other hand that MN is philosophical in nature and as it underlies all of modern science means that philosophy of science is important in all scientific research. Given that the first has been dealt with in good measure and the latter some strange level of acclaim, I will focus on the latter. It was asserted that philosophy of science has no relevance to how science is practiced and an example given that one would not quote popper rather than evidence in a research article. While the latter is true, the former is not. Modern scientists do not generally think about the philosophical paradigm they are working within, much as researchers 100s and 1000s of years ago did not. They work within what are established models of action&result (or "evidence"), and conclusion. What ties those things together now as then is most certainly logic and a philosophical model. Before methodological naturalism was developed and proven through use, science was known only as natural philosophy. While many researchers labored as technicians in the sense that CF discussed goes on today, philosophy of how to conduct scientific research was more integrated with the technical because a strongly proven method had not yet been developed. Even those wanting to just get on with their work, had to think a bit about what they were doing. With the establishment of methodological naturalism as a successful tool of investigation, such researchers had to spend less time pondering and so could spend more time being technical operators. That is when science emerged as something separate from philosophy itself. One could view scientists as the subset of natural philosophers who have accepted MN as the best research paradigm, and are now applying it regularly. However, just because modern scientists do not have to think about such things regularly, does not mean that philosophy of science does not have relevance and cannot actually have impact on scientific models. That is like a mechanic noting that all he has to do is drain oil and replace hoses, and so there is no such thing as engineering involved with cars. Or a professional fighter saying that he just "punches that way" and so there is no philosophy behind the martial art he is applying. Unfortunately that illusion appears to be becoming more commonplace, which is likely why there is increasingly bad science... and scientists. People have lost the fact that results may actually have more than one meaning and philosophical paradigms themselves explored. Science is not a plug n play system that has always been and will always remain the same. A good example of this would be relativity. While Einstein worked as an MN technician for his work on photoelectric effects, his theory of relativity was in essence purely philosophy of science. It did not seek to alter MN as the working model for collecting evidence to draw conclusions, but did alter how to view evidence as related to other evidence within the world given less than "normal" conditions. Science is philosophy and requires philosophy. One does not need to quote philosophers in order to come to a conclusion, but will actually use philosophical methods within a philosophical paradigm all along the way. For those that don't think so, look at what science work you do, imagine what a researcher would have done 500 years ago to investigate that same phenomena, and then what bridged his method and yours. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12993 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
No one is saying the philosophy of science is irrelevant to the practice of science. This thread is just an extension of the What is good science? thread where the necessity for evidence was being discussed. Certainly in a thread where the philosophy of science was the topic the dismissive way it's been treated here would be inappropriate, but consider it hyperbole to make a point.
I don't want Crash's important point diluted, it deserves repeating. If you're supporting your ideas by citing Popper instead of evidence, then what you're doing is nonsense. The important lesson of this thread (actually of the What is good science? thread) isn't the relationship of science to it's underlying philosophy, but of the misuse of philosophy to promote bogus ideas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5810 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
No one is saying the philosophy of science is irrelevant to the practice of science. I'm sorry, does the following not say that very thing?:
the philosophy of science has absolutely no relevance to the practical prosecution of science in the field or lab.
It's quite a mistake to refer to or suggest that the philosophy of science represents some kind of "underpinning" or foundation of science; the reverse is true. Philosophers of science do not establish the rules of science for scientists, but rather, they attempt to describe the process of scientific reasoning as employed by scientists.
At no point has the "philosophy of science", nor the work of any philosopher, been relevant to the prosecution of any of these endeavors. Science is what scientists do, not what philosophers talk about. It is physical evidence that holds primacy in science, not logic chopping. That is quite a specific statement, and ascribes the role of philosopher of science to one of taking notes as scientists do their thing, and wholly not as those who did establish the rules under which modern science operates. That is in direct contradiction to the history of science, as it emerged from natural philosophy. I might add that it was philosophers of science who elevated evidence above pure logic, or rational appeals combined with logic, as proper methodology. The stated view appears to be from a purely modern ethnocentric position, and as artificial as TCs.
consider it hyperbole to make a point. There is a difference between hyperbole and gross inaccuracy.
I don't want Crash's important point diluted, it deserves repeating. If you're supporting your ideas by citing Popper instead of evidence, then what you're doing is nonsense. That's fine neither do I. I am an empiricist and so firmly stand by MN as the best scientific method we have and TCs rationalist abstractions (even if referring to Popper errantly) are not convincing as science. But I don't believe throwing the baby out with the bath water is necessary to make the important point that modern science operates using physical evidence. TCs position is not exactly nonsense, but it is nonscience. Saying that philosophy of science has no connection or has not influenced how science is practiced is nonsense. It has no factual basis.
isn't the relationship of science to it's underlying philosophy, but of the misuse of philosophy to promote bogus ideas. Again, I am all on board MN, and against the use of supposed "philosophy of science" to undercut modern scientific endeavours which we see not only in arguments as TC as created, but those of Dembski and other ID theorists. However, just as I am a firm opponent of that, I am equally a firm opponent of misusing facts to promote bogus ideas. The idea that science has no philosophical underpinnings, and that its practice contains no philosophical precepts is patently bogus. His own description of what he did in order to achieve a research result involved philosophical concepts, even if he did not realize they were there. Again it is like the mechanic that dismisses engineering. Was your response to me in admin mode intentional? This message has been edited by holmes, 07-28-2005 12:06 PM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12993 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
holmes writes: consider it hyperbole to make a point. There is a difference between hyperbole and gross inaccuracy. Hey, he just got carried away.
Was your response to me in admin mode intentional? I've been responding in TC's recent threads in admin mode, with the exception of responding to Philip. A discussion of the degree of relevance of the philosophy of science to the practice of science would make a very interesting thread, if you'd like to propose it. I'd prefer such a discussion not take place in this thread nor in the What is good science? thread. Chris was using the philosophy of science and obfuscative terminology as a smokescreen to hide his lack of supporting evidence, and I'd like that fact not to get lost.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5810 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
A discussion of the degree of relevance of the philosophy of science to the practice of science would make a very interesting thread, if you'd like to propose it. I'd prefer such a discussion not take place in this thread Okay, though I will point out its rather arbitrary to have only now stepped in to make such a proclamation. If the degree of relevance had not been so definitively discussed already, I would not have posted anything.
Chris was using the philosophy of science and obfuscative terminology as a smokescreen to hide his lack of supporting evidence, and I'd like that fact not to get lost. On this I am also in agreement, and mentioned so in my post. I said two mistakes were being made, and only focused on the one CF made because TCs mistake was rather obvious and well covered by that point. I suppose I will go further regarding TC (since that appears to be what I am limited to here) and state that I find most people who discuss philosophy of science in connection with knocking modern scientific theories are guilty of misusing it. They pretty clearly would not want what they are proposing as scientific methodology be applied to any other field or phenomena than the particulars of what they need, and indeed would also not want the "weak" evidentiary rules applied to hypotheses beyond the Biblical, and so are acting in a selfserving manner. I did not mean in any way for my post to read as a defense of antiMN advocates, or epistemic nihilists. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1457 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
No one is saying the philosophy of science is irrelevant to the practice of science. I am. Hell, when I asked around the entomology department, maybe one out of twenty people had even heard of Karl Popper. These were all people hard at work developing experiments and lines of research. Holmes's sematic wordgames aside, when I said that the philosophy of science was ireelevant to the practice of science, I said this because that's exactly the way it appears to be. Scientists don't fret over "falsifiability" or the debate between naive empiricism and instrumentalism because those things aren't relevant to designing experiments, gathering data, and drawing conclusions of the very limited scope that a scientific paper usually represents. For persons with practical experience in experiment design things like falsifiability pretty much just drop into place on their own, without even being considered. If philosophers think that scientists are waiting with bated breath to be told by them how to do their jobs, waiting to be handed down some granite-carved precepts that define the Scientific Method like some kind of Ten Commandments, well, to me that's just indiciative of the massive ego and arrogance that tends to typefy philosophy students in general. Even Bacon, who ultimately was a scientist first and a "philosopher" (in the modern understanding of the term) second, learned empiricism from the Muslim world, he didn't develop it himself as a basis for scientific investigation. Philosophy of science has always described the practical application of empiricism, and only rarely has informed it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12993 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I think if you or holmes want to open a thread on the topic that it would be very interesting. To be fair to Chris, I think this is the subject that he actually wanted to discuss, as the thread he proposed (too late, as I'd already opened one) was The philosophy and logic of theory building, justification, and acceptance. Chris wanted to show that his ideas were valid if assessed philosophically and formally. Whether or not he would have succeeded is irrelevant, because as you pointed out, that's not how scientists persuade other scientists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1457 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I think if you or holmes want to open a thread on the topic that it would be very interesting. I must regretfully decline, as I'm unfortunately certain that such a discussion with Holmes would not be fruitful nor enjoyable for either of us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5810 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I think if you or holmes want to open a thread on the topic that it would be very interesting. If you are going to let crash get away with the gross inaccuracies he is presenting, and merely ask that I open a thread to debate the issue, yet hold TC to the fire over his gross inaccuracies then you are being unfair. This is the point (Crash repeating his errant point firmly) to put your foot down with regard to the facts. I am unsure what "semantic word games" I could be playing when I stated the facts regarding how science formed out of philosophy. Perhaps he needs to read more history to understand that what scientists do now came from philosophy and are a specific paradigm for research. Yes scientists don't spend much time having to think about it now because as I said SCIENCE is pretty much the application of an agreed upon principle called MN. Yet there does remain areas where it gets tweaked from time to time. He might also keep in mind that I worked in science and indeed taught science. I can say that I have an opposite experience regarding what scientists do and do not know about the philosophy which underlies the process they use. Yes ignorance of this is increasing, but that does not mean all are. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024