|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Philosophy and science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
Err...is that it? Probably way off target?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Bikerman writes:
The story about beliefs and codes has zero supporting evidence.
Err...is that it? Probably way off target?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
Ahh..OK, theoretical=probably way off target, I see.
True on a trivial level (in that where there are competing theories it follows that some or all will be wrong), but I thought you were talking from experience - ie that you knew something about the field... It is not unknown for theory to lead experiment - physics is still very much in that state at the moment. The only question is whether the hypotheses are testable in principle....and it seem to me that this model is...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
How do you reconcile this:
Modulous writes: Stile writes:
Well that's trivially true. Detection can be a completely passive activity. Showing that philosophy is not required in order to objectively detect the existence of something. (Which I think is what I'm talking about) With this:
If you want to say "This table objectively exists", you need philosophy. (Which I think is what Bikerman is talking about) You seem to claim both are "true" and I don't understand the difference between the two statements. Unless you're implying that it depends on whether or not you consider naive empiricism to be philosophy? Or are you talking about the difference between detecting the objective existence of a table, and knowing that a table exists objectively? I suppose my stance on that is that I'm only concerned with "detecting" and couldn't care less about "knowing". I'd say such a thing because once we get into "knowing" (in a strict sense) we're into a definitions game... What is "knowing"?What is "understanding"? Can we actually "know" something, if nothing can ever really be proven? Does it matter?If we mean "know" in the sense of "pretty close, but not actually 100%"... is it really "knowing" or just a social convention to replace the words "current detection". Do we use the word "know" out of social convention even though no one actually ever "knows" anything at all? Does it make any difference or are these simply fun question? I find those questions all irrelevant. If I can detect a table, and you can detect the same table, and everyone else detects the same table... I don't really care if I "know" it's there or not. What is "philosophy"?Again, we can use an extremely general defintion of philosophy that is "the search for wisdom". In which case, pretty much everything is philosophy. Or we can use the defintion I've been assuming, which is something along the lines of "all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts"... Understanding something seems to invoke philosophy - but that depends on what we mean by 'understand' - and answering that is definitely philosophy! Point taken. However, it should be noted that babies can "understand" tables, and I'm pretty sure they're not invoking any philosophy. Which raises another point, do we consider it to be "using philosophy" if someone else thinks we're doing it, but we're not actually conciously aware (in which case, we may not be doing any philosophy and simply detecting things)? Is philosophy one of those things, similar to "music", that can be defined pretty much by whoever uses the term? In which case, Bikerman and I would both be correct at the same time... which only seems to add credence to those saying that philosophy is generally useless. This post is a rambling mess... but I don't feel like spending the time to clean it up, hope it makes some sense to someone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Bikerman writes:
In physics, theory is very much a theory of future observations. Theoretical physics and experimental physics have a lot of cross communication.It is not unknown for theory to lead experiment - physics is still very much in that state at the moment. With philosophy, the theories are about as useful as theories of the IPU or theories of the flying spaghetti monster. They are disconnected from observation. In the case of epistemology (the alleged theory of knowledge), there has actually been some experimentation. For example, Jean Piaget did experimental work on learning, and Piaget's work was found useful by schools of education. But mainline philosophy did little more than pay lip service to Piaget's work. And now that Piaget is safely dead, what little influence he had on philosophy is disappearing. The methods of philosophy are far more like the methods of theology and religion than they are like the methods of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Stile writes: I suppose my stance on that is that I'm only concerned with "detecting" and couldn't care less about "knowing". I'd say such a thing because once we get into "knowing" (in a strict sense) we're into a definitions game... What is "knowing"?What is "understanding"? I don't see the point of "detecting" unless it is related to "knowing" or "understanding". A camera can detect. A computer rigged up with a variety of sensors can detect all manner of things. But what is the point of merely "detecting" if the endgame isn't to "know" or "understand" something? Only a conscious mind of some sort can detect and "understand" or "know" something as a result of that detection. Surely that's where the requirement for philosophy comes in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Mod writes: So in short - to say you know something implies you have a criteria for knowledge. How do we go about determining what those criteria are (or should be)? And how can we ever know (or have confidence in) those criteria unless the knowledge on which our choice of criteria is based meets some criteria for knowledge itself? Where does this seeming infinite regress stop? Am I making even remote sense at this point?
Mod writes: It's EvC Forum that drove me to philosophy - trying to find the things that underpin the discussion themselves so that they can be addressed directly. Well my thinking and interests are following similar lines albeit far in lag of your own.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
You seem to claim both are "true" and I don't understand the difference between the two statements. If I press my fingers against my eyeballs I 'detect' sparkly lights. But they aren't objectively real in the sense most people mean. I might 'detect' a table, but actually be looking at a coffin. Etc.
I'd say such a thing because once we get into "knowing" (in a strict sense) we're into a definitions game... Epistemeology is the preferred term
I find those questions all irrelevant. If I can detect a table, and you can detect the same table, and everyone else detects the same table... I don't really care if I "know" it's there or not. One presumes you have the criteria that if you detect something and others also detect something which seems to have the same characteristics then there is a pretty good chance that you are detecting something that is independent of your minds. As far as anyone cares about tables - you can say you know it if your preferred criteria of knowledge are met (and if they aren't - there's probably something very wrong with your criteria).
Again, we can use an extremely general defintion of philosophy that is "the search for wisdom". In which case, pretty much everything is philosophy. Or we can use the defintion I've been assuming, which is something along the lines of "all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts"... I don't like either. How about: "A reasoned examination of the fundamental or core issues of any given subject." Of course - when you start discussing something like ontology - it has a very strong chance of ending up sounding stupid.
However, it should be noted that babies can "understand" tables, and I'm pretty sure they're not invoking any philosophy. Depends what you mean by 'understand'. They can certainly comprehend that there is a table there now - but we know they have difficulty with assigning the property of persistence to objects so they might somewhat surprised that it is still there later or when the table cloth is removed. Do they understand the bonds, cellulose (or alluminium)? No. Do they understand that the table was built in a factory? No. So what do you mean by understand?
Which raises another point, do we consider it to be "using philosophy" if someone else thinks we're doing it, but we're not actually conciously aware (in which case, we may not be doing any philosophy and simply detecting things)? Is it a table if the only person looking at it has suffered a stroke and cannot identify it as a table? I say it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
How do we go about determining what those criteria are (or should be)? The general pattern humans have used is to argue loudly about it, publish books - poo-poo each other's works - write more books, have a duel or two - maybe even a whole feud, then die. Is that the best way? I have no idea. But yeah - different arguments are raised against or for various Criteria of Truth - and you get to pick which ones seem to be the most solid.
And how can we ever know (or have confidence in) those criteria unless the knowledge on which our choice of criteria is based meets some criteria for knowledge itself? This was one of the sticking points for the logical postivists and verificationism. Verificationism holds that a sentence is meaningless if it cannot be verified (essentially, unless it is representational of something that can be said to be true) or is not a tautology. But this principle is unverifiable...
Where does this seeming infinite regress stop? Am I making even remote sense at this point? Yep. All great questions. The method employed by most modern philosophers is Analytic Philosophy - which stresses a clear simple 'common sense' approach which still relentlessly digs at fundamental questions. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
quote:Yes, you like to assert, I realise. You assert that cognitivists are likely to be wrong - and yet they more than others use the scientific method which of course includes empirical testing of theory. But since you assert that this is not true then I guess you must be right and the books I read are all inventions... Never mind that psychophysics is part of the field - it can't be empirical can it? Still, keeping an open mind is not always easy, is it? ...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024