Eise

I think it is very inaccurate. Relativity describes gravity as the curving of spacetime, the rubber sheet only shows spacial dimensions (and neither one represents time). This video shows it much better, I think. Closer to what GR is really saying, and still understandable: (I think I posted it already a few times, but maybe you did not see it yet?).

That is highly frustrating. Often I give up when such a thing occurs... These are of course not independent. And I think I do not know of a 'philosophical methodology' that is also not used in science: logic, valid proofs and argumentations, clarity of concepts, striving for consistency, for unifying theories etc. 1. 'Premises' in philosophy are found the way we think. That needs a kind introspection ("Why do I assume this is true? How did I come to the conclusion this is true? Was the way I got to this conclusion valid? etc. 2. If you own thinking (or the way you think others think...) is the starting point of philosophy, then the border between 'real' and 'imagining' becomes at least vague. 3. That is a philosophical question If you hive our ways of thinking (which includes erroneous thinking...) to the empirical, then you are right. But I think there is a distinction between thinking about the world, and thinking about thinking. But Spinoza did not compare modern scientific thought with Vedanta. But that is what (amongst others) Capra is doing in his 'Tao of physics'. But he takes a very esoteric stance on QM, that not many physicists share (e.g. consciousness determines what exists by observation). This is what you find in 'Quantum Enigma' too. See here (pdf) for a devastating critique on the book. That was my question. And you answer with 'consciousness'. Which I think is a bad example to make your ideas about facts, theory building and interpretation clear, because these 3 are highly intermingled in the topic of consciousness. Please give simpler example using established science, with theories that are accepted. What are there the facts, how did the theory building proceed, what was the role of interpretation (and maybe of philosophy)? Are truths different for different groups of people? And Russell himself describes his bon mot as 'with enough truth to justify a joke'. Justifying a joke needs less than justifying truth. ??? Can it be wrong and true??? Please explain. If you can present you ideas with clarity, we can start philosophising. I am trying to understand what you are saying. Until now I do not have a clear picture of how you see facts, theory building and interpretation in science. So I really hope you can clear this up. (1) Every academic should have a passion for truth. But in philosophy maybe not in the way you would like... (I am not sure if I need it to say here, but philosophy is not science...) (2) That would be great. But I am afraid I have to disappoint you... Philosophers should be trained thinkers, being able to understand complex texts, complex arguments, and on the other side be able to present his own ideas as clear as possible. But that is still not the 'ability to recognise truth'. But it can help. So you think we know what protons are, what neutrons are, what electrons are, but do not know how they come together to form atoms? Again, can you please give clear and unambiguous example? I think you view of science is a bit naive: science 'reorganises the bits' in theories. I suspect you call finding hypotheses that explain the facts philosophy. I think that is just part of scientific work. But that will become clearer if you can explain your ideas more precise.

The Forum is terribly slow. And sometimes it doesn't even answer correctly. But good to know that the forum is Linux based. ;-) 502 Bad Gateway nginx/1.10.3 (Ubuntu)

From here: Bold by me. And the reflectors still 'work'. BTW I noticed you are arguing about science everywhere: about Maxwell's equations, quantum physics. How do you explain that all technology based on these works? What is the source of your extreme skepticism?

OK, war of the quotes: Dennett.

TAR, It seems you do not see in which context the article is written, even if the author is very clear about it. The article is meant to argue against the theist outcry: "Without a God we have no objective basis for morality anymore; morality would become just 'do what you like'!." He argues this in 2 ways: the first, short, way is that commands given by a powerful person do not form the basis for morality. The second, longer, one is that we have very well an objective basis for morality even if we do not believe in any God. After he laid this out, he shows how many arguments against a secular and objective morality are wrong. So he does not argue against God's existence: he takes it granted that He does not exist. His argument however is for following proposition: there is objective morality, and we do not need a God for that.

It is difficult to discuss the article if you do not mention the weaknesses, contradictions or unrequired lines of reasoning, and why they are weak, contradictory or not required. Just saying 'I see it differently' does not do right to an argumentative philosophical text.

Exactly.

You call established theories 'bits of information'? Fits to what I stated before. Science are the facts and their interpretation in theoretical frameworks. This kind of interpretation is still science, not philosophy.

I think I repeated this already a few times. Philosophy is the investigation in our way of thinking. Capra is the godfather of new age kitsch of physics, especially of QM, comparing insights of physics with 'eastern wisdom'. So yes, such kind of books. Is physics not also a kind of knowledge? Note I use 'e.g.', i.e. physics as an example of knowledge. You said this: You suggest here science only provides experimental and observable facts, and that the theorising is the task of philosophy. Can you elaborate? Can you give some example of 'knowledge', that then is interpreted by philosophy? Where does that leave theory building? Well, this is the bon mot by Russell: We still have no idea what dark matter is. Should we ask philosophers? I am pretty sure we should not. Let physicists and cosmologists try to find out. It is an empirical question, so it is a scientific question. OK, I took the effort to find out in what context Russell said this. It comes from 'Unpopular essays', Chapter 'Philosophy for laymen', page 24 (here a link where you can download it as pdf) It stands in the context of the idea that all of science was called 'philosophy' in antiquity and the middle ages, and that at the moment parts of it became empirically based theories they became science. Of course this feeds the idea that in the end nothing is left for philosophy. But pity enough this has nothing to do what philosophers are doing today. So you cannot apply Russell's use (in a historical context) to the present situation. And Russel is definitely positive about philosophy (page 33)

Lindsay gives arguments against your position, so without countering these arguments you are just stating your position. That's fine, but it is not a philosophical argument in this way. I think you did not understand what Lindsay means with morality being objective. Objectivity of norms is not the same as objectivity of facts. It seems to me that you fall in the pit of 'if it is not factual true, then it is subjective'. Compare: 'if it is not raining, then the sun is shining'. In this case you just forget a third option, e.g. that it can be cloudy. So I suggest you read the article again, and find out why Lindsay thinks he is justified to call morality objective. ('Objective' of course does not mean we have established the complete field of morality. 'Objectivity' in science also does not mean we already know everything. It means we have a touchstone with which we can argue about what statements or theories are true.)

Not aware of that. Why do you think that? Any sources for this? So we should stop trying to answer all questions that cannot be answered scientifically? And what is 'philosophy as applied to morality'? What is morality without philosophy (in my opinion it would be moral dogmatism...). And most philosophers would admit that? Again: sources? Or are you just venting some prejudices you have? For another take on this read this article.

I see the distinction you are making, however it is oriented very practically. Both science and philosophy have their theoretical parts, springing from the lust of understanding. Both know "L'art pour l'art". Philosophy even a bit too much. But intellectual analysis of religious, political and nationalistic ideologies easily lead to justified criticism. So I assume you are still more or less right... No, you cannot philosophise about everything. For the empirical world we have the sciences. One can philosophise about science of course, because it is a way of human thinking. And in some cases that might have impact on the way science is done. But the facts of the world around us are the domain of the sciences. Do not let you fool by Fritjof Capra... But it is true that some modern psychology integrates some Buddhist ideas. Just as on example: Guy Claxton. Nonsense. The theoretical interpretation of e.g. experiments in physics is the job of physicists. The reflection on the ideas behind their theories, their structures, the regulative ideas in finding such theories and why they are justified is philosophy. But most of that is still done by the physicists themselves. If science wants to be good, it must be able to be empirically justified. Science is about something, and this 'about' is the touchstone of the correctness of a scientific theory. Philosophy is about the thinking about 'about'. (If you know what I mean... ). I do not see what this has to do with philosophy. It are all examples of overoptimistic application of new technology, without understanding the full impact of its use. Of course. But that was a reaction on a posting of beecee where he suggested that philosophy ever could be ready. Funny. I think like a philosopher too, and I think Russell is wrong here... Just remember what beecee said: (Bold by me). Philosophy and physics are not equal in that philosophy is not science. But both are intellectual endeavours in their own respect. Yeah. Terrible. And give philosophy a bad name. Even modern philosophy. Mostly agree, except the sentence I italicized. Science might still progress, but might not get its correct position in human society. To give a simple example: physicists surely the biggest experts on nuclear energy. But if it is a good idea to use it the way we do is a question that needs much more insights than just insight in physics. And to be honestly, lots of physicists do not see it that way...

Wikipedia

Question for you: why would philosophy of science still be a an academic discipline when the scientific method is set in stone? Interesting way of seeing it. Roughly you have a point, but still very rough. I have studied philosophy in Utrecht, the Netherlands, and I was taught about all kind of philosophers, analytic or not. (I would not label analytic philosophy 'Western', in contrast to 'Continental'. Is western Europe not Western?). Analytic philosophy is relatively young, it arose in the beginnings of the 20th century. It has a special interest in the use of language, but some outskirts of it were trying to be too scientific, and so completely missed the boat ) e.g. behaviourism as basis of an explanation of the mind. Why should philosophy look for physical evidence? Physical evidence is for physicists. Most of (ancient!) eastern philosophy tries to help to reach Enlightenment. Most of the Hindu-philosophies do this by building extended metaphysical frameworks about the essence of the world and of ourselves, and therefore, as you say, do not fit well to science. OTOH (original) Buddhism accentuates the importance of sticking to experience: the Buddha mostly refuses to answer if there is a god, if the universe is infinite or infinite, if there is a life after death etc etc. And given his idea of 'no-self' (i.e. there does not exist an independent existing self (or soul)), Buddhism fits very well to modern science. The question is "knowledge of what?". If it is knowledge of anything empirical, then this is not a task for philosophy, but for one of the sciences. And speculation about empirical facts, still belongs to science. It can be bad science (crackpots), and can be good science if it has the prospect of being empirically proven. But it never is philosophy. (Is string theory science, mathematics, or philosophy? Why?) The idea that as soon as some part of philosophy gets 'grown-up' it becomes science is surely not uptodate. There might have been a time that everything except mathematics and astronomy was called (natural) philosophy, but it surely was not a process of philosophy splitting of one science after the other, not leaving anything for itself. When we know everything, science is obsolete too. We do not need scientists anymore, no laboratories or observatories. We would only need engineers, to be creative with all the known laws of nature, and design new technologies based on it.

Dean Radin is a paranormal believer.

That is a rather perverted way of saying that. Kant tried to show with his cosmological antinomies that if you try to answer questions about the reality we live in based on reason alone ("pure reason") you come to contradicting conclusions. See here (search in the page for 'FIRST CONFLICT OF THE TRANSCENDENTAL IDEAS'). It is one of his arguments against metaphysics as science. Therefore the title of his book: Critique of pure reason. If our reasoning about the (in)finity of the universe is based on empirical data, it is not metaphysics anymore, but physics. And then it is not a stupid question anymore, but an empirical one.

I think that the discussion about scientific method, if it is set in stone, is a topic in itself. This is my last reaction on this here. Open another thread if you want. The point in this thread is just that philosophy is a discipline in itself, that it can give important intellectual insights, but that it is not a science. A physicist reflecting on his way of working is philosophising. A physicist reflecting on what the status of his theories is, is philosophising. Any human reflecting on the basic assumptions and values behind his thinking is philosophising. Any human reflecting on the validity of his values is philosophising. Any human reflecting on the precise meaning of concepts he uses in his thinking is philosophising. And if this person has made a academic career in the systematic study of these kinds of reflecting, he is a philosopher. What philosophy definitely is not: another way of trying to find out how the world around us is: that is the domain of the sciences.

If this were true, then there would be no 'scientismists' under scientists. That is just not true. I would even say: the best physicists can reflect about the status of their science. Doing so, they are not doing science, but philosophy. And I would add, if they end up with scientism, they have done their philosophical job badly. As a counterpoint to your fixed believe in one single scientific method, set in stone for ages, read this Wikipedia article about 'epistemological anarchism'.

Science and the scientific method are no persons, so they do not know of limitations. Scientists, and science fans however do not always. I wrote about scientism elsewhere, under a slightly different perspective, namely 'science as religion' : except point 1, it are different forms of scientism:

That is too easy. It needed a hell of a philosophical discussion when it turned out that QM did not fulfill the expectations of classical mechanics, that we can observe the world as it is and that it is completely determined. Nice article. This is a nice one too. Another thing to note: also here on the forum, philosophy is not rubricated under science. But as said, to think that only scientific questions (i.e. questions that potentially can be answered by science) are important in life is scientism.

Two questions: Are these the only two possibilities? I.e. when one of them is false, the other one is automatically true? Can you explain what you mean with 'the collapse of the wave function is an epiphenomenon due to the Uncertainty principle'?

Yes. Clear. I did not say "Bohr is wrong", I said he could have said it a tiny bit clearer. I have no point with Bohr, but what you said originally differed from Bohr's quotation. I understood what you wanted to say, but it was not so precise.

Scientific method is not set in stone. See the early discussions in QM, and the present day ones about string theory and multiverses. Saying this you reduce philosophy to scientific method only. Well, while a nice 'bon mot' I do not agree. There is also a lot we do not know in the area of physics, but that does not make it philosophy. Physics is concerned with nature, philosophy with clarifying our thinking. They are just different disciplines. But if course the study of how physicist think might be a topic of philosophy, which btw is mostly successfully done by the physicists themselves (but not always! Yes, Krauss...) No, I was just thinking about old-fashioned metaphysics, as a way to find out what is 'behind the scenes' of our physical world based on pure thinking. Well, that is highly speculative. I want to amend this: the only worthy answers on scientific questions are scientific answers. But I repeatedly stated there are other question that maybe just as relevant for our lives that are not scientific questions:

The 'can' is missing in your previous citation. Makes a huge difference. I would even extend Bohr's sentence a little, just to make it clearer: Physics concerns what we, methodologically justified, can say about nature.