science is subfield of philosophy

[Itoero]

I know science is not a subfield atm but it should be.

[studiot]

26 minutes ago, Itoero said:

I know science is not a subfield atm but it should be.

 

Thank you for the acknowledgement. +1

"Should be" is a matter of opinion and you are entitled to yours.

 

Edited February 16, 2018 by studiot

[Country Boy]

On ‎1‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 5:58 AM, studiot said:

Up to about 400 years ago I would have agreed with that statement, but since that time there has been a divergence between the two.

 

How old are you?

[studiot]

 

17 minutes ago, HallsofIvy said:

How old are you?

About the same age as my icon.

But well past the retirement age for my generation ( a Who record I remember).

[Gees]

 

There seems to be a great deal of defense and explanation regarding Science in this thread, but little defense and explanation regarding Philosophy. Since this is the Philosophy forum, that will not do.

 

Itoero;

On ‎1‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 11:27 AM, Itoero said:

With science being a subfield I point to the 'fact' that philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Science  is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Science is subject to the scientific method.  Philosophy is not subject to anything.

Philosophy is not subject to anything? There are no rules? Anything goes? Imagination, dreams, fantasies, and speculations? Assumptions, lies, beliefs and biases? Existence whether real or imagined? Knowledge whether true or false? None of it has to be true? Philosophy may encompass many subjects, but it is also subject to rules. It is a Discipline -- a Discipline that studies knowledge, or what is true and real.

If we are going to look at Philosophy as anything that has to do with knowledge, then yes, Science would fall into that description, but then so would everything else. This makes your title somewhat pointless, as everything could be described as a "subfield" of Philosophy if you are going to look at it from that perspective, which means you "cherry picked" the subject that would fit your purposes. There is not a great deal of truth in "cherry picking".

 

Quote

But which aspects of science are not adressed in Philosophy?

You are missing the point. Science and Philosophy are part of each other and always have been. Take the example of an eighteen-month old toddler dropping food off of his high-chair tray, and watching it fall. For a few days, he will be fascinated with the realization that it always goes down. What is he doing? An experiment (Science). What is he learning? The truth of his reality (Philosophy). He will take this information to another level when he tries to get off the couch -- more experimenting, more learning. We ALL use Science and Philosophy, and have used them for most of our lives. All of Science uses Philosophy because evidence needs to be interpreted, put into context, and understood or it has no value. All of Philosophy uses Science because without the evidence that Science provides, it is a little difficult to tell what is Philosophy and what is imagination.

The Disciplines of Science and Philosophy are just advanced forms of learning, so they are taught at higher University levels. The recent separation of the Disciplines is more a matter of procedure than anything else. The procedure, the scientific method, allows for a superior ability to learn the facts about objective reality. These "facts" are very relevant and valuable to philosophers. You could say that Science studies objective facts, and how these relate to us subjectively, and Philosophy studies subjective truths, and how that relates objectively.

 

Quote

 

In the thread "energy photon". I stated that scattering of photons causes refraction. Everyone seemed to disagree with it. People had their own idea of what is 'science', which was based on a logical interpretation and not on scientific evidence.

Many people seem to put scientific value on Einstein's ideas concerning the inside of black Holes because calculations concerning the behavior of black holes are correct. This is again based on logic....their is zero scientific evidence for what happens after an event horizon. If there was evidence then it wouldn't be an event horizon.

Everything about string theory, holographic principle and soft hair theory (of stephen hawking) are not based on scientific evidence. So how do you call those things? Its not science (yet). Considering science to be a subfield of philosophy imo explains things.

 

Well, it might explain things in your mind, but in my mind it looks like you lost a "science" argument in the Science forum and decided to reinstate it in the Philosophy forum. Do you think that the Philosophy forum is a platform that you can use to attack Science? Because anything goes in Philosophy? This is starting to look like a Speculations thread to me.

 

Lord Antares;

On ‎1‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 7:19 AM, Lord Antares said:

Philosophy is, in some ways, diametrically opposite to science.

This I can agree with.

 

Quote

 

In philosophy, there is no truth, nothing you can universally agree upon. Almost every opinion is as valid as every other and in most cases, nothing to be correct about; it's just views on different things. Science works hard to be opposite of that. There is no opinion in science, there is only fact. There are no equally valid views, there is simply a right one and wrong ones. In science, there are such things as evidence, correct, and empirically supported.

 

This paragraph has a great deal that I disagree with, so I have pulled out three sentences, which I will respond to below:

 

"In philosophy, there is no truth, nothing you can universally agree upon."

Philosophy studies "truth", so there is a lot of truth in it. What you need to understand is that "truth" is subjective. If you are looking for truths that are "universally agreed upon", then you are looking for facts and objectivity. Science studies objective facts and is very good at it. But Philosophy studies subjective truth and it is an elusive subject requiring intensive study, discipline, and a high degree of integrity. There are Common Truths in Philosophy and there are Universals, which are things that are universally true, but the study is generally subjective. Since we all have a subjective self, it could be said that a study of truth has some value, as denying our subjectivity, our selves, is not generally a good thing. An example might be when we denied the subjective selves of Black people in the early history of the US, which allowed us to deny their human rights. That was an example of bad philosophy, although I don't know that we can blame the "bad philosophy" on philosophers. It may have been economics. Philosophy would have been what turned it around.

 

"Almost every opinion is as valid as every other and in most cases, nothing to be correct about; it's just views on different things."

In Philosophy, the word "opinion" has a specific meaning, much like in Science, the word "theory" has a specific meaning. Opinion in Philosophy is much closer to hypothesis or theory, as it is based on a specific argument. In Philosophy, you make an argument that puts your experience, training, reasoning, logic, and any evidence into a formal argument. (This argument is much like an experiment would be in Science.) This argument would result in an "opinion" that would be your "position" on the matter. Other philosophers would then look at the argument and question or dispute anything that seems to them to not be true, much like other scientists would dispute the veracity of an experiment. This is how the various "opinions" are formed. Since many of these ideas are not yet testable, the various "opinions" either gather support and evidence, or they start to disappear.

 

"There is no opinion in science, there is only fact"

This is not entirely true. All facts and all evidence needs to be interpreted and put into context or they have no value. I'll give you an example: 27.

"27" is a fact, but it is evidence of what? Is it my age, my IQ, my inseam? Facts need to be in context, they need to be interpreted, which is why knowledge, truth, and Philosophy always have been and always will be part of Science. 

 

Quote

This is true and I agree. For example, the ever so appealing ''theory'' of the holographic universe and life being an illusion. There is no possible way to prove or disprove this and it makes no difference in anything we do or learn. It is quite possibly not even possible to prove it or find how it impacts life. Therefore, it cannot be scientific, but it can be bad philosophy at best.

Actually, there is a good deal of support for the "theories" that you named above. I don't agree with them, but have not yet come up with a good enough argument to shoot them down. I expect that we will get the answers.

 

OldChemE;

On ‎1‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 8:14 PM, OldChemE said:

At the risk of maybe offending someone (for which I will apologize in advance), comparing Philosphy and science seems to me to be almost (but not quite) like comparing Barbers and Doctors.Many years ago I attended some sort of seminar (can't remember the details) where the speaker commented on the origins of medicine.  He commented on the practice of bleeding people to remove evil elements, which was done by barbers.  He then pointed out that from this simple practice eventually we developed medicine and the profession of Doctors, whereas the barbers were still just cutting hair.  I do agree that Philosphy is more advanced than that, but still believe the comparison has merit.

I don't think the comparison has any merit.

StringJunky noted that barbers evolved to become the first surgeons, but surgery is not medicine.

I would like to suggest that the first medicines came from "white witches", who used herbs to treat their patients. And let us not forget the "witch doctors", etc. Although many of the herbal treatments were invalid, others were valid and the beginnings of medication as we know it today.

Gee

[Itoero]

On ‎15‎-‎2‎-‎2018 at 4:13 PM, MarkE said:

I've read Hawking's theory you've shared. Which section of its content gave you the conclusion that, if Hawking is right, black holes aren't objects?   

When is it an object and when not? An apparent horizon points IMO to it not being an object.

 

On ‎16‎-‎2‎-‎2018 at 11:03 AM, Eise said:

There are philosophical groundstones of sciences, but it definitely is not true that therefore science is a subfield of philosophy. And most scientists fare pretty well without thinking about these groundstones.

Many things in 'science' are not backed up by scientific evidence: String theory, Holographic principle, cosmology,  no-hair theorem, Copenhagen interpretation, Many worlds  inter., Consistent histories inter., Ensemble interpretation,  Broglie–Bohm theory, Relational quantum mechanics, Transactional interpretation,  Stochastic mechanics, Objective collapse theories, Consciousness causes collapse, Many minds, Quantum logic, Quantum information theories, Modal interpretations of quantum theory, Time-symmetric theories, Branching space-time theories, ....

Why wouldn't you categorize those things? (by making science a subfield)

On ‎16‎-‎2‎-‎2018 at 11:03 AM, Eise said:

Problem solving is also an important field of puzzles. And most philosopher are not even capable of solving the problems of e.g. physicists. The mathematics is way too complicated.

That's generally because a philosopher is differently educated then a physicist. A chemist will also find it difficult to solving problems of physicists. I know science is not a subfield atm...but it should be. Science is a too broad field.

On ‎18‎-‎2‎-‎2018 at 2:50 AM, Gees said:

Well, it might explain things in your mind, but in my mind it looks like you lost a "science" argument in the Science forum and decided to reinstate it in the Philosophy forum. Do you think that the Philosophy forum is a platform that you can use to attack Science? Because anything goes in Philosophy? This is starting to look like a Speculations thread to me.

No. I mentioned it to show what people consider ' science' is often not science. The main idea was that people believe the properties of light can change without interacting with the photons....which is a philosophical idea.

On ‎18‎-‎2‎-‎2018 at 2:50 AM, Gees said:

Philosophy studies "truth", so there is a lot of truth in it.

I know what you mean but it's wrong since you can't 'proof' the validity of a philosophical study. Whether it contains truth is a subjective opinion.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Itoero

[Strange]

24 minutes ago, Itoero said:

When is it an object and when not? An apparent horizon points IMO to it not being an object.

An event horizon is not a "thing", it is just a set of coordinates. So I don't think I would call any current model of a black hole an "object".

25 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Many things in 'science' are not backed up by scientific evidence: String theory, Holographic principle, cosmology

Cosmology? Cosmology!? What is that doing in your list? Some of the others might be debatable, but cosmology? 

(I would say your list of interpretations of quantum theory are also backed up by evidence because they are interpretations of quantum theory.)

26 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Science is a too broad field.

So your solution is to make philosophy (already a broad field on its own) even broader? And doing nothing to narrow science down? I don't understand the logic of that.

28 minutes ago, Itoero said:

The main idea was that people believe the properties of light can change without interacting with the photons...

No one believes that. But if you want to get banned, just keep repeating it.

[Itoero]

On ‎18‎-‎2‎-‎2018 at 2:50 AM, Gees said:

Philosophy is not subject to anything? There are no rules? Anything goes? Imagination, dreams, fantasies, and speculations? Assumptions, lies, beliefs and biases? Existence whether real or imagined? Knowledge whether true or false? None of it has to be true? Philosophy may encompass many subjects, but it is also subject to rules. It is a Discipline -- a Discipline that studies knowledge, or what is true and real.

Which rules?

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Which rules?

Logic?

[Itoero]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

An event horizon is not a "thing", it is just a set of coordinates. So I don't think I would call any current model of a black hole an "object

Ok, but when is something an object in physics?

 

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

I would say your list of interpretations of quantum theory are also backed up by evidence because they are interpretations of quantum theory

That's true but all the interpretation are interpretations of evidence. You can't use an interpretation as evidence.

 

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

So your solution is to make philosophy (already a broad field on its own) even broader? And doing nothing to narrow science down? I don't understand the logic of that.

If you narrow science down...don't you then just acknowledge that many things in the world of science are philosphical?

 

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

No one believes that. But if you want to get banned, just keep repeating it.

People said how the properties of light change without interacting of photons, as examples they gave doppler shift and gravitational lensing. I prefer not to get banned.

(The things I said in the status I said because I'm very funny and wanted to see if you have humor.)

21 minutes ago, Strange said:

Logic?

Most/Many people think logic dictates there is a god or something supernatural.

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Ok, but when is something an object in physics?

That is not a physics term. So you need to define what you mean by it. (As you brought it in to the discussion.) 

Philosophy is all about clarifying meaning.

13 minutes ago, Itoero said:

That's true but all the interpretation are interpretations of evidence.

Only indirectly. They are interpretations (explanations, metaphors, stories, whatever) of the maths (which is based on evidence.)

But I would say they are philosophy, rather than science.

13 minutes ago, Itoero said:

People said how the properties of light change without interacting of photons, as examples they gave doppler shift and gravitational lensing.

Well, in those cases it is true. Depending on how you are defining "interaction". 

13 minutes ago, Itoero said:

because I'm very funny

Really? 

13 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Most/Many people think logic dictates there is a god or something supernatural.

So? That doesn't (necessarily) mean the logic is wrong. The rules of logic are still rules.

(And some of those people may be using logic to mean "it seems obvious to me".)

And cosmology not based on evidence? Would you like to withdraw that?

Edited February 21, 2018 by Strange

[Eise]

16 hours ago, Itoero said:

Many things in 'science' are not backed up by scientific evidence: String theory, Holographic principle, cosmology,  no-hair theorem, Copenhagen interpretation, Many worlds  inter., Consistent histories inter., Ensemble interpretation,  Broglie–Bohm theory, Relational quantum mechanics, Transactional interpretation,  Stochastic mechanics, Objective collapse theories, Consciousness causes collapse, Many minds, Quantum logic, Quantum information theories, Modal interpretations of quantum theory, Time-symmetric theories, Branching space-time theories, ....

It is true that physical theories leave room for interpretation. One could call this 'philosophy'. But most of the times one needs a good insight in the physical theories in order to philosophise about them. And philosophers normally do not have the background for this.

And slowly I am wondering what you are proposing. What would change if we see science as a subfield of philosophy? Can you make this more tangible? How does the work of scientists (or philosophers) changes when science is a subfield of philosophy?

16 hours ago, Itoero said:

That's generally because a philosopher is differently educated then a physicist. A chemist will also find it difficult to solving problems of physicists. I know science is not a subfield atm...but it should be.

So philosophers should study physics too? Again: what would change?

16 hours ago, Itoero said:

Science is a too broad field.

Yep. That's why it split up in different sciences. And now you want to put them all together again under the label 'philosophy'?

16 hours ago, Itoero said:

I mentioned it to show what people consider ' science' is often not science.

Yes. For the moment I know two categories of these:

1. Ideas that cannot yet be empirically tested. These are definitely scientific theories, but might be scientific hypotheses for a long time to come, or practically impossible to test (an accelerator with the size of the orbit of the earth?). Has nothing to do with philosophy.
2. Ideas that never, principally can be tested. These are interpretations.

To name those ideas under 2. 'philosophy' is in my opinion a bit of a stretch. Reality 'behind the scenes' once was metaphysics, but that is already a while ago. As mentioned earlier, modern metaphysics is concerned with other topics.

Every science has its philosophical corners, where one questions its basic concepts, methods,  or assumptions. But that does not make the sciences philosophy, or a subfield of it. For every human activity, not just science, one can ask basic questions. But that doesn't make these activities a subfield of philosophy either.

 

 

16 hours ago, Itoero said:

Most/Many people think logic dictates there is a god or something supernatural.

Logic is the discipline how truth of propositions hang together with the truth (or falsity) of other propositions. People who think this are taking false assumptions (about which logic has nothing to say), or are wrongly applying concepts or logic itself.

[MarkE]

18 hours ago, Itoero said:

because I'm very funny

Tell us a joke! 

[MarkE]

On 15/02/2018 at 4:28 PM, Strange said:

Even without that paper, I think it is doubtful whether black holes are properly described as "objects". But if they are then, like you, I can't see why this paper would change anything. (I think it is just more of Itoero's anti-science schtick.)

 

23 hours ago, Strange said:

An event horizon is not a "thing", it is just a set of coordinates. So I don't think I would call any current model of a black hole an "object".

What about the term 'black-body radiation'? In the post-Everett QM, "objects" are emergent things, or, which is same, QM is "simulating" all the possible ever-branching (quasi) classical observable worlds with all their objects. But that of course is only if the Hilbert space is multidimensional enough (which accounts for the good old shut-up-and-calculate interpretation).

Edited February 22, 2018 by MarkE

[Itoero]

On ‎21‎-‎2‎-‎2018 at 5:32 PM, Strange said:

That is not a physics term. So you need to define what you mean by it. (As you brought it in to the discussion.) 

An event horizon is not a "thing", it is just a set of coordinates. So I don't think I would call any current model of a black hole an "object".

I was not the one who came up with 'object'. 

Isn't an apparent horizon also a set of coordinates?

 

On ‎21‎-‎2‎-‎2018 at 5:32 PM, Strange said:

On ‎21‎-‎2‎-‎2018 at 5:18 PM, Itoero said:

 

Well, in those cases it is true. Depending on how you are defining "interaction".

Interaction is a kind of action that occurs as two or more 'objects' have an effect upon one another. When light doesn't travel through 'empty space'  the photons interact with particles. There is no evidence to back up the idea that gravit. lensing and doppler shift happen without interacting of photons with particles.

 

On ‎21‎-‎2‎-‎2018 at 5:32 PM, Strange said:

So? That doesn't (necessarily) mean the logic is wrong. The rules of logic are still rules.

(And some of those people may be using logic to mean "it seems obvious to me".)

And cosmology not based on evidence? Would you like to withdraw that?

Ok, but then you proof the validity of logical ideas with logic. .. .then you have logic².

You can say cosmology is based on evidence but it's not scientific since it's not empirical evidence you get via experiments. I think cosmology is about interpreting measurements.

8 hours ago, MarkE said:

Tell us a joke! 

Why did the chicken cross the Mobius strip?

-->To get to the same side!

10 hours ago, Eise said:

And slowly I am wondering what you are proposing. What would change if we see science as a subfield of philosophy? Can you make this more tangible? How does the work of scientists (or philosophers) changes when science is a subfield of philosophy?

I think it's necessary to better categorize science, by making a definite distinction between philosophical science and empirical science.  Many top scientists believe in the correctness of interpretations/research concerning physics. When one top(or famous in his area/country) scientist believes in something and has a convincing way of 'promoting' it then you can be sure many people think the same way. And when you believe in something then you are not going to research other interpretations. So the kind of work, done by scientists, might change since their study field will be less dependent on the area they live in.

 

10 hours ago, Eise said:

It is true that physical theories leave room for interpretation. One could call this 'philosophy'

Those theorie are interpretations. Their are even interpretations off the copenhagen interpretation.

 

10 hours ago, Eise said:

So philosophers should study physics too? Again: what would change?

They don't have to study anything extra. Things just have to better categorized.

11 hours ago, Eise said:

Logic is the discipline how truth of propositions hang together with the truth (or falsity) of other propositions. People who think this are taking false assumptions (about which logic has nothing to say), or are wrongly applying concepts or logic itself.

Who decides which logic is correct and which is not?

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

I was not the one who came up with 'object'. 

You’re right. It was MarkE who asked about objects.  

Quote

Isn't an apparent horizon also a set of coordinates?

I can’t see any significant difference (in terms of being an object) between an apparent or real horizon. Which is why I was puzzled you brought it up (that was you, wasn't it?)

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

There is no evidence to back up the idea that gravit. lensing and doppler shift happen without interacting of photons with particles.

Huh? These are both explained without needing any interaction with particles.

How do you explain Doppler shift in terms of particle interaction? It is trivially explained by relative speed. Why would you need to invent some sort of interaction? That's crazy.

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

Ok, but then you proof the validity of logical ideas with logic. ..

That doesn’t make much sense. Do you know what logic is?

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

You can say cosmology is based on evidence but it's not scientific since it's not empirical evidence you get via experiments.

This is the sort of idiotic argument we get from creationists (“if you can’t do it in a lab, it isn’t science”)

An experiment can be a set of observations used to test a hypothesis. So obviously cosmology is based on scientific evidence. 

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

Who decides which logic is correct and which is not?

The same people who “decide” (or prove) which rules of arithmetic are correct. (Which, in practice, means philosophers and mathematicians.)

Edited February 22, 2018 by Strange

[Gees]

Itoero;

I apologize for being so late with my response. It's been busy here.

 

On ‎2‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 10:21 AM, Itoero said:

No. I mentioned it to show what people consider ' science' is often not science. The main idea was that people believe the properties of light can change without interacting with the photons....which is a philosophical idea.

This is what I don't like about the idea that Science deals only with the physical, and Philosophy deals only with the mental. This division leads to ideas that give people the impression that Science is not allowed to think, and when it does it stops being Science, and Philosophy can not consider the physical, and when it does it stops being Philosophy. These impressions can make Science look a little stupid and turn Philosophy into fluff. I don't like it and find little truth in this division.

When you say that "people believe", you need to consider what that belief is based upon. If the belief is based upon observations, experiments, or known facts from Science, then it is Science. I don't know diddly-squat about photons, but suspect that if Science has a belief about photons, there is a reason for that belief.

 

Quote

I know what you mean but it's wrong since you can't 'proof' the validity of a philosophical study. Whether it contains truth is a subjective opinion.

Bullshit. Science is a result of a "philosophical study". The scientific method is a result of a philosophical study. Math is a result of a philosophical study. All knowledge is a subjective opinion.  Objectivity is simply a consensus of subjective opinions.

 

On ‎2‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 10:54 AM, Itoero said:

Which rules?

Such a little question. It seems that I should be able to answer it with a little answer, but as far as I know, there is nothing like the "scientific method" that encompasses all of the rules in Philosophy. Because Philosophy is so open and covers so much, it would probably be impossible to set down specific rules without limiting Philosophy, or cutting out part of the study. I know that different philosophers have worked out rules that cover what they are specifically studying, but I was not formally trained in Philosophy, and I don't know much about all encompassing rules.

What I can give you is a generalization of how I work Philosophy, and this is comparable to other philosophers' work. Philosophy is worked in steps, when I do it, and generally starts out with an observation or experience.

1. Am I sure it happened? Was it a fluke of lighting? Wishful thinking? My imagination? A misunderstanding? A misinterpretation? So the first step would be an evaluation of my self and the observation or experience, so that I can determine if it actually happened the way I think it did, and is a valid inquiry.

2. Is it a consistent happening? Are we talking about coincidence or a fluke that is once in a lifetime? Is there consistency? A recognizable pattern? A commonality? If I can find a consistency, then that lends weight to the idea that it may be true. At this point, I would probably try to work out a premise.

3. What do others think? There are few ideas that are brand new, so I now need to investigate what other philosophers or scientists have to say on the subject. I may find that my "truth" is already known, just not by me. If it is not known, does it conform to other truths that are known? If it does, then that lends more weight to the idea. If it does not conform, then I have a problem, because a "truth" that does not work in context is unlikely to be true.

4. If it does not conform. It may be that I am wrong. It may be that everyone else is wrong. (Not likely) Or it may be that both are right, but there is a circumstance or perspective that causes the divergence in thought. So when this happens, I get to go back to 1. and analyze and reevaluate my "truth", then I get to go over the known "truths" until I have a good understanding of them, so I can find the place where the divergence occurs. This is a lot of work and can take years or a lifetime to thoroughly understand the concepts and see why they don't work together.

5. Then I get to make my argument which sets down the reasons why I think my "truth" is valid. Or it sets down the reasons why my "truth" diverges from other known truths, and under what circumstances this divergence can be expected to happen.

While working steps 1. through 5., I will use critical thinking and analysis to evaluate the ideas. Formal logic does not usually come into the considerations until after the argument is made.

I suspect that your "photon" troubles would fit into step 4. above.

 

Strange;

 

On ‎2‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 11:32 AM, Strange said:

So? That doesn't (necessarily) mean the logic is wrong. The rules of logic are still rules.

(And some of those people may be using logic to mean "it seems obvious to me".)

Yes. That is exactly what they are doing. Logic can not answer the question of "God", so when people claim to be using logic with this idea, what they are actually doing is rationalizing.

I believe it was Martin Heidegger, a German philosopher, who called logic a schoolroom tool used to evaluate the consistency of a student's argument. I certainly agree with his assessment.

What many people fail to consider is that logic is a linear process. Logic puts information in sequential steps from one idea to another, so it is great for checking consistency, as Heidegger noted. But logic can not give you the starting point or ending point as it is an internal process. If you wanted to prove some unknown with logic, where would you place the steps to get to your unknown answer? How could you possibly know in which direction to go? You can not line things up so that they go nowhere. Logic can be used to evaluate a philosophical argument because the parameters of the argument are set within the argument. Theoretically, the argument contains all of the pertinent information, so there are no unknowns. 

The great flaw in logic comes with lack of information. Like the five-year-old boy, who has been observing the road for his entire life and sees no danger in it. He thinks that Mom and Dad are worry-warts. His observations are good, his logic is fine, but he has a serious lack of pertinent information.

Gee

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Gees said:

Logic can not answer the question of "God", so when people claim to be using logic with this idea, what they are actually doing is rationalizing.

They may be (hopefully are) using logic to rationalise their belief. So, yes, logic can answer the question. But that doesn't mean the answer is correct.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Gees said:

It's been busy here.

 

That's no excuse.

 

ScienceForums takes precedence over everything.

 

 

[Eise]

On 22.2.2018 at 8:50 PM, Itoero said:

I think it's necessary to better categorize science, by making a definite distinction between philosophical science and empirical science. 

What is philosophical science? Never heard of it. Something like Christian Science, but then based on philosophy instead of christian belief?

On 22.2.2018 at 8:50 PM, Itoero said:

And when you believe in something then you are not going to research other interpretations.

If you have a scientific theory, like QM, and all agree this theory is an extremely good theory of empirical reality, how can one do then empirical research in its interpretations? 

I think that we should leave the interpretations of physical theories to those people that understand these theories. Mostly these are physicists themselves, not academic philosophers. And I, as an academic studied philosopher, have nothing against physicists 'going philosophy'. There is no guarantee that some good philosophy comes out of it, that should clarify itself in an ongoing discourse with other physicists and philosophers (but please philosophers that know their limitations...).

On 22.2.2018 at 8:50 PM, Itoero said:

Who decides which logic is correct and which is not?

Strange already gave an answer. But it surely is not democratically decided, and certainly you do not decide it.

Let me just say that some topics in my academic study of philosophy were: history of logic (e.g. syllogisms), propositional logic, predicate logic, modal logic, argumentation theory; I even tasted some of temporal logic (which, I confess, was extremely difficult. I think only the theoretical physicists that were also attending the lecture were equipped enough to really understand it).

Edited February 27, 2018 by Eise

[Tub]

2 hours ago, Eise said:

What is philosophical science? Never heard of it. Something like Christian Science, but then based on philosophy instead of christian belief?

If you have a scientific theory, like QM, and all agree this theory is an extremely good theory of empirical reality, how can one do then empirical research in its interpretations? 

I think that we should leave the interpretations of physical theories to those people that understand these theories. Mostly these are physicists themselves, not academic philosophers. And I, as an academic studied philosopher, have nothing against physicists 'going philosophy'. There is no guarantee that some good philosophy comes out of it, that should clarify itself in an ongoing discourse with other physicists and philosophers (but please philosophers that know their limitations...).

 

I found this article very interesting. https://philosophynow.org/issues/114/Richard_Feynmans_Philosophy_of_Science

[Itoero]

On ‎25‎-‎2‎-‎2018 at 10:01 PM, Gees said:

Itoero;

I apologize for being so late with my response. It's been busy here.

Apologies accepted...my responses always come late  

 

On ‎22‎-‎2‎-‎2018 at 10:34 PM, Strange said:

can’t see any significant difference (in terms of being an object) between an apparent or real horizon. Which is why I was puzzled you brought it up (that was you, wasn't it?)

Yes, that was me. A different horizon indeed doesn't change much for it being an object or not. I just thought it was interesting to point out that a black hole can have a different horizon then described in general relativity.

 

On ‎22‎-‎2‎-‎2018 at 10:34 PM, Strange said:

Huh? These are both explained without needing any interaction with particles.

How do you explain Doppler shift in terms of particle interaction? It is trivially explained by relative speed. Why would you need to invent some sort of interaction? That's crazy.

True but the fact that it's explained without particle interaction doesn't mean the interaction of particles isn't there. The same goes for refraction.

It's IMO due to interaction of photons with electrons( inelastic scattering) in the corona of a star. In our sun the K-corona is created by sunlight scatteing off free electrons. (Relative) speed shifts the conc. of electrons in the corona which causes red and blue shift. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona

Something related is presumed to happen in the corona of black holes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering#Inverse_Compton_scattering

On ‎25‎-‎2‎-‎2018 at 10:01 PM, Gees said:

When you say that "people believe", you need to consider what that belief is based upon. If the belief is based upon observations, experiments, or known facts from Science, then it is Science. I don't know diddly-squat about photons, but suspect that if Science has a belief about photons, there is a reason for that belief.

Exactly. The idea that the properties of light can change without  interacting of photons is not based on observations, experiments, or known facts ..it's based on misinterpretations and faith. There is no evidence that doppler shift and gravit. lensing happen without interacting/scattering of photons but many scientists believe it anyway.

 

On ‎25‎-‎2‎-‎2018 at 10:01 PM, Gees said:

Bullshit. Science is a result of a "philosophical study". The scientific method is a result of a philosophical study. Math is a result of a philosophical study. All knowledge is a subjective opinion.  Objectivity is simply a consensus of subjective opinions.

 

But then how do you 'proof' the validity of a philosophical study? With logic? Who's logic?

"Objectivity is simply a consensus of subjective opinions."Not really. This depends on the context.

On ‎25‎-‎2‎-‎2018 at 11:34 PM, studiot said:

ScienceForums takes precedence over everything.

I have to disagree on this. My tomatoes I'm sowing this evening are imo more important.

 

On ‎27‎-‎2‎-‎2018 at 8:41 AM, Eise said:

What is philosophical science? Never heard of it. Something like Christian Science, but then based on philosophy instead of christian belief?

I don't know I just want to categorize all the interpretations in science. philosophical science seems like a good word.

 

On ‎27‎-‎2‎-‎2018 at 8:41 AM, Eise said:

think that we should leave the interpretations of physical theories to those people that understand these theories. Mostly these are physicists themselves, not academic philosophers. And I, as an academic studied philosopher, have nothing against physicists 'going philosophy'. There is no guarantee that some good philosophy comes out of it, that should clarify itself in an ongoing discourse with other physicists and philosophers (but please philosophers that know their limitations...).

Ok, but why don't we call those interpretations of physical theories, Philosophy?

[studiot]

25 minutes ago, Itoero said:

I have to disagree on this. My tomatoes I'm sowing this evening are imo more important.

 

Hopefully somewhere indoors in this weather.

[Strange]

19 minutes ago, Itoero said:

True but the fact that it's explained without particle interaction doesn't mean the interaction of particles isn't there.

But if Doppler shift weren’t explained by relative motion (which is kind of inherent in the nature of waves) then you would need to explain why not. 

And does the same apply to sound?

(I have seen some odd ideas in my time, but denying Doppler shift is a new one.)

22 minutes ago, Itoero said:

It's IMO due to interaction of photons with electrons( inelastic scattering) in the corona of a star.

Are we still talking about Doppler? How is that relevant to, say, terrestrial radar system? 

23 minutes ago, Itoero said:

The idea that the properties of light can change without  interacting of photons is not based on observations, experiments, or known facts .

The Doppler effect is based on all those. 

27 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Who's logic?

There is just logic. This is like asking “who’s arithmetic”

Are you under the misapprehension that logic is a subjective thing? Are you confusing it with common sense. 

[studiot]

Talking of Doppler,

I wonder, are your tomatoes subject the the red shift?