Frank Sinatra is not a poached egg

[studiot]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Abduction,  possibly.   You observed Davy's linguistic action and then make an inference to the best explanation of what he means by poached egg and Frank Sinatra.   

 

Abductive reasoning (also called abduction,^[1] abductive inference,^[1] or retroduction^[2]) is a form of logical inference formulated and advanced by American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce beginning in the last third of the 19th century. It starts with an observation or set of observations and then seeks the simplest and most likely conclusion from the observations. This process, unlike deductive reasoning, yields a plausible conclusion but does not positively verify it. Abductive conclusions are thus qualified as having a remnant of uncertainty or doubt, which is expressed in retreat terms such as "best available" or "most likely". One can understand abductive reasoning as inference to the best explanation,^[3] although not all usages of the terms abduction and inference to the best explanation are exactly equivalent.^[4][5]

Which came first, the Frank or the egg?   

Thank you for this answer.

Now I know why I am not a philosopher.

Your quote uses the words "Most likely".

Quite unspecific.

What, exactly does this mean in the realms of Philolosophy  please ?

Or if you prefer here it is as a mathematical statement.

The probability of X , P(X) =1  ?

I would warn you this statement has at least 3 possible mathematical meanings.

 

PS

I do like you flea/dog comment that's now in the trash can.

 

Edited September 10, 2021 by studiot

[beecee]

16 hours ago, Davy_Jones said:

gravity is caused by the bending and distortion of space and time."
 

As others have said, sometimes people are lazy in their speech and choice of words. I am pretty certain that Albert actually meant that gravity is caused by mass/energy bending warping spacetime. Gravity is geometry as the model GR tells us. Of course as we know, GR fails us at certain regions.

The following is beautiful and brought a tear to my eye and a lump to my throat!😉

7 hours ago, MigL said:

"Their most famous exchange had Einstein declaring "God does not play dice with the universe"
To which Bohr replied "Yes he does, and sometimes he throws them where they cannot be seen"

Sometimes Philosophers, and even Physicists, pretend they can see the dice ..

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

Even the great man made some blunders, but his forte was admitting readily them. 

9 hours ago, Davy_Jones said:

I suspect some people are afraid to use the words real and reality, even when talking about rocks and trees and cannonballs and American crooners, for fear of being laughed at, perhaps.

Idealism is dead as a dodo. It's perfectly respectable to say "That rock is real" -- mind-independently real -- nowadays. No one will laugh.

I stubbed my toe on a rock once. It was real, as also is my toe. Gravity still remains a mystery, and scientific models are still useful descriptions based on observational data that mostly have zilch to do with reality or truth.

7 hours ago, Sensei said:

  ... the Sun, stars, distant galaxies really exist and are what you think they are? No one has flown there. No one has touched them. If they really exist and are what physicists think they are, no one will ever get to them because they will burn up any device.

The Sun has just recently risen where I am, but I cannot be sure it is there. I'll confirm it or otherwise in 8.25  minutes, OK? I was admiring the constellation Crux and Alpha Centauri last night. Was it really there? I'll let you know in 4.5 years. 

[Davy_Jones]

9 hours ago, Sensei said:

If you are looking at the Sun, a star or a distant galaxy, your eye, a scientist's telescope, has just absorbed photons. Billions+ of photons with properties: frequency and polarization. The more photons detected ("measured"), the better the image quality. How can you know... to be absolutely sure... the Sun, stars, distant galaxies really exist and are what you think they are? No one has flown there. No one has touched them. If they really exist and are what physicists think they are, no one will ever get to them because they will burn up any device.

Therefore in physics we have a division between direct measurements and indirect measurements.

First of all, look at what you're doing here: just take the first sentence.
Are you speaking literally with all this talk of photons? It looks an awful lot to me like a (purported) statement of fact. And if that's the case, don't look now but you're describing reality. Science could be dead wrong about photons, of course, nonetheless you are at least trying to describe reality.
Or are we to understand this talk of photons as mere façon de parler?

How do we know the Sun really exists? Because we can see it! It may indeed turn out that current theories of the Sun (nuclear fusion, etc.) are wrong, that we are misdescribing the Sun, after all many past theories are now considered false. Note: to misdescribe is already to presuppose an attempt to describe.
To misdescribe it, however, is not to deny its existence. To misdescribe Frank Sinatra, say, as having six legs, perhaps, does nothing to impugn his existence. For the Sun to be unreal it would have to be some kind of illusion, not really there.

Let's suppose--worst case scenario--that the stars and distant galaxies turn out to be (mind independently) unreal and we're all brains in vats, what do you think would be the appropriate thing to say?:

1. Pfft! Who cares! We never thought they were real anyway, or
2. Whoops! We thought they were real--we were trying to describe real things (i.e. describe reality)-- but we were wrong.

 

8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

What does philosophy say about objectivity? The reason science doesn't deal with "reality" and "truth" is precisely because those terms are subjective to each person, and can't be trusted as the foundation for an explanation. We can only observe and measure and experiment, and those processes require the removal of as much subjective influence as possible.

This is simply untrue, I'm afraid. There are scientists, the vast majority I suspect (physics being the exception where realism does appear to be a minority position), who take themselves to be describing, or at least trying to, describe reality, trying to get at the truth. Even in physics . . .

 

All this [i.e. Kuhn's ideas] is wormwood to scientists like myself, who think the task of science is to bring us closer and closer to objective truth."

-- Steven Weinberg (from "Facing Up", essay 17, "The Non-Revolution of Thomas Kuhn"

"Although natural science is intellectually hegemonic, in the sense that we have a clear idea of what it means for a theory to be true or false, its operations are not socially hegemonic -- authority counts for very little"

-- Steven Weinberg. See "The Science Wars", p220

"Rigidity means here that the theory [GR] is either true or false, but not modifiable"

- Einstein, essay "On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation"

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however they may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way to open the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all of the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility or the meaning of such a comparison."
- Albert Einstein

You may also wish to ponder this: Is it, or is it not the case, that scientists routinely speak of a theory as having been falsified? And how are we to understand the term falsified if not as "shown to be not true"?

 

 

8 hours ago, studiot said:

[to TheVat]

Your quote uses the words "Most likely".

Quite unspecific.

What, exactly does this mean in the realms of Philolosophy  please 

The scientific realist commonly appeals to "Inference to the Best Explanation" (IBE) as warrant for her truth claims. It goes something like this:

From a set of candidate explanations we are licenced to infer to the truth, or approximate truth, of the best among them

Now, we have to be very careful here with talk of "most likely"; there is a risk of circularity. The inference is supposed to be: "the best explanation is the one most likely to be true"

If "best" is understood to mean "most likely to be true" then we end up with the unhelpful circularity "The explanation most likely to be true is the one most likely to be true"

"Best (explanation)" therefore, to avoid the circularity, must make no reference to likeliness.

The locus classicus on all this must be Peter Lipton's "Inference to the Best Explanation". He suggests a criterion of loveliness (as opposed to likeliness) to identify the best explanation.

I can't remember the details. Cough up the dough and find out for yourself.
 

8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Also, if I can find a recording of Frank Sinatra singing Gershwin's I'm a Poached Egg, does that invalidate the OP? Straight from the lips of the Chairman of the Board, how can he be lying?

He might not be lying, just senile or delusional LOL.

Whatever he's doing, though, he's not a poached egg.

If I show you a fella claiming to be Napoleon (the little Corsican), is he Napoleon?

Edited September 11, 2021 by Davy_Jones

[beecee]

28 minutes ago, Davy_Jones said:

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however they may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way to open the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all of the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility or the meaning of such a comparison."
- Albert Einstein

You may also wish to ponder this: Is it, or is it not the case, that scientists routinely speak of a theory as having been falsified? And how are we to understand the term falsified if not as "shown to be not true"?

Falsified in this case we can do no better then to go to WIKI....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

"In the philosophy of science, a theory is falsifiable (or refutable) if it is contradicted by an observation that is logically possible, i.e., expressible in the language of the theory, and this language has a conventional empirical interpretation".

 

The first paragraph is interesting in that it supports everything that others have been trying to tell you, and comparable to the question, what is gravity...we see spacetime curvature when mass/energy is present, and feel the result as gravity, but we still do not understand the true nature of gravity, as our theories do not cover all contingencies.

 

 

[zapatos]

36 minutes ago, Davy_Jones said:

First of all, look at what you're doing here: just take the first sentence.
Are you speaking literally with all this talk of photons? It looks an awful lot to me like a (purported) statement of fact. And if that's the case, don't look now but you're describing reality. Science could be dead wrong about photons, of course, nonetheless you are at least trying to describe reality.
Or are we to understand this talk of photons as mere façon de parler?

People are telling you how scientists view what they are doing. 

You are telling them "No! you are NOT viewing it that way! You are viewing it a different way."

It's fine that you can't get comfortable with their view, but quit telling people what they think.

[Davy_Jones]

37 minutes ago, beecee said:

The first paragraph is interesting in that it supports everything that others have been trying to tell you, and comparable to the question, what is gravity...we see spacetime curvature when mass/energy is present, and feel the result as gravity, but we still do not understand the true nature of gravity, as our theories do not cover all contingencies.

You see spacetime curvature? You have sharper eyes than me, sir.

Perhaps we do not understand the true nature of gravity, as you say. Einstein, nonetheless, with his realist hat on, thought he was describing its true nature. He was trying to describe (both observable and unobservable) reality.

 

"In particular, following his conversion [from antirealism to realism], Einstein wanted to claim genuine reality for the central theoretical entities of his general theory, the four-dimensional space-time manifold, and associated tensor fields. This is a serious business for if we grant his claim, then not only do space and time cease to be real, but so do virtually all of the usual dynamical qualities."
--Arthur Fine

Edited September 11, 2021 by Davy_Jones

[beecee]

39 minutes ago, Davy_Jones said:

If "best" is understood to mean "most likely to be true" then we end up with the unhelpful circularity "The explanation most likely to be true is the one most likely to be true"

Best as in "best theory" is the theory that covers the bigger domain, and matches further observational data, and also makes the most validated predictions. eg: GR surpasses Newtonian, but still falls short of an all encompassing explanation. 

[Davy_Jones]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

People are telling you how scientists view what they are doing. 

You are telling them "No! you are NOT viewing it that way! You are viewing it a different way."

It's fine that you can't get comfortable with their view, but quit telling people what they think.

Er, I've offered direct quotes from Nobel prize-winning scientists.

They are telling us what they think.

Edited September 11, 2021 by Davy_Jones

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Davy_Jones said:

You see spacetime curvature? You have sharper eyes than me, sir.

It's beecee, not Sir, OK? And of course we see the convincing evidence of spacetime curvature. I bow to your sharper pedant and semantics. *just joking* 

3 minutes ago, Davy_Jones said:

Perhaps we do not understand the true nature of gravity, as you say. Einstein, nonetheless, with his realist hat on, thought he was describing its true nature. He was trying to describe (unobservable) reality.

Einstein as great as he was, was also human and wrong at times. Even his own model told him of a dynamic universe, which he failed to accept. Secondly, I don't believe Einstein thought he was describing reality as you seem to be thinking....perhaps rose coloured glasses and all that? 

[Davy_Jones]

Just now, beecee said:

It's beecee, not Sir, OK? And of course we see the convincing evidence of spacetime curvature. I bow to your sharper pedant and semantics. *just joking* 

Einstein as great as he was, was also human and wrong at times. Even his own model told him of a dynamic universe, which he failed to accept. Secondly, I don't believe Einstein thought he was describing reality as you seem to be thinking....perhaps rose coloured glasses and all that? 

Perhaps you should read what the man himself actually said.

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Davy_Jones said:

Perhaps you should read what the man himself actually said.

I did, but hey, let's both do it again.....

53 minutes ago, Davy_Jones said:

Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however they may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way to open the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all of the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility or the meaning of such a comparison."
- Albert Einstein

Highlighted bits by me. Yes, Einstein seems to be saying, we can never be sure we know the true reality and/or truth of any observation. Not sure how any other interpretation can be arrived at.

[Davy_Jones]

re above

What he's saying is that we are "endeavoring to understand reality"  . . . we are trying to describe reality.

We can never be "quite sure" that we've got it right, but we are nonetheless trying.

[beecee]

I havn't yet made any comment on Frankie being a poached egg. I actually preferred the calm easy going style and charisma of Dean Martin. 😉

1 minute ago, Davy_Jones said:

re above

What he's saying is that we are "endeavoring to understand reality"  . . . we are trying to describe reality.

We can never be "quite sure" that we've got it right, but we are nonetheless trying.

Agreed!! No problems with that at all, and I'm pretty sure I have said it more then once....in fact we may one day [if any truth and rality really exist] serendiptiously fall upon it. Unlikely I think , but still within the realms of possibility.

[zapatos]

31 minutes ago, Davy_Jones said:

Er, I've offered direct quotes from Nobel prize-winning scientists.

They are telling us what they think.

You are being obtuse.

The way someone speaks of something changes with the audience and circumstances.

When asked why stars shine I may answer 'because it's burning', 'because of nuclear fusion', 'because it is nature's way of smiling', or 20 other ways depending on to whom I am speaking. You can't pretend the way I described a star to a child is the one true way I think of stars. 

If you want to claim that Einstein thinks a certain way regarding GR with respect to this conversation and this audience, then you need to get him here to comment. Otherwise stop telling us what he thinks.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Davy_Jones said:

This is simply untrue, I'm afraid. There are scientists, the vast majority I suspect (physics being the exception where realism does appear to be a minority position), who take themselves to be describing, or at least trying to, describe reality, trying to get at the truth. Even in physics . . .

The vast majority is typically 75%. How can you claim my argument is "untrue" when you only "suspect" more scientists use your definitions of reality and truth? How can you take ANYONE'S version of truth or reality as such, since they can actually change depending on people and circumstances?

Like most others, I find your arguments absurd. My definitions give me a great way to help ensure I'm not deluding myself, and they make my definition of the natural world (which is what we're observing, not "reality") clearer and more meaningful as well. What do your definitions do for you, except make you sound argumentative and obtuse?

[Davy_Jones]

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The vast majority is typically 75%. How can you claim my argument is "untrue" when you only "suspect" more scientists use your definitions of reality and truth? How can you take ANYONE'S version of truth or reality as such, since they can actually change depending on people and circumstances?

Like most others, I find your arguments absurd. My definitions give me a great way to help ensure I'm not deluding myself, and they make my definition of the natural world (which is what we're observing, not "reality") clearer and more meaningful as well. What do your definitions do for you, except make you sound argumentative and obtuse?

 

Are you saying the natural world is unreal? Because that's what you just typed in black and white.

What do you take the natural world for then? A hologram or a mirage or something?

I'm not being sarcastic or disrespectful. It's precisely what your comment implies.

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, Davy_Jones said:

Are you saying the natural world is unreal? Because that's what you just typed in black and white.

 

No, that is not what he just typed. Now you are being dishonest as well as obtuse.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Davy_Jones said:

 

Are you saying the natural world is unreal? Because that's what you just typed in black and white.

What do you take the natural world for then? A hologram or a mirage or something?

I'm not being sarcastic or disrespectful. It's precisely what your comment implies.

You're arguing in bad faith, which is worse than sarcasm or disrespect here.

[Davy_Jones]

I find myself at a loss. I've tried to address each contributor, given limitations of time, with courtesy and respect. In return, my intelligence and integrity have been impugned by people who know nothing about me, moreover, I find myself continually being "corrected" on philosophical points by people who, it's rather obvious (and no offence intended), know little or nothing about the subject matter.

For reasons incomprehensible to me, the evidence I have presented (e.g. direct quotes from Nobel prize-winning scientists) has simply been ignored or swept aside -- hardly what one might expect from those scientifically trained.

Since joining a short while ago, about the only person I've met here who does seem well versed in philosophy is @Eise, apparently a well established and respected member of your community.

@TheVat I know well, too, from his own now defunct science-philosophy site. He's a man whose breadth of knowledge--in both science and philosophy-- I respect enormously and whose judgement I trust implicitly.

Since my own input here of late seems only to elicit insults and downvotes, I'll say nothing more for now. Perhaps the aforementioned members might offer their thoughts for us all to consider.
 

 

Edit: Oh, but this . . .

 

"The vast majority is typically 75%. How can you claim my argument is "untrue" when you only "suspect" more scientists use your definitions of reality and truth?" - Phi for All

A reminder: The "argument" was "science doesn't deal with "reality" and "truth" " (bottom of previous page, and my response above)

 

How can I claim your argument is untrue? Because a single counterexample serves to falsify it (cf. "Birds don't fly" - one flying bird disproves it).

I provided two counterexamples, both Nobel prize winners, selected deliberately from the scientific discipline in which such examples (of scientific realism) are hardest to find: physics.

Edited September 11, 2021 by Davy_Jones

[joigus]

Roughly, @MigL's point was that every thought that you have is influenced by the history of how that thought was formed. Whether you like it or not, your thinking is influenced by the thinking of those that came before.

Again roughly, @studiot's point was that even the most apparently obvious statements are presumably 'contaminated' by hidden assumptions.

(I think)

More arguments have cropped up, and I'm finding difficult to keep up with all of them, but what I can say for the time being is that I do not think the question of reality affects very much the activity of scientists. Perhaps it's just a matter of stance. Some scientists may believe that there is an ultimate reality to be discovered and described; others --most scientists today-- prefer to think that science is about elucidating in more and more detail how Nature works. Physical theories should be --and are-- the same and be used in the same way no matter what stance one adopts.

Concepts like 'reality' are more of an --occasionally inspiring-- philosophical motif for some than the reflection of an actual professional commitment to a goal.

And may I remind you 10 million light-years from any of them, both Frank Sinatra --the singer-- and a poached egg are the same: a pointlike particle of approximately the same mass.

[Sensei]

11 hours ago, Davy_Jones said:

Science could be dead wrong about photons, of course, nonetheless you are at least trying to describe reality.

Scientists in laboratories can create a single photon at a time and detect a single photon at a time.

Scientists in laboratories can eject and accelerate a single electron at a time and detect a single electron at a time.

Scientists in laboratories can eject and accelerate a single quantum particle at a time and detect a single quantum particle at a time.

 

Want to see them? Build Cloud Chamber:

Here we have a single quantum particle, of various types (e.g. electron, proton, alpha, muon, pion, kaon), accelerated to near the speed of light, colliding and decelerating with atoms in the medium... or a simulation of it, if you are a "brain in a vat".

11 hours ago, Davy_Jones said:

How do we know the Sun really exists? Because we can see it!

What does it mean to "see something"? The scientific version: atoms in your retina are excited by photons and create electrical impulses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina

"In the photoreceptors, exposure to light hyperpolarizes the membrane in a series of graded shifts. The outer cell segment contains a photopigment. Inside the cell the normal levels of cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) keep the Na+ channel open, and thus in the resting state the cell is depolarised. The photon causes the retinal bound to the receptor protein to isomerise to trans-retinal. This causes the receptor to activate multiple G-proteins. This in turn causes the Ga-subunit of the protein to activate a phosphodiesterase (PDE6), which degrades cGMP, resulting in the closing of Na+ cyclic nucleotide-gated ion channels (CNGs). Thus the cell is hyperpolarised. The amount of neurotransmitter released is reduced in bright light and increases as light levels fall. The actual photopigment is bleached away in bright light and only replaced as a chemical process, so in a transition from bright light to darkness the eye can take up to thirty minutes to reach full sensitivity."

 

Do you see electric field, magnetic field, gravitational field? No. You see just EFFECTS of these fields on surrounding environment i.e. how other quantum or macroscopic objects change path and react to them.

 

If you see something, does that mean it exists? There are people who claim to see something or someone, hallucinating, after or without abusing psychedelics or drugs.

 

In the middle of this photograph, we see an arrow < that marks two particles coming from nowhere.  How is this possible? An electric neutral quantum particle leaves no trace, but its decay produced two new, extremely highly accelerated charged particles. Again, we only see the effect and do not see the source. Therefore, the gap is filled by the theory (undetectable neutral quantum particle).

 

Edited September 11, 2021 by Sensei

[studiot]

On 9/10/2021 at 7:05 AM, Davy_Jones said:

 This is Eddington and his celebrated "two tables" again. Perhaps you're familiar with it?

Do I think the table/cannonball is real? Yes. Don't you?

A description can also be given in terms of what's going on at the atomic or subatomic level: Two descriptions of one thing, if you like.

I believe the table is real enough (this is the commonsense realism alluded to in the OP). Given my own (scientific) antirealist proclivities, however, I'd be a bit hesitant of believing the behind-the-scenes description, fascinating though it may be. You might say I remain agnostic.

 

How about yourself?

 

Well I did look it up because I had not heard about this.

Thank you for the reference, it adds to my store. +1

I found this description

https://www.quantumdiaries.org/2011/11/18/a-tale-of-two-tables/

Which I thought rather offensive towards the man.

It seems that Fermilab features highly.

It dismisses his main scientific achievements with an airy wave of the hand.

I would suggest that the two tables analogy (Eddington did say it as an analogy) is a version of what so many members here have been telling you.

Science works with models.

Models only ever cover part of the subject they are modelling.
None are perfect or exact in every respect, except the subject itself.
Models are subject to continual revision and refinement.

 

Do you have any idea of the number of scientific models that were developed this way during the period 1890 - 1935 ?
I can tell you it is a very large number.
Some of these we still find useful today, some have been developed further others have been discarded
That is Science.

But to denigrate that man as the linked site does is unforgivable.

It almost has the air of those quack sites designed to spread deliberate disinformation.

But thank you again to bringing it to my attention.

I will leave it there in this thread, but would be happy to discuss your and the comment under the Fermilab banner further in another.

 

12 hours ago, Davy_Jones said:

The scientific realist commonly appeals to "Inference to the Best Explanation" (IBE) as warrant for her truth claims. It goes something like this:

..etc

Thank you for your response to my question to theVat.

I am aware of this process, but it is not an answer to my question about probability.

I would also like to see a response from theVat himself.

Again this may be an interesting side issue to discuss in another thread.

 

11 hours ago, beecee said:

Falsified in this case we can do no better then to go to WIKI....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

"In the philosophy of science, a theory is falsifiable (or refutable) if it is contradicted by an observation that is logically possible, i.e., expressible in the language of the theory, and this language has a conventional empirical interpretation".

In this case I would have to disagree with both Wiki and yourself (as Wiki is misleading).

Falsifiable literally means 'capable of being falsified or refuted.

if it is contradicted by an observation that is logically possible

does not mean that the observation has been carried out or will ever be carried out or that it may sometime be true and sometimes false depending upon circumstances.

The proposition "you can't get a quart into a pint pot" can be 'proved' with two suitable beer glasses.

But wait

How many 'quarts' of oxygen from the air can I get into an oxygen cylinder ?

It may also be that the 'falsification' is impossible to carry out.

 

 

[dimreepr]

22 hours ago, studiot said:

PS

I do like you flea/dog comment that's now in the trash can.

That was mine, in my thread; but I get why it got thrown out with the bath water... 

[Davy_Jones]

How about we all forget about the esoteric heights of modern physics for now, come down to Earth, and discuss something a little more mundane?

 

Quote

During the years she studied at Gombe Stream National Park, [Jane Goodall] made three observations that challenged conventional scientific ideas: (1) chimps are omnivores, not herbivores and even hunt for meat; (2) chimps use tools; and (3) chimps make their tools (a trait previously used to define humans). Beyond the significance of her discoveries, it was Jane’s high standard for methods and ethics in behavioral studies may have had the greatest impact in the scientific community.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/jane-goodall/

 

Following National Geographic (above), it seems reasonable to describe Jane Goodall's work on chimpanzees as science. I'll work on that assumption anyway.

It also seems so obvious as to hardly need saying (cf. "Frank Sinatra is not a poached egg") that, in her studies of chimps, Jane Goodall is/was describing reality.

I'll pause here to remark that the words real and reality have no technical meaning in philosophy, at least as far as I'm aware. Philosophers use these words the same way as everyone else does; at least I can say that's the way I'm using the terms. Certain members here seem extremely reluctant to use the words for reasons that elude me. Perhaps you might challenge yourself to go through a day wIthout saying the word "real". It won't be easy!

Now, if Ms. Goodall is indeed a scientist, and science does not describe, or does not "deal with" reality, as certain members have been claiming or implying, what are we supposed to say about her work?

The only option would appear to be, assuming she is describing or dealing with anything at all, is that she is describing nonreality, she is describing things that are not real.

Is there any other alternative?

We would have to say that Ms Goodall is describing . . .  I dunno . . . choose your favorite version of unreality: she's describing holographic projections, or describing an illusion of some kind. Or maybe chimpanzees are theoretical posits; "useful fictions" helpful for predictive and explanatory purposes but not to be taken literally. Or perhaps she's describing things that exist only in her mind as the result of having her brain envatted by some evil scientist.

Certain members take me as being impertinent or disingenuous or even dishonest by suggesting as much.

I honestly cannot see any other way to interpret your comments about science having no dealings with reality, though.

Edited September 11, 2021 by Davy_Jones

[studiot]

49 minutes ago, Davy_Jones said:

I honestly cannot see any other way to interpret your comments about science having no dealings with reality, though.

And who might the you be in the 'your'  ?