Impersonal science

[owl]

ajb,

I just realized that I never name/time stamped my reply to your post, quoted in part below. Maybe you saw my replies and decided not to answer, or maybe you were not notified of my reply for lack of stamp.

(again, my bold)

Theoretical physics, which is what I think we are really talking about here, is based on the creation and study of mathematical models, including understanding how they relate to nature. The exercise is based on physical intuition and guidance from nature...

 

 

Based on this mathematics one can come up with an interpretation, which is a hand-waving restatement in words of some mathematical construct or calculation. Often people bounce these interpretations about without any idea to the underlying mathematical constructs. [/Quote]

 

Doesn't your bolded phrase above mean that "what it is" (generally speaking) in nature *does matter*?

 

Why does it "ultimately it come.. down to pencil on paper and mathematics", rather than to what it is in nature to which the math and models refer?

 

You said: "Often people bounce these interpretations about without any idea to the underlying mathematical constructs."

 

Isn't the reverse of that statement equally valid?...

That mathematicians often rely on the internal integrity of the math and the models "without any idea" or care as to "what it is in nature" that the numbers and models are supposed to describe?

 

And finally, isn't it a matter of opinion which of the two concepts above that "it ultimately comes down to?" Is it not a personal bias that the math "matters" for its ability to predict but the ontology of entities or medium (like curved spacetime) to which it refers does not matter?

 

Just one more try on the subject (with stamp this time) before I give it up.

[Ringer]

Richard Feynman had two quotes that I believe relate to the point about theoretical physics. One was along the lines of experimental physicists make observations and theoretical physicists explain those observations.

 

The second is that no matter how beautiful an idea is if it disagrees with experiment it's wrong. Theoretical frameworks aren't just mathematical models pulled from nothing, the model is built to explain observed experiment. The explanation in physics boils down to mathematics, but the observations and experiments do not. I think the point ajb was trying to make is that to explain things in physics it boils down to mathematics because you can't fully explain the idea without the math, no matter how wonderful one may be at explaining things. On the same token the math does have to agree with observation.

 

This same idea applies to what it is. Even if I could talk all day about what spacetime is (I can't but let's pretend) it wouldn't really tell you what it is because we can't really imagine four dimensional structures. So the math is necessary to show how a fourth dimension can explain the observations made in the field. It's not really something that one can get across without math because there is no common way to make a fourth dimension analogous to experiences and knowledge people probably have that don't involve math.

[swansont]

You said: "Often people bounce these interpretations about without any idea to the underlying mathematical constructs."

 

Isn't the reverse of that statement equally valid?...

That mathematicians often rely on the internal integrity of the math and the models "without any idea" or care as to "what it is in nature" that the numbers and models are supposed to describe?

 

The models have to be tested to be accepted. If they do not agree with nature, they are discarded.

 

And finally, isn't it a matter of opinion which of the two concepts above that "it ultimately comes down to?" Is it not a personal bias that the math "matters" for its ability to predict but the ontology of entities or medium (like curved spacetime) to which it refers does not matter?

 

If ontology can't be tested, it's outside of science and therefore doesn't matter to science.

[md65536]

That mathematicians often rely on the internal integrity of the math and the models "without any idea" or care as to "what it is in nature" that the numbers and models are supposed to describe?

The equations and constants must correspond to measured values. If this was truly done "without any idea" so that the numbers didn't matter, and there was no measurable difference if you used one number instead of another, then just like if you used one ontological explanation in place of another where there is no measurable difference, then those numbers or equations wouldn't matter. (Not all philosophy is irrelevant; not all maths matter. It is common for crackpots to use meaningless maths.)

 

 

Perhaps that answers "what does matter?".

 

 

You could ask something like "What is a force?" and perhaps no one could give a complete answer, but it can be answered in terms of the properties we know about forces, how they relate to other things like mass, what equations describe their behaviors etc---and all the acceptable answers should be testable.

 

 

One aspect of all this that's not so clear-cut is in interpreting the meaning of the equations or properties. Often the simplest or most "common sense" interpretation is the most accepted, but sometimes there is no simple explanation (as with the different interpretations of QM). I believe that a good scientist would not pick a single interpretation to "believe in", but would consider all valid interpretations as possible??? (This is probably not the case though because there are some outlandish interpretations out there.)

 

Perhaps ontology is useful for coming up with interpretations, possibly preferred ones.

What you can't do, though, is use an ontological interpretation to prove that a theory is wrong, when the theory isn't invalidated by measurements (such as special relativity including length contraction).

[owl]

Richard Feynman had two quotes that I believe relate to the point about theoretical physics. One was along the lines of experimental physicists make observations and theoretical physicists explain those observations.[/Quote]

 

A good distinction, but "What do they observe?" is still a very relevant question. I hope I am allowed to go back to a specific example to make sense of this conversation rather than just speaking in generalities. GR observes orbits and makes excellent predictions, but it does not observe spacetime* or "its curvature," only the curved paths of orbiting objects. (*It remains a 4-D coordinate system, the map, not the territory.)

 

The second is that no matter how beautiful an idea is if it disagrees with experiment it's wrong.

 

Of course. No argument. But when theoretical (GR, in this case) physicists assert that mass curves space, is there no responsibility to explain "what curves?" What we actually observe is curved paths of objects.

 

... The explanation in physics boils down to mathematics, but the observations and experiments do not.

Exactly. And I am on board with empirical science requiring observation for verification, as above.

I think the point ajb was trying to make is that to explain things in physics it boils down to mathematics because you can't fully explain the idea without the math, no matter how wonderful one may be at explaining things. On the same token the math does have to agree with observation.

 

We *observe* and predict the motion of objects, quite well with the math of GR. But, as you said, " we can't really imagine four dimensional structures..." much less observe them. Yet GR insists that spacetime *is curved* by mass.

But when ontology insists on asking what space is (besides 3-D volume) and what time is (besides event duration of movement from one coordinate to another), it is called irrelevant.

 

So the math is necessary to show how a fourth dimension can explain the observations made in the field. It's not really something that one can get across without math because there is no common way to make a fourth dimension analogous to experiences and knowledge people probably have that don't involve math.

 

We can all observe that there is space between objects and that "it takes time" for them to move around. We can not observe the non-Euclidean *concept* of those observations coalesced into unity, useful as it is as a coordinate system. Ontology simply simply challenges the assumption/ claim that "it" is curved, as if it were an observable entity in the natural world.

Therein lies the difference of opinion here among physicists who claim that what it is doesn't matter and ontologists who think that "what is it?" is a legitimate focus of scientific investigation.

 

The models have to be tested to be accepted. If they do not agree with nature, they are discarded. [/Quote]

 

Agreed as above. But the map must not be mistaken for the territory, as in the statement, "mass curves spacetime.'

 

If ontology can't be tested, it's outside of science and therefore doesn't matter to science.

 

My opinion as an avid amateur *natural* scientist differs.

As I said on 4/4:

I have always been interested in science as investigation leading to a better understanding of the natural world, so ontological investigation of what it is that we are talking about, in any case, seems to me to be a vital and central part of science.

 

 

Perhaps ontology is useful for coming up with interpretations, possibly preferred ones.

What you can't do, though, is use an ontological interpretation to prove that a theory is wrong, when the theory isn't invalidated by measurements (such as special relativity including length contraction).

I'm on thin ice here with this example. Let it suffice to say that the aspect of SR that theorizes changing or unknowable lengths of things (like earth's diameter) or distances between things (like distance to the sun) "in the real world" does not "make it so."

Please don't start that argument up again, because it will get this thread shut down and me suspended.

[md65536]

Of course. No argument. But when theoretical (GR, in this case) physicists assert that mass curves space, is there no responsibility to explain "what curves?" What we actually observe is curved paths of objects.

[...]

Let it suffice to say that the aspect of SR that theorizes changing or unknowable lengths of things (like earth's diameter) or distances between things (like distance to the sun) "in the real world" does not "make it so."

 

On one hand you're saying that scientists ought to answer "what it is" even if there is no measurable way to test such answers, and on the other you're rejecting the answers that they provide when the answers withstand testing. Why then would you accept anyone's answers about "what it is" where there's no evidence, when you reject answers for which there is evidence?

 

It's been answered many times before. What curves is spacetime. Spacetime is what curves. The specific meaning of "spacetime" and "curves" is defined precisely enough to be useful to those who understand it. By the way, scientists don't just hear the words and make up their own meanings for them. The words are purposefully defined to not hold extra meanings (as in, the types of things you want them to tell you) that are useless, misleading, or untestable.

 

You've been given an example ontological answer to "what is spacetime?" It is "tie-dyed rabbit pelt", or "pink faeries holding us up". Take your pick. Now, can you tell me if this is a satisfactory answer? If not, why not? Back to the topic, would it matter if my opinion was that it was one but not the other?

 

 

Edited April 10, 2012 by md65536

[Phi for All]

On one hand you're saying that scientists ought to answer "what it is" even if there is no measurable way to test such answers, and on the other you're rejecting the answers that they provide when the answers withstand testing. Why then would you accept anyone's answers about "what it is" where there's no evidence, when you reject answers for which there is evidence?

 

It's been answered many times before. What curves is spacetime. Spacetime is what curves. The specific meaning of "spacetime" and "curves" is defined precisely enough to be useful to those who understand it. By the way, scientists don't just hear the words and make up their own meanings for them. The words are purposefully defined to not hold extra meanings (as in, the types of things you want them to tell you) that are useless, misleading, or untestable.

 

 

+1

[zapatos]

A good distinction, but "What do they observe?" is still a very relevant question.

 

Of course. No argument. But when theoretical (GR, in this case) physicists assert that mass curves space, is there no responsibility to explain "what curves?" What we actually observe is curved paths of objects.

 

 

We *observe* and predict the motion of objects, quite well with the math of GR. But, as you said, " we can't really imagine four dimensional structures..." much less observe them. Yet GR insists that spacetime *is curved* by mass.

But when ontology insists on asking what space is (besides 3-D volume) and what time is (besides event duration of movement from one coordinate to another), it is called irrelevant.

 

We can all observe that there is space between objects and that "it takes time" for them to move around. We can not observe the non-Euclidean *concept* of those observations coalesced into unity, useful as it is as a coordinate system. Ontology simply simply challenges the assumption/ claim that "it" is curved, as if it were an observable entity in the natural world.

Therein lies the difference of opinion here among physicists who claim that what it is doesn't matter and ontologists who think that "what is it?" is a legitimate focus of scientific investigation.

Yes. The other difference of opinion is that the ontologists think the scientists should agree with the ontologists, while the scientists don't care if they agree or not.

[swansont]

A good distinction, but "What do they observe?" is still a very relevant question. I hope I am allowed to go back to a specific example to make sense of this conversation rather than just speaking in generalities. GR observes orbits and makes excellent predictions, but it does not observe spacetime* or "its curvature," only the curved paths of orbiting objects. (*It remains a 4-D coordinate system, the map, not the territory.)

 

How is it relevant to whether a observation is objective or subjective, which is what you asked in the OP? An observation is objective if we can both look at it and see what it is, or remove personal observation completely. It is subjective if it depends on the individual and his/her biases and preferences. But when there is no evidence at all, it can be neither. Ontology is not an observation.

 

The observation of orbits is objective. The mathematical framework used to make sense of the orbits is also objective. As it turns out, the mathematical framework with the best predictive and explanatory is non-Euclidean, i.e. it's curved.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

owl, don't even think about keeping this line of conversation going. You've been warned multiple times about doing this - any more and it's suspension time.

[Ringer]

A good distinction, but "What do they observe?" is still a very relevant question. I hope I am allowed to go back to a specific example to make sense of this conversation rather than just speaking in generalities. GR observes orbits and makes excellent predictions, but it does not observe spacetime* or "its curvature," only the curved paths of orbiting objects. (*It remains a 4-D coordinate system, the map, not the territory.)

 

 

Of course. No argument. But when theoretical (GR, in this case) physicists assert that mass curves space, is there no responsibility to explain "what curves?" What we actually observe is curved paths of objects.

 

Exactly. And I am on board with empirical science requiring observation for verification, as above.

 

Asking what something is no longer becomes relevant after it is explained well enough to be understood. I was being general, but for your example somethings path curves without direct interactions with other objects. Since it doesn't make itself curve, the dimension it was using for travel must curve if no other interaction can explain the curvature. Expecting more than is useful is not objective at all because it uses subjective expectations to decide what something should be able to explain.

 

These models make predictions without the use of subjective expectations, and the predictions match observation. It doesn't matter to the model or to nature if we enjoy or agree with them.

 

 

 

 

 

[owl]

Apparently I am forbidden to reply to any of the specific examples above, though others can use those specifics in argument against me.

 

I formally request a moderator without the obvious and very nasty personal bias against me.

This gag rule is an abuse of power which stands as a perfect example of "science" that is the opposite of "impersonal."

 

Not sure whether the warning:

 

"... don't even think about keeping this line of conversation going."

... means I can't post any more in this thread* though others are allowed, or whether 'this line of conversation' refers to my favorite specific examples of "what is it?"

 

*I assume this post will answer that question, and I suspect that my request above will be taken personally as well and get me suspended or banned.

Edited April 11, 2012 by owl

[swansont]

Apparently I am forbidden to reply to any of the specific examples above, though others can use those specifics in argument against me.

 

Baloney. Nobody else is trying to bring ontology into the discussion, or bring up specific gripes about theories.

 

I formally request a moderator without the obvious and very nasty personal bias against me.

This gag rule is an abuse of power which stands as a perfect example of "science" that is the opposite of "impersonal."

 

Baloney. Nobody else is trying to bring ontology into the discussion, or bring up specific gripes about theories.

 

 

Not sure whether the warning:

 

"... don't even think about keeping this line of conversation going."

... means I can't post any more in this thread* though others are allowed, or whether 'this line of conversation' refers to my favorite specific examples of "what is it?"

 

*I assume this post will answer that question, and I suspect that my request above will be taken personally as well and get me suspended or banned.

 

Maybe you should stop trying to bring ontology into the discussion, or bring up specific gripes about theories, and get back to the original topic of objective vs subjective views.

[md65536]

Baloney. Nobody else is trying to bring ontology into the discussion, or bring up specific gripes about theories.

I must confess that I did, and I also brought up some points from past threads (probably closed ones).

 

Apparently I am forbidden to reply to any of the specific examples above, though others can use those specifics in argument against me.

Is it possible to respond to posts without repeating the specific things you've been warned about? I think it's possible to defend your stance without soapboxing your stance---that is, explain why you think your stance should be considered instead of just repeating what your stance is. I think the problem might be that you are hiding the preaching of an opinion under the pretence of an open discussion of opinions. It's a subtle difference I think... but I don't think anyone wants to stifle productive discussion.

 

 

 

 

Why then would you accept anyone's answers about "what it is" where there's no evidence, when you reject answers for which there is evidence?

Apparently owl is forbidden to reply to any of the specific examples above, so I'll give it a shot.

 

"Common sense." As per the Buddhist quote, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." Likewise, if something agrees with one's common sense, it ought be believed.

 

"Common sense." [...] if something agrees with one's common sense, it ought be believed.

Baloney. Science deals with things beyond the normal realm of human experience, things for which we can't possibly have any common sense about. Until our intuitive understanding of the universe catches up to our scientific understanding, common sense will be lagging behind by decades or centuries. Where common sense disagrees with experimental observations, the former is wrong. Common sense must bend to the will of the universe, not the other way around.

 

 

 

[owl]

md:

I think the problem might be that you are hiding

the preaching of an opinion under the pretence of an open discussion of opinions.

 

I am hiding nothing and I am “preaching” nothing. What you think is your personal opinion. Don't present it here as science. Compare 'what you think' with the topic at hand.

 

Observation and measurement do not change the objects or distances measured. That is not a personal opinion.

 

Baloney. Nobody else is trying to bring ontology into the discussion, or bring up specific gripes about theories. [/Quote]

 

Very low grade meat. How insulting! ... which is the name of the game here.

 

Ontology is, in my personal opinion, important to science... investigating the "what is it" question... like the whole periodic table of elements.... how each differs from the others.

What is hydrogen? (Very simple.) What is helium? Just a little more complex. Etc.

 

Your phrase "specific gripes about theories" is a very biased judgment... not impersonal science. My "gripe" is that observation and measurement do not make the earth change shape... etc. Simple. But it is not just "my gripe." You color it to suit yourself.

 

Baloney. Nobody else is trying to bring ontology into the discussion, or bring up specific gripes about theories.

 

More poor quality meat, I am accused of producing!

 

(Repeat recorded message for effect.) Not impersonal science.

 

Maybe you should stop trying to bring ontology into the discussion, or bring up specific gripes about theories, and get back to the original topic of objective vs subjective views.

 

I have been on the original topic as I stated it through the whole thread. The moderator's negative opinion of me personally has not changed that.

 

How is it that your view is objective and mine subjective? Because physics is automatically all that matters and philosophy of science is all bogus... mere philosophy? How is that *not* just your, and fellow physicists, personal opinions?

 

"What is it?" is part of scientific investigation whether you personally (or physicists in general) like it or not.

 

As for "specific gripes about theories," the well documented nearly spherical shape of earth is not really up for scientific debate (except in SR fanatic circles, like this forum,) and it certainly is not just my personal opinion or "gripe" about SR theory.

Edited April 12, 2012 by owl

[The Observer]

 

Ontology is, in my personal opinion, important to science... investigating the "what is it" question... like the whole periodic table of elements.... how each differs from the others.

 

 

That is why science is designed to ignore personal opinion as best as possible. Although certainly not perfect, over time the personal biases fade. Scientists are humans.

How the elements differ is a how question, not a what question. Ie. it is not ontological. The differences between atoms are testable, they have different composition, mass, charge, ect. The nature of "what an atom is", is not a testable question and does not belong to physics.

 

I don't think that most people in this forum think philosophy is useless in general, however it is useless to the actual practice of physics.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

owl, there are only so many times staff are going to repeat themselves. Consider yourself suspended.

Everyone else, please try get back on topic. I'd rather not have this discussion end up as 20 pages of back and forth about specific and not-particularly-relevant examples.

[swansont]

md:

 

 

I am hiding nothing and I am “preaching” nothing. What you think is your personal opinion. Don't present it here as science. Compare 'what you think' with the topic at hand.

 

Observation and measurement do not change the objects or distances measured. That is not a personal opinion.

 

If you do not have objective evidence to support a statement, it's personal opinion.

 

Very low grade meat. How insulting! ... which is the name of the game here.

 

It was directed at what you said, not you. i.e. it was not a personal insult. It is well within the rules to disagree with what you say. I can't help it if you find contradiction of your statements insulting. What you said was baloney, and I explained why I thought it was so.

 

Ontology is, in my personal opinion, important to science... investigating the "what is it" question... like the whole periodic table of elements.... how each differs from the others.

Yes, that's quite clear. But it's not what this thread was based on. If you had started the thread on this topic, it would have been shut down immediately. Using bait-and-switch isn't going to work.

 

Your phrase "specific gripes about theories" is a very biased judgment... not impersonal science. My "gripe" is that observation and measurement do not make the earth change shape... etc. Simple. But it is not just "my gripe." You color it to suit yourself.

 

So what's the deal here — as a scientist I cannot have opinions about anything? We went forty bazillion rounds on the details of this subject in another thread, and you failed to present objective evidence to support your position. I'd say that makes it a gripe. But that's not a discussion of the actual science involved. On the occasions when we got down to that, the discussion was impersonal science.

 

I have been on the original topic as I stated it through the whole thread. The moderator's negative opinion of me personally has not changed that.

 

I don't see any mention of ontology or philosophy in the original post. You mentioned objectivity vs subjectivity in science.

 

How is it that your view is objective and mine subjective? Because physics is automatically all that matters and philosophy of science is all bogus... mere philosophy? How is that *not* just your, and fellow physicists, personal opinions?

 

I never claimed that all of my observations are objective. To think that they would be is ludicrous. But we have not been discussing any actual science details in this thread, so expectation of pure objectivity are not well-founded. Objectivity in science is just that: objectivity in science. If you are going to discuss topics other than science, then all bets are off.

 

"What is it?" is part of scientific investigation whether you personally (or physicists in general) like it or not.

 

As for "specific gripes about theories," the well documented nearly spherical shape of earth is not really up for scientific debate (except in SR fanatic circles, like this forum,) and it certainly is not just my personal opinion or "gripe" about SR theory.

 

It is a position you hold, so it is personal. You disagree without understanding that which you criticize, so I submit that it qualifies as a gripe. And the SR presented is mainstream physics, so "fanatic" really doesn't enter into it.

[owl]

pmb on 4/15 in another thread wrote:

 

It is at http://xxx.lanl.gov/...physics/0204044 for those who are so inclined to learn about the subject of spacetime curvature in general relativity and its relationship to gravity.

 

I was interested and read the linked paper.

 

In the conclusion are the following quotes:

 

pmb:

This change in view from Einstein’s to the modern view perhaps reflects the desire of attributing “real” quantities as having an absolute existence independent of the observer i.e. “Either something exists or it doesn’t.” However Einstein showed us a very different way of looking at reality. In fact Einstein was suspicious of the very idea of “real.”

 

Einstein:.

It appears to me that “real” is an empty meaningless category (drawer) whose immense importance lies only in that I place certain things inside it and not certain others.

(footnoted in the text.)

 

I am not allowed to speak on the "subject of spacetime curvature" specifically, but the above quotes are very relevant to subjective vs objective science, the topic of this thread.

 

"...the desire of attributing 'real' quantities as having an absolute existence independent of the observer"... is based on a philosophical choice called, generally speaking, realism.

 

I (subjectively) think it is obvious, reasonable and true that “Either something exists or it doesn’t.” And "existing" as a coordinate system or model doesn't count unless that "map" refers to "territory" that does exist "in the real world."

 

But for Einstein, clearly there is no "reality" independent of what he decides is worthy to "place in the 'drawer'" of observation and investigation.

 

This, of course is a philosophy (subjective choice) in opposition to the philosophy that "the world" is "real" all by itself, independent of observation and measurement.

 

As far as I know, no omniscient being has yet passed judgment on which is true, but I'm pretty sure that reality doesn't depend on what science places in a chosen "drawer" or category.

[swansont]

I don't see how ontology is the same as the "objective vs subjective" discussion you framed in the OP.

[Joatmon]

There seems to me to be a place for conjectures. That is to say accept with caution what seems to be very likely true and which has not been proved to be untrue.

Sometimes ideas seem to run out of logical extension and then someone has a "brainwave" which allows a jump over a gap in logic. I think that sometimes working on the assumption that the "brainwave" is true is fair enough until such time it can be proved false. While you are using the conjecture you are in effect accepting someone's personal opinion.

To remove this use of opinion would IMO slow the advancement of science.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Joatmon

[owl]

I don't see how ontology is the same as the "objective vs subjective" discussion you framed in the OP.

The focus of my post was an illustration of how Einstein's philosophy that there is no 'reality' per se independent of observation differs from "realism" as I use the term, i.e., that "the world" (generally speaking) is "real" independent of what science "places in the drawer."

 

If science were objective, it would not depend on which philosophy scientists endorse. It is subjective in the sense of the above illustrated differences of philosophy.

 

That, not ontology specifically, was my focus.

[ecoli]

The focus of my post was an illustration of how Einstein's philosophy that there is no 'reality' per se independent of observation differs from "realism" as I use the term, i.e., that "the world" (generally speaking) is "real" independent of what science "places in the drawer."

 

If science were objective, it would not depend on which philosophy scientists endorse. It is subjective in the sense of the above illustrated differences of philosophy.

 

That, not ontology specifically, was my focus.

Philosophically, objective reality exists outside of our perception of it, but without perceptions we can't interact with it. Think of the difference between a map and the territory it represents..

[owl]

Philosophically, objective reality exists outside of our perception of it, but without perceptions we can't interact with it. Think of the difference between a map and the territory it represents..

"Think of the difference?..."

Umm... I already did, as the basis for saying,

 

And "existing" as a coordinate system or model doesn't count unless that "map" refers to "territory" that does exist "in the real world."

 

But, to keep it on track, not bogged down in specifics, the differences of opinion on the relevance of the map to the territory, or the 'reality quotient' (if I may) of the territory, illustrates that mainstream science is not impersonal but rather quite biased by different philosophical assumptions and/or conscious endorsements.

 

"Objective reality" stays as it is (including its own intrinsic process of change) regardless of how we observe and measure it.... one philosophy.

 

Einstein's take on "reality" as above quoted... another quite different philosophy.

 

That difference is what my post above attempted to illustrate as an example of subjective science, assuming this or that philosophy... not impersonal science.

 

We can only imagine what science would be like if scientists' personal opinions really didn't matter. It would be... well... objective, and we would not mistake appearances from different perspectives for reality... assuming of course that "reality" exists at all!... still a core issue of debate based on personal prejudices.

[ecoli]

"Think of the difference?..."

Umm... I already did, as the basis for saying,

I am an asshole and, clearly, only skimmed this thread before posting. My apologies.

 

But, to keep it on track, not bogged down in specifics, the differences of opinion on the relevance of the map to the territory, or the 'reality quotient' (if I may) of the territory, illustrates that mainstream science is not impersonal but rather quite biased by different philosophical assumptions and/or conscious endorsements.

 

"Objective reality" stays as it is (including its own intrinsic process of change) regardless of how we observe and measure it.... one philosophy.

 

 

What I meant is that science consists of pitting maps against territories. No, we can't ever observe the territory directly, but by making independent, repeated observations and and performing experiments it increases our certainty that underlying reality is universal. Sure, you can quibble about details, instrument precision, and the like, but as long as you keep testing and keep getting the same results it hints at a constant territory and so maps can be improved (or at least become more consistent)