Does physics win over everything?

[imatfaal]

I am not a fan of Paul Davies - but his stuff is well worth reading. Here is one of his most famous op-ed works and a few responses, and his counter-response. Good reading

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?_r=1

 

http://www.edge.org/discourse/science_faith.html

[immortal]

Physics is defined in such a way that it cannot go it alone. Theoretical physics becomes metaphysics at the limit and we have to start testing theories by logic alone.

 

 

 

Logical Positivism is a dead end. Science adopts positivism, it only accepts things which can be observed.

 

Metaphysics is not science it branched off from science and it is mainly concerned with the non-empirical and unfalsifiable theories. A fundamental theory doesn't necessarily have to address metaphysical problems. Metaphysical questions are normally treated as meaningless in physics. Physics doesn't claim to explain metaphysical questions. Its the job of metaphysicians to answer metaphysical questions and as long as we don't have a method to falsify those metaphysical theories, the correct answer to such questions is we don't know not that we can say that the world is like this or like that only with the help of logic. Mathematics alone is not science.

 

 

Wittgenstein said 'whereof we cannot speak, thereof we should remian silent".

[PeterJ]

Hi immortal. Running inteference again I see.

 

Logical Positivism is a dead end. Science adopts positivism, it only accepts things which can be observed.

Yes.

 

Metaphysics is not science it branched off from science and it is mainly concerned with the non-empirical and unfalsifiable theories.

Metaphysics is a science of logic that is concerned with falsifying self-contradictory theories. Your turn.

 

A fundamental theory doesn't necessarily have to address metaphysical problems.

It doesn't necessarily have to address scientific problems either. In fact it can be complete rubbish.

 

Metaphysical questions are normally treated as meaningless in physics.

Yes, and the consequences are tragic. Fortunately they don't go away just because we dismiss them as meaningless.

 

Physics doesn't claim to explain metaphysical questions.

Of course. This is why it is not called metaphysics.

 

Its the job of metaphysicians to answer metaphysical questions and as long as we don't have a method to falsify those metaphysical theories, the correct answer to such questions is we don't know not that we can say that the world is like this or like that only with the help of logic.

Yes. Lucky we do have such a method then. It's called the dialectic and it works fine.

 

Wittgenstein said 'whereof we cannot speak, thereof we should remain silent".

Yes. He said rather a lot of pointless things.

 

Why quote Wittgenstein when he never solved any problems? Why not choose a philosopher who did better?

 

These objections are just restated dogmas.

 

I am not a fan of Paul Davies - but his stuff is well worth reading. Here is one of his most famous op-ed works and a few responses, and his counter-response. Good reading

 

http://www.nytimes.c...avies.html?_r=1

 

http://www.edge.org/...ence_faith.html

 

Thanks for the links. I'm not really a big fan either. I tried to read the NYT article but gave up after reading this nonsense below. When I said I found Paul Davies to be good on these topics, I meant good for a physicist. I'm not a real fan, but one must make do with what one can get. At least Davies does not run away from the topic.

 

"SCIENCE, we are repeatedly told, is the most reliable form of knowledge about the world because it is based on testable hypotheses. Religion, by contrast, is based on faith. The term "doubting Thomas" well illustrates the difference. In science, a healthy skepticism is a professional necessity, whereas in religion, having belief without evidence is regarded as a virtue."

 

In my religion holding a belief without evidence would be a very foolish thing to do indeed, which proves that Davies over-generalises based on a narrow view of religion. Most physicists do this. Few bother to study religion because they believe stuff like the above. I'm quite surprised that Davies wrote this, since it contradicts what he says elsewhere.

 

I don't mean to be offensive with these remarks, but the situation is madly frustrating. I have no respect at all for physcists when it comes to the way they refuse to study what they so casually dismiss, preferring to talk rubbish about the subject. This, of course, is another over-generalisation, but true to a close approximation. It means they tend to believe any old rubbish about religion, and regularly propose metaphysically naive theories that can be refuted.

 

Bradley characterises metaphysics as 'an antidote to dogmatic superstition'. Perhaps this explains the widespread lack of interest in its implications for science and religion.

Edited June 12, 2012 by PeterJ

[juanrga]

Theoretical physics becomes metaphysics at the limit and we have to start testing theories by logic alone.

 

Several centuries ago science split from philosophy thanks to the development and application of the scientific method. The incredible success of science, the exponential-like development of tested knowledge and its subsequent application to real-life problems is firmly rooted in the wise discovery that logic reasoning alone is not enough.

 

Physics, as a branch of science, is based in the scientific method. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy.

Edited June 12, 2012 by juanrga

[D H]

Several centuries ago science split from philosophy thanks to the development and application of the scientific method.

Meanwhile, philosophers still worry about whether Zeno's paradoxes show that motion is impossible. Diogenes had it right: Just stand up and walk out. Done. Conjecture falsified by a physical experiment.

[PeterJ]

Several centuries ago science split from philosophy thanks to the development and application of the scientific method. The incredible success of science,

the exponential-like development of tested knowledge and its subsequent application to real-life problems is firmly rooted in the wise discovery that logic reasoning alone is not enough.

Wise discovery? Even the Buddha says that logic alone is not enough. This does not mean we should abandon thinking for poking things with sticks.

 

Physics, as a branch of science, is based in the scientific method. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy.

Okay. It's a science of logic but not a natural science.

 

Meanwhile, philosophers still worry about whether Zeno's paradoxes show that motion is impossible. Diogenes had it right: Just stand up and walk out. Done. Conjecture falsified by a physical experiment.

Do you not see what Zeno was trying to show, or that he succeeded?

[John Cuthber]

Most people simply don't understand much physics.

Can it be meaningfully said to have won over everything?

[iNow]

"SCIENCE, we are repeatedly told, is the most reliable form of knowledge about the world because it is based on testable hypotheses. Religion, by contrast, is based on faith. The term "doubting Thomas" well illustrates the difference. In science, a healthy skepticism is a professional necessity, whereas in religion, having belief without evidence is regarded as a virtue."

 

In my religion holding a belief without evidence would be a very foolish thing to do indeed, which proves that Davies over-generalises based on a narrow view of religion.

It's not the subject of this thread, but it should be noted that the existence of thunder is not evidence for the existence of Thor. In much the same way, the evidence to which you're referring is almost certainly not evidence of Yahweh or any of the countless other gods laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology. You are conflating your own meaning of the term "evidence" with the meaning others are using it here in context of science.

 

As I said, not on topic, though. Glad to discuss with you elsewhere if needed.

[Bill Angel]

Oops! Fair enough.

If (big if) you could calculate the interactions in each and every atom in the prey and the predator why would you not be able to work out the relation between them?

In principle, it's physics.

That was my point. Where do you draw the line?

Or does the fact that some of these are, in principle, incalculable mean that physics really couldn't explain the predator prey relation?

 

In any event I agree it's silly to talk of any branch of science "winning".

If a purported theory cannot make meaningful refutable predictions about a phenomena that it purports to explain, then that theory really isn't making a scientific contribution to understanding that phenomena. Biologists would have every right to assert that since physicists who are experts in string theory cannot make refutable predictions relevant to understanding predator prey relationships, there is no reason for biologists to genuflect (i.e. pay deep homage and respect to) these string theorists.

[Aethelwulf]

Most people simply don't understand much physics.

Can it be meaningfully said to have won over everything?

 

I think it's fair to say, we don't know everything about biology or chemistry either... in fact, we don't know everything about any science. We do however, know what physics wants to deal with and that is the fundamentals.

 

Personally, I don't think of philosophy a science. It perhaps once begged to answer scientifically-rooted questions, but the scientific methodology overtook this with experimental physics.

 

 

[PeterJ]

It's not the subject of this thread, but it should be noted that the existence of thunder is not evidence for the existence of Thor. In much the same way, the evidence to which you're referring is almost certainly not evidence of Yahweh or any of the countless other gods laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology. You are conflating your own meaning of the term "evidence" with the meaning others are using it here in context of science.

 

As I said, not on topic, though. Glad to discuss with you elsewhere if needed.

Just to be clear - I expect I'm using just the same definition you would use.

[CaptainPanic]

Mandatory XKCD (webcomic).

 

 

And this is the link to the XKCD webcomic.

[juanrga]

Physics, as a branch of science, is based in the scientific method. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy.

Okay. It's a science of logic but not a natural science.

 

In the previous paragraph I emphasized how science was separated from philosophy several centuries ago. Therefore, a "branch of philosophy" cannot be a "branch of science".

 

I do not agree that metaphysics is a kind of science. Moreover, as emphasized there, an unified approach to science does not differentiate between natural, social, or other sciences.

[Aethelwulf]

Mandatory XKCD (webcomic).

 

 

And this is the link to the XKCD webcomic.

 

 

Ah, but physics is largely mathematical - it's hard to separate the two.

[PeterJ]

In the previous paragraph I emphasized how science was separated from philosophy several centuries ago. Therefore, a "branch of philosophy" cannot be a "branch of science".

 

I do not agree that metaphysics is a kind of science. Moreover, as emphasized there, an unified approach to science does not differentiate between natural, social, or other sciences.

Science never did separate from philosophy. They are inseperable.

 

But it's a small point. For Hegel and me it's a science of logic, but we'd have to sit down and clarify exactly what we mean by science to decide, and it doesn't really matter.

 

Still, as metaphysics is prior to physics, then on your view we can say that physics rests on non-scientific foundations, and I don't think you would be happy with that idea.

 

I suppose we could call it all natural philosophy.

 

EDIT: It's interesting though. I just checked that link you gave to a definition and to my mind it would cover philosophy (or philosophy done in a certain way). 'Analysis' would be the key word. But I'm happy to call metaphysics a discipline and have done with it.

 

EDIT 2: Extract from that article - "The definition of science given here differs with the 'official' definitions given by the Science Council and the American Physical Society (APS), and with the definitions given in scientific and philosophical textbooks."

Edited June 13, 2012 by PeterJ

[Aethelwulf]

Science never did separate from philosophy. They are inseperable.

 

But it's a small point. For Hegel and me it's a science of logic, but we'd have to sit down and clarify exactly what we mean by science to decide, and it doesn't really matter.

 

Still, as metaphysics is prior to physics, then on your view we can say that physics rests on non-scientific foundations, and I don't think you would be happy with that idea.

 

I suppose we could call it all natural philosophy.

 

EDIT: It's interesting though. I just checked that link you gave to a definition and to my mind it would cover philosophy (or philosophy done in a certain way). 'Analysis' would be the key word. But I'm happy to call metaphysics a discipline and have done with it.

 

EDIT 2: Extract from that article - "The definition of science given here differs with the 'official' definitions given by the Science Council and the American Physical Society (APS), and with the definitions given in scientific and philosophical textbooks."

 

 

I don't believe one can say that

 

''Still, as metaphysics is prior to physics, then on your view we can say that physics rests on non-scientific foundations, and I don't think you would be happy with that idea. ''

 

In science, real science, you have to test to see if an idea is falsifiable. If the framework is not scientific or falsifiable, how can it be a science? Indeed, how can anything like that be linked to a real science?

 

 

[PeterJ]

In science, real science, you have to test to see if an idea is falsifiable. If the framework is not scientific or falsifiable, how can it be a science? Indeed, how can anything like that be linked to a real science?

 

If the framework is not scientific then it can't be a science, I'd say. But what do you mean by a scientific framework? This needs defining.

 

I personally do not care whether metaphysics is called a science or not. I believe that by some definitions it may be called it a science of logic, but it would all depend on how we do it. It is not often a science of logic in reality, more like a muddle of opinions. The Blackwell Guide to Metaphysics actually criticisizes scientists for expecting it to be systematic and have a procedure for decision-making, accusing those scientists who expct this of metaphysics of 'scientism'. But that's a very weird view imho, and I would say profoundly unscientific and unreasonable to boot.

 

I suppose I like the idea that it is a science because can be systematic, can have a clear decision-making procedure and solid standards for testing theories in logic. I would say that metaphysics is the ultimate test of any scientific theory. First and foremost such theories must not give rise to logical contradictions.

 

Also, if we can call consciousness studies scientific then all bets are off. I'm not alone in suggesting this use of the term renders it pretty meaningless. As for sociology being a science, don't get me going.

 

But maybe this is OT.

 

To get back OT, the simple question for me is whether physcis can have a fundamental theory without venturing into metaphysics, and to me this appears to be impossible by the definition of both disciplines. The whole point of these definitions is to place fundamental theories in metaphysics, and their unfolding consequences for the observable and third-person testable world in physics. To put it another way, any fundamental theory will have implications for metaphysics.

 

As someone said earlier, physics does not deal with the world as a whole but must be partial. This is not a value judgement, just a divison a labour.

Edited June 13, 2012 by PeterJ

[juanrga]

Ah, but physics is largely mathematical - it's hard to separate the two.

 

He was linking to a comic. You would not take a comic too seriously...

 

In fact, it is impossible to separate physics, biology, chemistry... because the boundaries are fuzzy

 

Still, as metaphysics is prior to physics, then on your view we can say that physics rests on non-scientific foundations, and I don't think you would be happy with that idea.

 

As said physics is a branch of science. We could discuss if science can rest on itself or cannot and a 'metascience' is needed.

 

The discussion is not very different to that maintained by meta-mathematicians: Some believe that metamathematics is prior to math, other disagree. My point is that metaphysics is a branch of philosophy and that it does not provide a 'foundation' for physics (neither for science).

 

EDIT: It's interesting though. I just checked that link you gave to a definition and to my mind it would cover philosophy (or philosophy done in a certain way). 'Analysis' would be the key word. But I'm happy to call metaphysics a discipline and have done with it.

 

EDIT 2: Extract from that article - "The definition of science given here differs with the 'official' definitions given by the Science Council and the American Physical Society (APS), and with the definitions given in scientific and philosophical textbooks."

 

"Analysis" has a precise scientific meaning as in analytical chemistry. The word is not used in philosophers sense as in analytic philosophy.

 

"Differ" in the sense that it is more general and up to date. For instance, the APS definition is a naive physicist's definition of science which is in clear disagreement with the science made by chemists, for instance. See also the criticism/remarks by David Edgerton and Jean Marie Lehn. The chapter by Jean Marie Lehn explains why reductionism is dead in supramolecular chemistry and substituted by integrationism.

Edited June 13, 2012 by juanrga

[PeterJ]

As said physics is a branch of science. We could discuss if science can rest on itself or cannot and a 'metascience' is needed.

Good idea. But surely you don't mean 'meta-science'. If so, why not call it meta-physics?

 

The discussion is not very different to that maintained by meta-mathematicians: Some believe that metamathematics is prior to math, other disagree. My point is that metaphysics is a branch of philosophy and that it does not provide a 'foundation' for physics (neither for science).

Okay, foundation might be the wrong word. At present physics does not have one. It should be the foundation, but it cannot be until metapysicians get their act together.

 

"Analysis" has a precise scientific meaning as in analytical chemistry. The word is not used in philosophers sense as in analytic philosophy.

I just meant 'analysis' in the everyday sense, as in just thinking about stuff but in a systematic and purposeful way. It would be analysis which justifies induction. It would analysis that refutes materialism etc etc.

 

"Differ" in the sense that it is more general and up to date. For instance, the APS definition is a naive physicist's definition of science which is in clear disagreement with the science made by chemists, for instance. See also the criticism/remarks by David Edgerton and Jean Marie Lehn. The chapter by Jean Marie Lehn explains why reductionism is dead in supramolecular chemistry and substituted by integrationism.

Okay. The point is just that definitions of 'science' can vary, and widely enough that an argument can be made for metaphysics as a science. After all, it makes predictions for physics. But no matter. I'm sure we'd agree once we'd agreed a definition.

[juanrga]

Good idea. But surely you don't mean 'meta-science'. If so, why not call it meta-physics?

 

Take a look to the figure in the post which you are replying. Read also #19, specially the first question.

 

I just meant 'analysis' in the everyday sense

 

The meaning of terms in the sciences often differs from the meaning "in the everyday sense". Since this is a science forum, I am using the standard meaning in the analytical sciences.

[PeterJ]

Take a look to the figure in the post which you are replying. Read also #19, specially the first question.

The figure represents your point of view and not mine. It has nothing explicit to say about whether metaphysics is meta-scientific or can be be called a science. Post 19 asks why anyone would want to call metaphysics a science, which is what I thought we were discusing.

 

The meaning of terms in the sciences often differs from the meaning "in the everyday sense". Since this is a science forum, I am using the standard meaning in the analytical sciences.

I'm happy with most of its meanings. I meant it in a sense that is common not only among scientists but also us idiots who aren't. But 'analytical' in the sense of 'analytic philosophy' is not what I meant, nor most of its mathematical senses. Nor did I mean it in the sense that musicians and musicologists would mean it, or TV news pundits.

 

Perhaps we could discuss what would disqualify a logically systematic metaphysical theory from being a scientific theory.

Edited June 13, 2012 by PeterJ

[juanrga]

Take a look to the figure in the post which you are replying. Read also #19, specially the first question.

 

The figure represents your point of view and not mine. It has nothing explicit to say about whether metaphysics is meta-scientific or can be be called a science. Post 19 asks why anyone would want to call metaphysics a science, which is what I thought we were discusing.

 

The figure represents the current status of three main scientific disciplines (physics, chemistry, biology) and some scientific subdisciplines. You can find textbooks, journals... on each one of the subdisciplines listed therein. For example, chemical physics is placed in the intersection between physics and chemistry in the figure because belong to both. Even the wikipedia starts its article on chemical physics with "Chemical physics is a subdiscipline of chemistry and physics".

 

Post #19 asks something completely different. The first question is «Why some people want to extend the concept of "physics" doing it equivalent to the concept of "science"?». Physics is not a synonym for science, but physics is a subset of science.

 

Even if we assume that science cannot rest on itself (which is something that I doubt as said before), but in another discipline; that discipline would be named metascience, not metaphysics, as many philosophers believe.

 

In fact, a new branch of philosophy named philosophy of chemistry was born in recent years in an attempt to correct the misunderstandings and mistakes made by the self-proclaimed philosophers of 'science' during centuries.

 

Regarding this thread, journals on philosophy of chemistry are filled with hundred of articles explaining why chemistry has not been reduced to physics. This fact gives a clear answer to the question made by the OP. Physics does not win over everything.

 

Perhaps we could discuss what would disqualify a logically systematic metaphysical theory from being a scientific theory.

 

I think that I already gave a precise and accurate definition of science. A "logically systematic metaphysical theory" is not a scientific theory, because the former does not use scientific methods for its testing.

 

Apart from the fundamental difference in methodology. Philosophers are notoriously bad at doing science and their logically systematic theories are usually scientific nonsense. Before I noticed how most philosophers are totally ignorants of chemistry, but they are not better at physics.

 

Feynman, in his famous lectures on physics, devotes some time to discuss why philosophers approach to the real world is misguided. He uses a chair as example and then using a modern atomic approach explains why the real world chair is different to what philosophers think that a chair is. This is a well-known episode. If you have not a copy of the lectures here is an excerpt.

Edited June 14, 2012 by juanrga

[PeterJ]

The figure represents the current status of three main scientific disciplines. You can find textbooks, journals... on each one of the disciplines listed therein. For example, chemical physics is placed in the intersection between physics and chemistry in the figure. The own wikipedia start its article on chemical physics with "Chemical physics is a subdiscipline of chemistry and physics".

Okay. This does not alter what I said.

 

Post #19 asks something completely different. The first question is «Why some people want to extend the concept of "physics" doing it equivalent to the concept of "science"?». Physics is not a synonym for science, but physics is a subset of science.

Quite so. I'm afraid the question baffles me. Perhaps the questionner is not a native english speaker.

 

Even if we assume that science cannot rest on itself (which is something that I doubt as said before), that discipline would be named metascience, not metaphysics as many philosophers believe.

It is not a question of belief, but of common and accepted usage of terms. The wonderful wikipedia discusses logic as a 'science of logic', so you'd better go argue with them as well.

 

Philosophers working in topics related to science are notoriously bad on misunderstanding what is science.

Personally I find that philosophers understand science a lot better than scientists understand philosophy. But I suppose two wrongs don't make a right.

 

In fact a new branch of philosophy named philosophy of chemistry was born in recent years in an attempt to correct the misunderstandings and mistakes made by the self-proclaimed philosophers of 'science' during centuries. Regarding this thread, journals on the topic are filled with hundred of articles explaining why chemistry has not been reduced to physics, which gives a clear answer to the question made by the OP.

No it doesn not. It answers why physics encompasses chemistry.Btw, I am not discussing philosophy of science.

 

I think that I already gave a precise and accurate definition of science. A "logically systematic metaphysical theory" is not a scientific theory, because the former does not use scientific methods for its testing.

Sorry, I must have missed your definition. It is tautological to say that a theory is not scientific because it cannot be scientifically tested. To make this meaningful you would have to define 'scientifically tested' in such a way as to exclude logical analysis. Many metaphyscial theories are testable in physics. If they are not, then physics must be defined as being unable to decide between materialism and idealism. What chance do we have of a fundamental theory in this case?

 

Apart from the fundamental difference in methodology. Philosophers are notoriously bad at doing science and their logically systematic theories are usually scientific nonsense.

Show me a fundamental scientific theory that is not metaphysical. Show me a metaphysical theory that is scientific nonsense. How would we show that a metaphysical theory is scientific nonsense if we are unable to test it scientifically? The idea makes no sense.

 

Feynman, in his famous lectures on physics, devotes some time to discuss why philosophers approach to the real world is misguided. He uses the chair as example and then using modern theories of physics explains why the real world is different to what philosophers think that a chair is. This is a well-known episode. If you have not a copy of the lectures here is an excerpt.

Oh c'mon. Feynam was baffled by the scientific data and says so very publicly in those same lectures. How can he start pontificating about this? I dare say he is able to show that many philosophical theories are rubbish. So can I. So can you. So what? He does not say that philosophy approaches the real world in the wrong way, he says that some do. I'd rather quote Schroedinger, who is on my side.

 

If Wikipedia can call logic a science than metaphysics can be called a science. since it is simply logic applied to a specific area of knowledge. Okay, your preferred defintion of science would exclude metaphysics, and I can see why someone might hold this view. I could accept that definition. But the other view is also valid, and cannot just be dismissed. It is a question of how we want to define the words. Both definitions are in widespread use, one by which metaphysics would be a science and one by which it would not.

 

But I would rather go back to the issue I suggested we discussed in the previous post. You did not give an answer so I can't tell quite what your objection is to my view. It's not good saying that a theory is unscientific if it cannot be scientifically tested until you have defined what you mean by scientifically tested. Otherwise the statement does not mean anything.

 

Can you not see that there are various ways of looking at this depending on how we define science, and that there is an ongoing debate within science about how this should be done, and no reason for anyone to simply accept your view?

Edited June 14, 2012 by PeterJ

[juanrga]

Oh c'mon. Feynam was baffled by the scientific data and says so very publicly in those same lectures. How can he start pontificating about this? I dare say he is able to show that many philosophical theories are rubbish. So can I. So can you. So what? He does not say that philosophy approaches the real world in the wrong way, he says that some do. I'd rather quote Schroedinger, who is on my side.

 

Feynman about philosophers:

Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong.

 

Feynman about philosophy of science:

Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds

 

I agree with him.

[PeterJ]

Me too, if we're talking about the philosophy of science.

 

I also think it is up to scientists to say what is necessary for science. Having said that, in order to do so in a meaningful way they would have to do some philosophy of science.

 

I suspect he would not have entirely dismissed phil. of science as useless, but is commenting on the current state of it.

 

Do you have any quotes from him about philosophy proper or metaphysics?

Edited June 14, 2012 by PeterJ