Klaynos Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 No, sorry. We've covered this already -- more than once. See earlier in the thread, or do your own research on the correspondence theory of truth. Or propose one of your own. Yeah you said we couldn't test, therefore we can't know how true something is, discussing it is therefore academic, see my comment about unicorns above.
Scott Mayers Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 Yeah you said we couldn't test, therefore we can't know how true something is, discussing it is therefore academic, see my comment about unicorns above. What about my point on how testing is not appropriate for the fringes of science? There are really certain things that cannot be tested repeatedly. All that sufficient is for the first one to create a story that fits. Since you cannot create new experiments on the qualifying prerequisite of testing, is this not similar to how a religion can assert their own out of reach of testing? Do you follow?
Reg Prescott Posted October 9, 2015 Author Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) If the link below works, members should be able to read most of the introduction to the book I mentioned earlier : "Quantum Theory and the Flight From Realism" by Christopher Norris. I believe it will be enormously helpful in clearing up the endless confusions in this thread. http://books.google.com.tw/books?id=ZwKDAgAAQBAJ&pg=PR1&lpg=PR1&dq=Quantum+Theory+and+the+Flight+from+Realism:+Philosophical+Responses+to+Quantum+Mechanics What's critical to bear in mind as you read, though, is that the discussion is limited to quantum physics where indeed an antirealist (or instrumentalist) approach, as opposed to a realist approach, seems overwhelmingly to be the norm. In any other area of science, that I can think of at least, realism is far and away the default position. I sense that much of the confusion in this thread is a consequence of certain members being actively involved in the QM milieu, where an instrumentalist attitude holds sway, and projecting this approach to all of science... ... and the result is absurdity. (in the form of claims such as "science is not about truth") Edited October 9, 2015 by Reg Prescott
Klaynos Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 What about my point on how testing is not appropriate for the fringes of science? There are really certain things that cannot be tested repeatedly. All that sufficient is for the first one to create a story that fits. Since you cannot create new experiments on the qualifying prerequisite of testing, is this not similar to how a religion can assert their own out of reach of testing? Do you follow? If it's not testable it's not science it's just sorry telling. Even if the test cannot be repeated exactly in say meteorology you can statistically analyse the different measurements to test the prediction. But testable, I mean testable in principle, so even if the experiment isn't built yet or can't be built with current technology it could feasibly be built. SB had stated that truthfulness cannot be tested. Not that we don't know how, but cannot be done.
swansont Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 Well, Strange, after reading your latest paroxysm of backpedaling, I feel obliged to once again remind you of your own claims: As has been pointed out many times now, you are making the error when you assume that when people are using "truth" then the opposite of that is fiction. But you don't get to decide which definition other people were using when they said something. If done on purpose it's intellectual dishonesty. For Cuba and StringJunky : "The claim has been thoroughly refuted. Quite obviously, at the very least, some scientists, in some disciplines, in some times and places, feel otherwise. They feel science has a great deal to do with truth. Even if they can't always attain it, or even if they can't know they've attained it, they AIM FOR it; they attempt to afford us with good reasons for believing that our best theories are true, or approximately so." (reproduced from my post # 195) . . . According to some accounts (perhaps apocryphal - it doesn't matter) in the 16th century Ponce de León devoted himself to a search for the Fountain of Youth. Needless to say, he never found it. Presumably it does not exist. But do we now want to say "Ponce de León had nothing to do with the (search for the) Fountain of Youth"? Or how about this: I believe Einstein in his later years, and many physicists today, engage in a search for a Grand Unified Theory of everything. What if they're all hopelessly mistaken? What if there can be no such theory? Do we really want to say "Einstein had nothing to do with GUT"? (Apologies if my physics is inaccurate. I'm not an expert.) The fountain of youth is a unique object. Equivocation would be much more difficult with that. The word truth can be used in different ways, depending on the context. So your examples fail. I said earlier in the thread: if you spoke hard-core physics to me, it would doubtless go over my head. The reverse is happening here: those trained in science repeatedly fall into the same philosophical muddles. And yet we still seem to be able to do the science. (not to mention that many of these muddles are your own fault)
cladking Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 And yet we still seem to be able to do the science. (not to mention that many of these muddles are your own fault) And science doesn't even have the existence of reality as a given! How can any sort of "truth" exist outside reality? Science isn't about truth at all in any of its definitions. Science is about learning about reality through the effects of reality on experiment. People choose to act as though there's only one truth, one language, and one science while scientists are building models of experiment and calling it "theory". We always only see our beliefs whether these beliefs involve God or models. Add in the simple fact that models are becoming increasingly reflections of math rather than experiment and you can see that science is losing its ties to reality, especially on the cutting edge.
Strange Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 We always only see our beliefs whether these beliefs involve God or models. Rot. As always. Models are changed or discarded when they don't match observation. Add in the simple fact that models are becoming increasingly reflections of math rather than experiment and you can see that science is losing its ties to reality, especially on the cutting edge. Also rot. As you say, models are tested against reality(*). However, "nice" a mathematical model is, if it doesn't match reality(*) then it will not be accepted. (*) Just in case anyone is going to be moronically pedantic (I'm sure that won't happen, but you can never tell), by "reality" I mean "what we observe".
swansont Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 We always only see our beliefs whether these beliefs involve God or models. Add in the simple fact that models are becoming increasingly reflections of math rather than experiment and you can see that science is losing its ties to reality, especially on the cutting edge. How do we ever come up with new science, then? Do you have an evidence that science is ignoring experiment at the expense of math? Please present it. The presence of math is not an inherent reason why theories do not reflect reality.
moth Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 just a general question to the philosophers here, if truth is real, what is it's referrant?you are telling us truth is like porno, you know it when you see it,even though you can not define what you mean by that word truth (or reality for that matter).i think mathematics and logical systems are tools, and like any other tool if you use them incorrectly you get bad results.if used correctly they are like radar - illuminating new phenomena and giving a direction to human investigation of the universe.you know, the REAL universe we are all subject to. there is no universe of absolute truth any more than absolute position, or if there is, we don't have direct access to it by our own senses.
CharonY Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 How do we ever come up with new science, then? Do you have an evidence that science is ignoring experiment at the expense of math? Please present it. The presence of math is not an inherent reason why theories do not reflect reality. And in areas where we have less maths (e.g. due to complexity of the system, or maybe just incompetence ) we tend to overthrow models very fast once new experiments roll in.
Reg Prescott Posted October 9, 2015 Author Posted October 9, 2015 Sigh! Confusion continues to reign. This video might be helpful. It's the first in a series of three, just in case anyone gets past the first 5 minutes, or bothers watching at all. 1
Scott Mayers Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 If it's not testable it's not science it's just sorry telling. Even if the test cannot be repeated exactly in say meteorology you can statistically analyse the different measurements to test the prediction. But testable, I mean testable in principle, so even if the experiment isn't built yet or can't be built with current technology it could feasibly be built. SB had stated that truthfulness cannot be tested. Not that we don't know how, but cannot be done. Just in case I might be misinterpreted, I often use the word, "fringe" to describe any of the sciences of the very large (Cosmology, Astronomy) and the very small (Quantum Mechanics, Atomic Physics), and to specifically any theories in these that are based on observations that are unable to be repeatable. If anyone knows of a better term for this, I welcome it if only to prevent thinking of 'fringe' as science fiction. (P.S. I did like that show, "Fringe" though...that science fiction series a few years ago.)
cladking Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 just a general question to the philosophers here, if truth is real, what is it's referrant? you are telling us truth is like porno, you know it when you see it,even though you can not define what you mean by that word truth (or reality for that matter). I personally don't believe anyone can see reality directly. Even people who look through the lens of religion or voodoo will catch glimpses of it once in a while just as do those of us who try to see it thrpough science or logic. We can't know what we've seen but when it agrees with experience and knowledge we can be reasonably confident we've caught a little peek at it. But seeing it laid bare is everyone's objective though no opne seems to know that and far worse almost everyone thinks their estimation of reality; their models or religious beliefs, is all that exists of reality. Nature is so fantastically complex we might never get a good look at her. But in time it should forever improve. While progress has probably not been at all straight line it still exists and we're still allinterested in the big picture which is reality or nature.
swansont Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 Sigh! Confusion continues to reign. This video might be helpful. It's the first in a series of three, just in case anyone gets past the first 5 minutes, or bothers watching at all. That does clear up a few things, but it doesn't clear up why you weren't presenting those points, and were asserting other things. Saying things are real and not imaginary is not a point you made, for example (or if you did, it was unclear that this was your point). You'll notice he says you test against behavior (of the tree, of the semiconductor) which agrees with what several of us have been saying. He also says scientific knowledge can be the truth, but he's talking about specific claims (e.g. c is invariant). I don't recall hearing him say theory (or, as he actually said, theories) until after the 12:00 mark, whereas you were claiming theories represent reality and reality is what is meant by truth (in post 29)
moth Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 I personally don't believe anyone can see reality directly. Even people who look through the lens of religion or voodoo will catch glimpses of it once in a while just as do those of us who try to see it thrpough science or logic. We can't know what we've seen but when it agrees with experience and knowledge we can be reasonably confident we've caught a little peek at it. But seeing it laid bare is everyone's objective though no opne seems to know that and far worse almost everyone thinks their estimation of reality; their models or religious beliefs, is all that exists of reality. Nature is so fantastically complex we might never get a good look at her. But in time it should forever improve. While progress has probably not been at all straight line it still exists and we're still allinterested in the big picture which is reality or nature. My personal prejudice is that the best feedback we can get of how well our models reflect reality, is that they work. If the model says an electron crossing a semi-conductor junction with some certain energy causes an emission of a photon with a specific frequency, and others can reproduce the effect, we know we are getting close. When we look at the unexpected behavior of galactic rotation speeds we know there is more to reality than our model can reveal. Models will always be incomplete because they are not the system they represent. they are closer to the system than wild guessing so trying to understand the models and where they work or fail is the only path i can see to the realism silly billy seeks. The video clip on scientific realism ended just when it seemed to be getting to the issue maybe silly billy could sum it up one more time?
Reg Prescott Posted October 10, 2015 Author Posted October 10, 2015 (edited) He also says scientific knowledge can be the truth, but he's talking about specific claims (e.g. c is invariant). I don't recall hearing him say theory (or, as he actually said, theories) until after the 12:00 mark, whereas you were claiming theories represent reality and reality is what is meant by truth (in post 29) I've re-read my post 29, and you're right, it's very misleadingly worded. My apologies. Here's the objectionable passage again: "Instrumentalism is contrasted with realism; the position that scientific theories purport to describe reality; the way things really are out there - truth! Black holes, quarks, species, fields, forces, genes, etc, etc really do exist. It's true! Einstein was well known as being a realist, at least in his later years. For a person like him, and I would suspect the majority of working scientists too, science is ALL about truth. They are not engaged in fiction. They are in the business of getting the world right, or at least trying to." I'd like to withdraw the first sentence and replace it with: "Instrumentalism is contrasted with realism; the position that scientific theories purport to describe reality; the way things really are out there - the theories are true! (or at least truth-like in some way) Just to try to clarify once again, "truth" (as far as I'm concerned anyway, and I believe this is pretty standard) is a property of certain assertoric linguistic entities: statements, propositions, hypotheses, theories, etc. These linguistic entities are the bearers of truth; candidates for being true or false. Reality, on the other hand (as I see it anyway), is simply what there is. Reality is not true or false. Reality is not a candidate for truth or falsehood. Reality just is. But I do see how my careless wording in post 29 might add to the confusion. Thanks to Swansont for pointing that out. . . Meanwhile Moth asks : "just a general question to the philosophers here, if truth is real, what is it's referrant?" I think I'd choose root canal work before even attempting a response at that question. That's a question for philosophers of language -- and that stuff is hard! Betcha 10-1 they all say different things though. He also says scientific knowledge can be the truth, but he's talking about specific claims (e.g. c is invariant). I don't recall hearing him say theory (or, as he actually said, theories) until after the 12:00 mark, whereas you were claiming theories represent reality and reality is what is meant by truth (in post 29) Oh, there's no doubt the scientific realist (not necessarily myself) makes the same claim for theories. Once again, I have to wonder... why is there never an evolutionary biologist around when you need one? Or a geologist? Or a paleontologist? Or a chemist? Or a...well, you get it. . . Finally, I've decided to post the third part of the video above because the first few minutes are absolutely critical to an understanding of our entire discussion. I urge everyone to take a look. Edited October 10, 2015 by Reg Prescott
swansont Posted October 10, 2015 Posted October 10, 2015 Oh, there's no doubt the scientific realist (not necessarily myself) makes the same claim for theories. How do you conclude that, since the evidence you presented doesn't back that up? According to the description in the video, I am a realist. But not according to you.
Reg Prescott Posted October 10, 2015 Author Posted October 10, 2015 (edited) How do you conclude that, since the evidence you presented doesn't back that up? According to the description in the video, I am a realist. But not according to you. I dunno if it's mentioned in the video or not, but that just is the realist position. re : "According to the description in the video, I am a realist. But not according to you." Well, comments you've made throughout the thread led me to believe you're an instrumentalist with regard to QM, but probably a realist with regard to just about everything else in science. Have I misread you? From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on "Scientific Realism" (opening paragraph): "Debates about scientific realism are centrally connected to almost everything else in the philosophy of science, for they concern the very nature of scientific knowledge. Scientific realism is a positive epistemic attitude towards the content of our best theories and models, recommending belief in both observable and unobservable aspects of the world described by the sciences. This epistemic attitude has important metaphysical and semantic dimensions, and these various commitments are contested by a number of rival epistemologies of science, known collectively as forms of scientific antirealism. This article explains what scientific realism is, outlines its main variants, considers the most common arguments for and against the position, and contrasts it with its most important antirealist counterparts." Edited October 10, 2015 by Reg Prescott
cladking Posted October 10, 2015 Posted October 10, 2015 Sigh! Confusion continues to reign. This video might be helpful. It's the first in a series of three, just in case anyone gets past the first 5 minutes, or bothers watching at all. Interesting. I disagree in a few key areas and believe the presentation is incomplete but he appears to be a good metaphysician. There's a lot of overlooked common sense in it. I've always tried to maintain a future perspective to help remember we're all always wrong and this will forever be true.
Reg Prescott Posted October 10, 2015 Author Posted October 10, 2015 I disagree in a few key areas and believe the presentation is incomplete but he appears to be a good metaphysician. There's a lot of overlooked common sense in it. I've always tried to maintain a future perspective to help remember we're all always wrong and this will forever be true. Yes, some of what he says is slightly at odds with the reading I've done, but I suppose that's to be expected in philosophy. His encapsulation of the truth/knowledge issues in the opening minutes of Part 3, though, is crystal clear. Just what this thread needs. Bravo, Dr Arnold!
swansont Posted October 10, 2015 Posted October 10, 2015 I dunno if it's mentioned in the video or not, but that just is the realist position. You don't know? You present a video and you don't know what it says? No, it doesn't say that that is the realist position. As I said, theory is not mentioned until very late. What the video says, basically, is: There is an objective reality, as opposed to illusion. This reality follow laws. We can know things about the reality by testing behavior. Then he talks about the completeness of what we know. Of facts, not theories. Nothing about that requires that the theories actually reflect reality, only that the results agree with it. re : "According to the description in the video, I am a realist. But not according to you." Well, comments you've made throughout the thread led me to believe you're an instrumentalist with regard to QM, but probably a realist with regard to just about everything else in science. Have I misread you? Almost certainly.
Reg Prescott Posted October 10, 2015 Author Posted October 10, 2015 @ Swansont Back to picayune bickering, eh? Just when I sensed a detente in the air, Never mind. I'll go back to ignoring you then. Sigh!
moth Posted October 10, 2015 Posted October 10, 2015 When the Popperian world of the mind interacts with the world of recieved knowledge paradigms about reality arise and become stable until they are driven to extinction by better paradigms.reminds me of punctuated equalibrium in biological evolution.after all, even though Newton's paradigm of space was a flat geometry it was still consistant with space having a geometry, and is not a bad approximation.
Reg Prescott Posted October 10, 2015 Author Posted October 10, 2015 (edited) When the Popperian world of the mind interacts with the world of recieved knowledge paradigms about reality arise and become stable until they are driven to extinction by better paradigms. reminds me of punctuated equalibrium in biological evolution. after all, even though Newton's paradigm of space was a flat geometry it was still consistant with space having a geometry, and is not a bad approximation. Well spotted, Moth! I'm not sure I understand your remarks about Popper above completely, but you're not the first person to draw the analogy between models of scientific and evolutionary dynamics. Under the Popperian model, we're invited to believe that scientists are constantly proposing, testing, and discarding theories. It's a "random generation plus non-random filtering" model bearing a striking resemblance to the traditional gradualist account of evolution. Theories/hypotheses, on Popper's account, are generated in a non-methodical manner (cf. random mutation), and subsequently retained or abandoned through a methodical testing process (cf. natural selection). On the other hand, Thomas Kuhn's model of science is eerily redolent of Gould's punctuated equilibrium: long periods of stability (paradigms of normal science), wherein scientists are most definitely NOT testing or challenging the paradigm, are punctuated by short bursts of activity -- crisis and revolution. . . Here's another short video. I've no idea who this lady is, but her understanding of the issues we've been discussing in this thread is spot on. Enjoy! (subtitles alert: around 2:08, she says "the terms refer", not "the terms were fair" ) Edit : P.S. Ah, she introduces herself in Part 1: Michela Massimi, Senior Lecturer in the Phil of Science, Edinburgh Uni Edited October 10, 2015 by Reg Prescott
moth Posted October 10, 2015 Posted October 10, 2015 It's been so long since i seriously investigated the issue that i'm not sure what i was saying about Popper either.i think the tests performed by people trying to learn the current model would only support the model.once they understand the model well enough to find deficiencies, then the tests they do are all a challenge to the model.or maybe i'm too utopian.
Recommended Posts