Philosophy: books and discussion

[FlorenceArt]

Aaaarg, so many wonderful contributions, to many things to say. Must go back to work. Just ignore that wonderful stuff until I get home.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

What I would have said, yes. We can only assume it is correct. Quantum Theory seems to suggest that it may not be true that the science is the same for all levels. (disregarding other universes).

One of the biggest questions currently in Physics is the reconciliation of Quantum theory and General Relativity. String Theory is one attempt to address this, but from what I see String Theory is more Religion than Science.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by kennyc

One of the biggest questions currently in Physics is the reconciliation of Quantum theory and General Relativity. String Theory is one attempt to address this, but from what I see String Theory is more Religion than Science.

Surely that's because the theory is still within the 'testing' phase.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Surely that's because the theory is still within the 'testing' phase.

As you said earlier, some might argue differently -- e.g. Lee Smolin -- The Trouble with Physics. http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physic.../dp/0618551050

Part of the issue is that String theory IS based on some unproveable/unmeasurable assumptions and may never reach the state of being "science." .... according to some....string threory IMO truly is on that ragged edge of what is science and what is religion.

[GeoffC]

reality and mythology ....

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Not truly arbitrary. There are those who think certain fundamental constants could possibly be different and some computer simulations that explore them, but the thing about laws of physics is that they are the same everywhere.

I think we are saying the same thing. What I mean by "not arbitrary", in the context of this discussion, is that there is no particular reason for the basic constants of the universe to be the way they are. But they are reliable, in the sense that they don't change arbitrarily.

[GeoffC]

mmmm

[FlorenceArt]

That didn't make much sense, did it? I think I need to edit that sentence...

[beppe]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

This is a misrepresentation. I much prefer Tom's quote

It is misguiding to say that science cannot prove a theory to be true. I suppose there might be a very small chance that another, better explanation of why apples fall may appear some day, but the probability is so low it's not worth mentioning.

Where is the scientific theory there? The only indisputable statement about the falling of apples is "apples fall downward" any thing that you add to that will have hard time to be confirmed experimentally. The statement is sort of too little to be called a theory.

It is also misguiding to say that theories are accepted until proven false. Before a theory is accepted, even provisionally, it must at least be considered to be plausible. By plausible I mean that it fits the facts and laws of physics as we already know them, or if it contradicts them, it must present reproduceable facts in support of their new questions, and/or new answers.

Who accepts? a committee of acceptors? Financed by whom? Plausible? Is there anything possibly "plausible" in the intermixing of chaos and "order" ?

Staying in the "order". Until the early 60's there were 2 scientific schools of thought, that sustained the theory of ether, in the description of electromagnetic waves. That theory, that originated by a good application of mathematics to a faulty physical thinking, at the beginning was very satisfactory, than, to take into account new experimental manifestations, required properties of the ether that were more and more complex ("cervellotic"). They made countless experiments. Of course for each experiment they received important sums of money and imperishable fame and honors. Down goes ether. False. From about 75 years it was on "trust".

This is not a minor point. It is around this that Albert Einstein built his discoveries.

A similar fate for the terrocentric interpretation of the motion of the celestial bodies. Than it arrives the lens ... And it will continue like this, on and on. On trust, false, enter an other one on trust, false, ...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

I think we are saying the same thing. What I mean by "not arbitrary", in the context of this discussion, is that there is no particular reason for the basic constants of the universe to be the way they are. But they are reliable, in the sense that they don't change arbitrarily.

True.



They are fixed, but not arbitrary in that the fundamental constants are related to one another and they don't change over time (as far as we can tell )

[GeoffC]

oh! you just had to add that caveat .....

[beppe]

Originally Posted by frabjous

Perhaps I'll throw out some suggestions. (I'm a philosophy professor, though the kind of philosophy I focus on is not really the kind you tend to read for the “fun” of it.)

Great. I hope that our bubbling about will give you good color material for your courses.

But, you could give us some simple assertion (and simply worded) that we could try to confute and hence learn something.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by beppe

Who accepts? a committee of acceptors? Financed by whom? Plausible? Is there anything possibly "plausible" in the intermixing of chaos and "order" ?

Staying in the "order". Until the early 60's there were 2 scientific schools of thought, that sustained the theory of ether, in the description of electromagnetic waves. That theory, that originated by a good application of mathematics to a faulty physical thinking, at the beginning was very satisfactory, than, to take into account new experimental manifestations, required properties of the ether that were more and more complex ("cervellotic"). They made countless experiments. Of course for each experiment they received important sums of money and imperishable fame and honors. Down goes ether. False. From about 75 years it was on "trust".

This is not a minor point. It is around this that Albert Einstein built his discoveries.

Another interesting example was the disagreement between Darwin and Kelvin over the age of the solar system - the theory of evolution was incompatible with the known facts of physics at the time.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithab..._darwin_vs.php

It turned out that it was physics that was wrong.

[mike_bike_kite]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

It is misguiding to say that science cannot prove a theory to be true. I suppose there might be a very small chance that another, better explanation of why apples fall may appear some day, but the probability is so low it's not worth mentioning.

It is also misguiding to say that theories are accepted until proven false. Before a theory is accepted, even provisionally, it must at least be considered to be plausible.

Sadly I think the exact opposite is true and I guess that's why they are called scientific theories rather than scientific truths .
Wikipedia has a good entry on scientific method which explains how scientists go from observation to hypothesis to theory but I think Einstein put it best by saying:

Originally Posted by Einstein

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

PS1 sorry FlorenceArt for missing your reasoning in my other post.

PS2 I just noted my "user description" suddenly went to zealot while posting this - it amused me anyway.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

One thing about axioms: they may not be proveable, but they work. We have sent rockets in space and people on the Moon based on a scientific system that is itself based on them. So the trust is pretty much validated by practice, I'd say.

I think NASA made use of Newton's gravitational theories in planning missions into space - but Newton was wrong (e.g. the orbit of Mercury contradicts his theory's predictions).

For NASA, Newtonian physics was good enough - even though it was known to be untrue.