Philosophy: books and discussion

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by TimMason

The book I've cited by Hacking is (partly) readable on line here. Feyerabend's 'Against Method' can also be viewed.

I think I'll leave this particular rabbit to run where it will. I don't think that Kennyc and I are likely to reach agreement, and I've had my say. Philosophy is a wide field, and although it obviously touches on religion and on science, I suspect that the original aims that Florence had when she opened this thread were elsewhere. Time to get back to Epicurus

Well, I don't own this discussion, and my opinion is not law here But I must admit, no matter how interesting this debate is, I'd like to explore other areas...

[GeoffC]

Okay, lead on Oh Priestess ....

[beppe]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

Well, I don't own this discussion, and my opinion is not law here But I must admit, no matter how interesting this debate is, I'd like to explore other areas...

If I do not receive further indications by Florence, to morrow I will look into desire with constructive intents.

Good night to every body around

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

... Reality is under no obligation to conform to human needs, desires, abstractions, or intuitions.

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

I wish I'd said that! Thank you Tom ...

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Thank you. I believe that it was Carl Sagan who first said, "Nature is under no obligation to conform to our expectations," but I can find no source for that quotation. It may have come from his TV series, Cosmos. Since many have played upon those words, I felt no compunction about adding my own twist.

It was Sagan. I knew it was Sagan! I copied the quote myself from the TV series, but these days, I always check the source first; because even when I know I'm right—even when I'm 100% positive that there could be no mistake on my part—sometimes I'm wrong.

Here's the exact wording:

.....Nature is not obliged to follow our speculations.
..........— Carl Edward Sagan (1934 –1996), American astronomer, astrophysicist, author, cosmologist. From the TV series, Cosmos.

Of course, that's not to say that he didn't borrow it from an older source.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by TimMason

Many scientists would disagree with you. Scientific knowledge is, by its nature, provisional. That is, indeed, one of the finest things about science : it seeks its own destruction. A interesting place to catch scientists talking to each other about stuff like this is the RealClimate site.

(This used to be true of "art" too, but in our own tradition we fetishize it, and keep it in a freeze box).

No you are still not getting it. Science builds on itself by constant improvement on what has gone before. I certainly wouldn't characterize that as "destruction."

For your information I participate in several forums where science, religion, and philosophy are discussed extensively as well as keeping up with the major science publication websites.

Scientists are the biggest skeptics on the planet and that is exactly why science works and results in true knowledge. (as opposed to dogmatic knowledge Beppe you listening? ).

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by TimMason

It's the motor behind a scientific career: that's why, despite the rhetoric, scientists very rarely go in for replication. They want to make a name for *themselves*. Science is very competitive.

.

Yes, there is competition in science as in any field, but your statement about replication is patently false. Any theory that becomes part of the scientific fabric will be tested and replicated. (look at cold fusion for example)

I get the feeling you have a significant burr under your saddle or chip on your shoulder with respect to science or science for some reason.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by TGS

...Kenny seems to be arguing that knowledge that is "merely" cultural practice is not science and is, therefore, false, ....

No don't want to imply or say that at all. What I am saying is that only through the scientific method can we obtain the best "Truth" possible.

None-scientific knowledge may or may not be true or false but if it is outside the realm of science there is no way to determine whether it is true or false. It may give you warm fuzzies or may in fact be true, but it can't be validated.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by TimMason

@TGS
... there are societies which have had no science. ...

I disagree with that premise even. As I explained ... even children use the scientific method to learn, the obtain knowledge, certainly any established society is going to be making some use of the scientific method (whether they are aware of it and call it by that name or not).

Much of the knowledge contained in a society, a culture, has been obtained by scientific means, whether that is explicitly evident or not.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by TimMason

The book I've cited by Hacking is (partly) readable on line here. Feyerabend's 'Against Method' can also be viewed.

I think I'll leave this particular rabbit to run where it will. I don't think that Kennyc and I are likely to reach agreement, and I've had my say. Philosophy is a wide field, and although it obviously touches on religion and on science, I suspect that the original aims that Florence had when she opened this thread were elsewhere. Time to get back to Epicurus

Thanks for the link.

Here's the wikipedia entry on him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend

apparently he had a bone to pick with science as well and made something of an infamous reputation on it.

Likely worth a read.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Okay, lead on Oh Priestess ....

[kennyc]

Can you tell I was swamped/busy all day and am just now catching up.

[troymc]

Originally Posted by recluse

... I see the race to "tear down" religious institutions and moral codes as a symptom of this thinking and a harbinger of worse to come.

I see that religious institutions have declined as the education level of the general population has risen. And religion's own rigidity, mis-steps and crimes (pedophilic priests being only the latest of that comedy of horrors) have done far more to tear it down than a free-thinking public.

And moral codes are in no way tied to religions. But I can see how they may be perceived that way by people who were raised in a religion and had their morals dictated to them by others their entire lives. Thus as religions falter, there are more people questioning their morals and the values they're based upon.

Originally Posted by TimMason

... For one thing, there is no single 'scientific method'; the sciences may, as Wittgenstein might have put it, bear a family resemblance to one another, but do not lend themselves to one overarching and constraining definition. Meterology is other than particle physics, and both are other than psychology, which, in turn, should not really be confused with evolutionary biology.

Originally Posted by kennyc

... There is only ONE scientific method. Again you seem to be confusing practice with theory. The Scientific method goes thus:

1. Create a falsifiable hypothesis based on experience or existing knowledge
2. Design a repeatable, replicable experiment to test the hypothesis
3. If the hypothesis passes the test (and is repeatable and replicable) it is deemed to be true and is now a theory describing the particular behavior or activity etc.
If the hypothesis fails the test then it's back to step 1.

If I may go out on a limb here, I think Tim's point, supported by the examples he gave, was about the differing natures of differing sciences. The basic scientific method Kenny describes is only applicable to the empirical sciences and cannot be applied in the same way to other more theoretical sciences. eg.
Cosmology - care to create an experiment to test singular vs multiple universe theories? this field is completely mathematical.
Astronomy - experiment with galaxy formation? stellar death? the vast majority of astronomy is primarily observation & analysis - some simulation - no experimentation.

Historical sciences, eg.
Geology - experiments in continental drift?
Climatology - experiment with ice ages?
Archeaology - experiment???

or the "soft", social sciences. eg.
Anthropology - no experimentation here
Sociology - etc
Psychology - etc

The scientific method and how it is applied varies greatly depending upon the nature of the science being investigated. What's rigid science in one field may not pass muster in another.

The definition of "science" simply cannot be constrained to only empirical sciences.

Originally Posted by TimMason

... It's the motor behind a scientific career: that's why, despite the rhetoric, scientists very rarely go in for replication. They want to make a name for *themselves*. Science is very competitive.

You paint with a broad brush, my friend. I can't even begin to tell you the amount of replication I have done. But that's all behind-the-scenes work that's never really spoken about unless it brings out something new or disagrees with the original. It's simply the ground work necessary for any new experimentation. But I guarantee you it's there - and it's constant.

Please, don't take me wrong, I'm not attempting to claim there is no pride or ego involved. But the vast majority of the people producing the bulk of the science are not driven by those things. They're simply smart, curious people who love what they're doing. And, maybe not surprisingly, there's even a segment who are simply 9-to-5'ers - people for whom science is simply a day job.


BTW, I would like to thank everyone for this thread. I just spent my free time the last several days reading through all 30 pages. Very interesting!! I really want to poke at Florence's Plato buttons some more - see what's really behind that.

Troy

[beppe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

N
Scientists are the biggest skeptics on the planet and that is exactly why science works and results in true knowledge. (as opposed to dogmatic knowledge Beppe you listening? ).

Yes Kenny, it took about 7 hours to wake me up!

Kenni, you were dogmatic, not science or anybody else. you kennic, my friend from colorado and the poetry thread. you of the pictures, the images of the sun and your painting and your quick wit and your 9K posts. YOUUUU! Knock kcnok.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by kennyc

None-scientific knowledge may or may not be true or false but if it is outside the realm of science there is no way to determine whether it is true or false. It may give you warm fuzzies or may in fact be true, but it can't be validated.

You seem not to be acknowledging the distinction between declarative and procedural knowledge, and I am left confused about what you take knowledge to be, since there might be "true" knowledge and "false" knowledge.

It is a truism that much of what has passed as scientific knowledge is now not thought to be true. A question then is; was it true, on your account of knowledge, when the "community of scientists" thought it was true. When that community of scientists thought that phlogiston was an element contained in combustible bodies, did they have knowledge of phlogiston, and if they did, was this true knowledge or false knowledge? Is it possible for a proposition to change its truth value over time or is it the case that what is true has always been and will always be true - though we may not know it.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by troymc

BTW, I would like to thank everyone for this thread. I just spent my free time the last several days reading through all 30 pages. Very interesting!! I really want to poke at Florence's Plato buttons some more - see what's really behind that.

Troy

Hello Troy, thank you for participating. And I don't know what's behind Plato, but I know it's not comfortable

Originally Posted by beppe

Yes Kenny, it took about 7 hours to wake me up!

Kenni, you were dogmatic, not science or anybody else. you kennic, my friend from colorado and the poetry thread. you of the pictures, the images of the sun and your painting and your quick wit and your 9K posts. YOUUUU! Knock kcnok.

Beppe, my friend, I don't know if Kenny is dogmatic, but it seems to me that you are deliberately trying to confuse rational issues to leave some room for irrational beliefs. And that's sneaky