Itoero

science is subfield of philosophy

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Itoero said:

True but the fact that it's explained without particle interaction doesn't mean the interaction of particles isn't there.

Well, if it is fully explained without particle interaction, then it is a typical case for Occam's Razor. 

15 hours ago, Itoero said:

It's IMO due to interaction of photons with electrons( inelastic scattering) in the corona of a star.

A black hole has no corona, but light is bent, can be doppler-shifted, so whatever the effect of a corona is, we do not need it to explain the effect of gravity on light. Occam's Razor rules.

15 hours ago, Itoero said:

The idea that the properties of light can change without  interacting of photons is not based on observations, experiments, or known facts ..it's based on misinterpretations and faith.

It really seems you have no idea about what doppler-shift is. It is completely explained by the relative velocities of different inertial frames. No property of photons changes, but due to velocity differences, observers see the light with different frequencies. It is as if you want a physical explanation why I see a circle as an ellipse because I see it under another angle than 90o.

15 hours ago, Itoero said:

I don't know I just want to categorize all the interpretations in science. philosophical science seems like a good word.

To you maybe. But take care when you are creating your private language, especially in domains where most people more or less agree on the use of their words. You take the risk of being seen as a parvenu, defending standpoints that are wrong, until one discovers that you use words differently than most other people (I remember a discussion about the word 'theory', where you used it in a much more vague way than could be derived from the context of the discussion of that thread. And then I do not even talk about refraction and scattering...). What drives you to redefine existing concepts against the main stream of science and philosophy? What do you think is gained by that? Mastering of a language is to comply with it. 

15 hours ago, Itoero said:

Ok, but why don't we call those interpretations of physical theories, Philosophy?

Because it needs too much expertise in the theories themselves.

On the other hand, such interpretations fit more or less to the old view on metaphysics: how nature is behind the empirical scenes. Such metaphysical ideas should be consistent with empirical proven theories. 2 Possibilities:

  1. Only one interpretation is possible: but then it is science. Empirical facts have decided what the correct interpretation is.
  2. More than one interpretation is possible: then it is not possible to decide which is the correct one, and the theory's interpretation could be called metaphysics. However: most philosophers, following more or less Kant ('Critique of pure Reason') have decided that metaphysics in this sense is an empty enterprise. Why bother about questions that principally cannot be answered? Therefore modern metaphysics is not interested in such questions anymore.

(One could add that there is a third possibility: No interpretation is possible. This stance is also defended trying to understand QM, e.g. the classical concepts of particles and waves are conceptually contradictory. Nothing can be a wave and a particle at the same time. This is more or less the Copenhagen interpretation.)

Maybe superfluous to remark: there is a huge difference between interpretations and scientific speculations, or better hypotheses. First cannot be decided empirically; latter can. Therefore scientific speculations are definitely not philosophy. And because metaphysics in the old fashioned sense is 'out', there is here no role for philosophy to play. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 27.2.2018 at 11:35 AM, Tub said:

In the end I had the time to read, and react on it. I like the article. It is interesting to see that Feynman (I would say of course...) surely has made philosophical ideas about doing science. So I would say that his disdain for philosophy is partially explainable by the (bad) philosophy he has seen during his excursion at the philosophy faculty. Instead he could have developed his own philosophy of science, contradicting ideas he thought stupid. That would have been a valuable impetus to the philosophy of science. Interestingly enough he touches at some (radical) ideas of Paul Feyerabend:

Quote

In his books Against Method and Science in a Free Society Feyerabend defended the idea that there are no methodological rules which are always used by scientists. He objected to any single prescriptive scientific method on the grounds that any such method would limit the activities of scientists, and hence restrict scientific progress. In his view, science would benefit most from a "dose" of theoretical anarchism. He also thought that theoretical anarchism was desirable because it was more humanitarian than other systems of organization, by not imposing rigid rules on scientists.

Just two quotations I like, from your link:

Quote

Feynman points out the disparity between what science is taught to be and how it is: "What I have just outlined is what I call a ‘physicist’s history of physics’, which is never correct… a sort of conventionalized myth-story that the physicist tell to their students, and those students tell to their students, and it is not necessarily related to actual historical development, which I do not really know!"

Quote

Feynman describes judgement in science as the skill to “pass on the accumulated wisdom, plus the wisdom that it might not be wisdom… to teach both to accept and reject the past with a kind of balance that takes considerable skill. Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers of the preceding generation”

 

Edited by Eise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Eise said:

Feynman describes judgement in science as the skill to “pass on the accumulated wisdom, plus the wisdom that it might not be wisdom… to teach both to accept and reject the past with a kind of balance that takes considerable skill. Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers of the preceding generation”

1

We're all philosophers, in that we think about things (please take note gee's, everyone is your peer) the bolded sentence is literally the best description of philosophy, I've heard, without denying the value of science. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

We're all philosophers, in that we think about things (please take note gee's, everyone is your peer) the bolded sentence is literally the best description of philosophy, I've heard, without denying the value of science. 

But Feynman meant science here, not philosophy.

And we are all physicists when throwing a ball, or when we bend over in curves when driving a bicycle...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Eise said:

But Feynman meant science here, not philosophy.

 

Does it matter?

What is wisdom? Knowledge or understanding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Eise said:

In the end I had the time to read, and react on it. I like the article**. It is interesting to see that Feynman (I would say of course...) surely has made philosophical ideas about doing science. So I would say that his disdain for philosophy is partially explainable by the (bad) philosophy he has seen during his excursion at the philosophy faculty. Instead he could have developed his own philosophy of science, contradicting ideas he thought stupid. That would have been a valuable impetus to the philosophy of science. Interestingly enough he touches at some (radical) ideas of Paul Feyerabend:

 

 

** https://philosophynow.org/issues/114/Richard_Feynmans_Philosophy_of_Science

Thanks for the Feyerabend link - what a fascinating character. I wasn't familiar with him but, quite by chance and in the last couple of days, i have come across several YouTube videos of Terence Kemp McKenna, himself also an interesting character in this field, who was influenced by Feyerabend. 

As regards the OP, i vaguely remember this quote : " Science and Philosophy each have their own integrity as methods of inquiry, constructing their own models of reality without mutual interference ". Unfortunately, i can't remember who or where it came from but it seems to me to be a sensible and equitable way to view both disciplines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Does it matter?

Yes. In the line of the discussion in this thread, and understanding the text about Feynman, it is. 

20 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What is wisdom? Knowledge or understanding?

That is another topic. You can open a new thread if you want.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On ‎1‎-‎3‎-‎2018 at 5:27 PM, Strange said:

But if Doppler shift weren’t explained by relative motion (which is kind of inherent in the nature of waves) then you would need to explain why not. 

And does the same apply to sound?

(I have seen some odd ideas in my time, but denying Doppler shift is a new one.)

I don't deny doppler shift. I've never denied science.But the current explanation only deals with macroscopic behavior. I want to know the microscopic behavior. I want to explain the doppler effect.This explanation gives extra info.                 The extinction theorem doesn't deny refraction, it explains it.  The holographic principle doesn't deny our 3D-reality, it explains it.

Also for sound. When an ambulance drives, it has an effect on te concentration of air-molecules(aerodynamics)...those air-molecules form the transmission medium for sound.

When a duck swims in a lake you also see doppler shift. The momentum of a duck causes a difference in watermolecule concentration

 

On ‎1‎-‎3‎-‎2018 at 5:27 PM, Strange said:

Are we still talking about Doppler? How is that relevant to, say, terrestrial radar system? 

The interaction photon-plasma(corona) alters the energy of the photons and expansion of the universe causes a shift in the plasma-concentration which causes the redshift. A corona of a star is an aura of plasma.

When is redshift =doppler redshift?

On ‎1‎-‎3‎-‎2018 at 5:33 PM, studiot said:

Talking of Doppler,

I wonder, are your tomatoes subject the the red shift?

 

:)

:) In order to test blueshift, I have to throw a tomato in someone's face and he then has to check to color of the tomato before it enters his face.

 

On ‎2‎-‎3‎-‎2018 at 10:12 AM, Eise said:

Well, if it is fully explained without particle interaction, then it is a typical case for Occam's Razor. 

Not really. Many people thought refraction/diffraction/reflection was explained without particles interaction...people invented there own Occam's razor results. 

Whether gravit lensing is due to particle interaction we will know if the existence of gravitons gets proven.

On ‎2‎-‎3‎-‎2018 at 10:12 AM, Eise said:

A black hole has no corona, but light is bent, can be doppler-shifted, so whatever the effect of a corona is, we do not need it to explain the effect of gravity on light. Occam's Razor rules

You are very wrong. Here a bh-corona is mentioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering#Inverse_Compton_scattering

https://arxiv.org/abs/0912.0907

https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.02890

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0004158

Edited by Itoero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Itoero said:

I want to explain the doppler effect.

It is trivially explained by relative velocity. I’m really not sure why you don’t think this is the case. 

6 minutes ago, Itoero said:

The interaction photon-plasma(corona) alters the energy of the photons and expansion of the universe causes a shift in the plasma-concentration which causes the redshift.

1. We observe redshift of light which has not passed through the corona of stars. 

2. Can you show, in suitable mathematical detail, that your claimed effect reproduces the observed redshift-distance relation?

3. By claiming this is the cause of redshift you are also claiming GR is wrong. 

4. You haven’t explained how we use Doppler shift in terrestrial radar where no corona is involved. 

28 minutes ago, Itoero said:

When is redshift =doppler redshift?

Do you mean “not =“?

Anyway, gravitational and cosmological redshift are not the same as Doppler. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now