Science...Truth...Reality...?

[et pet]

    To Whom It May Concern : 

        For whatever reason, it seems that another Member would prefer to take control of and possibly even rename this Thread .

        It is obvious that that Member's actions will not cease.

        

Edited October 27, 2018 by et pet

[beecee]

27 minutes ago, et pet said:

    To Whom It May Concern : 

        For whatever reason, it seems that another Member would prefer to take control of and possibly even rename this Thread .

        It is obvious that that Member's actions will not cease.        

What is even more obvious is your obvious intent. It won,t work. Now are you going to comment on your own thread/links, and my own opinions of the extracts I have taken from those links, and other relevant links of my own that I have contributed?

Edited October 27, 2018 by beecee

[TheSim]

One remarkable tendency of  metaphysical realists with respect to a given domain of inquiry is their passion for studying that domain, which they might not have if they didn't believe  that there existed an absolute truth to search for. 

For example, consider a realist and an anti-realist whose attentions are drawn to a  dimly illuminated flower whose colour  they agree  is ambiguous and purple-looking.       The realist says "is that really a purple flower?  let's turn up the light".    The anti-realist replies "Our description is already satisfactory;  we agree that the colour is ambiguous and purple-looking.    Turning up the light to remove the ambiguity cannot change our current opinion because we would  no longer be comparing like for like"

Edited October 27, 2018 by TheSim

[swansont]

14 hours ago, et pet said:

      Again, I cannot and will not participate in any discussion about whether or not Albert Einstein was wrong about anything - especially any discussion  with anyone arguing that Albert Einstein may have been wrong about about what his own personal Philosophy of Science was!

      And how can you argue with anyone about the Title of this Thread?

      It is in a fairly good sized Font at the  TOP OF THIS PAGE!

      The Title of this Thread IS NOT "Science, Truth and Reality".

      I titled the OP.

     The title of this Thread is : Science...Truth...Reality...?

     

!

Moderator Note

This is not particularly helpful, as you have not explained the distinction between the two. That makes at least two instances of you making a great deal out of what look to be small and subtle differences in phrasing, implying that you find this very important, and yet you have not bothered to explain what the distinction between them actually is. (I am reminded of the “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” episode of Star Trek)

 

15 hours ago, et pet said:

     

    If you want to start a Thread to argue that Albert Einstein may have been wrong about about what his own personal Philosophy of Science was, then go right ahead and start that Thread, Please?

   My OP contained a Link to a heavily researched and very insightful article Titled "Einsteins Philosophy of Science"    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/ ; and a Link to "The Einstein Papers Project   The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein" : http://www.einstein.caltech.edu 

   As I stated in the OP : Anyone who is truly interested in the Philosophy and Science of Albert Einstein should enjoy reading the Linked content.  

   I honestly thought that some on this Forum might enjoy reading the heavily researched and very insightful article based on Albert Einsteins personal writings and professional publications.

!

Moderator Note

And they might do so, but to simply put up those links (even with a paragraph or two of quotes), without any indication of what, specifically, you want to discuss, is against forum rules.

This is your last chance to lay it out. i.e. if it's not in your next post, this will be closed.

 

 

 

[et pet]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

This is not particularly helpful, as you have not explained the distinction between the two. That makes at least two instances of you making a great deal out of what look to be small and subtle differences in phrasing, implying that you find this very important, and yet you have not bothered to explain what the distinction between them actually is. (I am reminded of the “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” episode of Star Trek)

 

!

Moderator Note

And they might do so, but to simply put up those links (even with a paragraph or two of quotes), without any indication of what, specifically, you want to discuss, is against forum rules.

This is your last chance to lay it out. i.e. if it's not in your next post, this will be closed.

 

       

   

Again, from my OP : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/

   Anyone who is truly interested in the Philosophy and Science of Albert Einstein should enjoy reading the Linked content.  

   Also of interest might be "The Einstein Papers Project   The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein" : http://www.einstein.caltech.edu 

    Nowhere in the OP did I make any reference to "a scientific truth" that a Member constantly attempts to Steer or Hijack this Thread towards for whatever reason.

     I do understand how the Site Rules are administrated, swansont, so...

       I will gladly participate in any thoughtful DISCUSSION with anyone about the Linked content.

      However, as I did not Author the Content of those Links, I cannot and will not participate in any ARGUMENT against the Linked Content - only the Authors of the Linked Content can do that.

swansont, do what you will with the Thread. As far as I am concerned, it was destined for CLOSURE with the 2nd response(3rd Post).

Edited October 27, 2018 by et pet

[Strange]

1 minute ago, et pet said:

Nowhere in the OP did I make any reference to "a scientific truth" that a Member constantly attempts to Steer or Hijack this Thread towards for whatever reason.

It is in the title though.

1 minute ago, et pet said:

I will gladly participate in any thoughtful DISCUSSION with anyone about the Linked content.

And yet you reject the discussion that has taken place.

 

[et pet]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is in the title though.

And yet you reject the discussion that has taken place.

 

   Where, may I respectfully ask, Strange, do you see "a scientific truth" written in the Title : "Science...Truth...Reality...?" 

    ... ... ...? is also in the Title, so should one read the Title as "Morse Code SSS Question"?

   And, Strange, I am still participating in this discussion into the 2nd Page...so...

   You seem to be very selective (along with a few other Members) in how much you read of my Posts, and how you choose to interpret what you do read.

   For instance, I actually Posted : 

  I will gladly participate in any thoughtful DISCUSSION with anyone about the Linked content.

      However, as I did not Author the Content of those Links, I cannot and will not participate in any ARGUMENT against the Linked Content - only the Authors of the Linked Content can do that.

    Strange, did you not see the :  " However, as I did not Author the Content of those Links, I cannot and will not participate in any ARGUMENT against the Linked Content - only the Authors of the Linked Content can do that."

    Did you miss that part, Strange?

    

    

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, et pet said:

Where, may I respectfully ask, Strange, do you see "a scientific truth" written in the Title : "Science...Truth...Reality...?" 

So what sort of truth are you talking about?

13 minutes ago, et pet said:

Strange, did you not see the :  " However, as I did not Author the Content of those Links, I cannot and will not participate in any ARGUMENT against the Linked Content - only the Authors of the Linked Content can do that."

    Did you miss that part, Strange?

I did. It seems an odd statement so I had nothing to say about it.  So if someone disagrees with the content of the links, you will just ignore them? So you only want to discuss with people who agree with the article? Is that right?

[et pet]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

So what sort of truth are you talking about?

I did. It seems an odd statement so I had nothing to say about it.  So if someone disagrees with the content of the links, you will just ignore them? So you only want to discuss with people who agree with the article? Is that right?

If you read the OP, a big IF it seems!!

    You may be able to read  : 

 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/

                 "Einstein's Philosophy of Science"

   "  1. Introduction: Was Einstein an Epistemological “Opportunist”?

Late in 1944, Albert Einstein received a letter from Robert Thornton, a young African-American philosopher of science who had just finished his Ph.D. under Herbert Feigl at Minnesota and was beginning a new job teaching physics at the University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez. He had written to solicit from Einstein a few supportive words on behalf of his efforts to introduce “as much of the philosophy of science as possible” into the modern physics course that he was to teach the following spring (Thornton to Einstein, 28 November 1944, EA 61–573).^[1] Here is what Einstein offered in reply:

I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Einstein to Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61-574)

Einstein expected scientific theories to have the proper empirical credentials, but he was no positivist; and he expected scientific theories to give an account of physical reality, but he was no scientific realist. Moreover, in both respects his views remained more or less the same from the beginning to the end of his career."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/

I titled the Thread relative to the Highlighted portions of the Linked Content.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You asked, Strange : "So what sort of truth are you talking about?"

That  truth would be an aspect of what, in Albert Einstein's opinion, he was Quoted as writing that science might possibly be seeking.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Strange, you ask : "So if someone disagrees with the content of the links, you will just ignore them?"

    If someone disagrees with the content, that is their prerogative, I have no control over that.

    If someone wants to argue with the Linked Content. again, that is their prerogative, and again, I have no control over that. 

    However, I did NOT Author the Linked Content, so no amount of arguing with me about the Linked Content will have any affect on the Linked Content.

    I will respectfully and simply ask that if they wish to pursue any argument with the Linked Content that the kindly Start Their Own Thread To Do So.

    So, no Strange, I will NOT "just ignore them"!

   Again,  I will respectfully and simply ask that if they wish to pursue any argument with the Linked Content that the kindly Start Their Own Thread To Do So.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You also ask : "So you only want to discuss with people who agree with the article? Is that right?"

No, Strange, that is NOT right!

I clearly Stated :  I will gladly participate in any thoughtful DISCUSSION with anyone about the Linked content.

 So, Strange I will gladly participate in any thoughtful DISCUSSION with anyone about the Linked content, whether or not they AGREE or DISAGREE !

What you, Strange, and a few others, cannot seem to understand is,  I DID NOT AUTHOR THE LINKED CONTENT!

So, if anyone chooses to ARGUE against the Linked Content - that ARGUMENT should be taken up with the Authors of that Linked Content.

Strange, I am currently engaged in this  discussion with you and it is irrelevant whether you MAY or MAY NOT Agree with the article .

 

Edited October 27, 2018 by et pet

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, et pet said:

You asked, Strange : "So what sort of truth are you talking about?"

That  truth would be an aspect of what, in Albert Einstein's opinion, he was Quoted as writing that science might possibly be seeking.

So you are saying that is not "scientific truth"? (even though it is, according to Einstein, what science is seeking)

Just to be clear, I am asking this because you said:

2 hours ago, et pet said:

Nowhere in the OP did I make any reference to "a scientific truth"

Edited October 27, 2018 by Strange

[beecee]

3 hours ago, et pet said:

   Again, from my OP : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/

       I will gladly participate in any thoughtful DISCUSSION with anyone about the Linked content.     

from your quote....

"This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Einstein to Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61-574)

Einstein expected scientific theories to have the proper empirical credentials, but he was no positivist; and he expected scientific theories to give an account of physical reality, but he was no scientific realist. Moreover, in both respects his views remained more or less the same from the beginning to the end of his career."

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Are you of the opinion that Einstein is of the opinion that truth and reality is the goal of science? If so, what is this truth and/or reality as per your title "Science, truth reality"

Do you agree that Einstein was also known to be wrong in his incredible career? 

Or could one pose the question, is there a difference between truth and scientific truth? Again as per the thread title, any claims that science 's goal is truth and reality is wrong...The actual evidence available and the scientific methodology support that I believe.

Quote

 

You asked, Strange : "So what sort of truth are you talking about?"

That  truth would be an aspect of what, in Albert Einstein's opinion, he was Quoted as writing that science might possibly be seeking.

 

Science in my opinion is seeking knowledge and explanations  as to the structure of the universe and everything in it via empirical observation and experiment. If that basically  is not what Einstein actually believed [and I'm sure he did] then I also believe he was wrong. Einstein said many things and is known for many wise quotes attributed to him. 

 

Quote

Where, may I respectfully ask, Strange, do you see "a scientific truth" written in the Title : "Science...Truth...Reality...?

I respectfully suggest that what Einstein was supposed to have said, [following this] in your article, and the quibbling that you have instigated with this thread is relevant.

Quote

seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. 

eg: Science...Truth...Reality, and "Science, truth and reality" 

I mean, really, that borders on the ridiculous.

Quote

swansont, do what you will with the Thread. As far as I am concerned, it was destined for CLOSURE with the 2nd response(3rd Post).

The third post, mine, actually answered another poster and his question. 

 

Edited October 27, 2018 by beecee

[et pet]

40 minutes ago, Strange said:

So you are saying that is not "scientific truth"? (even though it is, according to Einstein, what science is seeking)

Just to be clear, I am asking this because you said:

   Strange, NO, I AM NOT saying that is not "scientific truth"! Again, I DID NOT Author the Linked Content, so what you or anyone else choose to "Read Into" the Content or how one chooses to interpret the written content is NOT for me to decide.

   Re-Read the OP, please...and you should see that neither the Quoted Content that I Posted, nor anything that I wrote in the OP, makes any reference to "a scientific truth ".

    Yes, Strange, the 3 words "a", "scientific" and "truth" are all present in the OP.

    But nowhere in the OP do the 3 words "a", "scientific" and "truth" appear in succession as "a scientific truth".

    The quoted passage by Albert Einstein containing the word "truth", does not explicitly state "a scientific truth" :

  "I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Einstein to Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61-574)" - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/ , 

   ...so I guess it is up to each individual how they choose to interpret what Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, and whether or not, as you choose to state ; "(even though it is, according to Einstein, what science is seeking)"...

    Strange, you may well be correct when you state : "(even though it is, according to Einstein, what science is seeking)".

   I, personally, prefer not to assume or presume to be able to "second guess" or "correct" or even properly "critique" any Genius, especially a Genius the likes of Albert Einstein.

    Again Strange, I am still currently engaged in this  discussion with you and it is still irrelevant whether you MAY or MAY NOT Agree with the article .

 

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, et pet said:

Strange, NO, I AM NOT saying that is not "scientific truth"!

But ... you said you weren't talking about scientific truth ... now you are saying it is scientific truth ... 

14 minutes ago, et pet said:

But nowhere in the OP do the 3 words "a", "scientific" and "truth" appear in succession as "a scientific truth".

    The quoted passage by Albert Einstein containing the word "truth", does not explicitly state "a scientific truth" :

But now you are saying it isn't scientific truth ... ?

I think you need to clarify what you are saying. (And using different colours, sizes and block caps doesn't help clarify it.)

 

 

Edited October 27, 2018 by Strange

[beecee]

17 minutes ago, et pet said:

    Again Strange, I am still currently engaged in this  discussion with you and it is still irrelevant whether you MAY or MAY NOT Agree with the article .

I'm really at a loss to know what you actually want to discuss...Was it a good article? yes....Does the article mention science, truth and reality...yes, So again I ask, what is your opinion on the article? That may give the rest of us here, who as far as I can see, all have actually no idea what you want to discuss, some semblance of what you want to discuss. i mean sometimes pedant can be way over the top, and I believe your claims and otherwise in this thread, are just that.

Anyway getting back to your article.....

"Einstein expected scientific theories to have the proper empirical credentials, but he was no positivist; and he expected scientific theories to give an account of physical reality, but he was no scientific realist". 

So the article mentions "scientific theories" and consequently I see no reason that this should not or does not entail, scientific truth and/or reality...do you agree?

Again, if the great man is saying as the author has inferred, that science is actually after some truth and/or reality, then I believe that the evidence says that is untrue, and it is something to do with the article and on topic, despite your pedantic claims and exclusions as to what is and should be discussed. 

Edited October 27, 2018 by beecee

[et pet]

33 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

  I respectfully suggest that what Einstein was supposed to have said, [following this] in your article, and the quibbling that you have instigated with this thread is relevant. eg: Science...Truth...Reality, and "Science, truth and reality" 

I mean, really, that borders on the ridiculous.

The third post, mine, actually answered another poster and his question. 

 

  I respectfully suggest that  the quibbling was instigated in the 2nd response(3rd Post), of this Thread!

Yes, beecee, you "actually answered another poster and his question".

  A question that that other poster actually asked directly of me. 

 

[beecee]

1 minute ago, et pet said:

  I respectfully suggest that  the quibbling was instigated in the 2nd response(3rd Post), of this Thread!

Yes, beecee, you "actually answered another poster and his question".

  A question that that other poster actually asked directly of me. 

 

Yep, and in line with the rules. But hey! instead of quibbling about pedant, I also have asked you some relevant questions and made some relevant comments, not the least being, what is your opinion of the article? I mean if the rest of the forum and myself can know that, then we may have an idea of what you want to discuss.