Jump to content

What is the real difference between science and philosophy?


dimreepr
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Eise said:

physicists do not speak with one voice in this matter

...

Not just by knocking on the doors of the philosophy department and ask for help, but by reflecting on the basics of their methods. Is there no heavy discussion among physicists if the idea of the multiverse is still science? Is there no heavy discussion among physicists if it useful to spend so much resources on string theory, because it has not made one single empirically testable prediction? These are not discussions about how nature 'really works' or 'correctly described' or how you want to name it. These are philosophical discussions. 

This suggests physics as a monolithic effort, and it's not. Physics has its individual disciplines, some with no overlap, and there is the divide between theory and experiment. Some work is basic research, other work is applied research. I wouldn't be surprised to find that there's a significant chunk of physicists that don't speak at all on the matter, because their attitude is "meh"

"So much resources" sort on string theory? What level is that, and what fraction of the budget for all physics does it represent?

From what I can tell, the big conference on string theory draws about 500 attendees. That's not a big conference. Not all attend every year. So maybe there are 2000 string theorists. Out of how many physicists? A million? Theorists typically do not require big budgets, so the resources drawn by string theory would likely be quite small as a fraction of the overall research spending. If there's no heavy discussion, part of that would be because nobody's funding is in danger - if you're doing applied research, your source probably isn't competing with string theory sources, and not in a way that you can do much about it. (e.g. if your applied research money comes from DARPA, who cares about string theory funding coming from somewhere else?)

String theory, and multiverse, and some other topics get an outsized amount of scrutiny in popular press, but it's not representative of the physics community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Eise said:

Now it would be nice if you would comment on the arguments in that link. Or on my old posting I linked to. Then we could get a real discussion, instead of making sneering remarks to each other.

Like I said, Krauss over stepped the mark, calling him a moron, but essentially I agree with him and others. I thought I made that clear. 

4 hours ago, Eise said:

Just to note: one of the most important viewpoints in this article is the answer on the OP question I began with: philosophy and physics have different topics. And, as I hope you also really read the article yourself: Albert really is a philosopher and a physicist. So it would be worth to read his criticism on Krauss, who is 'just' a good physicist.

I read part of Albert's argument, and found it the same old argument that other philosophers have put up. I also find it rather disappointing, that you still chose to throw barbs at him with your condescending remark "just a good physicist"

4 hours ago, Eise said:

Just to be clear: I do not approve of the cynical remarks of Davy ('seemingly crazy' as just one example). But I think he laid his finger on a sore point: physicists do not speak with one voice in this matter, sometimes even a single physicist  spouts contradicting views. I don't know if somebody noticed in a previous posting of mine in this thread: in the 'Magnetism' video of Feynman makes very good points about such 'what is' questions. On the other side, in his QED series, he states clearly: 'This is how nature really works'. If he would have been consistent, he should have said something like 'this description really works'. 

Yes we both made cynical remarks, and Everyone is a philosopher, and in saying that, I also have my views, and while they are not terribly complimentary of philosophy in general, I have never claimed science is better, or greater, simply that science is  the practical search for knowledge, while imo philosophy is rather astract in its dealings, while still being the foundation of science.

And with regard to physicists not speaking in one voice, there are mavericks in every profession. I mentioned Fred Hoyle the other day to some one on this forum in a similar debate [to lazy to check out who it was] and his Steady State model that I believe he took to the grave with him...an otherwise great scientist. That though is part of the success of science and the scientific model, and the fact that our models/theories may change as further data comes to hand. I see that as a plus.

 And since when have philosophers always spoke with the one voice? Old established theories that are superseded by new models, in many situations have a damn hard job getting accepted, but probably just like the incumbent theory, they need to and must run the gauntlet, so to speak. 

On your Feynman comment, all I can say is there you go again! Don't you think you are taking one word out of context? Why not research what the message he was conveying over the whole post. Sorry, that sort of pedant and semantics does nothing for me.

4 hours ago, Eise said:

I plead to name some activities of physicists for what they really are: philosophy.

What Krauss was effectively saying, and Degrasse Tyson from memory, is that areas that once were the domain of the philosopher, are now more the domain of the theoretical physicist. He may have been more provocative in his rhetoric, but that may have been in the hope of increasing sales of his book.

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

String theory, and multiverse, and some other topics get an outsized amount of scrutiny in popular press, but it's not representative of the physics community.

Aint that the truth!

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, beecee said:

I read part of Albert's argument, and found it the same old argument that other philosophers have put up.

Which is?

Quote

I also find it rather disappointing, that you still chose to throw barbs at him with your condescending remark "just a good physicist"

Why is it condescending, in a recent thread of yours you held him up as an arbiter of truth in matters of religion; in which he is "just a good physicist", I'd say that's a matter of fact (if I didn't think a fact is just a fleeting concept that you choose to accept is real on the face of it). 

 

55 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yes we both made cynical remarks, and Everyone is a philosopher, and in saying that, I also have my views, and while they are not terribly complimentary of philosophy in general, I have never claimed science is better, or greater, simply that science is  the practical search for knowledge, while imo philosophy is rather astract in its dealings, while still being the foundation of science.

And with regard to physicists not speaking in one voice, there are mavericks in every profession. I mentioned Fred Hoyle the other day to some one on this forum in a similar debate [to lazy to check out who it was] and his Steady State model that I believe he took to the grave with him...an otherwise great scientist. That though is part of the success of science and the scientific model, and the fact that our models/theories may change as further data comes to hand. I see that as a plus.

 And since when have philosophers always spoke with the one voice? Old established theories that are superseded by new models, in many situations have a damn hard job getting accepted, but probably just like the incumbent theory, they need to and must run the gauntlet, so to speak. 

On your Feynman comment, all I can say is there you go again! Don't you think you are taking one word out of context? Why not research what the message he was conveying over the whole post. Sorry, that sort of pedant and semantics does nothing for me.

Why is a description of reality more valid than a way to find out/live?

Also, why are you posting on the philosophy forum when you don't think philosophy is valid?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, swansont said:

This suggests physics as a monolithic effort, and it's not. Physics has its individual disciplines,

Yes and furthermore you also pointed out a while back, but drew no more attention that that from myself, that physicists are also human and sometime act in other human capacities than as physicists.
So just a philosopher may do some science, some physicists may do some philosophy.

But that brings us the question

2 hours ago, swansont said:

String theory, and multiverse, and some other topics get an outsized amount of scrutiny in popular press, but it's not representative of the physics community.

Physics is not the only Science, or the oldest. The Royal institute of Astronomy is senior by half a century and the Royal Institute of Chemistry contemporaneous.

And the OP is about Science, not just Physics, monolithic or not.

If we could all widen our horizons from 'Physics v Philosophy' to 'Science compared to Philosophy' perhaps this otherwise excellent thread could become less contentious.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

and since when have philosophers always spoke with the one voice? Old established theories that are superseded by new models, in many situations have a damn hard job getting accepted, but probably just like the incumbent theory, they need to and must run the gauntlet, so to speak. 

Yes both Science and Philosophy have developed and run into many brick walls.
Though not necessarily at the same rate. In fact if you consider it, matching rates is far less likely than differential rates.

So whilst the scientists are shown to have put forward erroneous theories from caloric and phlogiston to Hoyle and Bondi's steady state theory the philosophers should remember that alchemy (philosopher's stone) , numerology and astrology all grew out of Philosophy.

So perhaps here we have another difference since I suggest Modern Science has progressed faster and further than Philosophy, though I also think that Modern Philosophy has progressed further than its pundits here allow.

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no such thing as fish...

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

So perhaps here we have another difference since I suggest Science has progressed faster and further than Philosophy, though I also think that Modern Philosophy has progressed further than its pundits here allow.

I think perhaps the difference is more fundamental, science is able to stand on the shoulders of other's because 'the other's' are well understood, I can't stand on the shoulder of Buddha, until I understand... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, swansont said:

This suggests physics as a monolithic effort, and it's not.

Well, at least it was not my intention to suggest something like that.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Some work is basic research, other work is applied research. I wouldn't be surprised to find that there's a significant chunk of physicists that don't speak at all on the matter, because their attitude is "meh"

Of course. I am also not continuously thinking about the basics of relational databases. Only when somebody asks me. (Did you know relational databases can meta-describe themselves? No Gödelian problems.) I have nothing against people doing their work. It is just that I like them a bit more when they also reflect on what they are doing.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

"So much resources" sort on string theory? What level is that, and what fraction of the budget for all physics does it represent?

I stand corrected. It is true, when thinking about physics I (as possibly many others) are thinking about the 'front lines'. 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I read part of Albert's argument, and found it the same old argument that other philosophers have put up.

With dimreepr I ask: which argument? I assume you think the argument is not valid: so why not? And why don't you really read the whole article? (Or my posting). Are you überhaupt interested in the topic? Or is your only aim to present sneers to philosophers?

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Yes we both made cynical remarks, and Everyone is a philosopher, and in saying that, I also have my views, and while they are not terribly complimentary of philosophy in general, I have never claimed science is better, or greater, simply that science is  the practical search for knowledge, while imo philosophy is rather astract in its dealings, while still being the foundation of science.

With foundation I assume you mean 'historically grown out of philosophy'? I have some problems with your word 'still' in the last sentence. 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

And with regard to physicists not speaking in one voice, there are mavericks in every profession.

Now I think you have not understand one single word of what I am saying. I'll tell you, the physics community will never speak with one voice. Not while there are 'mavericks' but simply because they are coming to different conclusions. And that is because they are philosophical questions. And if they are good thinkers, they will give nuanced answers, that possibly do not conform to answers of other good thinkers. Some might even say "I don't know", but have much more insight than the simple-minded who just shoots from the hip, or even refuse to think about it.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I also find it rather disappointing, that you still chose to throw barbs at him with your condescending remark "just a good physicist"

Sorry for calling your god for what he simply is: a (very?) good physicist, with no understanding of philosophy. Please read the article you linked yourself. If you think that a philosopher (I at least am one by education) is not capable to see that Krauss is a lousy philosopher, then you cannot be helped.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

On your Feynman comment, all I can say is there you go again! Don't you think you are taking one word out of context?

No.

Only 1m 14s.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

What Krauss was effectively saying, and Degrasse Tyson from memory, is that areas that once were the domain of the philosopher, are now more the domain of the theoretical physicist.

I think I am saying the same, just in another way. I just wanted to point out that because of that philosophy is not useless: some of the best physicists are also good philosophers, when they are concerned with the basic problems of their discipline. (But not all...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's the old joke about a university budget meeting,  ends with "the theoretical physics department manages with just pencils, paper,  and wastebaskets...but it's the philosophy department that's the most thrifty,  they don't even need wastebaskets! "  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Eise said:

Well, at least it was not my intention to suggest something like that.

Fair enough; my concern was that it could be interpreted that way by people less familiar.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Physics is not the only Science, or the oldest. The Royal institute of Astronomy is senior by half a century and the Royal Institute of Chemistry contemporaneous.

And the OP is about Science, not just Physics, monolithic or not.

Yes. I think physics comes up because there are more physics-aware people involved, and also because of the "physics should incorporate more philosophy" conversation. Eise points out that there are areas in physics where you can argue they are doing philosophy, so if that's where the demarcation is fuzziest, that's where the conversation of what distinguishes the two is going to occur.

If other disciplines have a similar dialogue, or similar fuzzy demarcation, by all means, bring it in to the discussion. But if it's e.g. biology, I'm not likely the one who's going to be familiar with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Which is?

Why is it condescending, in a recent thread of yours you held him up as an arbiter of truth in matters of religion; in which he is "just a good physicist", I'd say that's a matter of fact (if I didn't think a fact is just a fleeting concept that you choose to accept is real on the face of it). 

 

Why is a description of reality more valid than a way to find out/live?

Also, why are you posting on the philosophy forum when you don't think philosophy is valid?

 

Sorry dimreeper, you are wrong on so many counts, and your questions and statements don't really change much. But as usual I will answer them. 

[1] the same old argument that other philosophers have put up.

[2] You can dress it up to fit your agenda, and exaggerate his remarks to your little heart's content, but it changes nothing. Reminds me errily of the justice/jail merry-go-round. Let me tidy it up for you. He expressed an opinion on the hypocrisy of religion and also expressed an opinion on philosophy that other notable and reputable people have. And I more or less agree ith his views, and dismiss yours.

[3] Tell me, what is your truth and reality? Are you again making a poor attempt to practice your psychoanalysis of me? 🤮 That question has been answered a hundred times, and will not change no matter how many times you act so pretentiously in asking it again.

[4] More pretentious nonsense, if not a blatant misinterpretation. I have never said philosophy is invalid, that's just you once again, making a piss poor attempt at trying to sound like a reasonable philosopher. 

7 hours ago, studiot said:

Yes and furthermore you also pointed out a while back, but drew no more attention that that from myself, that physicists are also human and sometime act in other human capacities than as physicists.
So just a philosopher may do some science, some physicists may do some philosophy.

Yes, thanks for that, and yet we still have so called philosophers like dimreeper still overlooking the truth and instead practising the politics of philosophy, and rather poorly I add.

6 hours ago, Eise said:

With dimreepr I ask: which argument? I assume you think the argument is not valid: so why not? And why don't you really read the whole article? (Or my posting). Are you überhaupt interested in the topic? Or is your only aim to present sneers to philosophers?

I havn't yet had time to read the whole article, as even in lockdown, I do have other interests and things to do. Yes, you are right, I don't believe the arguments put forward are valid and find far more logic in the reasons put by Krauss and others. My aim, as you put it is simply to express my lay person's opinion, that the practical nature of science, and the theoretical physics aspect, has crossed over into regions that were once the sole domain of philoosphy. Why do you see that as sneering at philosophers? Yes, I have been provocative, and I make no apologies for that, as the same can be said for others here that have taken the opposite stance. I will attempt to read the whole article later today or tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure it won't change my mind, just as I'm pretty sure if I scrounged the Internet and dug up all the arguments and more reputable people agreeing with Krauss, won't change your PoV either. 

6 hours ago, Eise said:

With foundation I assume you mean 'historically grown out of philosophy'? I have some problems with your word 'still' in the last sentence. 

Yes. "Still" has a simple everyday meaning, so stop being all pretentious and playing the poor philosopher in trying to read something into it that is not there. If that sounds a bit sarcastic, you are probably right, as I have seen your own sarcasm further down.

6 hours ago, Eise said:

Now I think you have not understand one single word of what I am saying. I'll tell you, the physics community will never speak with one voice. Not while there are 'mavericks' but simply because they are coming to different conclusions. And that is because they are philosophical questions. And if they are good thinkers, they will give nuanced answers, that possibly do not conform to answers of other good thinkers. Some might even say "I don't know", but have much more insight than the simple-minded who just shoots from the hip, or even refuse to think about it.

Please refrain from taking the one sentence out of context, it could be construed as dishonest. What I said...

"And with regard to physicists not speaking in one voice, there are mavericks in every profession. I mentioned Fred Hoyle the other day to some one on this forum in a similar debate [to lazy to check out who it was] and his Steady State model that I believe he took to the grave with him...an otherwise great scientist. That though is part of the success of science and the scientific model, and the fact that our models/theories may change as further data comes to hand. I see that as a plus.

 And since when have philosophers always spoke with the one voice? Old established theories that are superseded by new models, in many situations have a damn hard job getting accepted, but probably just like the incumbent theory, they need to and must run the gauntlet, so to speak". 

7 hours ago, Eise said:

Sorry for calling your god for what he simply is: a (very?) good physicist, with no understanding of philosophy. Please read the article you linked yourself. If you think that a philosopher (I at least am one by education) is not capable to see that Krauss is a lousy philosopher, then you cannot be helped.O

😊 Perhaps you can practise some of your semantics and pedant with me now. Your inference of calling Krauss "your god" is that an example of sarcasm? Facetiousness? provocation? or stupidity? 

Again, I'm in total agreement with Krauss, Feynman, Hawking, Degrasse-Tyson, and Weinberg. I may see when I have time, if I can dig up some more reputable physicists that see it the same way.

 

7 hours ago, Eise said:

No.

Only 1m 14s.

I think I am saying the same, just in another way. I just wanted to point out that because of that philosophy is not useless: some of the best physicists are also good philosophers, when they are concerned with the basic problems of their discipline. (But not all...)

I cant see anything too controversial in what Feynman says in your video. No philosophy is not useless and perhaps Krauss was simply being provocative to sell books, and of course, similar provocation also is found among the ranks of the philosophers also, I'm sure you'll agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, beecee said:

Sorry dimreeper, you are wrong on so many counts, and your questions and statements don't really change much. But as usual I will answer them. 

[1] the same old argument that other philosophers have put up.

[2] You can dress it up to fit your agenda, and exaggerate his remarks to your little heart's content, but it changes nothing. Reminds me errily of the justice/jail merry-go-round. Let me tidy it up for you. He expressed an opinion on the hypocrisy of religion and also expressed an opinion on philosophy that other notable and reputable people have. And I more or less agree ith his views, and dismiss yours.

[3] Tell me, what is your truth and reality? Are you again making a poor attempt to practice your psychoanalysis of me? 🤮 That question has been answered a hundred times, and will not change no matter how many times you act so pretentiously in asking it again.

[4] More pretentious nonsense, if not a blatant misinterpretation. I have never said philosophy is invalid, that's just you once again, making a piss poor attempt at trying to sound like a reasonable philosopher. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, beecee said:

[1] the same old argument that other philosophers have put up.

[2] You can dress it up to fit your agenda, and exaggerate his remarks to your little heart's content, but it changes nothing. Reminds me errily of the justice/jail merry-go-round. Let me tidy it up for you. He expressed an opinion on the hypocrisy of religion and also expressed an opinion on philosophy that other notable and reputable people have. And I more or less agree ith his views, and dismiss yours.

[3] Tell me, what is your truth and reality? Are you again making a poor attempt to practice your psychoanalysis of me? 🤮 That question has been answered a hundred times, and will not change no matter how many times you act so pretentiously in asking it again.

[4] More pretentious nonsense, if not a blatant misinterpretation. I have never said philosophy is invalid, that's just you once again, making a piss poor attempt at trying to sound like a reasonable philosopher. 

I am wondering why you do not answer dimreepr's questions. You are just, rather aggressively, refusing to answer them. You are just one step away from saying 'I am right because this is the way I think'. That cannot become a fruitful discussion. I am especially surprised about [1]: you could just have copy/pasted this 'old argument' from the article, and we would know at least what you are talking about.

11 hours ago, beecee said:

Yes, thanks for that, and yet we still have so called philosophers like dimreeper still overlooking the truth and instead practising the politics of philosophy, and rather poorly I add.

Ah you know the truth! 

11 hours ago, beecee said:
17 hours ago, Eise said:

With dimreepr I ask: which argument? I assume you think the argument is not valid: so why not? And why don't you really read the whole article? (Or my posting). Are you überhaupt interested in the topic? Or is your only aim to present sneers to philosophers?

I havn't yet had time to read the whole article, as even in lockdown, I do have other interests and things to do. Yes, you are right, I don't believe the arguments put forward are valid and find far more logic in the reasons put by Krauss and others. My aim, as you put it is simply to express my lay person's opinion, that the practical nature of science, and the theoretical physics aspect, has crossed over into regions that were once the sole domain of philoosphy. Why do you see that as sneering at philosophers? Yes, I have been provocative, and I make no apologies for that, as the same can be said for others here that have taken the opposite stance. I will attempt to read the whole article later today or tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure it won't change my mind, just as I'm pretty sure if I scrounged the Internet and dug up all the arguments and more reputable people agreeing with Krauss, won't change your PoV either. 

You see: you do not exchange arguments. You share your gut feelings.

And I do not expect you to change you PoV: I want an exchange of arguments. 

Your position "the practical nature of science, and the theoretical physics aspect, has crossed over into regions that were once the sole domain of philoosphy" is a perfectly sensible viewpoint, and we can discuss that. (Even if I think that the metaphorical language you use leaves much room for interpretation, and it would be interesting to flesh that out). That has nothing to with your sneers and 'bon-mots', and these help nothing in an exchange of arguments.

11 hours ago, beecee said:

Yes. "Still" has a simple everyday meaning, so stop being all pretentious and playing the poor philosopher in trying to read something into it that is not there.

Yes, I know the word, And it introduces an ambiguity that you obviously did not notice. This is what you said:

19 hours ago, beecee said:

philosophy is rather astract in its dealings, while still being the foundation of science

Possible readings:

  1. science has historically grown from philosophy
  2. Being foundational to science, science is (logically/conceptually/..) dependent on philosophical premises.

I know you adhere to 1, therefore I assume this would be the correct reading. However, the word 'still' makes it to a pretty open door. When it yesterday was true that Caesar crossed the Tiber, then it still is true today. That is normal with historical facts.

And because it is an open door, interpretation 2 seems a more viable interpretation. E.g. you could mean that the scientific method is a product of philosophy, and therefore philosophy is still the foundation of science.

What is it? 1 or 2? Or maybe even both?

11 hours ago, beecee said:

Please refrain from taking the one sentence out of context, it could be construed as dishonest.

Nope, it is not dishonest. Nobody suggested that different opinions about the relation between science and 'reality' has something to do with scientists being wrong ('mavericks') and those that are correct. 

11 hours ago, beecee said:

And since when have philosophers always spoke with the one voice? 

They don't. But you can't blame somebody with a philosophical background, like Davy, to be interested in this tension, and asking scientists here what their take is. Throwing your truths at him does not help much.

11 hours ago, beecee said:

😊 Perhaps you can practise some of your semantics and pedant with me now. Your inference of calling Krauss "your god" is that an example of sarcasm? Facetiousness? provocation? or stupidity? 

I think something like sarcasm and provocation. dimreepr also noted that you are defending your scientismic (somebody who adheres to some form of scientism) views with a nearly religious zeal. 

11 hours ago, beecee said:

Again, I'm in total agreement with Krauss, Feynman, Hawking, Degrasse-Tyson, and Weinberg. I may see when I have time, if I can dig up some more reputable physicists that see it the same way.

As long as they are also unknowledgable about philosophy that won't help. e.g., I reacted on your Weinberg citation, but I have not seen that you reacted on it. Are you just going to use the argument of authority? 

11 hours ago, beecee said:

I cant see anything too controversial in what Feynman says in your video.

First, I used this video snippet already several times, but against 'physics-crackpots', especially when they say something like 'I can't accept it' about QM. And it is really very humorous.

But! You nearly see how Feynman is wrestling with the correct formulation: first he says 'this is how nature works'. Then later on he says 'we looked at it, and this is what it looks like'. So first he sounds like a realist, but then he takes a more careful stance, as e.g. in his magnetism video (that if I remember correctly you also have linked in at least on posting).

 

Edited by Eise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

 

Firstly my approach was initiated by your now known usual less then honest questions, primarly your last one, that at worst could be construed as a plain lie on your part...."Also, why are you posting on the philosophy forum when you don't think philosophy is valid?"

No where in any of my replies to you or any of the other philosophers playing your games, did I ever infer philosophy was invalid. At this time I will cease playing your games, as I did in your other unreal thread re justice and jails. 

 

ps: and no I did not watch your video as along with your approach I suggest it is a waste of my time.

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, beecee said:

Firstly my approach was initiated by your now known usual less then honest questions, primarly your last one, that at worst could be construed as a plain lie on your part...."Also, why are you posting on the philosophy forum when you don't think philosophy is valid?"

No where in any of my replies to you or any of the other philosophers playing your games, did I ever infer philosophy was invalid. At this time I will cease playing your games, as I did in your other unreal thread re justice and jails. 

 

ps: and no I did not watch your video as along with your approach I suggest it is a waste of my time.

 

I'm getting a bit tired of this abuse, either engage with the topic or stop posting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Eise said:

I am wondering why you do not answer dimreepr's questions. You are just, rather aggressively, refusing to answer them. You are just one step away from saying 'I am right because this is the way I think'. That cannot become a fruitful discussion. I am especially surprised about [1]: you could just have copy/pasted this 'old argument' from the article, and we would know at least what you are talking about.

Why would you worry about my refusal to answer dimreeper, when you asked the same question and received an answer? Another exapmle of birds of a feather, sticking together? 

43 minutes ago, Eise said:

Ah you know the truth! 

 Yes, 100% particularly in this instant and the answer that I gave dimreper. I have never suggested philosophy is invalid, which is what he inferred. 

46 minutes ago, Eise said:

You see: you do not exchange arguments. You share your gut feelings.

And I do not expect you to change you PoV: I want an exchange of arguments.

I express my opnion, based my life experiences, and I certainly will not change my PoV on science and the scientific methodology, simply because one or two online self appraised "philosophers" take offence at just critique of philosophical nonsense, when it is taken too far...including of course the usual pedant and semantics often used as red herrings.

52 minutes ago, Eise said:

Your position "the practical nature of science, and the theoretical physics aspect, has crossed over into regions that were once the sole domain of philoosphy" is a perfectly sensible viewpoint, and we can discuss that. (Even if I think that the metaphorical language you use leaves much room for interpretation, and it would be interesting to flesh that out). That has nothing to with your sneers and 'bon-mots', and these help nothing in an exchange of arguments.

What you think doesn't really concern me at this time. I have a valid argument and that argument is supported by many others. And I'm also less concerned and/or interested in how you see the need to interprete any of my language, as I believe that the interpretation, as meant, is the interpretation that will be accepted by most approaching this without a particular bias....

56 minutes ago, Eise said:

Yes, I know the word, And it introduces an ambiguity that you obviously did not notice. This is what you said:

Possible readings:

  1. science has historically grown from philosophy
  2. Being foundational to science, science is (logically/conceptually/..) dependent on philosophical premises.

I know you adhere to 1, therefore I assume this would be the correct reading. However, the word 'still' makes it to a pretty open door. When it yesterday was true that Caesar crossed the Tiber, then it still is true today. That is normal with historical facts.

And because it is an open door, interpretation 2 seems a more viable interpretation. E.g. you could mean that the scientific method is a product of philosophy, and therefore philosophy is still the foundation of science.

What is it? 1 or 2? Or maybe even both?

Again, not too interested in your semantics and pedant on a four letter word. I believe most know what is meant. Which one do I adhere to?? The factual one!Perhaps even both. Either way, it changes nothing with regards to the just criticism that has seen philosophers screaming blue murder.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

Nope, it is not dishonest. Nobody suggested that different opinions about the relation between science and 'reality' has something to do with scientists being wrong ('mavericks') and those that are correct. 

I say it is. You have the whole paragraph to judge my opnion on. If that screws up your argument, then tough titty. 

1 hour ago, Eise said:

They don't. But you can't blame somebody with a philosophical background, like Davy, to be interested in this tension, and asking scientists here what their take is. Throwing your truths at him does not help much.

Let's get this straight once and for all...I am not interested in conflated philosphical jargon, pedant or semantics, or dimreeper's videos and unreal expectations. I'm interested in the real differences between science and philosophy.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

I think something like sarcasm and provocation. dimreepr also noted that you are defending your scientismic (somebody who adheres to some form of scientism) views with a nearly religious zeal. 

No no zeal at all...just a logical love for science and the scientific methodology. If you want an example of zeal, visit the justice thread and the nonsensical argument put up their by someone that sees a society without jail as realistic.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

As long as they are also unknowledgable about philosophy that won't help. e.g., I reacted on your Weinberg citation, but I have not seen that you reacted on it. Are you just going to use the argument of authority? 

First, I used this video snippet already several times, but against 'physics-crackpots', especially when they say something like 'I can't accept it' about QM. And it is really very humorous.

But! You nearly see how Feynman is wrestling with the correct formulation: first he says 'this is how nature works'. Then later on he says 'we looked at it, and this is what it looks like'. So first he sounds like a realist, but then he takes a more careful stance, as e.g. in his magnetism video (that if I remember correctly you also have linked in at least on posting).

 

It's only your opinion that they are unknowledgable about philosophy, coming from an online self claimed educated philsopher. I disagree, and while that may not be enough for your deep psycological insight, I have given my reasons and the reasons of many other notable reputable scientists.

 

Any that's it for me tonight, I have finals football in the NRL to watch, far more important then arguing semantical points with a couple of offended philosophers.

Have a good night...I'm gunna!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beecee said:

It's only your opinion that they are unknowledgable about philosophy, coming from an online self claimed educated philsopher.

Self claimed? Must I send you a copy of my certificate from the university of Utrecht, the Netherlands? (Subsidary subjects, btw, physics, astronomy and mathematics).

I'll stop here. You are simply not interested in a substantive discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Yes, 100% particularly in this instant and the answer that I gave dimreper. I have never suggested philosophy is invalid, which is what he inferred. 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

I express my opnion, based my life experiences, and I certainly will not change my PoV on science and the scientific methodology, simply because one or two online self appraised "philosophers" take offence at just critique of philosophical nonsense

White man speak with forked tongue.

Yes that's a philosophical statement and no I'm not a philosopher.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

No no zeal at all...just a logical love for science and the scientific methodology. If you want an example of zeal, visit the justice thread and the nonsensical argument put up their by someone that sees a society without jail as realistic.

Australia managed to before the arrival of western sensibilities...

I'll explain further, in the correct thread.

Like I said, engage with the topic in an appropriate way or not at all.

Otherwise I'll seek a higher authority via the report button

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

White man speak with forked tongue.

He doesn't in this case, at least not literally. Philosophy could give rise to valid results (like the 'scientific method') on one side, and spout nonsense on the other. He obviously sees Davy's point as philosophical nonsense.

I am just wondering a little that he accepts people who studied physics as authorities in the area of physics, but people who have studied philosophy not as authorities on philosophy. Surely that does not mean that my opinions are always better (truer?) than other's, including not-philosophers, but it means that I very well know what is done in philosophy, and what is qualitative good philosophy, and what isn't.

Edited by Eise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eise said:

Self claimed? Must I send you a copy of my certificate from the university of Utrecht, the Netherlands? (Subsidary subjects, btw, physics, astronomy and mathematics).

I'll stop here. You are simply not interested in a substantive discussion.

Oh I don't doubt your credentials one bit, just mentioned how you told me you were aneducated philoospher...Tha's nice, but changes nothing at all, particularly my opinion and the evidence from reputable people on reasonable philosphy critique.

35 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

White man speak with forked tongue.

Yes that's a philosophical statement and no I'm not a philosopher.

Australia managed to before the arrival of western sensibilities...

I'll explain further, in the correct thread.

Like I said, engage with the topic in an appropriate way or not at all.

Otherwise I'll seek a higher authority via the report button

Again you read into something which isn't there, and exagerate. I reiterate, I have never claimed philoosphy is invalid...but I have been witnessed to philosophical nonsense on this forum.

I suggest you seek your higher authority and obviously I'll stand by that ruling as you will.

If anyone has spoken in forked tongue, it is you suggesting I said philoosphy was invalid. There are a number of posts by me praising philosophy for what it is. There are also posts from me criticising philosphical nonsense. 

The ball's in your court.

Here's some more.....

 

https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Amer/AmerLown.htm

Dewey's Criticisms of Traditional Philosophy:
Towards a Pragmatic Conception of Philosophy

ABSTRACT: In this paper I address some of John Dewey’s more generally applicable criticisms of the philosophic "tradition," and show how his criticisms stem from his naturalistic approach to philosophy. This topic is important because Dewey gives great insight into discussions that are relevant today regarding the role of philosophy. In 1935 he anticipated many of the criticisms of the "later" Wittgenstein regarding the establishment of post facto standards as a cause, the separation of language from behavior and the privatization of mind—yet Dewey still finds use for metaphysics or "thinking at large." I believe the essence of Dewey’s criticisms are found in a few key distinctions. Therefore, I cover the history of philosophy with blanket criticisms of the blanket categories of "classical" and of "modern" thought. For Dewey, the fundamental error characteristic of both Greek and Modern thinking is the artificial bifurcation of our thoughts, feelings and actions from the natural world. As I see it, the heart of this metaphysical mistake is captured by the distinctions he draws between the "instrumental" and "consummatory," and between the "precarious" and "stable."

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

And this little doozy!!!

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4544514

0

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Eise said:

He doesn't in this case, at least not literally. Philosophy could give rise to valid results (like the 'scientific method') on one side, and spout nonsense on the other. He obviously sees Davy's point as philosophical nonsense.

That wasn't meant literally, it's a culmination of the rhetoric from my topic "What is justice", which has, for some reason, boiled over into this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, beecee said:

Oh I don't doubt your credentials one bit, just mentioned how you told me you were aneducated philoospher...Tha's nice, but changes nothing at all, particularly my opinion and the evidence from reputable people on reasonable philosphy critique.

Again you read into something which isn't there, and exagerate. I reiterate, I have never claimed philoosphy is invalid...but I have been witnessed to philosophical nonsense on this forum.

I suggest you seek your higher authority and obviously I'll stand by that ruling as you will.

If anyone has spoken in forked tongue, it is you suggesting I said philoosphy was invalid. There are a number of posts by me praising philosophy for what it is. There are also posts from me criticising philosphical nonsense. 

The ball's in your court.

Here's some more.....

 

https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Amer/AmerLown.htm

Dewey's Criticisms of Traditional Philosophy:
Towards a Pragmatic Conception of Philosophy

ABSTRACT: In this paper I address some of John Dewey’s more generally applicable criticisms of the philosophic "tradition," and show how his criticisms stem from his naturalistic approach to philosophy. This topic is important because Dewey gives great insight into discussions that are relevant today regarding the role of philosophy. In 1935 he anticipated many of the criticisms of the "later" Wittgenstein regarding the establishment of post facto standards as a cause, the separation of language from behavior and the privatization of mind—yet Dewey still finds use for metaphysics or "thinking at large." I believe the essence of Dewey’s criticisms are found in a few key distinctions. Therefore, I cover the history of philosophy with blanket criticisms of the blanket categories of "classical" and of "modern" thought. For Dewey, the fundamental error characteristic of both Greek and Modern thinking is the artificial bifurcation of our thoughts, feelings and actions from the natural world. As I see it, the heart of this metaphysical mistake is captured by the distinctions he draws between the "instrumental" and "consummatory," and between the "precarious" and "stable."

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

And this little doozy!!!

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4544514

0

 

I love the first line....

"Philosophers are a critical lot. There countless disagreements, there love of arguments, and there inability to arrive at conclusions"

Bloody beautiful, and certainly fits a couple to a "T" 

note: "love of argument"  not love of debate  mind you....Hmmm, I wonder what pedant or semantics one or two will use to get around that little doozy!

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That wasn't meant literally, it's a culmination of the rhetoric from my topic "What is justice", which has, for some reason, boiled over into this thread.

No, not boiled over, just a small mention, as your methodology there and here are similar. Which is why I finished ignoring you. Is that also offensive to your person?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-are-philosophers-too/

Editor’s Note: Shortly before his death last August at the age of 79, the noted physicist and public intellectual Victor Stenger worked with two co-authors to pen an article for Scientific American. In it Stenger and co-authors address the latest eruption of a long-standing historic feud, an argument between physicists and philosophers about the nature of their disciplines and the limits of science. Can instruments and experiments (or pure reason and theoretical models) ever reveal the ultimate nature of reality? Does the modern triumph of physics make philosophy obsolete? What philosophy, if any, could modern theoretical physicists be said to possess? Stenger and his co-authors introduce and address all these profound questions in this thoughtful essay and seek to mend the growing schism between these two great schools of thought. When physicists make claims about the universe, Stenger writes, they are also engaging in a grand philosophical tradition that dates back thousands of years. Inescapably, physicists are philosophers, too. This article, Stenger’s last, appears in full below.

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

 

And the last for tonight.......

https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2012/05/a-philosopher-defends-krauss.html

A philosopher defends Krauss:

Justin Fisher, a philosopher of mind, cognitive science and science at Southern Methodist University, writes:

I'm writing to urge you to correct your unfair anti-Krauss stance in your earlier post on the Krauss-Albert affair.  E.g., you say Krauss thought his book answered old philosophical questions about why there was something rather than nothing.  But, if you had read the book, you'd know that Krauss did not claim to answer all such questions, and indeed that he openly acknowledges that there are open questions of precisely the sort that Albert raises, e.g., about why the laws of quantum mechanics should obtain in the first place.  What Krauss does do - and do quite well - is provide an engaging popularly accessible depiction of how a universe like ours could come from initial quantum states involving nothing at all like familiar physical objects, nor even space-time.  Krauss is admirably clear in the book about what he claims to have done, and it's not what you say he claims to have done.

You also suggest that Albert's review "called [Krauss] out for his intellectual limitations."  But the only substantive disagreement Albert's review raises against Krauss involves the question of how ordinary people use the word 'nothing'.  Albert thinks the only possible interpretation of 'nothing' is nothing at all, not even a particle-less space-time-less quantum vacuum state.  Krauss openly acknowledges this as one reading, but argues (correctly) that people often use 'nothing' in a broader sense.  E.g., many ordinary folk think it is impossible, without miraculous intervention, for ordinary physical objects spontaneously to come to exist where no such objects had existed before - something they often abbreviate by saying "something can't come out of nothing!"  It is such people, and not we professional philosophers with our "wholly unrestricted quantifiers", who are the intended audience of Krauss' book.  And Krauss' book provides a thrilling presentation of the diverse sorts of evidence that have convinced quantum theorists that physical particles can, and indeed do all the time, come from "nothing" in this way.  Showing this clearly doesn't defang the cosmological argument - no one claims it does, except perhaps Dawkins - but it does help make clear what is at issue in this argument and dispels common misperceptions about it.  This terminological squabble over 'nothing' really is the only substantive objection Albert raises against Krauss, and no matter what you think of this squabble, it's not fair for you to describe it as revealing "intellectual limitations" in Krauss.

extract:

My own view is that Albert's review was an embarrassment to our profession, and a setback for all philosophers of science who want our work to be taken seriously by scientists. 

more at link.........................

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

"Also, why are you posting on the philosophy forum when you don't think philosophy is valid?"

You'll note the question mark...

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

No, not boiled over, just a small mention, as your methodology there and here are similar. Which is why I finished ignoring you.

A small mention that you've made in other threads...

Why are you so angry, that I've asked question's?

And before you claim your not angry, why then the barrage of insult's? 

This is a discussion, not a conflict

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

note: "love of argument"  not love of debate  mind you....Hmmm, I wonder what pedant or semantics one or two will use to get around that little doozy!

 

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 

You really should watch this, I paid for an argument not abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eise said:

I am just wondering a little that he accepts people who studied physics as authorities in the area of physics, but people who have studied philosophy not as authorities on philosophy. Surely that does not mean that my opinions are always better (truer?) than other's, including not-philosophers, but it means that I very well know what is done in philosophy, and what is qualitative good philosophy, and what isn't.

I have mentioned the otherwise great Astronomer, Fred Hoyle. I don't agree with him. I accept you as an authority but reject your interpretation.

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You'll note the question mark...

You're funny.

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

A small mention that you've made in other threads...

Yes, because I thought you made some silly and obtuse comments in that thread, just as you have with your "note the question mark" in this one and my invalid  Philoosphy inference.  Does that mean I can ask you if you are a rapist? Or that you are mental? if I put in a question mark/  We can all play that game, but I prefer logical reasonable unbiased if possible debate.

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Why are you so angry, that I've asked question's?

I don't see many of your questions as reasonable and adequate. eg: suggesting [with a question mark] that I inferred/said/suggested that philosophy was invalid. And I'm not angry per se, just rather perplexed that a long standing member can induge in such abstract questions and answers...still I suppose I haven't really had the need to debate/argue with you on any previous occasion and never really read too many of your posts.

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

And before you claim your not angry, why then the barrage of insult's? 

Perhaps what you see as my insults are just not as subtle as yours...perhaps I'm more brutally honest. please don't take that personally.

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

And before you claim your not angry, why then the barrage of insult's? 

Because of your rather less then reasonable questions and of course, your false inferences.

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

This is a discussion, not a conflict

I'll be as nice as apple pie, if you come down to Earth just a bit.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

He doesn't in this case, at least not literally. Philosophy could give rise to valid results (like the 'scientific method') on one side, and spout nonsense on the other. He obviously sees Davy's point as philosophical nonsense.

Just as we can also have "bad science" people [scientists] still argue against GR...cold fusion perhaps....The electric/plasma universe crap...the originator of that won a Nobel prize I remember...for another aspect, not his electric/plasma universe. 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yes, because I thought you made some silly and obtuse comments in that thread, just as you have with your "note the question mark" Does that mean I can ask you if you are a rapist? Or that you are mental? 

Off course it does, that's the point of a question? 

Most people just answer the question:

No, I'm not a rapist.

I don't know, please explain why you'd ask that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Eise said:

I think something like sarcasm and provocation. dimreepr also noted that you are defending your scientismic (somebody who adheres to some form of scientism) views with a nearly religious zeal. 

Let me make a final comment on the above...I don't adhere to any particular form of science. I follow science to the best of my ability, because of its phenomenal success rate...afterall it affects our lives everyday. It has given us much, and answers many questions, and is  trying to answer more...it took us to the Moon, and has sent our probes to every planet, minor planet in our system...zeal? possibly, so? How do you follow your philosophy? in a mediocre fashion?

Currently we have a world wide pedamic. Who are we and who do we call on? Our general health and any problems with it...do you call the butcher? a priest? a philosopher? Your car...OK we call a mechanic who fixes it up according to scientific mechanical knowledge.

 

1 minute ago, MigL said:

As far as Physics is concerned, I explained what our best, most accurate models describe, and it is certainly not reality, nor can you say it is true, or do you really think a cannonball is empty mathematical space, travelling as a dimensionless point ?

So, for the 37th time, and in the 3rd thread, and the 9th person to do so, describing reality is not the business of Physics.

Bingo!

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Off course it does, that's the point of a question? 

Most people just answer the question:

No, I'm not a rapist.

I don't know, please explain why you'd ask that.

Don't worry about it...I have more important things to do...shit, shave, shower, shampoo and off to bed!!!

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.