Re: investigation, definitions & logic
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:02:31 -0500 (EST)
"g" gillawton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
So do we have a paradox when we combine the following two assumptions:
1. That we humans get our notions experientially, from our "exposure to
reality"; AND,
2. Our sensory capabilities are INSUFFICIENT for us to measure each and
every iota of the small intersection we
have with reality as an entirety?
JE:-
We cannot claim to know what we do not know so that incompleteness cannot be
claimed to be total unknown otherwise we could not know anything remains
incomplete. What we mean when we claim to understand what we do not know is
that a better theory enables us to see the limitations of a poorer theory.
This was proven by the evolution of Newton to Einstein. The poorer theory
was Newton's because it could not explain the Michelson Morley result. No
matter how incomplete the measure of the velocity of light happened to be
within this experiment it remained _complete enough_ to refute Newton which
was the only theory that was on the table at the time. Apart from ideas
evolving via free and fair contests to refutation our ability to measure
them more exactly likewise evolves. The evolution of any idea depends
entirely on our (non mechanical) inductive imagination and our integrity to
test them. The more I think about it the more I have come to realize that
the latter is the hardest bit. Arguing that the Michelson Morley measure of
c was not perfect or that millions of other entirely unknown theories may
have been be able to explain things remain only so much pie in the sky.
Science can only deal in practical realities in an entirely empirical way.
All that is required is sufficient rigor to separate and test ideas no
matter how incomplete ANYTHING is. It was Newton who provided the critical
stepping stone for Einstein who used his inductive genius to view old things
in entirely new ways WHILE REMAINING REFUTABLE. Anybody and their cat can
come up with "better" irrefutable ideas! In the future Einstein will provide
a stepping stone for somebody else who will also see old things in new ways
as well as new things which nobody can even imagine but only as long as each
stepping stone remains refutable. Irrefutable stepping stones lead to
everywhere so they lead to nowhere.
It does not require -- it seems to this layman -- that we need to be a
"genius" of the Bertrand Russellian variety to
see that this is NOT a juxtaposition of irreconcilables but a combining of
two viable ideas in accordance with some understanding of what are some,
at
least, of the pertinent underlying facts... no less so than for us to
reconcile the fact that some things seem to fall while some things appear
to
rise, sometimes.
JE:-
Without refutability science becomes reduced to politics.
Forgive me if I seem to border on an unprovable assumption when I insert
here (it would be a footnote, if this were a formal paper) that I,
personally, assume that when MORE DETAILS have been exposed in the matter
of the
"APPARENT PARADOX" between Newtonian and Quantum physics, then someone
who
is not a Bertrand Russellian-style genius will not have to see those two
as
irreconcilable, either.
JE:-
Quantum physics represents a verified statistical view of nature, i.e. it is
just an observation waiting for a theory and not a theory of science in its
own right. The only value that mathematically based statistics has for the
sciences is to provide a probability frame of reference to measure when an
observation can _reasonably_ claim to have been made.
However, as this layman tries consistently to
preach others should do, this layman both RECOGNIZES AND EMBRACES the
possibility that,
such details shall not be attained, or not in my lifetime and yours, or
not
ever... and ALSO the possibility that there simply is a levels-based
difference in how things work.
JE:-
Popper quantified it. All that is required is at least ONE sufficiently
complete empirical observation which can refute the idea. Unfortunately it
is this which remains the focus of increasingly intense political activity
within the sciences as purveyors of mediocre irrefutable ideas attempt
any-ruse-that-they-can-muster to allow their views entry as valid science.
The latest weapon in their (considerable) arsenal is their utter misuse of
valid mathematical tautologies employed to bamboozle the keepers of the gate
to allow entry. Please refer to "Felsenstein's Paradox" which remains
exclusive to sbe as a classic example. Ask yourself why Felsenstein's
Paradox remains evaded here and why I am forced to endure continuous
vilification only because I loudly state that this remains the case and
insist that it HAS to be solved if evolutionary theory is to remain credible
in the eyes of the general public.
Amazingly, even the gates of commercial rationality were breached via the
Enron scandal in which accountants actually wrote up debits as credits. The
only possible way this can be done with any arguable validity is via an
accounting tautology of mathematics. Ring any bells?
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: investigation, definitions & logic
- Next by Date: Re: Mules to MICROBES
- Previous by thread: Re: investigation, definitions & logic
- Next by thread: Re: investigation, definitions & logic
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
