Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: aeo6 (aeo6_at_cornell.edu)
Date: 02/17/05 

Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:51:31 -0500

Lester Zick said:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:57:44 -0600, Albert <albertwagner@cox.net> in
> comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
> >Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> Albert -
> >>
> >> I think this whole discussion on empiricism, which I have been avoiding
> >> due to its nasty nature, is about the nature of scientific truth. In
> >> science, empirical evidence can either support a theory or contradict
> >> it. If it contradicts it, it proves it wrong, but if it supports it, it
> >> doesn't prove it right. I think this is Lester's point, that you can't
> >> prove anything 100% true empirically, and if so, he's right.
> >
> >Yes. Of course that's right. But it seems so obvious and
> >self-evident that I fail to understand his oblique approach to
> >it. If, in fact, that's what he means, then that's what he
> >should say. *You* were able to say it.
>
> Tony was able to say it because that's all he had to say. I've had
> something considerably more important to say that there are ways to
> know things in ultimate terms that Tony didn't have to say that has
> clouded the issue somewhat and led you to believe I'm playing some
> kind of game with the issues. I'm only playing games with people who
> can't get a grip on the issues.
I think Albert was getting frustrated with you before I finally made my
comment. I know this isn't all you're saying, that it's more specific,
but I really don't quite get it yet specifically. I didn't mean to
confuse things, but to clarify what your and Bob's basic argument is
about generally. I don't think Iw as too far off the mark.
>
> >> We might be
> >> in the Matrix. But I consider that an infinitesimally remote chance.
> >
> >I mentioned earlier that the Matrix is a metaphor. We *are* in
> >the Matrix and *the Matrix is within us.* The Matrix is the set
> >of illusions that we have put in place ourselves and yet deny
> >the existence of.
>
> No, the matrix is a set of differential relations within us that are
> within us because they can't be outside us and they can't be outside
> us because they're differential to begin with. They aren't necessarily
> illusions any more than any kind of information we have can be
> illusory. Knowledge and illusions exist according to how differences
> are manipulated in relation to other differences and not according to
> any set of illusions people want to believe constitute our being.
>
> >> On the other hand, Bob has a point that empirical evidence is all we
> >> have in the real world, and if you want to do science in the real world
> >> you have to work with it. I have no problem with that. We derive
> >> imperfect formulas from imperfect evidence, but through a process of
> >> refinement, we get better and better data and better and better
> >> formulas. That's just the nature of the game.
> >
> >Correct up to a point. But, there is no guarantee that the
> >process of 'refinement' is actually moving us any closer to the
> >truth nor better data nor better formulas. In fact, science can
> >be so ***-headed in its adherence to its past interpretations
> >that it simply refuses to look at alternative interpretations,
> >even and especially when it encounters falsifying evidence.
> >
> >A prime case in point is the current interpretation of
> >subatomics, and the absolute violence done to the scientific
> >method in order to cling to an early interpretation. As a real
> >world example, note the fire storm over the definition of a
> >photon. Normally, a falsifying experiment mandates a rethinking
> >of and reformulation of the falsified theory. The experiment
> >that provides evidence that a photon is a particle, should have
> >falsified the theory that a photon is a wave. The experiment
> >that provides evidence that a photon is a wave should have
> >falsified the theory that a photon is a particle. Yet, what
> >actually happened in the scientific community? What were
> >falsifying experiments were instead interpreted to be verifying
> >experiments of an unverifiable and unfalsifiable new theory.
> >
> >It is really very humorous that when a theist speaks of the
> >possibility of a God, he is laughed out of the room by
> >empiricists, because the possibility seems to them so highly
> >improbable. Yet, with their backs against the wall from actual
> >falsifying evidence concerning photons, they introduce
> >probability as an explanation for re-interpreting falsifying
> >evidence as verifying evidence, contrary to the whole history of
> >science.
> >
> >I would suggest that you vigorously pursue your intuition that
> >geometry can lead to a refutation of current QM.
> >
> >>
> >> More interesting questions for me relate to the particulars of detecting
> >> patterns, formulating theories, and evaluating the accuracy of their
> >> predictions. I really believe that the marriage of probability and logic
> >> is a good portion of the answer for that.
> >
> >Personally, I would avoid probability like the plague in any
> >search for truth. Probability is just a generalization based on
> >inadequate evidence of particulars.
> >
> >
> >--
> >"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
> >range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
> >impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
> > -- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
>
>
> Regards - Lester
> 

-- 
Smiles,
Tony
Quantcast