Re: The most fundamental metaphysical principle of science is this

reany_at_asu.edu
Date: 01/05/05 

Date: 4 Jan 2005 16:45:52 -0800

beda pietanza wrote:
> <reany@asu.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:1104590195.846611.168820@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > beda pietanza wrote:
> > > <reany@asu.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > > news:1104457969.100254.47410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > [snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Name one secret of Nature?
> > > > >
> > > > > The genome.
> > > >
> > > > What's so 'holy' about the genome? It mustn't have been very
secret
> > if
> > > > it could be found out.
> > > ????
> >
> > To call any physical concept a "secret of the universe" objectifies
the
> > concept without proof. Just because a theoretical concept or
technique
> > works doesn't make it "true" in the realist sense. Physics can't
tell
> > us what's true of deep reality. It takes truth to beget truth. Do
the
> > logic.
> >
> > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > You need to get the three terms straight:
> > > >
> > > > objective
> > > > subjective
> > > > intersubjective
> > >
> > > You should use some fuzzy logic when needed, those terms are not
> > neatly
> > > distict and case by case may overlap somehow.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Science is never objective, though the belief that it is, is
one of
> > the
> > > > biggest misconceptions about science that most people have.
> > >
> > > science is subjective sure but also "intersubjectively
subjective"
> > and at
> > > same time "intersubjectively objective"depend on the " object
under
> > > scrutiny, here again some fuzzy logic is welcome.
> >
> > It's the theory that invents/defines the ontology of "what can
exist"!
> > (Metaphysics is about what does exist.) The theory builds its
models
> > based on that ontology. Of course, in the mind of an
instrumentalist
> > that ontology is purely formal (an instrument of the mind for
inventing
> > a theory that works). So long as you are committed to that theory
you
> > are committed also to its ontology and that constrains what it is
you
> > can "observe." If you think that the theory is out of kilter with
what
> > you "observe," you can invent a new theory. But after you do that,
then
> > it's THAT new theory that tells you what you can observe (interpret
> > about phenomena according to the new ontology). You never outgrow
the
> > subjectivity of being in a theory to claim virtually all physical
> > knowledge, because meaning resides either in archephors or in
theories,
> > not in dogma or revelation, in science.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > > > To stop the infinite process of investigations we must resort
to
> > > > objectivity
> > > > > not to get lost in the maps of the maps or philosophies of
the
> > > > philosophy:
> > > > > objectivity is (also) the need of a economic use of our
mental
> > > > resources.
> > > > Objectivity in human knowledge is NOT possible. Sorry.
> > >
> > > Indeed, we must just go close enough to get along with the
practical
> > > problems, accepting something as objective is just a way to save
> > resources:
> > > in a archers contest wins not the one who get the center of the
> > target but
> > > the one who get closer to it.
> > >
> >
> > Name one object that physics proves exists. Does hydrogen exist? Do
any
> > atoms exist? The things that we accept as existing incontrovertibly
we
> > don't need science to prove their existence to us. In fact, we
couldn't
> > logically boot strap science's foundation if we did.
> >
> > The most fundamental metaphysical principle of science is this:
that
> > intersubjective agreement can be reached among scientists about an
> > ontology for the "ordinary world." One way to define physics is the
> > search for what are the useful measuring instruments crafted out of
the
> > ordinary world and why do they behave as they do. Viewed this way,
> > physics is about as far away from "reality" as you can get.
> >
> > Measuring instruments do not exist apart from human invention, and
they
> > are invented according to one or more theories of physicality. What
> > does that imply? That measurements are theory laden. Even a
measuring
> > instrument as "simple" as a ruler would be pointless if we didn't
have
> > our confidence in it based on the theory of rigid bodies in motion.
> > Patrick
> >
>
> You are just too categorical on denying the objectivity of the
objects, as
> practically so defined by normal use:

What I don't get is what you feel is the harm of me "denying the
objectivity of the objects." Why do you care?

> even science if too categorical can
> become not comprehensible:

What?

> science has to be ,also, a bridge among
> people not a barrier: not all the participants are on the same level
and
> on the same biased foot.
>
> Good science is the one whose content is communicable with simple
words and
> concepts, sophisticate jargon and sharp cut concepts are bad signs.

All I can say is that if you don't like the sophistication that I write
with, you can either ignore it or ask me for clarification. I'd be
happy explain it to you. It's worth the effort to learn it.

Patrick

Relevant Pages

  • You say that science is not about truth, meaning, knowledge, or faith
    ... Explaining is about meaning. ... Meaning has no relevance in science. ... like when I say that physics is not metaphysics. ... >> and the measuring instruments themselves. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: To the writers of the Talk.Origins website
    ... methodological tool like science "suggests" that we are not ... Science, arguably, is objectivity wrapped in a larger ... sense of solving concrete problems as in physics and medicine. ... meaning requires a context, and contexts are highly variable, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Time is a concept
    ... science has to be theories that "work" in some sense. ... framework that supports that inferred law. ... "Keep the math but chuck the ... differences are inconsequential for the question of objectivity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Whats the Problem?
    ... It's just that objectivity and independent testing are clarion calls ... the values, beliefs, and customs they engage in. ... objectivity of science and the logic of universal discovery, ... own cultural biases into their interpretation of another culture. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Taliban before the Taliban
    ... science, but you keep trying to drag it in. ... as to the objectivity of your assertion. ... about objective reality, and "god exists" is one such claim. ... to the idea that science is not applicable to "faith" claims about ...
    (talk.origins)