Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ scientific methods ]

From: Ralph Hertle (ralph.hertle_at_verizon.net)
Date: 07/23/04 

Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:52:18 GMT

Bill Hobba wrote:

[clip]
>
> You do not prove definitions.
>

Who said that?

That may be true for your science, and for some possibly Post Modernist
physicists, however, all true genus and differentia definitions either
have been, or should be, checked and verified by means of deductive proofs.

If you were Ohm, and you discovered the concept of Ohm's Law, V=IR,
wouldn't you be advised in the interest of checking your work to present
in a paper on the matter to prove the concept?

You would:
demonstrate the idea in a physical experiment.
determine the conclusion of that work.
check the premises that necessarily lead to that conclusion.
check the accuracy of the formal logic involved.
and, present the verification in a comprehensible form, which would be a
syllogism.

Otherwise, the Dadaists, Post Modernists, Nihilists, Platonists,
Kantians, Surrealists and Pragmatists are going to occupy that
intellectual territory, and they will say that logic is irrelevant, and
that anything goes.

Ohm's law without proof would be (the false), I=VR, and possibly, also
C=IR. Whatever works. Whatever.

Definitions are identifications of the facts of existents, or of the
substance, properties, potentials for change according to the thing's
nature, size, amount of mass, location, dimensional motion, and
relationships to other things. Definitions are formed by means of
induction as simple generalizations or as sophisticated identifications
of facts. E.g., the ball is blue, a tree is a plant, or, I=VR. They can
be ostensive definitions, they can be common dictionary definitions,
they can be scientific definitions, or they can be mathematical or
physical-mathematical identities, formulas, or equations.

If you can't prove your definitions, you cannot be certain of the
validity of any of your knowledge, science, or mathematics.

[clip]
>
> The development of mathematical expertise is part of every physicists
> training but not of the type used in philosophy which is along the lines of
> formal logic.
>
>

Math is an essential part of physics.

There is a system of deductive operational notation used in logic that
is entirely symbolic. It is an attempt to mathematicize logic. In some
case the physical identities are dropped, and the work has no
relationship to the physical world, and in other cases the the
operational aspects and unique notation are more important. Nonetheless,
that is merely a translation of, or an overlay upon, conceptual and
definition-based Aristotelean syllogistic logic. Interestingly, the
moderns do not treat inductive logic using the same symbolic methods,
and in this connection we can note that Aristotle's book on Induction
was lost in history.

>>
>>.........
>>
>>There is more.
>
>
> Sure - but, beyond simple answers to such questions, part of philsophy - not
> science.
>
[clip]

There are two senses of meaning for each of the concepts of science and
of philosophy.

One branch of philosophy is science. That it is in the context of all
knowledge. That classification would include physics, biology, and
mathematics, for example. A sub-classification of science would be the
philosophy of science, and the context would be the study of the
specific methods that are specific to the science or sub-science being
discussed, for example, the Scientific Method(s), experimental design to
provide valid results, and the basic concepts of science and
mathematics, i.e., concepts of number, counting integers, and the series
of number concepts that are powers of integers.

On the other hand, philosophy is a science. That is, it is a science in
the context of the methods and the uses of the broadest concepts to
identify the facts of the universe.

Whether one says that this is that, or that that is another thing, which
statements of identity are always definitions, context prevails. One may
define a concept one way or another depending on what specified context
is appropriate to the task.

Definitions and proofs are hotly denied by scientists of some
philosophical persuasions, and their primary means of attack is upon
context, or by means of context switching.

The relationships of science and philosophy classify knowledge of
different types in different ways depending on the context. Without a
specified context one could switch from framework to framework and seem
always to be right, and yet be totally wrong when more than one
framework is simultaneously evaluated in the context of identifying a
universal concept.

Context switching is a fallacy of logic, and that is unscientific.
Without valid contexts being established definitions cannot be written
that are distinguishable from one another in a logical system or theory
of knowledge. Without valid, that is, proved, definitions there can be
no valid means of knowing whether or not any identifying concept has
anything to do with the facts of the universe at all. Chance accident of
arriving a correct definition or identity is a most unreliable means of
  knowledge. Misuse of contexts is one of the basic means of destroying
the validity of human reason, and an example of that would be the
substitution of social acceptance as the final arbiter of fact. Social
agreement has nothing to do with science. The whims and wishes of
back-patting societies and social intimidation systems have nothing to
do with science or fact, and if anything they are destructive to science.

Definitions must be proved in the context of an overall logical system
of knowledge.

Ralph Hertle

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ scientific methods ]
    ... > That may be true for your science, and for some possibly Post Modernist ... of physics are like that eg the law of conservation of energy is no more ... should not be used - its context is not well defined. ... >> training but not of the type used in philosophy which is along the lines ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ scientific methods ]
    ... > That may be true for your science, and for some possibly Post Modernist ... of physics are like that eg the law of conservation of energy is no more ... should not be used - its context is not well defined. ... >> training but not of the type used in philosophy which is along the lines ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • There is no gap between philosophy and physics (was: Science and philosophy)
    ... >> Richard Feynman and other physicists that can't say what philosophy is. ... also with respect to one's total belief system of existence. ... Science -- a division of natural philosophy that attempts to formulate ...
    (sci.physics)
  • There is no gap between philosophy and physics (was: Science and philosophy)
    ... >> Richard Feynman and other physicists that can't say what philosophy is. ... also with respect to one's total belief system of existence. ... Science -- a division of natural philosophy that attempts to formulate ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Dawkins gives incorrect answer
    ... > to be contradictions in this context. ... > not appropriate for the science of biology. ... > information massively reducing fitness. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)