Re: Things we take for granted
From: ueb (Ulrich.Bruchholz_at_t-online.de)
Date: 08/08/04
- Next message: tim gueguen: "Re: "What Really Happened" Joins Pentagon Disinformation Chorus"
- Previous message: John T Lowry: "Re: Significant Figures (Standards and Guidelines)"
- In reply to: Patrick Reany: "Re: Things we take for granted"
- Next in thread: Patrick Reany: "Re: Things we take for granted"
- Reply: Patrick Reany: "Re: Things we take for granted"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 21:42:37 +0000
Patrick Reany [return address deleted] wrote:
> ueb [please delete the return address] wrote in message news:<k4u0fc.s5.ln@Muse2.private.de>...
[snip] ...
>> > humans to make theories that work.
>>
>> Your famous slogan. :):):)
> I may have made it famous here, but the phrase has appeared elsewhere.
> Maybe it's original with me but I doubt that. The sentiment of my
> epigram is central to the instrumentalist position of pragmatism and
> free invention. It is, of course, very simplistic and some people like
> to mischaracterize my philosophy as simplistic. But one needs
> something as a sound bite.
> The central issue that instrumentalism has against the realist view is
> their claim that the purpose of science is to find out deep reality.
What should be the purpose of science else ? (Every reasonable human
will realize that one will never completely fulfill this purpose.)
That you tell below is the purpose of theoretical engineering.
> Now, I have views of deep reality (in my own natural philosophy) and I
> don't care that other people have their own beliefs about deep
> reality. I just insist that science is NOT the right tool to prove
> what deep reality is all about. I have a principle which few people
> have, and I don't break it. The principle is that whatever we should
> define science to be, it should be about what it can PROVE it can
> accomplish. Science CAN prove that it has theories that work. It can't
> prove that even a single one of them is True. In fact, as I have
> argued may times, it is meaningless to say that any explanation of
> natural events is true.
It is true as long it is not disproved.
> A theory is an explanation in the form of a
> deductive system. As far as I'm concerned there is NOTHING in the
> natural world which is a deductive system.
Look out ! This claim might be very precipitate.
I have demonstrated that the natural world is completely deductive,
if one sees it geometrically. One may not confuse it with `causal'
or `deterministic'. Even since the world is completely deductive,
it is not fundamentally deterministic.
> So, it is meaningless to me
> to say that an explanation or deductive system is true of Nature. The
> universe does not need and did not ask for human-invented
> explanations.
That does not prevent me from giving the universe such explanation.
> I think there may be a misconception that instrumentalism is nothing
> more than an apolgetic for modern physics. As far as I'm concerned,
> science was never able to justify realism and shame on it for ever
> thinking it could. Does the earth really orbit the sun, or is it the
> other way around? The instrumentalist answer is, "Who cares? Choose
> the simplest theory and be done with the worrying about the Truth of
> it."
I think that I understand what you mean, but I do not even find it good.
No wonder that people insist on their own "natural philosophy", and
are unable to get any insights. They are totally unflexible. -
That is the modern trend.
> ------------------------------------
> The instrumentalist viewpoint is argued at:
> http://www.eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?t=276
> A question that comes up often is whether or not science aims at true
> (or truthlike) theories. Alternatives include the idea that all
> science requires are theories that "work", whether that means
> providing accurate predictions or something similar, or are
> "successful", which is again open to interpretation. Some people
> appear to argue that since no theory can ever be absolutely certain,
> it follows that science isn't really trying to find the truth but
> instead what works or theories that are successful: we shouldn't worry
> about truth and can instead get on with the business of science that
> works.
> -------------------------------------
> The science we learn in school is the set of theories that work best.
> They
> could be correct, or incorrect. They are the best we have. Some very
> basic
> theories agree with more advanced theories. The basic ones can be
> called
> the reasons for the others. Still, the reality is the reason for the
> science: the science is just a possible description of how reality
> works.
> Science cannot tell us why reality happens to be as it is.
> Dr. Ken Mellendorf
> Illinois Central College
> http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00316.htm
> -------------------------------------
> Except that Mellendorf did not define "reality" for us. Apparently he
> is just as cavalier and as blind to the deepness of this concept as
> most posters here are. Science can't tell us HOW reality really works
> either.
Do you not mean: "Science can't *completely* tell us HOW reality really
works" ? I believe you have not understood Mellendorf.
> It can, however, invent theoretical decriptions that tells us
> what to expect of the behavior of "reality."
Pardon, what is the difference ?
>> I'd agree that you can add such Boolean variables to the "events".
>> What were the use ? Are you aware of the very different meaning
>> of the examples called by you ? Thus, *free* electrons and photons
>> really exist during quarks and the mass continuum do not and are
>> indeed nothing else than having been freely created by humans.
> I don't give a damn what really exists for purposes of doing science.
You are really a very modern human. I'm understanding more and more
what runs in modern science. It is a relapse to the Middle Age.
> I care only about those concepts which really are instrumental for the
> invention of theories that work.
> I care what really only within my personal natural philosophy.
Of course. I understand that now.
>>
>> > I propose no specific alternatives to those we use. I simply see no
>> > compelling reason to believe that the variables we use are either True
>> > of Nature or unique to human possibility. The fact that I can't think
>> > of alternatives is not in itself proof that they don't "exist" in
>> > theory land or in deep reality.
>>
>> The variables are indeed not unique to human possibility. But there
>> are indeed variables which are "True of Nature", and fundamentally
>> distinguish from the rest. All of them are in the Einstein-Maxwell
>> equations.
> Did you know that Einstein was unsatified with the linear Maxwell
> equations?
Yes. He proposed "relativistic" Maxwell equations already in his
"Four Lectures". These went into the Einstein-Maxwell equations.
[snip]
...
>> > The issue here is philosophic not scientific. The question
>> > is, Why consider these "strange questions" in the first place? It's to
>> > determine the outer limits of possible human knowledge by knowing what
>> > possible boundary conditions exist on human theories. Just how free
>> > are we in the creation of human theories.
>>
>> We are free as we like. The question is what has it to do with
>> nature.
> There are two very different answers to that question, depending on
> whether you're a realist or an instrumentalist. The instrumentalist
> insists that the only correct objective (well, really intersubjective)
> test of a theory against nature is the limited realm of human
> observation and instrument readings. The realist, however, insists
> that some intuition about what is True of deep reality MUST be added
> onto that.
May be that you know such kind of "realist". But a real scientist does
even that you insinuate in this paragraph that an instrumentalist
does it. May I quote your above sentence
``I don't give a damn what really exists for purposes of doing science.''
Do you see the contradiction ? I mean with "really exist" just that
observed by humans and read from instruments.
> Instrumentalists don't give so much trust in intuitions,
> not the least because they aren't universally held by people.
> Intuitions are subject to dogmatism, whim, and fashion, none of which
> give me any confidence as producers of Truth.
A good scientist uses intuition as tool. Did you know that ?
That has nothing to do with Truth.
>>
>> > Those who follow Truth have a very small set of possible models they
>> > allow themselves to invent and use in the pursuit of Truth.
>>
>> Yes, indeed.
> What would happen if these followers of Truth do go astray from he
> path of Truth and don't realize it?
They experience the same as instrumentalists (as you describe them)
experience always.
> If the path itself has been
> sanctified, it'll be a long time before the error is fixed.
With your favoured method, this time is infinite. Always.
> The real
> error is to sanctify the path in the first place.
Very agree. You sanctify the nothing.
>>
>> > Those that
>> > pursue theories that work have a much, much larger set of models they
>> > allow themselves to invent.
>>
>> Indeed. Humble question: How do you notice whether and how such
>> theory really works ?
> The degree of match between a theory's predictions and its
> experimental tests.
I see the contradiction with the quoted sentence again.
>>
>> > Which belief system is more likely to
>> > succeed in the end?
>>
>> The second "belief system" can present lots of fictitious successes.
> 1) How do you know when a success is fictitious?
Not at all. That is the bad.
> 2) Why does it matter if a success is fictitious?
Because it is useless then.
> Why do you argue with success?
You did it.
> Patrick
Ulrich
- Next message: tim gueguen: "Re: "What Really Happened" Joins Pentagon Disinformation Chorus"
- Previous message: John T Lowry: "Re: Significant Figures (Standards and Guidelines)"
- In reply to: Patrick Reany: "Re: Things we take for granted"
- Next in thread: Patrick Reany: "Re: Things we take for granted"
- Reply: Patrick Reany: "Re: Things we take for granted"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
