Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 02/28/05 

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:41:34 GMT

For anyone interested, the traffic generated by this thread now stands
close to 3,000 posts.

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:58:09 GMT, lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net
(Lester Zick) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>
> Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
> ---------
> (Scientific Reduction)
>
>If asked what science is, most people would reply that science is
>empirical in nature and conducts experiments to falsify unsound
>hypotheses. Some might also vouchsafe that mathematics is a
>scientific discipline to the extent that unsound hypotheses can be
>falsified through contradictions with foundational axioms. But why
>do we need science at all and how is it used?
>
>Let's look at reality in general through unscientific eyes. What we
>see is a collation of events in historical terms. We see them succeed
>one another and opine that various events cause one another. There is
>no way to determine whether this is true in any fundamental sense,
>only that history documents that various sequences of events have in
>fact succeeded one another.
>
>So, what is science is expected to do? What is apparent to everyone is
>that we have one historical tapestry of events and science is expected
>to make sense of that tapestry. But how to do this? Basically science
>can only make sense of the tapestry by reducing the number and
>complexity of causes evident for events. Science must take the run of
>events evident to everyone and show which characteristics and
>properties govern the emergence of certain events as manifested in the
>characteristics and properties of other events.
>
>In so doing science regresses consideration of events to properties of
>events and shows how the emergence of one event is implied in the
>emergence of other events. And thereby science reduces the panoply
>of history to manifold considerations evident in all or most events.
>
>
> Methodology
> ---------
>
>Initially at least empirical sciences approach this reduction in the
>same way mathematics does through finite tautological regression.
>However, whereas mathematics regresses its observations through to
>consistency with foundational axioms, through the vagaries of history
>empirical sciences are left only with contradiction between empirical
>observations as the basis for its regressive foundation.
>
>Consequently empirical science has been left with no understanding of
>its own intellectual mechanics. It pretends to be different from logic
>and mathematics and claims no finite tautological regressions limit
>its empiricism. However, this is only partly true just as it is only
>partly true for mathematics and logic. None of the three have finite
>ending points that limit application of the respective disciplines.
>But all three have finite tautological regressions which define and
>limit their starting points, what I refer to as ur regressions.
>
>
> Ur Regressions for True, False, and Not
> --------------
>
>True, False, and Not are defined in reciprocal terms in the following
>way. For any empirical observation [subject] the proposition
>
>p:[subject][not subject] is always true. And the proposition
>
>p:[subject not subject] is always false. And the empirical observation
>
>P:[not] is always true because the proposition
>
>P:[not not] is always false.
>
> --------------
>
>These seem to be the only reducible definitions for true, false, and
>not. The problem is analogous to the definition of factorability in
>mathematics where given i=j*k we have for any number, i, two factors,
>j and k but only one equation, which means there is no general
>solution possible for factors of i lying between 1 and i.
>
> --------------
>
>In other words every empirical observation is regressable through
>tautologies or it cannot be true because tautologies in the formal
>sense are always true. Tautologies are not perfect, however, because
>even though they account for everything true they do not account for
>everything. In order to do that they would also have to account not
>only for everything true but everything false as well. And we find
>that perfecting ordinary tautologies requires the addition of some
>component which is always false. For example, for
>
>t:[subject][not subject]
>
>t:[subject][not subject][subject not subject]
>
>wherein the self contradictory alternative [subject not subject] is
>appended to an ordinary tautology to form a comprehensive or perfect
>tautology inclusive of all possibilities.
>
>However such a regression through to self contradiction is not
>possible in the case of one empirical observation [not] which forms
>an irreducible regression directly in tautuological terms:
>
>T:[not][not not]
>
>inclusive of all possibilities. From which we conclude [not] or
>contradiction forms the basis of all tautological regressions in
>general, which in fact is exactly consistent with the form of the
>tautology itself.
>
>Regards - Lester

Regards - Lester

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >If asked what science is, most people would reply that science is ... >and mathematics and claims no finite tautological regressions limit ... >its empiricism. ... >tautologies or it cannot be true because tautologies in the formal ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >If asked what science is, most people would reply that science is ... >and mathematics and claims no finite tautological regressions limit ... >its empiricism. ... >tautologies or it cannot be true because tautologies in the formal ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... If asked what science is, most people would reply that science is ... and mathematics and claims no finite tautological regressions limit ... its empiricism. ... tautologies or it cannot be true because tautologies in the formal ...
    (sci.math)
  • Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... If asked what science is, most people would reply that science is ... and mathematics and claims no finite tautological regressions limit ... its empiricism. ... tautologies or it cannot be true because tautologies in the formal ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... If asked what science is, most people would reply that science is ... and mathematics and claims no finite tautological regressions limit ... its empiricism. ... tautologies or it cannot be true because tautologies in the formal ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast