Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

what are the scope and limit of science?

belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 10:38:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://www.closertotruth.com...

thoughts?

honestly i get the impression that he must be strawmanning his opponents insofar as it seems like it would be incredibly difficult to disagree with anything he says and still take yourself seriously lol...
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 10:47:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Could you give a synopsis of the video?
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 12:09:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 11:58:23 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 4/2/2011 11:36:15 PM, rarugged wrote:
Science solves all.

Too bad it doesn't solve conciousness.

I was just going to say this! Science will never be able to reach it's full potential until it includes consciousness.

Philosophy > Science
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 12:35:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 10:38:38 PM, belle wrote:
http://www.closertotruth.com...

thoughts?

honestly i get the impression that he must be strawmanning his opponents insofar as it seems like it would be incredibly difficult to disagree with anything he says and still take yourself seriously lol...

Lol, not really. There's plenty of serious people who disagree with him on any number of points - especially the ontological status of unobservables in scientific theories. From what I read and heard he does seem to be accurately representing most scientific realists' positions. Most of them do argue w/r/t to unobservables that if they figure into our best explanations of scientific phenomena that that gives us good reason to say that those unobservables exist. This also the same argument that is given for mathematical realism, btw. Most people are naive scientific realists - they think that things like electrons actually exist because they figure into our best scientific theories.

Side note: I used to want to go and study at san francisco state just because he was there. He's like one of my favorite philosophers of science.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
AznWords
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 12:40:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 12:09:52 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/2/2011 11:58:23 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 4/2/2011 11:36:15 PM, rarugged wrote:
Science solves all.

Too bad it doesn't solve conciousness.

I was just going to say this! Science will never be able to reach it's full potential until it includes consciousness.

Philosophy > Science

yee, agreed fully! Quantum mechanics is the only science that reconizes observation (consciousness) has an affect on the world and things we measure. Quantum mechanics has already been ridiculed and heavily referred to as philosophical. Maybe it's the study to bring science back to philosophy once again--to bring us back full circle.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 12:46:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also many serious people would disagree with him on the goal of science being only to provide empirically adequate theories and not to get at what is real, what actually exists, or what is actually true about the world.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 1:02:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 12:46:25 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Also many serious people would disagree with him on the goal of science being only to provide empirically adequate theories and not to get at what is real, what actually exists, or what is actually true about the world.

Getting to what works is the important thing.. that is something Empirically adequate :)

Regular observations tends to give us workable notions... we might not be able to claim that these notions land us with the Absolute most accurate way of describing Reality.. but if it works for what we want to do (like Newtonian Physics) then it serves it's purpose.

If it doesn't work well for some things (like newtonian physics) then we would want a newer notion that does...

now.. we might want to have a more Fitting notion like Relativity on hand Even if we don't have to use it at the moment... so that it's available if we do have to use it..

but valuing the theory just for itself seems silly... valuing any Knowledge of how things are.. Just for the Knowledge's sake doesn't make sense.

We care for knowledge such that we can better act, and do what we would care to do...

an Understanding that isn't useful/true enough in it's application is Not empirically adequate... THIS is what we don't like.

if an understanding is Useful/true enough in it's application.. we're content with it (like Newton's physics).. up until the point where it's no longer true enough.. until it's effectiveness breaks down.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 2:15:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 12:40:31 AM, AznWords wrote:
Quantum mechanics is the only science that reconizes observation (consciousness) has an affect on the world and things we measure.

Um no. If you are referring to the ineptly named observer effect, please learn what it is. If you are referring to one particular tongue in cheek intended interpretation involving dead cats and boxes, please read more.
Ogan
Posts: 407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 8:07:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Science – the search for TRUTH, will eventually answer all questions. But, material science will only answer material questions, beyond that it cannot proceed.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 6:13:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 12:09:52 AM, FREEDO wrote:

I was just going to say this! Science will never be able to reach it's full potential until it includes consciousness.

It does :

Neuronal mechanisms of consciousness: A Relational Global Workspace framework, Baars, Bernard and Newman, James and Taylor, John (1998)

On the neurophysiology of consciousness: Part II. Constraining the semantic problem., Bogen JE.

There is considerable research as to what makes neural networks of sufficient size have the property we call consciousness.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 6:18:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 12:35:56 AM, popculturepooka wrote:

Most people are naive scientific realists - they think that things like electrons actually exist because they figure into our best scientific theories.

Most scientists are not actually interested in the answer and have a mindset like Feynman :

"Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds"

Science is constrained by definition to what we can sense thus at very most it tell tell us how the universe appears to our senses, but simply consider this fact - if there was no such thing as vision, if it did not exist - would this mean there was no such thing as color?
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 6:36:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
@Rob&FREEDO
Such fail.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Assuming you both live full lives, you'll both see true AI in your lifetimes.
Computer technology has unlimitedpotential.
I can see the human mind being transfered into data and uploaded into a hive mind so we can all focus on problems simultaneously.

@Pooka
I found your reply quite... annoying. :)
Do you think "Science has the potential to solve all" is LOLable?
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 6:50:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 12:35:56 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/2/2011 10:38:38 PM, belle wrote:
http://www.closertotruth.com...

thoughts?

honestly i get the impression that he must be strawmanning his opponents insofar as it seems like it would be incredibly difficult to disagree with anything he says and still take yourself seriously lol...

Lol, not really. There's plenty of serious people who disagree with him on any number of points - especially the ontological status of unobservables in scientific theories. From what I read and heard he does seem to be accurately representing most scientific realists' positions. Most of them do argue w/r/t to unobservables that if they figure into our best explanations of scientific phenomena that that gives us good reason to say that those unobservables exist. This also the same argument that is given for mathematical realism, btw. Most people are naive scientific realists - they think that things like electrons actually exist because they figure into our best scientific theories.

Side note: I used to want to go and study at san francisco state just because he was there. He's like one of my favorite philosophers of science.

kinda missing my point- i know a lot of people disagree with him on any number of things, what i don't get is how what he's said here is objectionable. i guess my point was that it seems funny that anyone could possibly claim science aims for anything but an "empirically adequate" account of things... it seems seriously incoherent to claim that, for example, the entities proposed by science must exist having exactly and only the properties that scientists propose for them- theres no method whereby you can determine that... the best you can do is hold it as an underlying assumption.

on the other hand he calls himself an anti-realist, when what he's saying here sounds more like an agnostic position on the realism of scientific entities, so i am probably missing something of his argument. it is a pretty short video. i was just all prepared to grrr at the "anti realist" (my friend actually warned me i would "hate" it lol) and was quite shocked when what he said was entirely sensible and i found that i agreed with almost all of it.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 6:53:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 1:02:06 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/3/2011 12:46:25 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Also many serious people would disagree with him on the goal of science being only to provide empirically adequate theories and not to get at what is real, what actually exists, or what is actually true about the world.

Getting to what works is the important thing.. that is something Empirically adequate :)

Regular observations tends to give us workable notions... we might not be able to claim that these notions land us with the Absolute most accurate way of describing Reality.. but if it works for what we want to do (like Newtonian Physics) then it serves it's purpose.

If it doesn't work well for some things (like newtonian physics) then we would want a newer notion that does...

now.. we might want to have a more Fitting notion like Relativity on hand Even if we don't have to use it at the moment... so that it's available if we do have to use it..

but valuing the theory just for itself seems silly... valuing any Knowledge of how things are.. Just for the Knowledge's sake doesn't make sense.

We care for knowledge such that we can better act, and do what we would care to do...

an Understanding that isn't useful/true enough in it's application is Not empirically adequate... THIS is what we don't like.

if an understanding is Useful/true enough in it's application.. we're content with it (like Newton's physics).. up until the point where it's no longer true enough.. until it's effectiveness breaks down.

yes its a very pragmatic notion of knowledge. why'd you have to go on for ages about it in such decorative language?

i really don't want to be an arse, but the way you format your posts makes me read you oddly.... you actually *sound* like a retard in my head even if what you're saying makes sense.

but anyways, yes, i suspected this would be right up your alley
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 6:55:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 6:36:55 PM, tvellalott wrote:

@Pooka
I found your reply quite... annoying. :)
Do you think "Science has the potential to solve all" is LOLable?

Yes, I really do.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 6:56:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 6:55:19 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/3/2011 6:36:55 PM, tvellalott wrote:

@Pooka
I found your reply quite... annoying. :)
Do you think "Science has the potential to solve all" is LOLable?

Yes, I really do.

Why?
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 7:06:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 6:56:21 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 4/3/2011 6:55:19 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/3/2011 6:36:55 PM, tvellalott wrote:

@Pooka
I found your reply quite... annoying. :)
Do you think "Science has the potential to solve all" is LOLable?

Yes, I really do.

Why?

Perhaps you think the secrets of the Universe are outside the realm of human understanding? That we can never know the origin of the Universe?

Seeing as you believe that God did it, I can understand that position.

Our ancestors are going to pawn all the unknown questions and religion is going to be obsolete, another large, dirty stain in the putrid history of humanity.

I hope, anyway. :)
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 7:21:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 6:56:21 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 4/3/2011 6:55:19 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/3/2011 6:36:55 PM, tvellalott wrote:

@Pooka
I found your reply quite... annoying. :)
Do you think "Science has the potential to solve all" is LOLable?

Yes, I really do.

Why?

Science takes for granted certain mathematical, logical, and metaphysical truths - when problem arise in those domains I don't really believe they can be used to solve them although they can be taken in on certain issues for consideration. I also don't think some moral/ethical problems can be "solved" by science either.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 7:22:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 7:06:02 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 4/3/2011 6:56:21 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 4/3/2011 6:55:19 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/3/2011 6:36:55 PM, tvellalott wrote:

@Pooka
I found your reply quite... annoying. :)
Do you think "Science has the potential to solve all" is LOLable?

Yes, I really do.

Why?

Perhaps you think the secrets of the Universe are outside the realm of human understanding? That we can never know the origin of the Universe?


I believe some are, I suppose.

Seeing as you believe that God did it, I can understand that position.

Seeing as you believe God didn't do it you should be taking that position as well - perhaps even more vehemently than I do.

Our ancestors are going to pawn all the unknown questions and religion is going to be obsolete, another large, dirty stain in the putrid history of humanity.

Lol, that's nice. People have been loudly proclaiming the death of religion for hundreds of years. Why would you proclaiming it this time be any different than the last times? Call it an inductive judgement. :)

I hope, anyway. :)

Eww. :)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 7:28:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 7:21:21 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/3/2011 6:56:21 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 4/3/2011 6:55:19 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/3/2011 6:36:55 PM, tvellalott wrote:

@Pooka
I found your reply quite... annoying. :)
Do you think "Science has the potential to solve all" is LOLable?

Yes, I really do.

Why?

Science takes for granted certain mathematical, logical, and metaphysical truths - when problem arise in those domains I don't really believe they can be used to solve them although they can be taken in on certain issues for consideration. I also don't think some moral/ethical problems can be "solved" by science either.

Fnding problems in the various domains of science is how those 'truths' are refined. It is in the interest of science to find these problems. Science will provide the most happiness and good health to the most people possible, once humanity gets past it's inherent short-sightedness and greed (which might be never.)
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 8:01:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 6:50:36 PM, belle wrote:

kinda missing my point- i know a lot of people disagree with him on any number of things, what i don't get is how what he's said here is objectionable. i guess my point was that it seems funny that anyone could possibly claim science aims for anything but an "empirically adequate" account of things... it seems seriously incoherent to claim that, for example, the entities proposed by science must exist having exactly and only the properties that scientists propose for them- theres no method whereby you can determine that... the best you can do is hold it as an underlying assumption.


You haven't heard the enterprise of science is about getting a better and better picture about what is true about our world? I hear it all the time.

Are you a scientific realist? If not, do you believe that things like electrons or interaction between things like gravity are just really theoretical entities designed to make the best sense of the evidence and nothing more than that? Do you believe that there is nothing that actually corresponds to those entities in the real world that is either identical to the entities proposed or sufficiently similar? So when someone asks you "what keeps you on the earth?" and you say "gravity"...what you actually mean is that there is nothing the world that corresponds to what you are talking about and but just that gravity is what makes best sense out of what can be observed? Or how about DNA, would you say the same?

I don't know about you, but I find it at least strange that there can be mutually exclusive ontological commitments (the unobservables) that can't all be true for equally empirically adequate scientific theories. I'm inclined that to think that there has to be a truth of the matter and that at least some of the times that truth is knowable.

on the other hand he calls himself an anti-realist, when what he's saying here sounds more like an agnostic position on the realism of scientific entities, so i am probably missing something of his argument. it is a pretty short video. i was just all prepared to grrr at the "anti realist" (my friend actually warned me i would "hate" it lol) and was quite shocked when what he said was entirely sensible and i found that i agreed with almost all of it.

He's a realist about observable entities but anti-realist about unobservables.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Jay_Walk
Posts: 38
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 8:12:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 6:56:21 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 4/3/2011 6:55:19 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/3/2011 6:36:55 PM, tvellalott wrote:

@Pooka
I found your reply quite... annoying. :)
Do you think "Science has the potential to solve all" is LOLable?

Yes, I really do.

Why?

Scientifically prove the inductive principle please.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 8:23:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 8:12:23 PM, Jay_Walk wrote:
Scientifically prove the inductive principle please.

That's an absurd request. You could only provide a philosophical proof for the inductive principle. Not to mention, science is based on the inductive principle so it's like asking him to prove the inductive principle with the inductive principle.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 8:48:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 8:01:45 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
You haven't heard the enterprise of science is about getting a better and better picture about what is true about our world? I hear it all the time.

sure, but all that really means is that our scientific descriptions are getting more and more accurate and detailed in making predictions... what else could it possibly mean? how could we have a clue whether or not we were approaching "the truth" as opposed to some more detailed level of understanding only tangentially related to it?

i'm sure i've said something along those lines myself, but... at best its an intuitive assumption we make... and i think the assumption is unnecessary.

when i hear stuff like that i think people really haven't thought through the implications of what they're saying...

If not, do you believe that things like electrons or interaction between things like gravity are just really theoretical entities designed to make the best sense of the evidence and nothing more than that? Do you believe that there is nothing that actually corresponds to those entities in the real world that is either identical to the entities proposed or sufficiently similar?

now we're getting somewhere. clearly there is something in the world that is causing our experiences of those things that we label gravity and the electromagnetic force, etc, but our concepts such as "electrons" are ultimately defined purely functionally. the electron is the thingy that has effect xyz on abc. most scientific concepts are like that in the end- simply a way of describing how things effect us and each other. its actually kinda creepy when you get down to it- after studying science in elementary/high school as something very concrete, it turns out to be anything but. in any case though, *something* must be causing those effects, and science effectively describes and predicts them, but... beyond that the entities are unknown and unknowable. saying they're "really" like how we describe them seems to be superfluous.

So when someone asks you "what keeps you on the earth?" and you say "gravity"...what you actually mean is that there is nothing the world that corresponds to what you are talking about and but just that gravity is what makes best sense out of what can be observed? Or how about DNA, would you say the same?

i would say theres something in the world that fulfills that functional/behavioral role, but i wouldn't say anything more than that about it... it doesn't seem justified.

I don't know about you, but I find it at least strange that there can be mutually exclusive ontological commitments (the unobservables) that can't all be true for equally empirically adequate scientific theories. I'm inclined that to think that there has to be a truth of the matter and that at least some of the times that truth is knowable.

how can it be knowable except by the means of one or the other being... more empirically adequate than the other? if its not a better description then theres really no good basis for saying *this* is the case rather than *that*. and if accuracy of description/prediction is the arbiter, then you've not moved past the empirically adequate at all.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 10:16:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 6:53:43 PM, belle wrote:
why'd you have to go on for ages about it in such decorative language?

I use decorative language?

i really don't want to be an arse but...

arse!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."