Why many scientists are so ignorant

[danshawen]

But if used to invent a new theory, this new theory does not have to be proven. So this is not a problem.

By that reasoning, science isn't scaffolded (built upon a foundation of prior science). Every test of a new theory, even if a repetition of older theories that were previously proven to be false (like the 19th century aether theory, for instance), would endlessly repeat failed experiments.

You are right in a sense. Popper tried for all he was worth to fit a discovery like Einstein's relativity into the framework of Natural Selection of scientific theory. No surprise, it did not fit.

By following the procedure of repeating failed experiments, there would be no progress or iterative refinement in science, similar to what happens in philosophy.

 

[river]

Induction in mathematics and induction in natural science are quite different things. Induction in mathematics is a precise technique to prove some theorems. Induction in natural science is a vague feeling of similarity between very different situations. Once in all similar situations similar causes have similar effects, there will be a general law that in all such situations such a cause will have such an effect.

Can you give an example of induction in natural sciences ; just so I'm clear about the differences.

I'm assuming that in mathematics induction is a pure mathematical concept.

 

[Schmelzer]

By that reasoning, science isn't scaffolded (built upon a foundation of prior science). Every test of a new theory, even if a repetition of older theories that were previously proven to be false (like the 19th century aether theory, for instance), would endlessly repeat failed experiments.

I don't understand. Once an experiment has been made, and the results are known, why should one repeat it? Old experiments can be, as well, used to falsify new theories too.

 

[danshawen]

Old experiments can be, as well, used to falsify new theories too.

Old experiments can be, as well, used to falsify new theories too.

Failed experiments (based on hypotheses that have been falsified) are useless to science. When trial by error produces an error, one does not take the error as fact and run with it.

Philosophy, on the other hand, can be internally self-consistent, but this does not make it complete nor very useful. If a knowledge of math stopped at addition of integers, how useful or extensible (scaffoldable) would that branch of learning really be?

Philosophy, like religion, is much older than science, and it shows. If you learn to read and to write by means of studying philosophy, that is about all you are likely to derive of your efforts.

 

[sweetpea]

Why do you care about this? Is it important that I believe into some particular claim about the history of WW II?

Is a history with lower numbers of Jewish victims or without gas chambers yet "Holocaust"? My personal rejection of the Nazi regime does not depend on such details at all. And therefore I see no reason to care about these details.

Forget the numbers, what is your view on the twisted science used to say some races are sub-human and so allowing cruel 'experiments ' on people, as happened in the Holocaust.

 

[river]

I don't understand. Once an experiment has been made, and the results are known, why should one repeat it? Old experiments can be, as well, used to falsify new theories too.

Hmmm... I see both your points ; however new technology can change the experiments outcome.

 

[Schmelzer]

Can you give an example of induction in natural sciences ; just so I'm clear about the differences.
I'm assuming that in mathematics induction is a pure mathematical concept.

Mathematical induction:

The theorem is: "For all natural numbers n, A(n) holds".

Proof by induction.

1.) We prove A(1).
2.) We prove the theorem "For all natural numbers n, from A(n) follows A(n+1)"

Then, by induction, the theorem is proven.

Physical induction:

Experiment 1 agrees with theory T.
Experiment 2 agrees with theory T.
....
Experiment 43489 agrees with theory T

Conclusion: All experiments agree with theory T, because theory T is true.

Hmmm... I see both your points ; however new technology can change the experiments outcome.

Yes, that's why many experiments are repeated with new technology, better instruments and so on. But nonetheless even the less accurate old result may be sufficient to falsify a new theory.

 

[river]

Mathematical induction:

The theorem is: "For all natural numbers n, A(n) holds".

Proof by induction.

1.) We prove A(1).
2.) We prove the theorem "For all natural numbers n, from A(n) follows A(n+1)"

Then, by induction, the theorem is proven.

Physical induction:

Experiment 1 agrees with theory T.
Experiment 2 agrees with theory T.
....
Experiment 43489 agrees with theory T

Conclusion: All experiments agree with theory T, because theory T is true.

Thanks

The natural science is the experiment ...just to be clear ?

 

[Schmelzer]

Failed experiments (based on hypotheses that have been falsified) are useless to science. When trial by error produces an error, one does not take the error as fact and run with it.

First, what is a failed experiment? This would be, of course, an experiment where the measurement device does not work or so. Then they are useless. Else, they can become useless later, once more accurate experiments have been made.

But what do you mean by "based on hypotheses"? Of course, experiments are based on hypotheses. Like that the measurement devices work with some accuracy. But otherwise? That the experiment falsifies a prediction based on some hypothesis invalidates the hypothesis, but not the experiment. Not at all. The experiment remains important as long as there is no new hypothesis which makes the correct prediction, the one which has been measured.

The natural science is the experiment ...just to be clear ?

The experiment is natural science. The inductive reasoning, which identifies the T which is shared by all the experiments, and leads to the hypothesis/theory "T always holds", is also science, the job of the theoretical scientist.

sweatpea, why do you ask me about some details of history which are off-topic here, and this even after I have repeatedly explained that I have not studied this history in detail, and not interested to study it? Ask somebody interested in these questions in a separate thread.

 

[river]

Schmelzer ; DO NOT ENCOURAGE FUTHER DISCUSSION ON THE HOLOCAUST TOPIC ON THIS THREAD OR I WILL REPORT YOU. IMMEDIATELY.

Do we understand each other?

river

 

[Schmelzer]

Don't cry. Feel free to report me whenever you like, but please together with all this crowd of defamers, and with the recommendation to delete all those defamations together with my defenses. I will not leave defamations unanswered, not a single one, simply because you don't like this.

 

[C C]

. . . http://theweek.com/articles/610948/why-m...e-ignorant

[...] Nye fell into the same trap that Neil DeGrasse Tyson [...]

Astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson has claimed philosophy is not “a productive contributor to our understanding of the natural world”... http://qz.com/627989/why-are-so-many-smart-people-such-idiots-about-philosophy/

In his defense, however, the public should just recognize that like many people, scientists can have their quirky idioms. For some, the word "philosophy" seems to serve as a conversational filler like "um", "uh", or "you know". Kind of like a couple of otiose electronic components in a device that appear connected to the rest of the mechanism but are actually just decorative (no function or actual relationship to the rest). It could also be akin to a vocal tic or irregular, involuntary grunting noise -- a neurological spasm, etc. In Tyson's case, let's explore where this would go IF there were not these alternative explanations...

Philosophy in general isn't a direct investigation of the natural world. The branch once subsumed under it which did do that was "natural philosophy". As the latter specialized itself and developed into modern science, it thus became defunct (or at least defunct under that label). Thus his statement would be trivial -- i.e., declaring that the ancestor of the physical sciences is obviously useless due it no longer existing (duh).

Or it's a nonsensical remark grounded in a false rivalry and jumbling of hierarchy and distinction between two general categories of activity (one involving the broad study of human practices, principles / concepts, and systems [including science] and the other concerning the study of the other items and circumstances [usually or often non-artificial]). Tyson could as much arbitrarily or randomly assert that basketball or business or welding is not “a productive contributor to our understanding of the natural world”, as alternative specific content for replacing "philosophy" in the placeholder of that skewered template. Again, there's the resemblance to a vocal tic, but the noise coming out would be an otherwise meaningful word if not for little or no relation to the context it abruptly appears within.

 

[PhysBang]

But how would anyone know if something was genuine philosophy or some pseudo-philosophy? Because philosophy doesn't really scaffold any better than a stack of hula hoops, that's why. It's all about semantics and definitions, and circular reasoning all endlessly picked apart in a manner befitting a study in morality facilitated by a a background in law.

...

I think my one semester Philosophy 101 course would have been best left for the law and humanity students.

I am so glad that we got this expert on philosophy to speak on this topic.

 

[river]

Don't cry. Feel free to report me whenever you like, but please together with all this crowd of defamers, and with the recommendation to delete all those defamations together with my defenses. I will not leave defamations unanswered, not a single one, simply because you don't like this.

Defend yourself

But NOT ON THIS THREAD

 

[river]

In his defense, however, the public should just recognize that like many people, scientists can have their quirky idioms. For some, the word "philosophy" seems to serve as a conversational filler like "um", "uh", or "you know". Kind of like a couple of otiose electronic components in a device that appear connected to the rest of the mechanism but are actually just decorative (no function or actual relationship to the rest). It could also be akin to a vocal tic or irregular, involuntary grunting noise -- a neurological spasm, etc. In Tyson's case, let's explore where this would go IF there were not these alternative explanations...

Philosophy in general isn't a direct investigation of the natural world. The branch once subsumed under it which did do that was "natural philosophy". As the latter specialized itself and developed into modern science, it thus became defunct (or at least defunct under that label). Thus his statement would be trivial -- i.e., declaring that the ancestor of the physical sciences is obviously useless due it no longer existing (duh).

Or it's a nonsensical remark grounded in a false rivalry and jumbling of hierarchy and distinction between two general categories of activity (one involving the broad study of human practices, principles / concepts, and systems [including science] and the other concerning the study of the other items and circumstances [usually or often non-artificial]). Tyson could as much arbitrarily or randomly assert that basketball or business or welding is not “a productive contributor to our understanding of the natural world”, as alternative specific content for replacing "philosophy" in the placeholder of that skewered template. Again, there's the resemblance to a vocal tic, but the noise coming out would be an otherwise meaningful word if not for little or no relation to the context it abruptly appears within.

Philosophy knows science.

 

[paddoboy]

I found the following debate between Lawrence Krauss and philosopher Julian Baggini:
The whole debate makes interesting points and is worth the read.....

https://www.theguardian.com/science...losophy-debate-julian-baggini-lawrence-krauss

Philosophy v science: which can answer the big questions of life?
Philosopher Julian Baggini fears that, as we learn more and more about the universe, scientists are becoming increasingly determined to stamp their mark on other disciplines. Here, he challenges theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss over 'mission creep' among his peers:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The debate concludes with the following by each of the participants.......
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
JB
Who knows? Indeed. Which is why philosophy needs to accept it may one day be made redundant. But science also has to accept there may be limits to its reach.

I don't think there is more stuff in the universe than the stuff of physical science. But I am sceptical that human behaviour could ever be explained by physics or biology alone. Although we are literally made of the same stuff as stars, that stuff has organised itself so complexly that things such as consciousness have emerged that cannot be fully understood only by examining the bedrock of bosons and fermions. At least, I think they can't. I'm happy for physicists to have a go. But, until they succeed, I think they should refrain from making any claims that the only real questions are scientific questions and the rest is noise. If that were true, wouldn't this conversation just be noise too?

LK
We can end in essential agreement then. I suspect many people think many of my conversations are just noise, but, in any case, we won't really know the answer to whether science can yield a complete picture of reality, good at all levels, unless we try. You and I agree fundamentally that physical reality is all there is, but we merely have different levels of optimism about how effectively and how completely we can understand it via the methods of science. I continue to be surprised by the progress that is possible by continuing to ask questions of nature and let her answer through experiment. Stars are easier to understand than people, I expect, but that is what makes the enterprise so exciting. The mysteries are what make life worth living and I would be sad if the day comes when we can no longer find answerable questions that have yet to be answered, and puzzles that can be solved. What surprises me is how we have become victims of our own success, at least in certain areas. When it comes to the universe as a whole, we may be frighteningly close to the limits of empirical inquiry as a guide to understanding. After that, we will have to rely on good ideas alone, and that is always much harder and less reliable.

 

[river]

I found the following debate between Lawrence Krauss and philosopher Julian Baggini:
The whole debate makes interesting points and is worth the read.....

https://www.theguardian.com/science...losophy-debate-julian-baggini-lawrence-krauss

Philosophy v science: which can answer the big questions of life?
Philosopher Julian Baggini fears that, as we learn more and more about the universe, scientists are becoming increasingly determined to stamp their mark on other disciplines. Here, he challenges theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss over 'mission creep' among his peers:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The debate concludes with the following by each of the participants.......
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
JB
Who knows? Indeed. Which is why philosophy needs to accept it may one day be made redundant. But science also has to accept there may be limits to its reach.

I don't think there is more stuff in the universe than the stuff of physical science. But I am sceptical that human behaviour could ever be explained by physics or biology alone. Although we are literally made of the same stuff as stars, that stuff has organised itself so complexly that things such as consciousness have emerged that cannot be fully understood only by examining the bedrock of bosons and fermions. At least, I think they can't. I'm happy for physicists to have a go. But, until they succeed, I think they should refrain from making any claims that the only real questions are scientific questions and the rest is noise. If that were true, wouldn't this conversation just be noise too?

LK
We can end in essential agreement then. I suspect many people think many of my conversations are just noise, but, in any case, we won't really know the answer to whether science can yield a complete picture of reality, good at all levels, unless we try. You and I agree fundamentally that physical reality is all there is, but we merely have different levels of optimism about how effectively and how completely we can understand it via the methods of science. I continue to be surprised by the progress that is possible by continuing to ask questions of nature and let her answer through experiment. Stars are easier to understand than people, I expect, but that is what makes the enterprise so exciting. The mysteries are what make life worth living and I would be sad if the day comes when we can no longer find answerable questions that have yet to be answered, and puzzles that can be solved. What surprises me is how we have become victims of our own success, at least in certain areas. When it comes to the universe as a whole, we may be frighteningly close to the limits of empirical inquiry as a guide to understanding. After that, we will have to rely on good ideas alone, and that is always much harder and less reliable.

Science is science

Philosophy questions the science.

 

[river]

Understand

 

[paddoboy]

Understand

Perhaps you need to read the article.

 

[river]

Perhaps you need to read the article.

Why ?