Life is the product of physics and chemistry - Sorry

[Sysyphus]

I'd like to also point out that the greatest advances of human kind, and the ones that paved the way for modern science, took place before the scientific method was even conceptualized. The concept of scientific method was unknown of in old civilizations, including Ancient Greece. That didn't stop seminal developments in Mathematics and Philosophy. Mathematics, in particular, as a discipline created mainly through internal mental processes in abstract ways independent of external observation, could be considered very "unscientific" in very peculiar ways. Yet, it's hard to argue with the fact that without Math there would have been no serious development in any other scientific field

Well, even in maths, the empirical factor can't be underestimated (in terms of checking new proofs etc).

That said, in isolation, mathematics isn't something that gives us new knowledge about the world. Math is a language, and the truths it produces are about internal consistencies within the system, i.e., tautological.

It's when we couple it with empirical science that we can discover knowledge about the world, and it works great for that. As an aside, you claim that without math we probably would have never had science: well, it's actually been shown that one can perform physics using completely different models as well (see Hartry Field who did some pretty weird and impressive work here. He holds that mathematics is just a "useful fiction"), it's just less convenient.

As for the progress in the ancient world, even if they hadn't formalized the scientific method, they were certainly doing empirical science, just in a less formalized way. Their progress still stemmed from the same mechanisms (testing ideas against experience). They didn't build Rome purely by metaphysical speculation.

 

[dlk]

Well, even in maths, the empirical factor can't be underestimated (in terms of checking new proofs etc).

That said, in isolation, mathematics isn't something that gives us new knowledge about the world. Math is a language, and the truths it produces are about internal consistencies within the system, i.e., tautological.

It's when we couple it with empirical science that we can discover knowledge about the world, and it works great for that. As an aside, you claim that without math we probably would have never had science: well, it's actually been shown that one can perform physics using completely different models as well (see Hartry Field who did some pretty weird and impressive work here. He holds that mathematics is just a "useful fiction"), it's just less convenient.

As for the progress in the ancient world, even if they hadn't formalized the scientific method, they were certainly doing empirical science, just in a less formalized way. Their progress still stemmed from the same mechanisms (testing ideas against experience). They didn't build Rome purely by metaphysical speculation.

Dang dude, remind me to never argue with you. Your knowledge is impressive; as I try to follow this thread, this is one of the strongest posts I've read.

 

[Sysyphus]

No one is undermining anything, scientific theory is someones idea of how things work explained in the best way they know how at this moment in time with evidence of how their conclusions came about . You are brave to say they are set in stone ,or will you claim you knew all along when a theory or law is shown to be flawed ?

This is a pretty common myth, I reckon. Sure, a lot of "fringe theories" in science will get totally replaced. But the cornerstones will last. Even if Newton's theories have been expanded upon, the serves of tennis players 400 years from now will still not violate his theory of gravity.

Sirius's point is valid. A lot of people seem to miss the distinction between what is testable and what is merely speculative.

 

[Sirius Black]

No one is undermining anything, scientific theory is someones idea of how things work explained in the best way they know how at this moment in time with evidence of how their conclusions came about . You are brave to say they are set in stone ,or will you claim you knew all along when a theory or law is shown to be flawed ?

As firstservingman previously stated, hypotheses are both testable and falsifiable. It is the nature of science to continue investigating, but that investigation must adhere to the scientific method. So alternate conjectures must also be testable and falsifiable.

 

[DRII]

The atoms were formed as a product of nuclear fusion in stars from the two most basic elements, hydrogen and helium.

Then, the origin of matter, which may well be what you are ultimately referring to, is still not known for sure.
That's not the topic of this thread though.

Also, there is a massive difference between "we don't know" and higher forces being at work.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

no it doesn't, faith is all that is required...

 

[Topspin Shot]

I think you are misunderstanding the use of "theory" and "hypothesis" in the context of discussing the existence of God. Those terms are used very frequently outside of their strict scientific meaning, and I see no problem with that as long as it is understood what is meant.

I see a problem if there is room for misunderstanding (referring to a "theory" in some scientific field when in reality what is meant is a "hypothesis", or even just an "idea"). But there is no room for confusion when using those terms in the discussion of God. BTW, the word "theory" existed long before the scientific method was even invented. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, I am aware that science requires rigor. Fortunately, there are multiple fields of human endeavor where rigor is not required. And, there are scientific fields where what is understood of as "rigor" has nothing to do with the scientific method. If you limited human experience to scientific experimentation you would have to write off about 90% of Philosophical thought, including Mathematics.

I'd like to also point out that the greatest advances of human kind, and the ones that paved the way for modern science, took place before the scientific method was even conceptualized. The concept of scientific method was unknown of in old civilizations, including Ancient Greece. That didn't stop seminal developments in Mathematics and Philosophy. Mathematics, in particular, as a discipline created mainly through internal mental processes in abstract ways independent of external observation, could be considered very "unscientific" in very peculiar ways. Yet, it's hard to argue with the fact that without Math there would have been no serious development in any other scientific field

Sorry, I have to step in here. Mathematics is extremely rigorous. You have to prove the claims you make.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I'm definitely young, and, based on the comments of my peers and superiors, probably intelligent.
And probably overconfident too.

It's nice to see someone else with an interest in knowledge and such on these forums, there are several folks in Odds and Ends who I'd very much like to meet and talk to in real life.

Have a nice day.

Yes, Odds and Ends is definitely the area of the forum for the thinking poaster.

Thank you, and I hope you have a nice day too.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Well, even in maths, the empirical factor can't be underestimated (in terms of checking new proofs etc).

That said, in isolation, mathematics isn't something that gives us new knowledge about the world. Math is a language, and the truths it produces are about internal consistencies within the system, i.e., tautological.

It's when we couple it with empirical science that we can discover knowledge about the world, and it works great for that. As an aside, you claim that without math we probably would have never had science: well, it's actually been shown that one can perform physics using completely different models as well (see Hartry Field who did some pretty weird and impressive work here. He holds that mathematics is just a "useful fiction"), it's just less convenient.

As for the progress in the ancient world, even if they hadn't formalized the scientific method, they were certainly doing empirical science, just in a less formalized way. Their progress still stemmed from the same mechanisms (testing ideas against experience). They didn't build Rome purely by metaphysical speculation.

I understand some of what you are saying, even if I still don't agree in substance.

I think Mathematics and Philosophy take things one step further, and actually construct systems without what is usually thought of as "scientific method" processes. In other words, Mathematics and Philosophy can to a large degree operate outside the realm of tangible reality, and I think the advantage of doing so is that they can do things they would't be able to do with the limitation of empirical observation.

I've said it before, but to me empirical observation always has had a component of "hackiness" that makes me feel uncomfortable.

But yeah, I'm also aware that both Newton and Leibniz created Calculus simply to serve their intent to explain the laws of planetary motion. So there is definitely some interchange in the direction of Physics and Math in that direction as well (and not the other way around).

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Sorry, I have to step in here. Mathematics is extremely rigorous. You have to prove the claims you make.

I never said Math wasn't rigorous. I meant that Mathematics don't operate within the boundaries of the "scientific method" as it applies to the observation of externally observable processes in nature. I've never thought of Mathematics or fields like Logic as examples of disciplines that use the "scientific method".

 

[Sysyphus]

I understand some of what you are saying, even if I still don't agree in substance.

I think Mathematics and Philosophy take things one step further, and actually construct systems without what is usually thought of as "scientific method" processes. In other words, Mathematics and Philosophy can to a large degree operate outside the realm of tangible reality, and I think the advantage of doing so is that they can do things they would't be able to do with the limitation of empirical observation.

I've said it before, but to me empirical observation always has had a component of "hackiness" that makes me feel uncomfortable.

But yeah, I'm also aware that both Newton and Leibniz created Calculus simply to serve their intent to explain the laws of planetary motion. So there is definitely some interchange in the direction of Physics and Math in that direction as well (and not the other way around).

Again, math doesn't in itself explain anything outside of math itself. It's a particular language of analytic statements, that is, true by definition. It doesn't make any claims about how the world is.

As for philosophy, that's such a broad category that it isn't really one thing at all. However, good philosophy mostly serves as tools for conceptual analysis (analytic philosophy is another example of working through tautologies, like math) , framing the questions, or philosophy as more of a therapeutic enterprise (the later Wittgenstein famously claimed that there aren't genuine philosophical problems, only misunderstandings of language, and clearing up these is the task of philosophy). Philosophy (outside of metaphysics, which I've already covered in many posts I believe) doesn't aim at finding new knowledge about how the world is.

How you find empirical observation to be "hackiness" is beyond me (as it's even so intertwined in maths and philosophy). Incidentally, philosophy itself is pretty adamant about the fact that in all we can know, we must start from our sense information.

 

[Sirius Black]

Incidentally, philosophy itself is pretty adamant about the fact that in all we can know, we must start from our sense information.

The basis for inductive reasoning, which incidentally was used to initially describe the scientific phenomena from which most theories are derived.

 

[TahoeTennis]

42

 

[Dilettante]

Philosophy (outside of metaphysics, which I've already covered in many posts I believe) doesn't aim at finding new knowledge about how the world is.

True. I'd say that contemporary Philosophy doesn't aim at finding new knowledge about how the world is, but aims at find out how to use that knowledge.

 

[GBplayer]

As firstservingman previously stated, hypotheses are both testable and falsifiable. It is the nature of science to continue investigating, but that investigation must adhere to the scientific method. So alternate conjectures must also be testable and falsifiable.

And I can guarantee in 2000 years time understanding will be different. New ideas will have occurred

 

[GBplayer]

This is a pretty common myth, I reckon. Sure, a lot of "fringe theories" in science will get totally replaced. But the cornerstones will last. Even if Newton's theories have been expanded upon, the serves of tennis players 400 years from now will still not violate his theory of gravity.

Sirius's point is valid. A lot of people seem to miss the distinction between what is testable and what is merely speculative.

So you are claiming we have worked it all out ? Brave or foolish ?

 

[Sysyphus]

So you are claiming we have worked it all out ? Brave or foolish ?

No, that's not what I said. We'll find a lot of new stuff, and some things never. That doesn't make for instance unicorns a rational idea though.

 

[GBplayer]

No, that's not what I said. We'll find a lot of new stuff, and some things never. That doesn't make for instance unicorns a rational idea though.

So you agree that our ideas ,thought and understanding of the universe will change then? And by the way they might discover unicorns in another system, why not ?

 

[Sysyphus]

And by the way they might discover unicorns in another system, why not ?

But you see, the meaningful question isn't "why not?", but "why?" (or rather, "how?").

 

[GBplayer]

But you see, the meaningful question isn't "why not?", but "why?" (or rather, "how?").

Antelope have grown horns/antlers , so no reason why horse type animals wouldn't, could also be white .

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Again, math doesn't in itself explain anything outside of math itself. It's a particular language of analytic statements, that is, true by definition. It doesn't make any claims about how the world is.

As for philosophy, that's such a broad category that it isn't really one thing at all. However, good philosophy mostly serves as tools for conceptual analysis (analytic philosophy is another example of working through tautologies, like math) , framing the questions, or philosophy as more of a therapeutic enterprise (the later Wittgenstein famously claimed that there aren't genuine philosophical problems, only misunderstandings of language, and clearing up these is the task of philosophy). Philosophy (outside of metaphysics, which I've already covered in many posts I believe) doesn't aim at finding new knowledge about how the world is.

How you find empirical observation to be "hackiness" is beyond me (as it's even so intertwined in maths and philosophy). Incidentally, philosophy itself is pretty adamant about the fact that in all we can know, we must start from our sense information.

Yes, I understand your point of view but I don't share it. The reason is because I believe that the constructs of the mind, stuff like abstract systems, are just as important as external observation.

I don't trust sensorial information as much as I trust abstract reasoning. I know Pythagoras Theorem is true no matter what. Can you say the same about any physical observation? Doesn't the Indeterminacy Principle make you feel uneasy?

How can you feel sure of any observation, when you rely on the very laws and phenomena you wish to understand in order to observe them?

What you say about Philosophy claiming that all we understand and know must come from the senses, I am not really sure about that (but I am no philosopher).

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Yes, I understand your point of view but I don't share it. The reason is because I believe that the constructs of the mind, stuff like abstract systems, are just as important as external observation.

I don't trust sensorial information as much as I trust abstract reasoning. I know Pythagoras Theorem is true no matter what. Can you say the same about any physical observation? Doesn't the Indeterminacy Principle make you feel uneasy?

How can you feel sure of any observation, when you rely on the very laws and phenomena you wish to understand in order to observe them?

What you say about Philosophy claiming that all we understand and know must come from the senses, I am not really sure about that (but I am no philosopher).

but(t) when you feel the spray... do you ever doubt about your own perception ?

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

but(t) when you feel the spray... do you ever doubt about your own perception ?

NEVER!!!!

 

[Sysyphus]

Yes, I understand your point of view but I don't share it. The reason is because I believe that the constructs of the mind, stuff like abstract systems, are just as important as external observation.

I don't trust sensorial information as much as I trust abstract reasoning. I know Pythagoras Theorem is true no matter what. Can you say the same about any physical observation?

This is exactly what makes empiricism work for describing the real world, and "pure reasoning" not. The reason purely tautological systems can make 100% truths is just that: they are tautological. You seem to not understand this distinction given that I have to explain it so many times. Tautological systems cannot say anything outside of the tautologies themselves. Empiricism can't claim to reach 100% certainty precisely for the reason that it has to form itself according to how the world works, and not the other way around.

Doesn't the Indeterminacy Principle make you feel uneasy?

Because it's stochastic and not deterministic? No. See, that's accepting that the world behaves that way, instead of insisting that the world behave in ways that feels intuitive to us personally (which is frankly what you have been doing several times in these discussions).

How can you feel sure of any observation, when you rely on the very laws and phenomena you wish to understand in order to observe them?

Yes. We could be brains in vats after all.