 |
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
as you can see, it relies upon there being an experiment
|
Ummm no, observation, in terms of testing a theory against it's premises is the core of experiment, namely what makes it useful. Either you accept that experiment is not the core of science, or you expand your definition of experiment to include qualitative analysis too. Consider the Webster definition:
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dict...ch&va=empirical
Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal
Pronunciation: -i-k&l
Variant(s): also em·pir·ic /-ik/
Function: adjective
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
4 : of or relating to empiricism
- em·pir·i·cal·ly /-i-k(&-)lE/ adverb
quote:
it wasn't until science came along, and required experimental observations, that we began to make the advances as technological acheivements that we did
|
No-one has denied that science is better at scientific endeavors, the fact that before technology got so advanced to render qualitative logic useless at invention philosophers and scientists were considered one and the same indicates my argument!
quote:
if you had studied your math (which I have, as I have a degree in math) you would know that some hard mathematicians like to base everything on logic, and some areas (especially analysis) fail it (you are correct that some consider induction to be logic also, however not all hold this view)
|
No, mathematicians like to base everything on deductive logic, which is quantatively stronger than qualitative logic, i.e. Hume's "Is-Ought" gap of deduction-induction.
quote:
and if you have done physics, you would know that all the time you do things that math tells you is wrong, or that you can't do, you do them and because you like the answer you roll with it and publish it
basically it seems like everyone but you says that science is emperical
|
What?  That's a complete misrepresentation and a strawman. I hold science to be empirical at its core, hence my definitions, indeed that is a lynchpin of my argument. I cannot comment on human failures, one assumes competence and intellectual honesty in scientists, so differentiate between the scientist and his concept.
I would of course ask you why you bring the notion of "success" into this? Are these fields to be measured by the degree and nature of consequence they have for mankind? If so, you're asking the question of philosophy "why do it at all?", which is of course irrelevant to this debate, though I'm perfectly willing to answer if you want to pursue it.
quote:
your statement, which is that it does not need to be emperical, is a backwards movement back to the time before the enlightenment
|
I never said that, I'm saying that science is logic tested against empirical observation. Science is empirical, philosophy need not be, but that does not stop the two from bleeding into each other, since fundamentally the distinction between quantitative and qualitative logic is an artifical one.
quote:
(you appear to not be using the same definition of logic as everyone else also, somehow I am not surprised, you will find that it is easier to discuss things with people, and understand them, if you use the commonly held definitions)
|
I am  . You will find it easier to discuss things with people if you try to understand the arguments, instead of arguing for the sake of it and not engaging, and using strawmen againt them .
I would ask you now to show me where I said that science need not be empirical?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
actually yes, you are correct, science says nothing about invisible undetectable little elves who dance on electrons
it does says something about electron size (currently electrons are point particles and so there is nothing for them to dance on) and spin and as such those particular elves are unscientific (or at least, we know something about them)
now I would maintain that invisible, undetectable little elves that dance on electrons are illogical
but that is a different discussion
I am just saying that currently god(s) are undetectable, I am not saying that there will never be a time when they are detectable
I will point out that you could postulate a god who turns rocks blue, than you could watch millions upon millions of rocks for a long length of time (you would also need a model like that god turns the rocks blue randomly or something), you could than come up with evidence for or against such a god (but it wouldn't be conclusive)
there is no difference, right now, between 'm-theory' and god, as far as what science says (a lot of smart people are both for and against both ideas) (I am sorry, there doesn't seem to be many people who hold with your little elf theory)
now you might argue that those who beleive in god are being illogical, while those who beleive in string theory are being logical (these ideas are not mutually inconsistant btw, I know string theorists (M-theorists) who beleive in God)
basically, looking at your post, have you read and understood anything I have posted?
Jon Miller
(just as it would be possible to get evidence against my hypothetical rock painting god, so would it be possible to get evidence against the Christian God, however you woul dneed a time machine I believe because you would need to go back and look at Jesus)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
guys
observation is experiment
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Notice--observation OR experiment. We can't do experiments to prove the evolution of dinosaurs into birds, but we can observe fossils and physiological similarities.
If god is in any way relevant, we would be able to observe something about it. But you claim we can't. How you know this, I don't know--seems to me it's a complete unscientific guess on your part to claim god is absolutely untestable. You know this how--divine revelation to you?
If god is untestable/unobservable, then god doesn't matter. |
I never said god(s) were untestable. Ijust said that they aren't currently testable (and I don't see them being for the forseeable future).
Think about the situation before we had many of the apparatuses we have today. There was no way that we could test to see if an atom could be broken down. But did it still affect us? yes
things that are untestable can still affect us
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
you guys seriously need to do some reading
you lack very basic understanding into what empericism is
by obsevation it means physical observation
and science is repeatable, otherwise ghosts and angels would be scientific because people claim to have seen them/interacted with them
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
Boris, I am taking out my frustrations with Whaleboy on you. I am sorry. Obviously you are missing a bit of what I am saying, if you care, please go back and read it again.
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
now I would maintain that invisible, undetectable little elves that dance on electrons are illogical
|
But what of the cause?
quote:
basically, looking at your post, have you read and understood anything I have posted?
|
You're starting to attack posters now, I would ask you to desist.
quote:
observation is experiment
|
No, observation is, to take it literally, the core of what makes an experiment useful to science, that we can observe effects and consequences of given dependent and independent variables.
quote:
I never said god(s) were untestable. Ijust said that they aren't currently testable (and I don't see them being for the forseeable future).
|
I think you're limiting yourself in terms of what we can do for no reason other than what you could call an historical political correctness, whereby atheists are encouraged to say "well we'll never be able to prove or disprove..." etc, which to me begs the question "why not?".
quote:
by obsevation it means physical observation
|
On what grounds do you hold that experiment and observation are the same?
quote:
you show more and more that you don't understand anything about science
|
Charming. Please answer the points and the questions asked of you. This thread has been good and civil so far and I don't want it to turn into personal insults, so if you don't want to answer the questions I suggest you either leave the thread, or in this case at least explain *why* I don't understand anything about science .
quote:
(just as it would be possible to get evidence against my hypothetical rock painting god, so would it be possible to get evidence against the Christian God, however you woul dneed a time machine I believe because you would need to go back and look at Jesus)
|
Such could be said of any character from history, ficticious or not, however that we cannot invent a time-machine leaves us with certain problems that are resolved by such as Occams razor.
quote:
I am just saying that currently god(s) are undetectable, I am not saying that there will never be a time when they are detectable
|
Which would devalue and denigrate the very notion of a god.
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dict...&va=observation
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dict...h&va=experiment
quote:
Boris, I am taking out my frustrations with Whaleboy on you. I am sorry. Obviously you are missing a bit of what I am saying, if you care, please go back and read it again.
|
What frustrations? If you're having an emotional reaction to the thread, might be wise to take a break, as I will shortly because I have an appointment at the gym. If not, please keep this free of ad hominem.
quote:
Phopsophers telling scientists what science is (yes, I'm talking about you, Whaleboy).
|
Why not? There is a massive debate about what science actually is in philosophy, whereas scientists are the practitioners of the philosophy that is under discussion. I am not seeking to denegrate one field or the other but I would ask why these artificial barriers between them? The debate itself is what scientists are doing and how they do it, rather than their conclusions, obviously, if someone wants to discuss a theory they need a scientific background not a philosophical one (though there is no stopping anyone having both).
And you may not realise, my qualifications in philosophy are zero, except a D at A-level  . Technically i'm more qualified as a scientist so perhaps take that into consideration when calling me a philosopher .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
Just to make things straight, my understanding of your positions are thus
Boris agrees with me that science is based upon physical evidence (be it observations or experiment (same thing))
but thinks that the lack of evidence of something means that science suggests it doesn't exist
my answer to that (Besides read back through the arguments) is think about the history of science
there was no evidence (as far as we could see) for electrons or up quarks or down quarks or even hydrogen in the 18th century
but did scientists say that they were not there?
no, they didn't say anything about them (Scientifically) which is the proper thing to do about god (and your little elves)
Whaleboy disagrees with me that science requries physical observations or experiment and insists that logic is the same thing as science
personally, I am really baffled as to how he can say that, and don't see how he can understand anything abotu science at all
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
ok, than why did you say that experiment was not needed in all cases?
because every time that I said that physical experiment was needed, you would always say that you didn't see the difference with logic
JM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
Also, I only claim that the only deffinition that everyone agrees on is deductive reasoning
that was a note
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
that would explain your understanding of empericism
so how about this (because I have gotten frustrated with you, as you can probably tell I was a poor teacher), you read something on empericism, and we can continue this later perhaps?
|
Ah I think we may have a case of misunderstood irony here. That my qualifications are lacking did not stop me from spending years of reading up on epistemology and debate with philosophy grads. But I'm no blowhard and I'm perfectly willing to accept others in this debate when they have a point and not attack their basis.
Empiricism at the heart of scientific method (that hypotheses need to be tested upon our observations (be they conceptual or "real world) in a consistent manner. That we accept hypotheses provisionally as theories when we induce them on the basis of such research rather than deduce them in the unapplied mathematical sense. You split empiricism into rationalism (analytic and continental) and objectivism. Analytic rationalism is the more atheist of the two, in that truth exists and can be determined by critical reason and analysis which tends to manifest itself in humanism or science to that end. Continental rationalism is more epistemological, in that reason is the source of knowledge and that we start with a priori principles and work up from them, which "British empiricism" rejects, in saying that all knowledge is sensory. That's reconciled by Objectivism (of Ayn Rand fame *cringe*) which checks the intrinsic implication of the former empiricism and replaces is with a Kantian universalism. I personally reject that, but only on the epistemological level, it is still the basis for scientific method.
quote:
ok, than why did you say that experiment was not needed in all cases?
|
The experiment as you define it would not apply to philosophy (whereby predictions are tested by conceptual observation), and my argument is that there is no natural distinction between science, logic and philosophy.
If you accept that experiment is a term that is not exclusive to science, then your definition of science becomes meaningless and it instead applies to all fields. Is that your concession?
quote:
I think the ultimate test of the existence of God is the search for how the universe was created because of all definitions of God or his attributes we all seem to agree that God created the universe or to some IS the universe. This search for our origins is relevant to us and is based on science.
|
I concur. Again this is one of those areas that rationality in theism undermines the faith, and faith renders theism irrelevant to its scientific pretensions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
no
I don't agree
you are missing the point, science requires physical observation or experiment
so I go back to my early point of being extremely baffled at how you are not understanding
science requries physical observation/experiment
logic (and philosophy) does not
Jon Miller
(you also seem to be arguing that all of philosophy and logic is emperical, anyone will tell you that they aren't)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
science requries physical observation/experiment
logic (and philosophy) does not
|
Which is based upon the assumption that observation and experiment is solely empirical, which I have shown to be not the case. Say one has a philosophy which one seeks to test against another. Each makes a prediction, and each can be tested, using the same logical processes, the same manner and the same process of investigation. The only differences? That one occurs empirically and one occurs conceptually, and that one is (presumably for science in almost all cases) quantative and one is qualitative.
Now some epistemological theories, representative realism and skepticism namely, would hold that even that is empirical, and broadly in an epistemological context I concur, however this debate rests on the distinction between the hypothetical and the categorical, so for now empirical is consistent within the categorical. The Lockean position for example, would hold that the mind comes to be "furnished" as he puts it, through experience, experiment, observation and thus also doubt. So even if we accept that empiricism applies to the hypothetical context, it holds that logic and philosophy do rely upon it.
quote:
anyone will tell you that they aren't
|
Not so, as I think I have shown. Yours seems to me not an empirical position but a rationalist, in other words that reason is of much greater importance than sense experience with regards to empiricism, which favours my position naturally. So both sides of the debate between rationalism and empiricism (a long running one I might add), reject your distinction.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
but everyone but some philosophers agree with it
including scientists, which are most important (since they are the ones who are actively engaged in it)
maybe we will continue this later
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
but everyone but some philosophers agree with it
|
In a philosophical field forgive me but I'd be more inclined to go with philosophers than those who are not. It's simple common sense? Who would you trust to fix your pipes... one single plumber or a legion of merchant bankers?
quote:
including scientists, which are most important (since they are the ones who are actively engaged in it)
|
I disagree. Scientists are in my experience aware and very good at the science, but not in the basis for the science. One learns scientific philosophy and method by rote and learn to apply it in every more spectacular manifestations, but relatively few scientists in my opinion truly know what they are doing as a philosopher would see it. That is why it is prudent in my view for scientists to have some philosophical background in what they are doing, just as scientific philosophers tend to have grounding in science, or medical ethicists tend to be of the medical profession.
I found that out to my great joy and surprise when I was able to have a fulfilling debate on the topic of medical ethics a few weeks ago when I was staying with a friend who's a final-year medical student at Queen Mary's in London. Her and her friends, and myself were able to debate even though we were coming from completely different angles, and because of that difference, able to inform each other, and for my part interest them in philosophy and for their part I now have a plethora of differing medical opinions and concepts to inform my ethical debating.
Last edited by Whaleboy on 02-01-2005 at 23:12
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
mathematics is a science under one definition of the word
I made it very clear though that I was refering to emperical sciences
and I would say that astrophysics is a sciences
my point is that sciences, using the common definition of the word, are emperical, and thus are based upon physical observations or experiments
so for the purposes of the argument observations and experiment are equivilent, since both are physical
quit trying to poke holes in my argument with meaningless quibbles
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:16
|
|
UR: I'm not attacking logic, I'm attacking "logic." Defined as the dressing-up of one's own prejudices as self-evident, generally by hiding behind jargon, distortions of accepted truths, whatever. Many people here seem to think that creation scientists and company have a monopoly on that sort of thing, but it seems to me that everyone does it. Every single person. You do it, I do it, we all do it at least some of the time. So we can't "rely on" anything, to best answer your question. There's no messiah of reason in my book. That would require human beings to be consistently rational, which is not the case. But I get the feeling we're not really communicating here. Or at least I'm not. Nertz.
WRT science, it's impossible to have a genuine spirit of scientific inquiry that considers the presence of God. If you accept the existence of God, you have to admit that he/she/it is not and never can be a controlled variable. So any scientific study of anything has to try to describe things without deity. But that's just the nature of the discipline. To go from there to "there's no scientific evidence of God," is sort of duh. It's a tautology.
And I've said that before lots of times. The usual response I get is, "science says no such thing. The only qualification for scientific evidence is such and such." So I guess I don't see why I bother. Just to say I tried, I guess. But it's still true that a lot of basic scientific assumptions exclude the possibility of God. Just off the top of my head, uniformitarianism: if there is a God, there's no reason to assume that what happens now is what happened way back when. Yes, that's not a scientifically valid thing to say. That's the whole bloody point, and that's all I have to say.
Whaleboy, I agree that this has been an interesting discussion, and the longest I've had on Poly on the subject that hasn't turned to flames. Huzzah. From what I read in that Wikipedia entry, Moore doesn't count as anything you can cite in an argument like this Russell fellow did. It's not a system of morals so much as an intellectual agnosticism. Good exists, and we can't explain it, so don't try. Or something like that. To be honest, I found the wikipedia rather obtuse on that point. I'm not terribly well-read in philosophy, I just know from my scant overview that all the ones I've heard of use less-than-ideal reasoning. Just to give you fair warning though, don't get me started on Nietzsche...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
so for the purposes of the argument observations and experiment are equivilent, since both are physical
|
I disagree, since an experiment can comprise an observation, but an observation is not an experiment... so experiment is necessarily observation, whereas observation is only sufficiently an experiment. Penguins and birds .
quote:
From what I read in that Wikipedia entry, Moore doesn't count as anything you can cite in an argument like this Russell fellow did. It's not a system of morals so much as an intellectual agnosticism. Good exists, and we can't explain it, so don't try. Or something like that. To be honest, I found the wikipedia rather obtuse on that point. I'm not terribly well-read in philosophy, I just know from my scant overview that all the ones I've heard of use less-than-ideal reasoning. Just to give you fair warning though, don't get me started on Nietzsche...
|
Indeed, I can't say that I agree with Moore either. I think it's perfectly possibly to construct a sociological moral system without using God, instead the presumption that other people exist as I said much earlier, but I think that Wittgenstein and Russell can be far more helpful to us here than Moore, whom Russell used in the debate with Copleston as merely an illustration I suspect.
quote:
after several pages I hope we've come back around. I thought the thread had been changed to Why I am not a Scientist
|
True. It's gone in the direction I'd initially hoped it wouldn't, and I'm partly responsible for that... namely that someone would pick up on a relatively inconsequential point, we'd debate the point satisfactorily, and then go off at a tangent on something almost pointless to a point that itself is almost pointless to the debate! It's an Off Topic tradition I think .
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-01-2005 21:37
|