 |
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
No, science is different than logic. Same with mathematics. Now, I was taking issue with your beleif that atheism was more scientific. It is a different issue to argue that it is more logical.
|
How do you make the distinction? I'm not trying to goad you or anything this is something you have raised which interests me greatly.
quote:
Science uses logic, it is much more than that though.
|
In that light it would be prudent for me to ask you how you would define both science and logic?
quote:
Of course, that is what philosophy is, is arguing what is more logical. You know, I am sure, that most consider god to be an open question in philosophy.
|
Philosophy and science on their own are in my opinion insufficient to answer the question, since philosophy lacks the scientific basis from which to describe, say, relativity, while science lacks the philosophy of logic and metaphysical approach, hence I think you need both to be able to make a stab at this question, otherwise a "here be dragons" consensus will emerge, which it has, and I think it is harmful to the debate by limiting ourselves in such a way.
quote:
When I say string theory I include M theory in with it (as everyone does who talks about it in this decade).
|
Not so. M theory is completely different to string theory, though it is a derivative of it, we don't say that uncertainty principle is relativistic merely because it can be deduced from special relativity. M theory is a stab at a TOE, string theory is not. I say a stab because to use Hawkings analogy it's rather like a jigsaw with all the perimeter pieces but none of the middle. The only reason imo why people lump them together is because they're both dealing with the same or similar questions and they're both bloody difficult to get your head around at first.
quote:
Science uses logic, it is much more than that though.
|
Then what else would it use, except logic?
quote:
(3rd year Physics Graduate Student)
|
(Blowhard)  jk. Our respective qualifications are irrelevant if you accept that you are not dealing with a "nonscientist", and that you are dealing with people who have more than a vague idea what they're talking about  .
But again I would ask you to define and differentiate logic and science, also scientific method/philosophy too I presume.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
Science uses mathematics, mathematics isn't a science. If you look at every other science, even the social ones, you will see they follow the deffinition I laid out. Mathematics doesn't.
That is what made science different than things like astrology and alchemy. And also what made science so successful. That is hypothesis, model, and than experiment.
Another example of why experiment is required. For a long time, people thought, because of logic, that heavy objects would fall faster than lighter objects. But than they did an experiment, and discovered that they fall at the same rate.
Logic is not science. It has not succesfully explained our world. It is science, which is logic in addition to experiment, which has had the successes that you see arround you.
Jon Miller
(it is 9am in the morning and I didn't sleep last night)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
In that light it would be prudent for me to ask you how you would define both science and logic?
|
I told you how I define it. It is how most others define it as well (philosophers and scientists). Logic is the provence of philosophy and mathematics. Science is very different.
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Not so. M theory is completely different to string theory, though it is a derivative of it, we don't say that uncertainty principle is relativistic merely because it can be deduced from special relativity. M theory is a stab at a TOE, string theory is not. I say a stab because to use Hawkings analogy it's rather like a jigsaw with all the perimeter pieces but none of the middle. The only reason imo why people lump them together is because they're both dealing with the same or similar questions and they're both bloody difficult to get your head around at first.
|
People who say they do string theory now days, are really doing m-theory. It was what changed when they thought string theory was a dead end in the mid 90s (they discovered string theories could be generalised with quantum supergravity into m-theory). So if they say they are a string theorist, it means that they are doing m-theory. Actually, a lot of particle physicists, who don't even say they are doing string theory, do some m-theory stuff as well.
But this completely gets off my point, which you have completely ignored. That is that string theory (or m-theory/supergravity/etc) is not something that can be currently experimentally verified or not (and currently, they don't see any way how to do so in the future either).
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Then what else would it use, except logic?
|
It uses repeatable experiments. If you throw that away than you are returning to the time before the scientific revolution where all we had was metaphysics. And surely history has taught you how much more successful science is than metaphysics?
That is why I am upset. I am upset because the pseudointellectuals want to return to the time before science, to do metaphysics, and the pretty much all the rest to know or care about it as long as they get shiny new gadgets.
Jon Miller
(this is one of my pet peeves, if you can not tell)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
Logic is a branch of Philosophy. It is also (not really though, the conservative branch of mathematics became unpopular in the beggining of the 20th century) the foundation of mathematics (anywhere which uses induction proofs (most everywhere) actually leaves hard logic, but that is a different subject).
Physics, like every other science, starts with a hypothesis. This hypothesis is developed into a mathematical model. This model is this tested by repeatable experiments. These experiments than put bounds on the model.
That is the difference between mathematics, logic, philosophy, and science.
The experiments are neccesary. They are what allowed us to get beyond aristotle and the other philosophers.
Bounds are what is important. That is why we know that the aether is not interacting to a pretty large degree (don't even remember the magnitude off the top of my head), as well as that neutrino's way less than an eV (but have some mass), as well as that the Higgs particle (which the standard model requires, which means that string theory, and so m-theory also requires) is above 120 MeV (but the standard model says it is below 140 MeV).
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Science uses mathematics, mathematics isn't a science. If you look at every other science, even the social ones, you will see they follow the deffinition I laid out. Mathematics doesn't.
That is what made science different than things like astrology and alchemy. And also what made science so successful. That is hypothesis, model, and than experiment.
Another example of why experiment is required. For a long time, people thought, because of logic, that heavy objects would fall faster than lighter objects. But than they did an experiment, and discovered that they fall at the same rate.
Logic is not science. It has not succesfully explained our world. It is science, which is logic in addition to experiment, which has had the successes that you see arround you.
|
All you are effectively doing there is claiming that science is applied logic. Critical theory uses the hypothetical->theoretical model in exactly the same manner, except that science works in an empirical context, i.e., applied logic. Logic of course is not science and can be used to justify or refute anything, including as you suggest alchemy and the likes, but the application of logic can be flawed, hence the existence of debates, but logic itself as an internally consistent system need not (at least within given dimensions of consideration).
quote:
I told you how I define it. It is how most others define it as well (philosophers and scientists). Logic is the provence of philosophy and mathematics. Science is very different.
|
But what makes it different? You said earlier that science uses mathematics (which we can safely say is a hefty branch of logic, i.e. quantative logic) but mathematics is not science. But mathematics is critical theory's biggest customer, not to mention critical thinking  .
quote:
So basically I am saying that I don't think that you have more than a vague idea with respect to what you are talking about in regards to string theory/m-theory.
|
I'm better able to talk about relativity and temporal physics but frankly I think it's wrong to make assessments about people's skills as though you are in a position of greater authority after a few lines of posting, in full knowledge that I am not discussing those theories except where they are relevant to the topic at hand (Occams razor).
quote:
People who say they do string theory now days, are really doing m-theory. It was what changed when they thought string theory was a dead end in the mid 90s (they discovered string theories could be generalised with quantum supergravity into m-theory). So if they say they are a string theorist, it means that they are doing m-theory. Actually, a lot of particle physicists, who don't even say they are doing string theory, do some m-theory stuff as well.
But this completely gets off my point, which you have completely ignored. That is that string theory (or m-theory/supergravity/etc) is not something that can be currently experimentally verified or not (and currently, they don't see any way how to do so in the future either).
|
Not solely, quantum supergravity is 11-dimensional but P-brane takes it to (I think) 15 (though I might be mistaken there it's a long time). That has the advantage of being able to account for singularities (intersection of p-branes in extra dimensions whereby information about the invisible (to us) properties of the hole are stored as waves, and presumably also the Schrodinger equation can be used to assess the future state of the black hole (position and velocity). For the reason that you claim the theory is just a hypothesis presumably equates to the fact that we cannot see those internal properties. Except now that some physicists claim that information can escape a black hole, so we shall soon see. It is a testable hypothesis -> theory.
quote:
It uses repeatable experiments. If you throw that away than you are returning to the time before the scientific revolution where all we had was metaphysics. And surely history has taught you how much more successful science is than metaphysics?
|
Repeatable experiments are only used to statistically verify the results relative to each other and show that the theory is predictable. No-one is suggesting that that be thrown away, science is naturally more predisposed to be more successful *at science* than metaphysics, but that works the other way around too. I assume you are arguing that string theory (in the sense that we are using it here) is metaphysics? In which case, surely that implies that todays metaphysics may be tomorrows physics?
quote:
That is why I am upset. I am upset because the pseudointellectuals want to return to the time before science, to do metaphysics, and the pretty much all the rest to know or care about it as long as they get shiny new gadgets.
|
I must say that you have very much the wrong impression here, if you wish rephrase that into an argument otherwise there's no point introducing your pet peeves.
quote:
(anywhere which uses induction proofs (most everywhere) actually leaves hard logic, but that is a different subject)
|
Well yes hence the difference between induction and deduction, and necessary and sufficient conditions.
quote:
Physics, like every other science, starts with a hypothesis. This hypothesis is developed into a mathematical model. This model is this tested by repeatable experiments. These experiments than put bounds on the model.
|
That it is made into a mathematical model is not the basis of science, the idea is to demonstrate a relationship between dependent and independent variables, to put it simply. That is precisely how philosophies are tested and debated, albeit qualitatively rather than quantitively.
quote:
The experiments are neccesary. They are what allowed us to get beyond aristotle and the other philosophers.
|
I should point out that it's a pretty big fallacy if you are claiming that philosophers have not been able to get beyond Aristotolian logic . Indeed the biggest irony would be in the pre-Socratics... those that were considered the first scientists, using recognisable scientific method, actually used "Aristotolian" logic (for want of a better term, Aristotle being a post-Socratic).
You might also find it a better idea to put all of your responses in one post, that way this thread won't approach 500 posts nearly so fast, thus can remain open longer .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Not solely, quantum supergravity is 11-dimensional but P-brane takes it to (I think) 15 (though I might be mistaken there it's a long time). That has the advantage of being able to account for singularities (intersection of p-branes in extra dimensions whereby information about the invisible (to us) properties of the hole are stored as waves, and presumably also the Schrodinger equation can be used to assess the future state of the black hole (position and velocity). For the reason that you claim the theory is just a hypothesis presumably equates to the fact that we cannot see those internal properties. Except now that some physicists claim that information can escape a black hole, so we shall soon see. It is a testable hypothesis -> theory.
|
You are wrong here. I can suggest some string theory/m-theory books if you would like.
And as I said, they hope to use blackholes to do experiments to test m-theory (since you want me to use that word), but they cannnot do so yet.
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
Did you miss me say it a ~7 times? Science differentiates itself from mathematics (and thus philosophy) by requiring repeatable experiment.
It is what has proven successful. All that time (at least 3000 years) before that when we just had mathematics and philosophy shows that science is more successful. (and that the difference is important)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
String theory is currently mathematics. My point being is that you and others have argued that atheism is more scientific. I was merely pointing out that m-theory is on a similiar level (as far as science is concerend) as theism.
Science does not (and cannot with our present tools) say anything about either of them. And might possibly in the future. But to say that it is more scientific to not beleive in M-theory is silly. As it is also silly to say it is more scientific to not beleive in god(s).
Basically what I am taking issue with is you saying that atheism is more scientific. Whether it is more logical or not is a different discussion, and one that I do not want to debate right now.
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
You are wrong here. I can suggest some string theory/m-theory books if you would like.
|
How about explaining how I am wrong here? I wouldn't have the money for more books at the moment, even if I had the time .
quote:
Did you miss me say it a ~7 times? Science differentiates itself from mathematics (and thus philosophy) by requiring repeatable experiment.
|
That doesn't answer my question, which is asked of you how repeatable experiments are integral to science, as opposed to the testable hypothesis -> theory concept? If I were to supposedly introduce a philosophical problem that can be resolved by repeatable tests, would that suddenly qualify it as science?
quote:
Basically what I am taking issue with is you saying that atheism is more scientific. Whether it is more logical or not is a different discussion, and one that I do not want to debate right now.
|
My apologies but if you want to try somewhat to settle the question you are going to have to answer the question! I hold that science is indistinct from logic, and is effectively an exercise in logic. One could also argue that repeatable experiments are performed to the ends of a logical conclusion, and that a scientific investigation takes the form of a logical investigation with premises, observations, reasoning and a conclusion/relationship. To say "whether it is more logical or not is a different discussion" assumes that science and logic is distinct, which is an assumption I do not accept, with good reason I might add if I may, and thus it is the obvious avenue for discussion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
What do you mean by testable hypothesis?
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science
sci·ence Audio pronunciation of "science" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.
1.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5. Science Christian Science.
[Middle English, knowledge, learning, from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scins, scient- present participle of scre, to know. See skei- in Indo-European Roots.]
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dict...arch&va=science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...sophical_issues
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
what do you mean by tested?
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
ok
so I can think in my head that i makes sense for something to fall faster because it is heavier
therefore I have tested my hypothesis (it is logical) and it becomes a valid theory
you are taking us back to the dark ages man
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
so you complete ignore all history than?
and the difference in the success of what I call science, and philosophy? (which you insist on calling science?)
think man, don't just argue against me becuase I am telling you you are wrong
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
what I call science
which are the fields of physics, biology, etc
are all based upon experiment
ask any scientist
if they could just sit and do conceptual exercising in their heads, we would be nowhere
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
so you complete ignore all history than?
|
I'm sorry I don't entirely understand firstly how you can arrive at that conclusion and how the statement is relevant here.
quote:
and the difference in the success of what I call science, and philosophy? (which you insist on calling science?)
|
I have previously said that philosophy is not science, but that they both use logic and can bleed into each other, whereas you have said that logic and science are different and I have argued against that point.
quote:
think man, don't just argue against me becuase I am telling you you are wrong
|
Look I don't want to blow my own trumpet but we've had a good thread so far, one of the best debates I've had on the OT in a long time, and I have been civil, I've been reasonable and I've tried to engage with the opponents argument to the best of my ability, which one can't do by acting like the baby without its bottle, I honestly don't think I am as you charge.
quote:
what I call science
which are the fields of physics, biology, etc
are all based upon experiment
ask any scientist
if they could just sit and do conceptual exercising in their heads, we would be nowhere
|
That to me seems a little empty and opaque. Again you differentiate between the manners of logic... would you say that quantitative logic (mathematics) and qualitative logic (language) are incompatible, and that only one or the other can be used in either field (science and philosophy respectively, even if you were to assume that science is a manner of applied logic)? Again you need to deconstruct the experiment and see what it is about experiment that makes it useful, namely that it allows us to test predictions.
You also seem to have this prejudice against "conceptual exercising" in this context, I'd ask you to perhaps elaborate upon or at least defend it (the prejudice that is).
Also again I'd ask of you to try and keep your responses to one post, otherwise we risk hitting 500 posts prematurely and this thread getting closed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
dude
mathematics isn't even logic
you don't know what logic is
a lot of mathematics is based upon induction, which is not based on logic
physics goes beyond mathematics
Jon Miller
(as far as my words and frustration level, I have been up a long long time, also, oyu seem to be being needlessly obtuse)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
you don't know what logic is
a lot of mathematics is based upon induction, which is not based on logic
|
I've also taken logic and critical thinking courses, enough to know that inductive logic is, strangely, logic . I think it would help you to read on the distinction between a sound argument and a valid argument, since it covers this quite nicely. I'll also turn your argument on its head and ask "what is not logic?".
quote:
oyu seem to be being needlessly obtuse
|
I'm being as concise as I can be while covering my words such that I don't allow assumptions to creep in, weakening my flank, as it were, to certain semantics which can disrupt proceedings .
quote:
physics goes beyond mathematics
|
How so? (excepting applied mathematics and the ends of the experiment?)
quote:
you would know that physics doesn't always follow the laws of mathematics
|
If you mean uncertainty principle or the use of infinities, you'll know that formerly it is a mathematical principle used under given circumstances and secondly, that infinites are used and derived frequently in mathematics. If you mean that sometimes results do not match the mathematical theory, you know as well as I do about wildcards in experiments .
quote:
you basically have a completely different deffinition than everyone else
|
As a matter of fact, for my first use of the term I always check in the dictionary (the Websters and OED definition is better). I fail to see how my definition of empirical (perhaps you could tell me how you see it?) differs from any standard dictionary definition?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
here is the deffinition of emperical
" 1.
1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine."
as you can see, it relies upon there being an experiment
it is what the difference is between science, and mathematics and philosophy
we had philosophy and mathematics since ~1000 BC, we have had what I and everyone else calls science since ~1600 AD
now which has been more successful?
it wasn't until science came along, and required experimental observations, that we began to make the advances as technological acheivements that we did
in the discussion of what mathematics is it points out the difference clearly there also, foundations or logic is one of the branches of mathematics
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)
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
and it has to be noted that historically, the successes that we attribute to science did not come about until things were done emperically
your statement, which is that it does not need to be emperical, is a backwards movement back to the time before the enlightenment
I haven't even gotten into the weaknesses of logic as far as being the only thing you use is (see Goedel's incompleteness theorem)
Jon Miller
(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)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
there is a difference
what we call science requires empericism to be what it is
if you lose empericism, you lose everything
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
No it is not. Science does not deal with things that can not have experiments made about them.
Jon Miller |
This paints you into an interesting position. Are you therefore saying that any supposition that arises that cannot be experimented for is, ergo, equally valid scientifically with its gainsaying?
I'm drawn back to our friends, the invisible, undetectable little elves who dance on electrons, making them spin for us. Since we can't disprove the little gnomes exist, is a lack of belief in them just as "unscientific" as a belief in them?
It seems to me that you're special pleading for god. Perhaps this is because you haven't defined god--can we get a definition of it? Unless you don't have a definition for god, in which case the entire discussion is pointless.
In order for a god to be completely untestable, it has to be completely undetectable. For this to be true, said god cannot manifest any observable effect on the natural world. If that's the case, then god is 100% irrelevant. Science decrees that such things are to be tossed out of any explanations, naturally, since if they were a necessary part of an explanation, they would, by definition, be detectable. Ergo, believing in a god as an explanation for something is unscientific, just as surely as believing in the elves is. I have never seen anyone give a cogent explanation as why god is somehow a more logical belief than the elves, just gotten handwaving dismissals of it. Well, no more dismissals! We must deal with the damnable elves!
Now, the lack of belief in god is also the more scientifically reasonable position, since everything we currently know about our universe indicates there is no need for a god. We no longer need god to explain how magnetism works, or how wind and fire work, or how atoms work, etc. God was invoked as an explanation as to how everything came to be just as it was. Through science, such explanations have been rendered old wives tales. This is where the definition of god is important, because mankind has been defining god for thousands of years. And all the definitions have ended up being shown untrue, until it has retreated to god being an unknowable, undetectable, untestable...something that is vaguely responsible for something (though nobody can seem to agree what) and is now not doing much of anything that we can see. I think it's then fairly scientific to believe, based on observation, that any tenet that has been forced into such a rout by the advance of science--to the point of irrelevancy--is probably false.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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 19:06
|