The Decay of Science
I hope to see a debate or discussion regarding the anti-scientific sentiments or movement towards the decay of science. So, I'll suggest some ideas that could help stir the subject into the darker reality than what we're used to. This is written in a rush, and there is certainly much room for improvement.
So, what do we commonly hear? -- anti-vaxers, superstition, creationism, etc. While you are welcome to touch on these subjects, let's think of what we can ignore regarding the decay of science, as prep work. Then, we can move on to the real 'reality' of scientific survival:
1. That just like any other phenomenon in the history of histories of human civilizations -- science is cyclical. No one can stop this as a natural occurrence. Length of time is not an indication of success, if you get my drift.
2. That violence can defeat science. There is a tipping point after which, it's just all decay.
3. That science is anathema to other, equally powerful, schools of thoughts.
If anyone is interested, please post your thoughts. Thanks.
So, what do we commonly hear? -- anti-vaxers, superstition, creationism, etc. While you are welcome to touch on these subjects, let's think of what we can ignore regarding the decay of science, as prep work. Then, we can move on to the real 'reality' of scientific survival:
1. That just like any other phenomenon in the history of histories of human civilizations -- science is cyclical. No one can stop this as a natural occurrence. Length of time is not an indication of success, if you get my drift.
2. That violence can defeat science. There is a tipping point after which, it's just all decay.
3. That science is anathema to other, equally powerful, schools of thoughts.
If anyone is interested, please post your thoughts. Thanks.
Comments (275)
I think this goes without saying. Please see my first point.
The cyclical-development thinking has already taken into consideration the maximum advancement in science in their formulation of this phenomenon. Cyclical in this regard means that it has a beginning, progressing into the more advanced stages, culminating in the most impressive reach of scientific knowledge, then gradually descending into decay.
What do you mean by the darker reality than we are used to?
Is it a down cycle in science or rather a willingness to assert social power? If you can’t get your way in reasoned fashion, then making up any old reasons to get your way becomes a better strategy.
So are we merely witnessing the social media turn in politics? Civilisation has been around long enough that people take it for granted and don’t feel moved to foster the institutions that protect it.
On the other hand, there are also legitimate political grievances. The rational society came to mean the neoliberal power grab. Inequality and climate change are actual problems.
So there are various kinds of shit flying around. And maybe science isn’t in decline at all. Maybe it is the ability of politics to keep up with the pace of technological and social change that is the issue,
Again, please see my first post -- I shall add that it's loaded when I say "darker" reality. We are used to hearing anti-vaccines, creationism, superstition, even conspiracy theories. These do not threaten science into oblivion.
I think I get your point. Are in favor of science and afraid it will succomb to "dark pressure"?
Okay, good. Can you please address my first point then? Your point might help with my point #3.
'Succumb' sounds like science has a good fight to make here. Point #1 says it doesn't. It 'will' happen according to cyclical thinking. I think at this point, VincePee, we should start asking why there is even a thinking that describes science as cyclical, don't you think?
I can provide a good reading, if it can help.
While there may be a limit to the knowledge in the world that someday we might learn everything in the cosmos, which I would say is the most impressive reach of scientific knowledge. I am sure that we are nowhere near close to that ceiling.
I am not sure who but there was some guy who said that we know less that 1% of everything. So if there was a decay then it is far away.
On the contrary, by "descending into decay" you could mean that all the knowledge that we have will be lost, like a return to stone age, then I do agree that science is cycilcal. Science is an inevitability born from the ability to reason, When you "how", "why" "what" , science will be born.
So yes, science will after some point gradually decay but how is that an anti-scientific statement. Its not like by saying that all civilizations die, you become anti-civilizationist.
Where is the evidence of science moving into the down phase of a cycle?
I mean, how could you even be an anti-vaxxer if a whole bunch of different corporations hadn’t pulled a whole bunch of novel vaccines out of the bag in record time?
Are less papers being published, are scientific instruments getting less precise, are fewer scientists being employed, is less money being spent on STEM education? In what way is the exponential growth of science even showing signs of moderating?
It would seem more that people are simply overwhelmed by the possibility to apply critical thinking to any issue. If you want to make a sensible and informed decision, then Google gives you the full range of thinking nearly instantly. You only have to wade through a few thousand research papers.
So science has been an exponentially growing enterprise in terms of accumulating more knowledge. The universe is such a complex place that science has experienced no particular brake in its pursuit of both ever greater detail and more sweeping theoretical perspectives.
No sign of decay there. There is no cap on progress in sight yet - the kind of intrinsic limit that would turn an exponential trajectory into a rate-limited sigmoid curve.
But knowledge only counts if it is applied. So that could be the brake that is emerging into sight. Can humans apply everything that is known to their lives? Can technology use knowledge to solve every problem, including all those that technology itself creates?
Your point - that science is cyclical - is just postulated out of nowhere. "[J]ust like any other phenomenon in the history of histories of human civilizations" - that's too broad and vague to even discuss.
You should go back and think about this some more.
Fair point. My first post addressed the idea that length of time is not an indication of success.
Quoting I love Chom-choms
And indeed, we shall reach the glorious era when our science is the most fruitful. And precisely because of this, the root of self-destruction begins, according to cyclical thought.
Quoting I love Chom-choms
Not at all. That is not the decay we are talking about here. Worship, belief without justification, and blind indoctrination?
Quoting I love Chom-choms
Good point, but you missed my first point again. I said "or".
As a matter of fact, this is not my original idea or postulate. There are philosophers who wrote about this. I think we should examine why they say what they say.
Quantum Physics, if scientists aren't careful, will be the undoing of science. The decay has set in but can scientists do anything about this gangrenous limb that threatens to consume all of science itself? Time will tell.
As for the alleged cyclical nature of all phenomena, this: Mysticism/Religion (pre-Thales of Miletus) -> Science (Thales of Miletus) -> Mysticism/Religion (Quantum Physics). That's a long ass cycle.
Quoting apokrisis
This is a very important question pertaining to point #1. The alarm sounded a long time ago, in the classical Greek. The decay will be in the form of implosion from within the scientific community. How?
Yes!! Indeed!
Furthermore as Bertrand Russell noted way back in History of Western Philosophy, scientific method has no inherent moral compass. One could have, and some do have, ambitious scientific research programs to produce superbly efficient killing machines, machines which could kill enormous numbers of people, or even rid the world of people altogether. There’s no scientific reason that such programs ought not to be pursued. There are plenty of reasons not to pursue them, but science doesn’t necessarily provide those reasons.
You can be a good person, and a good scientist, but you have to be a good person first.
I’m totally behind vaccination science, climate science, food science, energy science, and many of the other ameliorative technologies that Planet Earth will not survive without. But I’m not at all on board with ‘the scientific worldview’.
And indeed, it doesn't. So where does it start or what will cause the eventual demise? From within the authority of science. That's where. Now, this is where, you philosophy members, should be able to explain the phenomenon of power, authority, and far-reaching.
Yes!
I don't see this at all. Imo science has been on the rise for 8000 years now. It has to repeatedly reinvent itself. At times it may have become stagnant, sometimes there were rapid breakthroughs - but that's just in the nature of science.
Quoting Caldwell
What do you mean by that? Science is a concept. A framework for building knowledge. You can "defeat" scientists, people who advocate science - but the concept itself is untouchable.
Quoting Caldwell
Is that what you understand as decay then? Again, I don't see that at all. Worship, belief without justification and blind indoctrination existed before science and have been declining as the scientific method evolved.
Our good science before its maximum achievement. I agree. My first post addresses the time way after your description.
'going to bed. Tomorrow.
I can refer you to @I love Chom-choms post as this is a good suggestion. Quoting I love Chom-choms
Although we don't need to get there. Science will declare its best achievements.
Spengler seems to draw an analogy between biological organisms and civilizations (cultures), treating the latter as a superorganism and, he reasons, just like biological organisms e.g. a human goes through multiple stages of development ultimately terminating in death, cultures/civilizations too undergo a similar multi-stage evolution.
Interesting viewpoint to say the least but to my reckoning the analogy breaks down at just the point where he had to add "super" to organism for cultures. How do we know a superorganism will reenact an individual organism's life-cycle?
Also, couldn't there be some kind of a threshold which if a culture crosses, it attains immortality like, say, cancer cells but without all the downsides?
You could be right in the sense that science delivers the techno-economy that wrecks the environment and leads to civilisational collapse and generalised extinction event before the century is out.
That is one way the scientific project will go through a down phase. :lol:
Science earns its keep by providing the technological means to strip-mine nature.
Violence can defeat quite much everything.
Yet I think even the most violent, ruthless tyranny will look at part of science as important: to get technological advancements in warfighting and surveillance and control capabilities. Those who want for the society to "go back" into a better time still somehow acknowledge that in the defense of their realm they have to have up-to-date weaponry. Naturally such limited interest in science won't do much, but at least it's not anything.
Yet I think the real danger is that science falls down to similar level as technological innovation, thought as just a part needed in investment to get economic growth, to improve our existing gadgets. When science falls down from it's actual philosophical quest for new knowledge, that will be "the decay" of science. Nobody will admit it has happened or will happen when it happens.
Science is then just a 9 to 5 job for people who have trained to be scientists. And their agenda is to get financial support to basically have a job that feeds themselves and their families. And this money comes from various donors that are interested in certain type of research. And hence scientific research is not made by curiosity, but by the interests of foundations and those who have money.
So what does the "decay of science" look like?
It's like the historian that dreams of writing history about things that interest him or her when he or she is retired. But before that, the historian has to write histories that he or she is successful in getting funding. That historian, even if not a scientist, isn't alone.
And of course, the academic world can easily be made extremely bureaucratic and not have the least interest to do actual science, but replace it with pseudoscience.
:chin:
Quoting SophistiCat
:100:
Quoting apokrisis
:up:
I think it sometimes can be unhelpful to speak of science in so generalized a term in connection to political affairs. It's probably better to refer to the subset of scientists engaged in the relevant domain of concern.
The reality of the survival of science will depend upon whether we manage to be around in the next 100 years, or if we will all blow it up. But I don't think these cynics or critics will do much, it's not particularly new after all.
Where were we?
This is seen with the lack of agreement around the world as to the per ton cost of carbon emissions on the environment (the world vs a nation), and on the flip side with the joyful events happening in the EU as to a collectivist effort to enhance science with such projects as CERN or ITER and a carbon tax.
The downside is that Europe is paying a heavy cost to pay for the technology needed to tackle climate change first, while the US picks off which technologies to adopt for their own situation (that eventually will persuade the US).
China can mass produce as much as it wants but only Europe is truly preparing for a new economy and will likely have significant returns in their investments in the future.
Second of all, I'd also like some science philosophers here to come out and say something to the criticisms I mentioned in my first post. Please tell me the merit of the Decline Theory of Science, for lack of a better word. I know you guys are out there -- I owned a book dedicated to the writings of scientist philosophers.
Quoting Hermeticus
Reinvent. Saying this is on par with saying it's cyclical. Because the nature of narrative is the same. Does science really reinvent itself?
Quoting Hermeticus
Again, saying science is a concept is similar to saying it is organic. The narrative -- pay attention to the narrative. Since you cannot go to a lab and actually experiment on "concept", just like Spengler cannot experiment on organic cycles of activity, your narrative is just as good as Spenglers.
Quoting Hermeticus
Oh I have a better understanding of decay -- but that's how cyclical thought thinks of what happens when science decayed -- what replaces it? You don't think other beliefs can become dominant? Look, think again. Just because we have computers and wireless technology it doesn't mean we've solved that issue. Funny thing is, we as believers of science don't have to worry about outside forces. The argument goes that the power and authority of scientific knowledge will eventually cause its own demise. Science cannot be attacked from the outside. It can only be ruined from within.
Caveat -- violence can defeat science, but in another sense -- violence can ruin anything, @ssu is correct. So while I mentioned it in my OP, that is one worry that is of a different nature. Point #1 is the sinister idea. I mean, like, violence is like duct tape -- it can severely constrict anything.
See now you're getting it.
I'm glad you mentioned "anti-science", because this is another issue apart from the decline theory of science. Science cannot be ruined by the anti-science movement. I can think of an analogy --fighting zombies is a lost cause. Eventually you'd get bitten. But can you make it harder for them to get you? Yes! But what is the point? Well, could be a 15-minute fame, you're an ideologist, or you like excitement.
Awesome! :cool:
Hah! You're getting it too!
Quoting 180 Proof
Be quiet, Proof!
Quoting Shawn
This is a concern that is true, yet at least not anti-science.
Yup. I think he truly thinks it is organically growing.
A shoal of fish is not a fish. :grin:
Here we have the old notion of all cultural phenomena being "cyclical", as if they were resurgent beings. My opinion is that this represents a fallacy of misperception, albeit one fairly common within society...what one might call a "social legend", an example of "pop philosophy" tinged with superstition. One might say that the perception of "cycles of cultural phenomena" is no more than phenomenological!
Quoting Caldwell
Quite true. Violence backed by sufficient force can "defeat" or demolish any human undertaking. Even so, there appears to be little danger on the horizon to scientific inquiry from human violence, at least as far as I can see.
Quoting Caldwell
This, based upon the notion of "cyclicality", appears a fallacious expectation. I would think that the future limitations upon scientific discovery will be the cause of technological limitation, rather than cyclical "decay". Scientific inquiry rests upon the foundation of technology; scientists can only inveestigate what advances in technology will allow. As technological advancement speeds or slows, so scientific inquiry.
Quoting Caldwell
Perhaps to theistically religious fundamentalism of various types. With theism on a slow retreat in the "western world", though, I think this poses little danger. Here in the States, I would worry more about the future of Christianity than about the future of scientific inquiry. Biblical creationism, despite it's cultural embeddedness in some parts of the U.S., has become no more than a sideshow...a curiosity, and Christianity no more than a cultural tradition largely devoid of belief. Nor would I worry much about science in the Muslim world; quite a number of scientists continue to emanate from South Asia and, to a lesser degree, the middle East. There will always be your Afghanistans, but that situation is more of a failure of culture, of the failure of a culture to adapt to a changing world (or alternatively viewed, the failure of the world to accept the permanence of a particular culture), much as in Somalia, than it is the result of religion. I see no reason to bemoan the future of science in the Muslim world in general.
The bottom line: there's way too much money to be made as a result of scientific inquiry for us to be worrying about it's future, at least here in the west. When all is said and done, "the bottom line" is, indeed, "the bottom line". To tell the truth, society may eventually (soon?) have to "push back" against science in the area of technological innovation, particularly in order to protect our individual privacy in an age characterized by the monetization of information.
I see a distinction between (1) superstition/creationists and (2) anti-vaxxers. Both are anti-scientific, but, as to #1, that deals with the enchantment issues described by Weber, where he described how science has replaced religion in modern society. If you are arguing that we're returning to religious based reasoning, your concern would be of a re-enchantment, where we are devolving back into a theocratically and mythologically based epistemology for understanding basic facts of day to day existence. I really don't see mass scale movement in that regard.
As to #2, I think the anti-vaxxers are playing upon the Kantian distinction between (a) the skeptical method and (b) skepticism. The skeptical method requires ongoing investigation in the face of uncertainty, but implicitly accepts there is a general method for arriving at knowledge. That is where I think most scientifically inclined people would fall. Skepticism, on the other hand, questions the entire enterprise of whether anything can be known, and I do think that is where many of the conspiratorial anti-vaxxers fall. They scoff at the idea that there is reliable knowledge available due to whatever bias they can imagine might be skewing the results. The anti-vaxxers parade themselves as (a), when in fact that are (b). They're not just hyper-analyzing the data on vaccines; they're questioning and rejecting the scientific method.
The problem with the general skeptics of (b) is that they have to have some ability to navigate the world, so they must abandon their generalized skepticism at some point and then just start arbitrarily accepting information as correct, without any real principled way to confirm it. It seems that as long as what they accept is not mainstream, it begins to have an air of credibility to them. We end up with people ingesting cattle deworming medications to treat a virus that has an otherwise scientifically proven preventative vaccine. That result is truly bizarre, but it has nothing to do with superstition or re-enchantment, but is the end result of an irrational, inconsistent generalized skepticism of science that doesn't have a replacement epistemology.
It's the reverse Nietzschean quandary where we killed God through our disbelief in him and now we have nothing left in its place and so we spin in circles rudderless. These people killed science, so now what are they going to do?
[quote=Reverend Samuel Parris (Salem Witch Trials)]To go to the devil to ask for help against the devil.[/quote]
All good!
Maybe I can write a story, the first part of it adapted from Orhan Pamuk, a famous Turkish writter, but I do not remember which book. Anyway, in the old Ottoman Empire there was a scientific council, the Ulema. The Ulema advised the sultan on all questions scientific and theological, which, for the Ulema were one and the same. They applied Aristotelian philosophy, Islamic teaching and Sufi wisdom. The Ulema held a venerable position. The Ottoman Empire was at the height of its power. Its military might and its bureaucracy were unrivalled. Istanbul was a city of splendour.
A terrible plague struck the city though and the Sultan asked the Ulema for council. After a number of days of study they delivered their opinion. The plague was an evil greater than whatever pestilence had befallen the Sublime Porte. It must have been a true evil, an evil only brought about by satan himself. The question was how to get rid of the devil. The Ulema reasoned as follows: the devil tries to corrupt and therefore he will dwell in corrupt places, like brothels and coffee houses. They should be closed without hesitation. The devil dwells in places where money exchanges hands so all markets should be closed. The devil dwells in places where many people gather and where he can corrupt many faithful and so mosques and schools needed to be closed down as well. Where people are the devil is so people should be sequestered as much as possible until the devil leaves the city. And so it was done. The spreading of the plague subsided, and the Ulema was held in even higher regard, truely men of scientific and religious excellence, with a masterful insight in the workings of the world. They had saved the city relying on the greatest scientific principles, those of theoogy and aristotle and sound logic. It must truly be the greatest scientific body in the world.
But the Ulema declined. After many years this venerable institution became seen as obscurantist, backward. The Empire could not compete anymore with its rivals, France, Britain, and even Russia. They held on to the old ways while the Western powers embraced empiricism. The question though is why the Ulema feal, what made Western science so good? Is it the relentless criticism and continuous testing of its resultsm the spirit of critique? The Ulema were not used to critique, hierarchies were fixed, the great hocas became old... the west was new and up and coming and sicentists continuously test each other and battle for results. It led to the system we know now, with peer review, countless journals, publish or parish and a relentess rat race of all the little cogs in the scientific machine. And so science flourished and perhaps still does.
But... what does relentless critique do? At some point the critique turns against itself. The scientifi method, where only the data counts is a myth. Facts are fabricated says Bruno Latour, even the machines on which we type influence our results. Who you are impacts on what you write and no one is immune from his or her own identity say the postmodern researchers and the proponents of critical studies of various kinds. Science has become reflexive, self critical, aware of the risks it has helped produce. It became afraid it has become an accomplice to climate change and the atomic bomb. How does science decay, well by its own hand, by the very same thing that made it so strong, relentless critique. The conspiracy theorists, the Q's they are symptoms of a deeper, an maybe you say darker reality @caldwell Criticism has turned from a battle in which the best argument survived into a fearful dance of those aware of their limitations and where objectiveity has been dethroned, The shamans merely fill the gaps left behind. the violence is self inflicted and fed by a pesimistic and prudish age where moderation is key and. Gradually the teachings of the old Ulema start to hold sway again, because people are adrift and because science comes with so many disclaimers the people have started to fear that the medicine is worse than the cure. Because people started to long again for the unshakable truths of the Aristotelian order. Indeed pandemics are proper ground for scientific revolutions...
I agree...I doubt very much that our societies shall return to belief in "knowledge by divine revelation". Such appears to be warranted, but I can discern, however, a need in our secular age for what I would term "quality mythos", not necessarily epistemological in nature, but rather for the same reason that we need poetry...for the exemplification and elucidation of truths regarding how to live, how to percieve and approach problematic life issues, and how best to meet the challenges of life. Our culture seems to want for this type of quality mythos (unless you consider Louis L'Amour novels to fit that bill, which I do not). Certainly, scholars as diverse as Joseph Campbell, J.R.R. Tolkien, and Robert Graves have expounded upon the place within a culture of quality mythos, even within the culture of ourselves: homo rationalis.
Quoting Michael Zwingli
The cyclicists actually have a refined notion of cycles. And it has nothing to do with resurgent. A phenomenon of cycle has a beginning not yet mature as to have claws -- but rather, an awesome growth that's full of goodness. Like science. But shall we admit we prefer the linear framework of activities, humanity, or civilization? I am actually undecided.
Quoting Michael Zwingli
I'm beginning to feel like an apologist for the cycle theorists. But here goes. They actually predict the opposite of what you're saying. They don't foresee a limitation. And that's where the danger lies they say.
Quoting Michael Zwingli
Maybe "worry" is unfit here. I will backtrack a bit. Let's go ahead and say, no one is worried. Spengler is not worried, for sure. I think your statement above misses the point. The decline theory of science acknowledges all that! Unlimited technological advancement and financial gain. There's nothing that you can think of in a maximizing fashion that they haven't already articulated.
To be honest, I really can't decide. For one thing, we can't undo facts.
Quoting Tobias
Yes! We want to smell the earth not hide behind the theory of numbers and symbols.
Yes we do. We long for the earth and give rights to trees. And the symbols and number are countered by other symbols and numbers. Cost benefit analyses clash with impact assessments and we learn that the numbers we get are dependent on the numbers we feed and the answer becomes 42 like some sort of oracle proclaiming the wish of the Greek gods.
Perhaps we should consider a return to paganism; or worship of the sun? Or back to animism. We need a grounding in the reality of the world around us.
Emperor Julian lives! And, in the person of Banno (who ever knew?)
Actually, I rather wish he had lived, and driven Christianity back into the Levant. Not that the purported teachings of said Ye'shua are without taste and merit, but that the theosophic soup in which they are served is most unflavoursome. Coming into, say, the nineteenth century, I think that worship of the sun, even a deified sun, would have been a preferable situation to worship of a God which is but purely a figment of the imagination. I believe it would have made the (eventual) transition to non-theistic religion much easier than it will be now (I hope).
You heard it there first.
Science has become something of a "dogma" of the religious and fundamentalist past; in a way, we are trapped by the "absoluteness" of the arguments developed by it. Indeed, anyone who dares to repudiate any claim taken as "canonical" by scholars in the field will have his body cleansed by the calls of intolerance - like heretics on a stake.
“An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field.” “Science and religion are not at odds. Science is simply too young to understand.” “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded: -That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” - Friedrich Nietzsche
Very arrogant of such an insignificant species to actually think that they have attained the absolute truths of the Universe, through tools which they themselves have created, with their misinterpretations of an unsubstantiated and completely subjective existence. But it is understandable that in a mind as small as that of an ordinary man, the inability to understand the individuality of thoughts, and finally, of "perspectives of the world", prevails, because, when questioning without end, something that structures itself in matters which only such dogma can theorize and hypothesize about, a dark cloud, filled with resentment and its self-awareness of its complete indifference to reality, ends up causing minds that are definitely authentic to drown in a complete deluge. Perhaps only wisdom and its eventual antithesis, ignorance, can - in a cycle - repel this evil that remains permeating humanity - resentment!
“The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying views of reality, and of our frightful position therein , that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of the new Dark Age.” - H.P. Lovecraft
Perhaps it is our reality, which H.P Lovecraft refers to, which we should be content with:- The strong embrace of knowledge, many times, can suffocate you to death.
But am I defending total ignorance, complete retrocess? Not at all; I defend the "authenticity" of the human mind, and all its ideas, whether logical or illogical, religious or scientific, old and new. The decay of some method of study, due to its inability to give us a total and "true" answer to reality, is caused solely and fully by our resentment - the hatred caused by the incapacity; the awareness of the unconsciousness of existence before us; the lack of Man's "specialty" - towards our own limitation.
- And what would be the correct method then? Are we doomed to "unknowing"?
Maybe so, maybe not, and maybe, we're only doomed to what we're capable of deserving - we'll never know!
The only "truth" is the complete and total subjectivity of existence, which does not include "absoluteness", and not even by science, we will be able to transform the essence of reality, so that it enters according to our intrinsic need for realization , which, through the purpose, made us develop just one more method of us, continuously, to "search":
- Science!
"Many discoveries are reserved for ages still to come, when memory of us will have been effaced." - Seneca
"Many unknowings are reserved for ages still to come, when memory of us will have been, eternalized." - Gus Lamarch
:grin:
Quoting Gus Lamarch
We have everything we need to prevent the fall into ignorance. Very well enunciated! No one is truly anti-rationality. We will know when we get there. I am saying this because I trust the human mind.
I second that.
While I don't deny this corporate reality, this is not what a true cycle theorist points to in their criticism of science. Maybe this comes as a surprise. Although, I agree that it does indirectly affect science.
Here is a response which captures the nature of the root of destruction that end-of-science theorists have been arguing about:
Quoting TheMadFool
That is what we are facing when we are engaged in some sort of discourse against, or together with, the end-of-science theorists. Rule number one -- exactitude. If science were religion, a crippling doubt because we'd forgone causality and opted instead towards probability, is unholy.
Another source of complaint is the tendency to reduce everything and anything to equation. One that could possibly fit on a surface of a thumbnail. What does it mean? Reductionism and simplification. Keep in mind that cycle theorists believe in social sciences. And rightly so. What's good for the goose is good for the gander is false!
:up: I just read a book a coupla weeks ago and below is a quote from it,
[quote=Marcus du Sautoy (What we cannot know)]Archaeological digs of settlements dating back to Neolithic times have revealed a disproportionately high density of heel bones of sheep or other animals among the shattered pottery and flints that are usually found in sites that humans once inhabited. These bones are in fact ancestors of my casino dice. When thrown, these bones naturally land on one of four sides. Often there are letters or numbers carved into the bones. Rather than gambling, these early dice are thought to have been used for divination. And this connection between the outcome of a roll of a dice and the will of the gods is one that has persisted for centuries. Knowledge of how the dice would land was believed to be something that transcended human understanding. It's outcome was in the lap of gods.[/quote]
Science has always been about a clockwork, deterministic, universe and, from what I can gather, its main selling point is the precision (to the 10th decimal place I'm told) of its predictions. Science, if it could speak, is telling us, "surely, if my predictions are that precise, I couldn't be wrong."
We enter the era of quantum physics and science loses that ability - forget about how accurate science can be about what'll happen, it can't even tell us what'll happen. This - indeterminacy - is the spanner in the works of science.
I suppose, as Marcus du Sautoy (see quote above) writes in his book, Quantum Mechanics opens a door through which a lot of what's been classified as woo-woo (religion, mysticism, to name a few) can make their way into scientific territory and set up house.
Coming to equations, I don't mind it; in fact, it's fascinating that all the complex phenomena we see around us can be expressed in such succinct mathematical statements. It's not reductionist or simplification, it's more of a synopsis, objects and events summarized to the bare essentials. What we say in so many words in natural language is, in mathematical language, one or two, max, lines of equations.
The critique against science, insofar as the decline theorists are concerned, has always been metaphysical. That is, they are arguing about the very essence of science. How else can something be destroyed, but through the demolition of its very essence. Science has qualities essential to it.
While influences outside it from different schools of thoughts or political thoughts, even economic, have been..well.. influential in shaping the scientific research and development, those are not the object of their criticisms. The scientific decline theorists are, after all, philosophers. And being philosophers, they try to maintain the proper parameter within which to attack science.
If you want to be taken seriously, play intelligently.
Another thing I want to stress is that these same theorists show a high degree of respect for disciplines such as the scientific psychology. They are pragmatists and empiricists. They recognize the delineation between the cultural, organic, and behavioral on the one hand, and the atomistic world on the other. And here we can understand why they reject the increasingly mechanistic view of reality. When everything and anything is reduced to bare bones formulations, with the occasional corollary here and there, one can start to wonder whether scientists and the natural world are now the casualty.
Quoting TheMadFool
True. And let's be careful not to confuse precision or exactitude with mechanistic.
Secondly, as I explained earlier, science gets its street cred from how well it predicts the outcomes of phenomena, the degree of precision playing a major role. There's no arguing against a system of beliefs, here science, that can send a robotic probe to a distant planet like Mars successfully and that too many times in a row. The level of precision required to do that is, to my reckoning, mind-boggling, no?
A mechanistic view of the world subsumes precision by the way.
No, that post I made is to clarify the point of this thread in general. To emphasize the argument.
:ok:
The pantheon of Science isn't just a "school of thought", it is a primitive human instinct. From Proconsul Heseloni to Homo sapiens, we are inherently curious creatures.
Furthermore, it is in fact this primary instinct that has been the foundation of our survival. Science is the way of expressing that primitive instinct.
We ate the first apple because of our curiosity. We gave birth to offspring because of curiosity. We built the first fire and survived the winter because of our curiosity. The reasons why curiosity is the backbone of our society is infinitesimal in number. A decay in curiosity will be a decay in the existence of humanity as a whole.
If Science somehow "decays" as you propose, human beings might as well cease to exist.
Hi SoundConspirator, do you have a counter-argument against the decline theorist's argument?
I wonder about that because I think it would be very hard to say what the essence of science is. There are also different styles of doing science, see for instance Chunglin Kwa, " styles of knowing" . I do not think people will stop wanting to know. What can ' decay' is faith in the current institutions of science and perhaps against a method we call scientific.
Quoting Caldwell
But if you artificially disentangle something from which is is embdedded and then attack it, aren't you attacking a straw man? An influential strand in the philosophy of science points out the political and economic nature of science. I think such a critique will hit science harder because it attacks the source of its legitimacy, its supposed purety and objectivity.
Quoting Caldwell
The way you desscribe it, to me it seems these criticisms come from an environmental perspective. However then it does not make sense to exclude the political.The 'atomistic world' has always been a mechanical world I think though and the formulations are just translations of its supposed mechanical processes. When we want to ' smell the earth' , more is needed, some form of normativity. So I do not understand their argument I guess. They want their cake and eat it too, somehow separating science from other human endeavours, but in the end ground it in some form of intrinsic value...
Quoting Caldwell
Yes very true.
I'll throw out: perhaps our positions are complementary.
The moment I see the examples of antivaxxers and creationists as the main example of the problem - even if you are saying that they are not, actually, the biggest threat, I feel the urge, now satisfied, to point out playser with much more power - thus corporations - though that's a stand-in word that I would also want aimed at bankers and intelligence communities.
My concern is not at the meme level or even the cycle level. I see the threat to continued existence of those who might use science, as coming through what I batch labelled 'corporations'.
I am not sure what your idea is around cycles - perhaps a link?. But it seems to me that the issue is not binary - not that you've said it is but it seems sometimes implicit. Science can continue, even if other forms of information/knowledge gathering and radically different paradigms come in. We often don't have to choose between tools, or even, dare I say it, metaphysics.
Quoting Caldwell
I don't see that really stopping science. I am sure it is very problematic for many scientists. Makes me want to toss in Rupert Sheldrake. Whatever one thinks of his ideas, even if many turned out to be true, there's no reason scientists couldn't go on studying comets, finches and particles, and in many of the old mechanistic causal ways. There might be other research following different approaches ( a little bit a la Feyerabend) alongside.
At some point, perhaps, somehow all mechanistic type research might somehow be made moot in what turns out to be a much more flexible universe than currently realized. But I don't see that around the corner - not that you've given a timeline.
Quoting Caldwell
Sure, but then systems and ecological theories have been complexifying things for a long time. I agree that the scientific community still is reductionistic, problematically so, but I see a lot of integration of holistic ideas in science.
To give some perspective: I do think that science in general, or scientists really, are not fluent in philosophy and have little idea how they assumptions, metaphysical and otherwise, may be affect what they choose to research, how they choose to research it and what they dismiss.
And all the while the technocrats are gaining more and more power. For whom? And what do the endusers of the technocrats care about and have as goals?
Hi Tobi,
You can critique science on political and economic grounds. But that would be different from the arguments of cycle framework.
Quoting Tobias
No, it's metaphysical.
Yes, there is propaganda -- just to inject the uncertainty of quantum fields into the discipline. You are correct to attack the methodology.
Please see my response to @Gobuddygo above. If you could somehow explain to me how corporations influence or change science -- besides the enterprising part or profiteering -- that would be great.
Quoting Bylaw
Please browse Oswald Spengler's writings. I don't have a link but you can look him up. Thanks.
I don't know what your version of cycle framework vis-à-vis science is but have you considered this one: We begin with a nonscientific paradigm (religion/others) and slowly but steadily science replaces it. A golden age of science follows - boatloads of useful inventions, life becomes easier - but it isn't all sunshine and rainbows - powerful weapons of mass destruction are also produced. One thing leads to another and these weapons are unleashed, exterminating 99% of the population, all scientists and other experts die in this mass extinction, and we are, voila, back to square one (some say we'll be sent back to the stone age).
And what did you just try to explain? That scientists are mortal like normal people? We've touched on this -- violence kills, absolute violence kills absolutely! What now? A problem, yes! But hardly metaphysical in nature.
I was simply trying out a different avenue, thinking of other ways of how science could cyclically rise and fall.
Bylaw, could you perhaps search for Leon Rosenfeld, in his scathing remark to Niels Bohr's "On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules". It is Leon Rosenfeld we want to examine here first and foremost. Forget about the cycle framework for now, but just please try to read his point.
This request is also for @Gobuddygo -- please look up Leon Rosenfeld. Thanks.
Quoting Caldwell
Yes but I am unsure what theiir metaphysical argument might be. If one points to the essence of a certain something, here science, but conveniently disentangle it from its relations. can the metaphysical argument still be sound, or are they attacking a beast of their own making? My argument here is also one of metaphysics, not economics.
The environmental perspective I would consider a metaphysical perspective, because it presupposes a certain structure of the world and tends to accept certain commitments, holism for instance and often the idea that these myriad of connections that form an ecosystem are intrinsically valuable. Basically what I and I think other posters as well is what there argument is exactly. If it is 'everything is cyclical and what begins has to have an end', than they are right but only in a trivial sense and we have no way of knowing whether we are in the dawn of science or its dusk. therefore there has to be more. So what would their argument be to say science is in decay on metaphysical grouns?
Okay please read my post above to Bylaw. Thanks.
Apparently they do.
Oooh, that would be the day.
As an European, I would like to be this optimistic.
Quoting Caldwell
I think that nearly anything can be literally destroyed without even a thought about it's very essence. Kill all those who know and burn the books. Wars aren't usually fought to destroy cultures and natural disasters don't have any objective or agenda, but they can put things back a lot.
Or then you can have ideas like Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge had of truly starting over...by killing all of the present "intellectuals".
At least historically one can see that a lot of knowledge has been lost in the past only to be reinvented or rediscovered later. Just imagine a world where the library of Alexandria and every book and manuscript there would have made it intact without any fire or any religious fanatic burning the books to the present. At least the History of Antiquity would be quite different.
"BOHR’S complementarity principle, first announced by him in his Como
lecture,’ remains a challenge and a puzzle. In the history of scientific thought
it is hard to find another central contribution about which the opinions
continue to differ so sharply more than half a century after its inception. Some
physicists, such as John Wheeler and Leon Rosenfeld, consider complemen-
tarity as the most profound intellectual insight of the twentieth century, as a
pinnacle of physical understanding of nature, no less inevitable than ‘the
emergence of man himself as a product of organic evolution’.* Others criticized
Bohr’s complementarity as an obscure ‘double-think’ that impeded clear
thinking and scientific progress, or as a crutch that initially helped, but was no
longer needed.’
Remarkably, there was much more ambivalence about Bohr’s complemen-
tarity principle in the camp of ‘believers’ themselves than the published sources
disclose. As Dirac expressed it: ‘I never liked complementarity.. . It does not
give us any new formula. . . I believe the last word was not said yet about waves
and particles.’ " -- taken from The Birth of Bohr's Complementarity:...
The complementarity principle is just that one object may possess pairs of properties such that only one but not both can be observed/measured at a time. Reminds me of a two-timing person; fae can see/meet only one partner but not both given any moment in time.
I fail to see how this relates to the decline of science. :chin:
Both can be measured at the same time. All properties can be measured at the same time.
They have managed to get people to confuse corporate generated research and conclusions with science. Here's an example. If you go to somewhere like sciforums or any other 'place' where people, including scientists, belief (current) scientific practice is the only route to knowledge, you may well (and I have) encountered people saying things like if (some form of Alternative Medicine) worked, it would be part of regular medicine. Which, implicitly, assumes the independence of the FDA, the objectivity and openness of research, the inablity of corporations to create the conclusions they want, how the incredibly high price of meeting FDA protocols requires patentability, the lack of current paradigmantic biases, the power of corporations and organizations like the AMA to attack and suppress entities they consider threatening their markets, pharmas power in relation to media and likely other things I am not thinking of at this moment. Often alternative medicine products cannot be patented (despite corporations trying to patent things like the NEEM tree). For example.
Now from your perspective, this may seem like a specific case, not really getting at the roots of science's role in general.
From my perspective, the types of products that have made it through, including nano, GMO and, yes, the current 'vaccine' products and get called scientifically demonstrated to be both healthy for us or ecosystems AND those things that did not make it through the supposedly authoritative bodies' gauntlets, means that criticism and debate are effectively silenced, including professionals concerned about products that may be globally and fundamentally dangerous.
So, what, yes, is a subset of current scientific research is actually not based on objectively carried out and objectively evaluated (by regulartory bodies or by scientist peers)
the future of any science is threatened, since humans are. I think there is a practical outcome threat.
How you wanna measure velocity at one time?
I found a Marxist defense of complementarity by him when I googled his name and Bohr.
A Marxistic defense? What has Marxism to do with complementarity? Is the revolution complemented by "das Kapital"?
Yes, if all parties are ok with it, have a threesome.. I reckon it's at this point the analogy breaks down. :grin:
Sorry, couldn't parse that.
The linked article says: This article needs additional citations for verification....
:lol:
You have to take the limit between two times for that. But there are limits.
Ok but it is totally unclear how or why. I have no idea why complimentarity says something about the death of science. I can conjecture a Marxist 'death of science scenario', or an ecological one, but that does not seem to be your point. So right now I am at a loss :)
Okay thank you. This is actually good! That is a critique of scientific methodology, which really is at the heart of the debate. I understand your point.
I have a physical copy of his remark. I will type it here. Unfortunately, I think, online we won't find publications for free.
Here's the excerpt:
"The daring (not to say scandalous) character of Bohr's quantum postulate cannot be stressed too strongly: that the frequency of a radiation emitted or absorbed by an atom did not coincide with any frequency of its internal motion must have appeared to most contemporary physicists well-nigh unthinkable. Bohr was fully conscious of this most heretical feature of his considerations: he mentions it with due emphasis in his paper.....[Bohr's remark]"In the necessity of the new assumptions I think that we agree; but do you think such horrid assumptions, as I have used necessary? For the moment I am inclined to most radical ideas and do consider the application of the mechanics as of only formal validity.""
Yeah, someone has to digest for us this idea of complementarity -- with an e, not i.
But don't dwell on this one example. We are trying to make a point here.
Could someone please break this down for us? @Newkomer? or @TenderBar?
@Gary M Washburn, could you help us out?
Thanks.
I don't think it is a scathing remark against Bohr actually. He rather applauds Bohr for being daring, scandalous and ... revolutionary. What he seems to be hinting at is the existence of a scientific orthodoxy, not unike Kuhn described. As such the scientists and the Ulema have things in common, both form epistemic communities. That is well accepted in the philosophy of science now. That would make the death of science the death of sceintific orthodoxy. That happens frequentily in science itself though with 'science' actually dying.
Also it seems from what I have seen Rosenfeld is not scathing in relation to Bohr's ideas. He seems supportive. Though I haven't really found a great source. He was his assistant wasn't he?
Probably can't help. You see, when faced with ideologues progress is alienating. The ideology, that is, that answers must be mechanistic and dehumanizing. However, the logic of contrariety, up to a point, is exactly the same as the logic of the "law" of contradiction. but if that "law" is only effective to a point, then the final term of the reductive process begun from a premise we have become convicted of and the extension, always reductive, in accordance with that "law" is a contrariety. That is, a term contrary to the premise. But if that "law" has its limits, then that contrariety is not a contradiction of which each pole is opposite to the other, one of which must be, even if indeterminate for some reason, contradicting the premise, but two contrary terms as contrary to each other as, together, to the premise. Forming a community in contrariety to the premise and to the "law". This polar pair complement each other in finding the limit of the "law" and the lexical coherence of the term premised to it.
Help?... Or "Help!"
Well, we yammer at each other, grudgingly holding off threats to our convictions and possibilities of bewilderment (which we should welcome, if well posed to us), but the community in contrariety looms. And though we may never recognize it, the drama of that alienating moment engages us in an enriching of our terms. And since we each bring as much to that community as the other, the result is a lexical body more naturalized to us than the supposed laws of reason ever could be, and even though our contribution to it is always contrary to the law and to our convictions. And, because contrary, what we owe to each other can never become an entanglement, as our convictions and the commitments to convention always are. Which is to say, if I read your concern correctly, neither individualism nor communism can detract from it, because our part is contrary and yet complementary. Individualism and communism is an artificial polarity with an extension between as void and empty as each pole is. That is, no complement to each other. Looking for answers there is futile.
[reply="Bylaw;595799]
Too many things to put together for the sake of decline theory. So, I'll leave this issue open for now.
I think the fact that Rosenfeld supported Bohr shouldn't muddle what those words say about his atomic postulates.
Is this what this thread is about? What if the asymptote doss not tend toward a numerical value, or even a mathematical principle, but to a re-characterization of all values? Calculus is a reduction to infinitesimal of values not definable mathematically. But it requires regarding those values (deviating from law) as "negligible". It also requires using them as a positive value for part of the rationalization of that neglect, but then as zero to complete it. (see "The Analyst", by George Berkeley) - The final term of the reduction, then, alters the meaning of the premise. Bohr, by the quote above, rejected this consequence, as a convicted analyst would. But his thesis about electron orbits raises the question, What becomes of the material properties of the electron when phase shifting erases it from the otherwise expected presence of those properties? Is ignorance bliss [before] after all? Isn't science premised by an assumed right to ignore?
I thought we were talking about science deniers, not the limits of science.
Neither. We are talking about decline theorists' estimate of..well..implosion of science.
This is a strange statement.
It has something to do with the infinitesimal, or maybe the differential. And the neglecting of the limit maybe, that is never reached. And zero enters the story too. What is meant by "a recharachterization of all values"? Instead of 1, 2, 3, pi, vu, e, we should call them by other names? @+$=÷?
Is not an asymptote a mathematical thing (a principal?)?
Your quote
"The daring (not to say scandalous) character of Bohr's quantum postulate cannot be stressed too strongly: that the frequency of a radiation emitted or absorbed by an atom did not coincide with any frequency of its internal motion must have appeared to most contemporary physicists well-nigh unthinkable. Bohr was fully conscious of this most heretical feature of his considerations: he mentions it with due emphasis in his paper.....[Bohr's remark]"In the necessity of the new assumptions I think that we agree; but do you think such horrid assumptions, as I have used necessary? For the moment I am inclined to most radical ideas and do consider the application of the mechanics as of only formal validity.""
Is not clearly taking a stand. That is was heretical, that it was scandalous could very much have to do with assmptions of the time.
Implosion? Science rules suppreme in the modern day. Look in what state it has brought the world! Its arrogance of understanding Nature and its positioning in front, vis a vis, Nature, is the cause. And it's even mandatory to learn at school. Colorfull children are turned in its obedient slaves. And kook at the so-calles objective and intelligent language spoken by the modern adult! Yakki!
Quoting Bylaw
Let's use logic here. He supported Bohr's remark that the quantum postulate is a horrid assumption. Not that Rosenfeld supported the postulate itself. Tell me if you get this vibe. You can correct me.
Let's skip the hard to nail down middleman Rosenfeld.
What did Bohr do, in abstract terms, that is part of the decay of science?
IOW what is the general mispractice he engaged in and what are some other examples of this?
So the first part is his mispractice at an abstract level, then the second part is
'and over here in biology with the specific case of __________ we can see who scientist _________________also engaged in the same type of mispractice and it is this that leads to decay'
Obviously the examples don't ahve to be biology.
And perhaps, now that I have laid this out, you can see that I have misunderstood you. Hopefully not, but that's more or less, how I have been taking the Rosenfeld Bohr issue.
What decay? Bohr stood at the cradle of QM. That's not a decadent theory. In what sense is the word 'decay' used?
I recommend editing the OP :)
What internal motion is meant here? That of an electron?
Thanks for that.
Read Berkeley's "The Analyst" and it may not seem so strange. If we are convinced a value is being reached that is necessary to our principles, but that value never is reached, then the character of our conviction in the effort is the real story, and not some objective reality at all. And if recognition of this is the final term of a rigorous analysis, then the [emotional?] character of that recognition cannot be impertinent to whatever truth there is in it.
How can there be an asymptotic convergence between quantum and "classical" physics if the whole thrust of quanta is to hide some portion of its phenomena from mathematical formulation? "Classical physics" is mechanics. What mechanism emphatically and explicitly hides its mechanism from science? And what kind of logic "passes over in silence" where its terms fail its anticipated conclusion? And doesn't the task of understanding the silence and the hidden start its talking there? And, once again, if the best rigor we can bring to this is that point of departure, how can it be untruth? Isn't emotion the beginning of reason, not the end of it? If rigor is humanizing, then maybe reality is too. If science is failing, it is its commitment to dehumanizing reason.
I had to read it over carefully a couple of times. To suddenly realize it's beautiful! In particular the last sentence! :up:
:up:
Yes. Measured in quanta? So I guess the heretical point is that how can a measured energy absorbed not translate into the same measure in movements?
If a photon is absorbed there is an increase in the potential energy of the electron. Not its kinetic energy.
Hah! Not until after it gets "excited" and jumps to higher energy orbit. It is the distance from the nucleus that electron increases the potential energy. This is rough. Not sure.
Not until then no. That's pretty obvious.
You can't compare classical spaceship orbits with an electron, which doesn't follow a classical orbit.
Guess who the front-men are. Bohr, for example.
Not sure if I even have the stamina at this point. Just try to read through the thread.
It's a common saying that science is a self-correcting system.
Is Science Broken?Or is it self-correcting?
We can be an optimist and say it's self-correcting.
Science is a self-correcting system.
Yes, that's a good postulate. Rationality is at the heart of scientific endeavor. Just like in philosophy, where "therapy" is the remedy for obsession with too much metaphysical speculation, skepticism, or maybe even nihilism; adherence to scientific principles will correct itself.
So it is at the heart of religion. Galileo's conviction was a rational one!
:blush: Okay.
Luckily, Galileo was given a comfortable position afterwards. Willhelm Reich was unrationaly convicted by science. And his books were burned.His lab destroyed. His stuff forbiden. In 1957. In the US.
What was Reich all about, besides being German?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich
He helped people with cancer (orgone accumulator). The song "Cloudbusting" is about him. From the persoective of his son.
And I can go on and on....
Good Lord!
Wow! I was completely ignorant about the orgone accumulator. :sad:
Wow! Im glad to hear that! How can that be? Its part of US history. And Im not even American! Maybe, though, I know more about the US than about my own country. How can that be?
Trust me. I studied History and Classics and Philosophy. (I also studied Calculus and Algebra -- my favorite subjects, but now I'm not good in math. lol!)
I really cant tell if you are serious or not!
So? What should I trust?
You studied a history.
Disappointed much?
I was about to write the same!
Okay maybe we did touch on Reich. :cool:
In you? I don't dare! :smile:
Careful of contrarian ideas, or you'll end up on the moderators radar. :scream:
What does the sunglassed smiley mean?
Gotcha! :smile:
Absolutely no intention in doing so. Not interested in laziness. Sorry.
bye bye
Sorry to disappoint. :meh:
The decay of science brought scientists to the point of burning scientific books. In a NY garbage incinerator!!!
Why you think Bohr broke a rule? Isn't rule breaking required to make substatial progress?
Science isn't a self-correcting system though, because it needs guidance from theory and hypothesis, which are derived from sources non-scientific, like metaphysics.
Well, I don't know so much about Nils Bohr and his philosophy, but basically what to me his theories look like to be grounded on is logical empirism or logical positivism. That could explain the idea of taking an experiment and then describing your whole philosophy around the outcomes of that experiment. A rather positivist way to do science I would say. Of course there's a huge difference between the physics and then the philosophical implications we give to it.
I'm not so familiar what was the link between Bohr and the decay of science, even if I tried to look at your comments several pages back.
I think what is meant that Bohr didn't address the Nature of reality anymore. It's that in which science, physics in particular, is (normally) interested. Instead Bohr had that positive "shut up and calculate" attitude. Only what we know matters. So he preaches.
Well, basically logical empirism / logical positivism is that "shut up and calculate" attitude. Logical positivists put the data, the experiment, on a pedestal. At worst, it becomes a worship. The problem is that people can forget that it's just a model. In other words the model used starts to be the reality.
You mean the model of lògical positivism?
HE
is asserting and I am asking him about it. I am trying to find out about hisposition.
As I tried to indicate here....
Precisely my point, if you'll review my earlier remarks. But even in the macro orbits are counter-intuitive. But in particle physics the Newtonian distinction between potential and kinetic energy is meaningless, as the distinction matter and energy is unresolvable. Little pyramids don't solve anything any more than they collect "energy". Calls to mind a scene in "Red Dwarf" between Einstein and Euclid. "Always with you it is triangles!" The stark truth of the matter is that electrons seem to vanish, matter and energy, for most of what otherwise should be their orbital path around the nuclei, and nobody's asking what the hell that's all about. My thought is that, energy and matter, they go "dark", i.e. outside calculation and observation. We can't assume it is nothing any more than it is something we can't know of. What we must assume is that it is an issue for thought and a a potential area for speculation to resolve aporia in the model. But are we doing philosophy or physics? Science can never outstrip its premise. The enigma is that where the premise to analysis fails, synthesis begins. Where something "seem real" we can start to think analytically. But the end of analysis is not proof, it is the erosion of the premise. The end of science is where the enigma of synthesis intrudes upon its premise. Physics has spent the past century devising ever-more elaborate strategies for putting off the moment where chaos reigns. But ultimately its only argument for this strategy is that it "seems real".
Im not sure what decay you are looking for...
Where's the logic in that?
It means that it is not self-contained.
Logical positivism is the philosophical school the promotes this thinking. It differs from positivism in that the ultimate basis of knowledge rests upon public experimental verification or confirmation rather than personal experience. Hence the importance of the experiment, document, data. I would describe the school (and others may disagree) as positivists who put a lot of importance to the scientific method.
And of course that seems quite OK and fair. The only problem comes when people, as usual, take this to the extreme and start thinking that when you cannot make the scientific experiment, then those things don't matter so much. Or start to look for things that prove the (usually) mathematical model. Simply putting the cart (scientific model) in front of the horse (curiosity about reality) and then being puzzled how it's not going so well as the other way around.
Exactly what Thunderballs says, science is not self-contained. The corrections to science don't come from science. Science has provisions for outside influence, in the form of hypotheses and theories which are not scientifically proven, they are metaphysical speculations.
Didn't say that.
Quoting Thunderballs
I didn't say that.
You said it is "self-correcting". It is not self-correcting, because the corrections come from outside science, as I explained, and this is allowed for by the fact that science is not self-contained, as T said. Is this difficult for you to understand?
Where outside?
It is difficult to understand. :rage:
Did you not read my posts? Metaphysics.
I didn't read.
I listen to people who have manners!
Empirical science which puts sensation and observation on a pedestal. Which, according to critics, is done to the detriment of things outside of our perception -- thing in itself. Whether you agree or not, this is a real concern for them.
At this point, I don't have much opinion anymore about Bohr's controversial quantum postulate (for which I provided snippets in another page of this thread. You are welcome to discern what you may from those quotes).
Yes, the empirical scientific school of thought is criticized for this. There are principles outside of perception that are needed if the scientific methodology is to be judged scientific..
Yes, now as I have mentioned previously, the decline of Science is the decline of a means to express one's intrigue and curiosity which are the very fundamentals of thought and attributes of homo sapiens. Philosophically or metaphysically, Science as a concept and institution has the possibility for decline as any other institution. But the very essence and fundamentals of Science could never be extinguished or decay without the obliteration of the human race.
You science people are a strange bunch. I think enough has been discovered. It's time to hang up the white coats, cash out your trillions from all the profits, grants, and whatnot, go buy a sports car, go to the beach and just enjoy nature, while we still can. Your work has been done. Thank you for your service, I.. guess.
Science is not a snake's skin. Once it has served its purpose, it cannot be shed. Primarily speaking, it will never complete serving its purpose. Once we discovered that the Earth was a planet, we went on to discover an entire solar system, from there, the galaxies, the universe, what constitutes the universe, dark matter, subatomic particles, etc.
The point being, it'll never cease to exist as it is an inbuilt human nature. It isn't an institution or a religion, it is a thought process, it facilitates the use of neuronal synapses and it can never cease to exist. It could cease to exist as an institution (which would be chaotic and catastrophic), but it could never lose its essence.
I was thinking this too. Since the "shut up and calculate" attitude the nature of that what the math described stands secondary.
The actual way it happened: Calculate...whaaaat??? ( :chin: :scream: )...sh! sh! shut up!
2.
3. Shut up!
If you notice in your reading that the physicists are mostly the culprit of the traditional science-decline sentiments, though they're not the only target of the critics. Quantum theory, relativity theory, reductionist physics, and oh, alternative knowing. I think the Germans promoted this alternative knowing. Not sure.
On the other side of this "speculative" physics, are the empiricists. Those who want to play it safe and remain down to earth. (not my idea). Perception and observation are the real scientific method according to this thinking.
But our ordinary lives depend on something else. The here and now happenings -- like the science behind the vaccines, or the CDC's understanding of the spread of diseases, and people's conception of freedom and rights relating to the containment of diseases. (If you tested positive for TB, you can't fly, etc. If you do, your record of communicable disease would be all over the media. And to the authorities, that's fair game). Yet squabbles about what's science and what's pseudo science in testing vaccines and efficacy of drugs and pandemic hardly become permanent inhabitants of scholarly books that get attacked by the likes of Hilary Putnam.
It seems to me that prominent philosophers who finally find time to write a criticism against a staunch critic of science always end up reacting against Marxism or socialism -- they use the background of science in order to get to the point of criticizing the marxist or socialist agenda. Not that I have any opposition to it. I don't care. I don't even understand.
But one gets excited over a narrative, only to be slammed with a marxist/socialist horror story. How about let's get to the business of criticizing science or defending it, and not be shuttered by more marxist socialist political tryst. Maybe we should read PW Anderson.
I have seen criticism of QM mainly and relativity perhaps a bit and then that physics is reductionistic (though the reductionism charge I have tended to see aimed more at the biological sciences). But I am not sure how that relates to empirical critiques. Relativity has had many types of empirical confirmation, as has QM. In general. Specific interpretations of qm phenomena are seen as unjustified, but the data does not support seeing particles as tiny balls. IOW common sense metaphysics and the traditional sense of matter are contradicted by QM empirical data. Quoting BylawI am still stuck here. If my first summation of part of your position is off, please let me know.Quoting CaldwellRight, or so I would guess, not having read much of Putnam, but philosophy often focuses on what's on paper, the ideal science, say epistemology. Not real world application of science where politics and money influence every stage from what gets investigated, by whom, how it is investigated, who confirms results, what results are found, how this is applied in the world and nowadays who in the scientific community even gets to talk. Peer review can be silenced. Counterevidence can be eliminated from public view not because it is false, but because it might cause someone to doubt. Well, that's what counter or new evidence ought to do. That is an incredibly complicated set of phenomena and a lot of academic philosophers want to focus on one topic at a time. And they very well may lack the training to evaluate
a lot of the factors. Those factors are studied is some ways in political philosophy, but that may not be their discipline. Further, only partially. They need media studies, economics, sociology, propaganda studies, and specific research into the relevent regulatory bodies/organizations/companies involved in the process, which should entail some expertise in financial forensics. A nice interdisciplinary panet (who can pass some kind of audit themselves) is probably necessary.
Seems relevant.
People understand different things when they talk about science.
So I think we should first define the term and then identify what aspect of science is in decay.
Since science is not a single"method" we need to find out what really is.
Science is a Philosophical Category (Natural Philosophy) with a set of empirical methodologies that is mainly interested in the evaluation of our knowledge claims.
What people do with those knowledge claims is a separate issue.(politics, economics etc).
In my opinion the only decay related to science is the public understanding of what science is, their inability to distinguish technology from science and what elements make scientific knowledge so important and credible.
This decay is mainly product of the global system of education set to serve other priorities and the idea that knowledge is just an opinion.
It's cause the reductionist charge is yet another issue addressed by the critics. It goes like this, in three separate issues:
1.science has now been invaded by probability because it strayed away from causality. The probability coming from QM and relativity. For example, it is now fashionable to have a theory of duality -- wave/particle quantum entities. Is it a wave or is it concrete particles? Causality gives science not only predictability, but also precision. That's the power of causation.
2. science has been used in all aspects of humanity -- whether it can actually explain fully the human psychology or behavior is not a problem. In the name of science, everything could be quantified and measured. (this is a separate issue from one). Notice that in #1, if we accept QM, we're okay to not have exact measurements. But here issue #2, according to critics, science would like to have a precise formula for understanding human behavior.
3. reductionism in terms of mechanistic interpretation of every thing, the world. Such as, one equation for everything. Again, go back to #2 -- there are humans and animals (whose intelligence are undeniable) in the world. Critics argue that the mechanistic view of the world would like to rid of the organic and metaphysical quality of the inhabitant of the Earth.
Quoting Bylaw
This is criticism number 4. If we go with the empiricists, on the other hand, the empiricists would like to rid of realism in scientific terms. Do you agree? There are things in the world that exists with or without us. Now the empiricists would then say, then who's doing the science, but humans themselves. So ultimately, realism is defective. See the point?
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I concur.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Again, I agree.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Yes, I have now accepted that we should change our focus to the understanding of what science is about. Start with education.
But the strongest critics of science are those that are against QM and relativity because QM is the gateway to all kinds of "speculative science", if you will. (See my response to Bylaw above). So, what better way to stop the bleeding than to get straight to the source -- which is the QM (and I'm not even knowledgeable of the enormity of the power of QMists to even change the foundation of science).
Heck, I don't understand, period.
It's an apt metaphor.
The invasion of probability is due to the reliance on mathematics rather than description.
Yes. I haven't even thought that finally someone could say this. To some description alone is inaccurate.
Description can only go so far in providing for prediction. It used to be the case, that prediction was the means of validating the hypothesis (description), as the scientific method. Now, prediction itself is what brings in the money, so no one really cares about the description (hypothesis). And, the mathematics of probability is what enables prediction, so that's where the focus is.
Ah, 'makes sense.
-"Yes, I have now accepted that we should change our focus to the understanding of what science is about. Start with education."
-We need to admit that this is a real difficult task. Our descriptions about science are still evolving so we have to expect this confusion.
The best description I have ever heard is by , in my opinion, one of the most important modern philosophers of Science,Paul Hoyningen-Huene. His book "Systematicity the Nature of science"(and his free academic lectures ) provide a clear demarcation and explains why the values of scientific epistemology expand in multiple dimensions (at least 9 aspects).
[i]-But the strongest critics of science are those that are against QM and relativity because QM is the gateway to all kinds of "speculative science", if you will. (See my response to Bylaw above). So, what better way to stop the bleeding than to get straight to the source -- which is the QM (and I'm not even knowledgeable of the enormity of the power of QMists to even change the foundation of science).
Heck, I don't understand, period.[/i]
-Well, in my opinion, that is NOT science's fault. QM is a probabilistic framework due to the nature of the microscopic world and our limited abilities in observing systems without interfering with them (Observer Objectivity Collapse). On the other hand QM provides the most accurate predictions made by any of our scientific frameworks...(99,9999up to 14 decimal places!).
The problem is with PHILOSOPHY....again.... and with scientists and philosophers who find a chance to promote their personal pseudo metaphysical beliefs without having a adequate understanding of QM.
Should we discard such an instrumentally valuable framework and ignore our counterintuitive observations of the quantum scale just because some pseudo philosophers/scientists invoke the supernatural in their interpretations?
I think not.QM is science. Our observations and our mathematical formulations are of the highest standards.The problem rises with how some attempt to interpret those counter intuitive observations.!
I will insist in saying that the problem is created by people's (philosophers and scientists) ignorance on what Philosophy is and how it should be practiced.
Science is guarding its field of publications rigorously with the peer review process, something that Philosophy isn't doing at all. The dogma of "free inquire" allows pseudo philosophy to pose next to real philosophy and that confuses people who don't know how to demarcate Philosophy from pseudo philosophy. You will ask what philosophy has to do with the misunderstanding of science.
Well the think is that pseudo philosophy trives at the limits of our scientific epistemology. i.e. We have QM and we don't know how to interpret their relation to the classical world. That appears to be a chance for philosophy to offer more than 12 quantum interpretations and many more distorted versions of them.
A couple of thousand years ago, Aristotle organized and systematized Logic and Philosophy. He defined the Philosophical procedure while the etymology of the word informed us of its goal...."the intellectual endeavor of producing wise claims about the world". In order for a claim to be wise, Aristotle knew that it needed to be founded on credible epistemology, so he included Physika(modern science) as an important step in the any Philosophical inquiry.
The 6 essential steps of the Philosophical process according to Aristotle are:
1. Epistemology (what we know and how we know it).
2. Science(evaluate our current epistemology and produce new data)
3. Metaphysics(interpret what all the new data means for our epistemology)
application of the newly produced conclusions to the branches of
4.Aesthetics
5.Ethics
6.Politics
Unfortunately the only Philosophical category that follows Aristotle's blueprint(3 main steps) is that of Natural Philosophy...currently known as science. Its the only category that identifies and tests the epistemic claims, have a set of methodologies to do it and produces hypotheses(metaphysics) on consistent auxiliary principles and with high standards of evidence evaluation.
Most philosophers (Naturalists excluded) ignore the first two steps and jump in metaphysics from the get go or they use arbitrary and epistemically useless philosophical principles to interpret our epistemology (this is the case QM) according to their metaphysical beliefs.
This is a problem that we all personally experience in any philosophical forum (not only science). People believing that they can make meaningful philosophy while they ignore our latest epistemology, while using non naturalistic principles in their speculations(not those of Methodological Naturalism) and by not even bothering about the basic rules and criteria of Logic (Null HYpothesis, Demarcation,Burden etc).
When you point out to them that they are pseudo philosophizing they are surprised learning....that they need to follow rules in order for their philosophy to be real philosophy. So I think we need to reform and demarcate Philosophy if we need to get rid of the fluff and woo that accumulates at the borders of our scientific epistemology.
-"Description can only go so far in providing for prediction. It used to be the case, that prediction was the means of validating the hypothesis (description), as the scientific method. Now, prediction itself is what brings in the money, so no one really cares about the description (hypothesis). And, the mathematics of probability is what enables prediction, so that's where the focus is."
-The truth is far more complex than those simplifications.
Scientific Theories have the power to fuel 3 basic aspects of epistemology.
1. Accurate Descriptions.
2. Testable Predictions
3. Technical Applications.
The No. 3 is what has the power to generate wealth (bring money) ...but that is only possible if a theoretical or a mathematical framework have first the power to produce accurate descriptions and testable predictions. IF not ...we can not produce any applications.
QM checks all three aspects even if we currently lack a theoretical framework...that to be far has nothing to do with describing the phenomenon but more with our intuitive expectations of how nature should work in relation to our classical world. In QM ur math describe accurately what we observe(99.999999999999999%). Unfortunately "our observations" are not exactly ....observations. We need to crash particles in order to gain any measurement and that means that we need to interact with the system we try to observe.
Complexity science, emergence and chaos theory etc are some new "tools" that we have develop to study and quantify emergent phenomena that are far more noisy and messy. Statistical probabilities and the presence of ''noise'' were always part of our scientific observations, specially in social sciences...but for a weird reason, when physics reached that point (where our objective observations were compromised and the noise is a notch higher) everybody found an opportunity to push their meta ontology down people throats....and accuse science for letting this happen!
Nothing is wrong or fabricated or because of money in probabilistic Science!
Like the reductionistic method....probabilities JUST one more Method available to Science and now Physics needs to use it too!
Philosophers of sciences tell us again and again, that science is NOT "a method" but an intellectual procedure with numerous methodologies!
This is misinformation, I'm afraid. The philosophers of science are the scientists themselves. In the philosophy of mathematics, they are the mathematicians themselves. Logic, logicians. In my opinion, the rigour of theory building in philosophy requires much more than assiduous research. It is analyzed, debated, proofed, and debated again, then criticized. Plus it rallies the support of endowments (you can look this up). I think it's a misconception that physicists change hats between doing physics and doing philosophy. There's not a break in the rigour of their analyses -- they build on the works of past philosophers, not reinvent the wheel.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
No. I disagree very much. This is again misinformation. I'm afraid people who say this haven't read one book of a philosopher physicist. Nickolasgaspar, I really would like to discuss this, but this is a topic for another day. There's so much to say. I can't do it right now. I mean, how do we even begin talking about this when the part and parcel are all of the wrong specifications, so to speak. Some members in this forum are well equipped, not to mention eloquent, to tackle this sort of a mess.
-"The philosophers of science are the scientists themselves"
-they are philosophers...but even if they are scientists...they are doing philosophy.
-" In the philosophy of mathematics, they are the mathematicians themselves."
-they can be physicists....but again in the philosophy of mathematics...they do philosophy, not science.
-"Logic, logicians. In my opinion, the rigour of theory building in philosophy requires much more than assiduous research. It is analyzed, debated, proofed, and debated again, then criticized."
-And what is your point?
-" I think it's a misconception that physicists change hats between doing physics and doing philosophy. There's not a break in the rigour of their analyses -- they build on the works of past philosophers, not reinvent the wheel"
-Again you are confusing "science" with what scientists do!
I stated "Science is guarding its field of publications rigorously with the peer review process, something that Philosophy isn't doing at all."
This means for a hypothesis to become science, it needs to be objectively verified.
Unfortunately in philosophy not many care about verification and on top of that their hypotheses can be based on all different types of auxiliary presuppositions.(Supernatural, theological etc).
In science that is not permitted.
-"There's not a break in the rigour of their analyses -- they build on the works of past philosophers, not reinvent the wheel."
-That isn't an argument against Science's monitoring methods of its publications.
-"No. I disagree very much. This is again misinformation."
-Then you are wrong. Your philosophy can never be credible if the epistemology you have used to produce your conclusion was not credible too.
-"I mean, how do we even begin talking about this when the part and parcel are all of the wrong specifications, so to speak. Some members in this forum are well equipped, not to mention eloquent, to tackle this sort of a mess. "
-You can not argue against a fundamental fact of Philosophy(At least successfully!). Even the philosopher who systematized logic and Philosophy acknowledged that condition. Aristotle refers to the need of our metaphysics to be the product of credible up to date epistemology through the second most important step for every philosophical inquire. That term is Physika (science).
Logic on its own can not provide wise claims about the world. The GIGO effect is always a threat for our syllogism when we don't have a way to keep "garbage" off our data.
This is not even a controversial idea.
Philosophy is the study and production of wise claims about the world(Love of Wisdom) .A claim can not be wise if it isn't the product of knowledge.
Sorry, this is just wrong. You're misunderstanding the methodology and quality of theoretical building in philosophy. Of course the science has its own way, and philosophy has its own method. But let'ot confuse the two methodologies. I was arguing for the rigour.
No I don't misunderstand the methodology and quality of theoretical building in science. I just criticize the objectively low quality of logical standards of those methodologies and the whole evaluation process of the Academia. Those are the reason why pseudo philosophy parades side by side with credible philosophical ideas.
Rigour is non existent in the academia allowing logical fallacies to play a foundational role in philosophical auxiliary assumptions....under the excuse of ''free inquiry''.
Most people forget that Science is a philosophical category that produces theoretical frameworks with an unpresident epistemic success, not so much because of its empirical methodologies of investigation but mainly because of the Auxiliary Principles of Methodological Naturalism, the standards of Objectivism and Evidentialism and the absolute obedience to the rules, criteria and principles of Logic used on any scientific finding and interpretation.
Its not just my personal understanding on the topic. As I already wrote Mario Bunge has recorded far more many issues in our philosophical inquires tin his book Philosophy in crisis.
Many Naturalists Philosophers point out the epistemically and philosophically useless large volume of publications that are based on unfounded presuppositions that will always remain irrelevant to the rest body of knowledge and wisdom.
I feel that science is more of a methodology or “mindset” - so I find it hard to believe the pillars of logic could decay now that we have established a method that has clear structure based in reason. Observation - Hypothesis - experiment and conclusion. In principle this method is not even restricted to science as it is the concept of “trial and error” and the formulation of an explanatory “best fit”.
In essence we understand consistency, repeatability and predictive value as the core of what is “true” about the natural/ physical world. We have seen it work for us countless times in the past and led to the development of many a life enhancing technology, pharmaceutical or revelation. Sure you can “believe” whatever you want but there is little value in something that doesn’t offer practical application across the board for all.
Science combats skepticism because of its utility.
I will agree that our interpretations of facts are based on logic and our Auxiliary Philosophical Principles are Standard(that of Methodological Naturalism)but no one in science follows a specific set of steps.
-"In essence we understand consistency, repeatability and predictive value as the core of what is “true” about the natural/ physical world."
-Well science doesn't claim to be in the business of truth. Science sees those criteria as indications of knowledge.Truth is an evaluation used by science at far earlier points in the process, when we screen claims on whether they are in agreement with current facts.
Quoting Caldwell
I don't think that there's such a thing as an "anti-scientific movement". If you can provide some references ...
Likewise about "anti-scientific sentiments". In fact, I can't think that the characterization "anti-scientific" sounds too dramatic, heavy and, most importantly if is unreal. Who can be against Science? (I will use a capital "S" to mean Science as an institution, in contrast, e.g. to "science" as a field of knowledge.) Our whole lives are based 99% on or affecte by Science.
Then, in what sense or way do you see the decay of Science? "Decay" can be "a state or process of rotting or decomposition" or it can be "a gradual decline in strength, soundness, or prosperity or in degree of excellence". Other kinds of decay may also exist but I believe that you have in mind the second of the ones I mentioned.
Then, what are the indications of such a decay that you see in Science? Is it that it has not made important breakthroughs or has advanced significantly in the last let's say 5, 10 or 50 years, comparing to its past achievements? Is it that it is not that important in our lives these days as in the past? Is it that it fails to provide answers to vital human problems? And so on.
Now, whatever of the above views matches your own, it will be still very difficult to judge, evaluate the evolution of the Science as a whole. Why? Because there are fields in it that advance faster and/or in a more impressive way than others. And of course it is impossible to talk about Science in average.
Sorry, but it's not the philosophy's fault that there exist useless large volume of publications that are based on unfounded presuppositions. Just like in all schools of thought, or field of study, there's gonna be works that are useless, or unfounded. Don't blame philosophy, though.
None of the above.
And yes, I'm also trying to get to the bottom of this insane sentiment that science will someday decay. But not necessarily weaken, as an institution. Just to put it in perspective, a bad conglomerate can be strong and prosperous. I think the "decay" part is a metaphor for something that's hard to foresee or just understand. How dare critics insinuate that science can someday decay, no? Preposterous!
Sounds like a plan.
:ok:
-"Sorry, but it's not the philosophy's fault that there exist useless large volume of publications that are based on unfounded presuppositions. Just like in all schools of thought, or field of study, there's gonna be works that are useless, or unfounded. Don't blame philosophy, though. "
-We don't find such types of publication in science...so its the fault of Academia for allowing "free inquiry" and unmonitored publications under its name.
We are talking about the publication of theoretical model based on epistemically failed principles like supernaturalism, theism or idealism
Philosophy and science aren't competitors. In philosophy we find avenues which in the end bear no fruit, but in science we do as well. We find articles about subjects that were once hotly debated and have been forgotten nowadays, such as the substance 'Flogiston'. Maybe the same will happen to substances like 'dark matter'. The philosophical gaze is different from the scientific one. Philosopy traces concepts taken for granted in science, such as objectivity. See the work of Lorraine Daston and Peter Gallison for an illuminating trip through the history of science and the concept of objectivity. A philosopher such a Latour also points out how science becomes possible due to the specific constellation of people and things.
To get a grip on the question whether science is in decay we need a firm definition of what science is. Are we speaking about a practice, a method, an institution, or a certain kind of authority?
You're not entertained? Occupied at least? Doesn't entertainment bring happiness or at least contentment? Doesn't this advance (or at least as you say bear fruit of evidence of the advancement of) the human condition and well being? Is this not the point of science?
Ohhh that is a misunderstanding, my apologies. I did not mean to imply all avenues of philosophical inquiry bear no fruit, just that some do not, just like in science. In fact, i think philosophy is critically important for our world view. I think there is a straight line to be rawn from Nietzsche through Michel Foucault, the feminist an equal rights movement, right to the new Bond movie. Our philosophical commitments, however implicit they are held, will determine the 'decay' of science. Behind all physcis lies metaphysics.
In what way then? :brow:
Quoting Caldwell
Aha! Didn't see that coming! I thought that yourself believed in the deacy of science!
OK then, let others believe that! :smile:
Who said they are competitors?
-"Philosophy and science aren't competitors. In philosophy we find avenues which in the end bear no fruit, but in science we do as well."
-Why are you mentioning that?
-"We find articles about subjects that were once hotly debated and have been forgotten nowadays, such as the substance 'Flogiston'."
-This is before our current scientific paradigm. What "chronicling" has to do with the problems I point out ...which by the way they are not just my observations. Mario Bunge, a philosopher, in his book highlights the same issues and even more
-"Maybe the same will happen to substances like 'dark matter'.
-Substance? No the label dark matter doesn't necessary imply a "substance". Have you heard the new theory on Gravity by Erik Verlinde called Emergent Gravity. A new working hypothesis suggest something beyond a specific substance which is in agreement with emergence.
Either way the phenomenon is observable and the label won't go away like phlogiston did.
-"The philosophical gaze is different from the scientific one. Philosopy traces concepts taken for granted in science, such as objectivity. See the work of Lorraine Daston and Peter Gallison for an illuminating trip through the history of science and the concept of objectivity. A philosopher such a Latour also points out how science becomes possible due to the specific constellation of people and things."
-You are off topic. I am pointing out that publications that attempt to explain reality and ideas at the limits of our epistemology and beyond, constantly introduce supernatural principles in their interpretations. That is unacceptable.
-"To get a grip on the question whether science is in decay we need a firm definition of what science is. Are we speaking about a practice, a method, an institution, or a certain kind of authority? "
-Science is NOT decaying, neither as a method or an establishment or as a final product ( knowledge/theoretical frameworks). Being an institution within a corrupted economical system will always have its drawbacks but its self-correcting mechanism and monitoring of its peer view process and publications will protect the body of our epistemology from being polluted, something Philosophy can not do.
I am not saying science is decaying, I am saying that, if we want to answer the question we have to come to terms with what we mean when we speak of science. Sure, academic scientific endeavour has a review procedure, so does philosophy.. You seem to hold on to some ideal of value free science, but it is not there. Philosophers and sociologists of science have pointed that out time and again. I suggest reading the work on what they call the 'science policy interface', sheila Jassanoff and Jeremy Ravetz come to mind.
Latour and Woolgar wrote a very interesting book on how 'facts' are produced in laboratories in 1979. Science too rests on arguments of auuthority, paradigms, prestige and citation indices. Now I am not claiming sicence is dying. That is the claim Caldwell brought forth, not her own though but those of some authors apparently. I do not subscribe to it, but to see science as some sort of exalted untainted objective human affair is hopelessly naive.
-"I am not saying science is decaying, I am saying that, if we want to answer the question we have to come to terms with what we mean when we speak of science."
-Correct in every philosophical discussions all definitions should be offered before talking past each other.
-" Sure, academic scientific endeavour has a review procedure, so does philosophy.. "
-Yes but philosophy's procedure is inadequate to keep bad philosophy away from its published material.
-"You seem to hold on to some ideal of value free science, but it is not there."
-No I am not going to absolute claims. I only state that the scientific establishment makes a far better job in monitor its peer review procedures by using far more strict rules and standards...that's all.
-"Philosophers and sociologists of science have pointed that out time and again. "
-They have pointed what?
-"I suggest reading the work on what they call the 'science policy interface', sheila Jassanoff and Jeremy Ravetz come to mind."
-We should always judge a procedure by its outcome and science has enjoyed a huge run away success on epistemology while Philosophy still deals with pseudo philosophical worldviews masquerading as valid principles behind many publications.
We know that in a system where profit is the main player we will always experience drawbacks and delays, specially in scientific fields that are also commercial applications (Medical Science).
BUt the problem is identified and addressed by removing (better late than ever) anything that sneaks in as "knowledge".
The issue with Philosophy is that we don't even see any attempts to deal with the problem.
-"Latour and Woolgar wrote a very interesting book on how 'facts' are produced in laboratories in 1979. Science too rests on arguments of auuthority, paradigms, prestige and citation indices."
-Yes many philosophers or bitter scientists have accused Science for ignoring the Normative lane.
BUt again we should judge the procedure by its success not by "how it should be done".
In other words we should be focusing on Descriptive Science (why it works) not on Normative Science.
Paul Hoyningen-Huene in his amazing series of lectures on philosophy of Science highlights the lack of interest by many philosophers to focus on what makes Descriptive Science so successful. HIs conclusion identifies 9 main dimensions of the procedure holding Systematicity on top of the list.
Philosophy SHOULD learn by the strict evaluation standards of science and show equal respect to the rules of logic.
You keep referring to historical critiques...and I keep referring to established success and why that is the case.
We should listen to Philosophers like Hoyningen and Bunge that point out the problems in the current Philosophical procedure.
Like in the way of apparatus. I know. Members here don't like this word apparatus. Cause it sneaks, and before you know it, we're unknowing participants -- believing it's still science. lol. I don't know.
Could someone explore this? Anyone?
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Not yet at least. We're in the exploratory mode.
Well, I do not read bad philosophical articles. Why do you think academia is flooded by bad philosophy? It is also a tough proposition to test because there is less of an agreed upon method in philosophy than in the natural sciences.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
The problem is that you use similar criteria to judge the two enterprises, I think that is not productive. Studying the natural world is a different enterprise from studying the social world, let alone question our deep seated assumptions.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
They have pointed out the intertwinement of politics and science, where politics is understood in a broad sense. The nfluence of epistemic communities, different schools of thought, the importance of aqcademic prestige and the influence of publication pressure on the rigour of the scientific process. We see that in action in the corona pandemic. The science is the same right, however every country chooses different paths and virologists from Sweden disagree with those from the Netherlands and both are held in high regard in the scientific community.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I do not know which journals you read... I do not see philosophy dealing with an outdated metaphysics. This result oriented view is actually exactly what might be criticized. You say "we should always judge a procedure by its outcomes" but whether we in fact should is a philosophical quetion not a scientific one. Of coourse science has been succesful, but people are now questioning the down side of this success. Maybe that is what is meant by the death of science. Science is criticise for insance for having only a result oriented view without care for its moral implications. Many environmentalists for instance hold this view. Scientific legitimacy also seems to be eroding. Now I am not saying I would concur, but if something like that is meant by the death of science it might be dying.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Good god, the screaming is hurting my ears. Luckily you do not get to decide what philosophers should do no matter how hard you wag your fist and how many capital letters you use. Of course learning can never harm, but you seem to buy into the iddea that there is one sort of criterion according to which every endeavour should be judged. It is an open question whether there is such a criterion.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Or we shpuld read people like Latour, Daston and Beck who take a sociological approach to science. That way science learns something about itself and that in the end is I think the goal of philosophy. It is a hermenutic endeavour and not as you seem to think a descriptive one.
Science decaying in the way an apparatus is decaying? :confused:
Quoting Caldwell
OK.
-"Well, I do not read bad philosophical articles."
-You may not, but many do. Metaphysics specifically suffer by bad non naturalistic speculative frameworks from philosophers and scientists who find a way to publish their ideas outside the difficult "audience" of science.
-"Why do you think academia is flooded by bad philosophy?"
-Again its not my personal thought. Its a fact that many philosophers point out.IF you subscribe to Academia.edu you will receive all kind of "news letters" on new publications spanning from "the role of intuition"(while Psychologist Daniel Kahneman won a Nobel in Economics by exposing intuition's untrustworthy nature as a heuristic) to papers about the " improper implications of an improper undertanding of genesis 1-1 and arguments on Ockham's razor simplicity(when its all about necessity).
-" It is also a tough proposition to test because there is less of an agreed upon method in philosophy than in the natural sciences."
-Not really , because its not about the method, even if Aristotle has defined the philosophical method almost ~2200 years ago. Its about epistemically failed and unfounded non naturalistic presumptions that people use to guide their interpretations.
Science has far more high numbers in its methodological approaches but the Principles(Methodological Naturalism) and standard of Evaluation are all the same. i.e. Sting Theory may not meet those standards(Objectivity, independent verification, falsifiability etc) but the principles behind its conclusions are naturalistic, in agreement with the current scientific paradigm and there are ideas on how to be tested with possible future technologies.
-"The problem is that you use similar criteria to judge the two enterprises, I think that is not productive. Studying the natural world is a different enterprise from studying the social world, let alone question our deep seated assumptions."
-This is what I argue. This is the reason why Philosophy only has a handful of major advances to display while Science as a philosophical category is enjoying a long lasting run away success in epistemology.
This is the main reason why most people still lose their time with pseudo philosophical principles .
Well we also have social sciences studying the "social world" but you don't see they using theology or idealism or supernaturalism to produce knowledge or wise claims on what we try to explain or solve.
Again the problem rises because of that Special Pleading you mention. The standards of logic and evaluation plus our principles SHOULD be the same for ALL our intellectual endeavors.
Sure Philosophy tackles a far wider spectrum of questions but that should not let it off the hook from obeying logic, verified epistemology and epistemically successful principles and presuppositions.
That is a common misconception many people hold about Philosophy. For some weird reason, the rules , criteria and principles of Logic shouldn't apply on our Philosophical inquiries. Verified knowledge can be ignore for the shake of people presumptions and Objectivity and evidence based evaluations are viewed as unnecessary in our conclusions.
All those attempts to free our thinking from the rules of logic and credible methods of evaluation are responsible for the see of pseudo philosophy that floods our philosophy daily.
-"They have pointed out the intertwinement of politics and science, where politics is understood in a broad sense. The nfluence of epistemic communities, different schools of thought, the importance of aqcademic prestige and the influence of publication pressure on the rigour of the scientific process. We see that in action in the corona pandemic. The science is the same right, however every country chooses different paths and virologists from Sweden disagree with those from the Netherlands and both are held in high regard in the scientific community."
-All those are true...but again in order to prove that those affect our body of epistemology you will need to point out cases where pseudo science has been accepted as scientific knowledge for respectful period.
You will not find any due to science's self correcting mechanism that philosophy doesn't have.
Independent verification is needed for any claim to be remain as part of our epistemology so any attempt to sneak in an idea (cold fusion,Sheldreak's woo) all fall short in the long run.
-"I do not know which journals you read... I do not see philosophy dealing with an outdated metaphysics."
-You need to investigate it. Try subscribing to some of them.
-"This result oriented view is actually exactly what might be criticized. You say "we should always judge a procedure by its outcomes" but whether we in fact should is a philosophical quetion not a scientific one. "
-Actually this is a criterion we use to identify pseudo philosophy..."philosophical" conclusions that insist in using epistemically failed principles or outdated knowledge in their interpretations.
So of course we should judge a philosophy when it doesn't offer WISE claims about our world. When the claims are for "other worlds or dimensions" the we are dealing with religious claims, not philosophical ideas that can assist us in understanding this world.
-"Good god, the screaming is hurting my ears. Luckily you do not get to decide what philosophers should do no matter how hard you wag your fist and how many capital letters you use. Of course learning can never harm, but you seem to buy into the iddea that there is one sort of criterion according to which every endeavour should be judged. It is an open question whether there is such a criterion."
-So IMHO you are part of the problem. There is not an open question about it. Its something that Bunge and Hoyningen and Richard Carrier and many others have being pointing out and it is something that can be verified by the results. ITs the reason why many scientists accuse Philosophy for not contributing to our advances...while they are doing philosophy to conclude to that position.
So Philosophy is not the problem here but how people tend to do philosophy!
-"Or we shpuld read people like Latour, Daston and Beck who take a sociological approach to science. That way science learns something about itself and that in the end is I think the goal of philosophy. It is a hermenutic endeavour and not as you seem to think a descriptive one."
-That is an irrelevant aspect that has nothing to do with the main problem of Philosophy. You are arguing about a completely different topic. Nothing of what I say keeps us from doing philosophy of science. And again... any hermenutic endeavour should be interpreted by the same standards and principles.
We have Consequentialism the main philosophical principle behind Secular Morality and our ability to produce objective moral evaluations, but we still have "philosophers" arguing and publishing papers on Divine or Absolute Morality (vs. authoritarianism / absolutism).
We have Aesthetic Relativism explaining different human preferences but we still see philosophers arguing in favor of cosmic aesthetics or confusing aesthetics as an extension of morality.
We have Evidentialism and Objectivism still giving a fight against mysticism, authoritarianism, dogmatism, a priori facts, faith. (I see disagreement falling in this category)
We have real life Political( and economics) Ideas ignoring Human rights and well being. ( exploiting humans as a mean to an end... for backing up a specific social organization system and meeting economic markers).
We have Naturalism still fighting against the epistemically failed principles of Idealism and Supernaturalism....and of course the pseudo idea of "free will" justifying unscientific social practices.
All the above Philosophical clashes are not limited inside the pages of philosophical journalism.Unfortunately they fuel and provide justification to outdated and unscientific solutions by which we insist to organizeour societies....so the implications are serious far more extensive and affect all of us.
It may be. I hardly read metaphysics papers anymore sadly and if I do they would be in the contental vein. Though I think you would disapprove of them, but that is just a hunch.
Quoting Tobias
I have an acaemia page... The paper on genesis may be interesting enough from the field of theology or philosophy of relgion, I cannot judge that. The one on intuition may be interesting. The concept has a history in philosophy which is different from the one in science. If I write on the concept of intuition in pre Kantian metaphysics though Kagneman will get me nowhere.. By the way, the field of social psychology os frowned upon by many academics I believe. I enjoy it much though.
Quoting Tobias
The problem is disagreement over what an ' advancement' is. Our understanding of scientific paradigms is a philosophical advancement, our interest for discourses of power is too. The problem is you are just unreflectively putting forward your (or the scientific community's) criteria for advancement and start judging. It is like me using legal criteria to judge a football match, it leads to misunderstanding.
Quoting Tobias
The dutch team of scientific experts cited lack of proof in order to wait with making mouth masks mandatory while the whole world wore them. This is a small example but why would that not happen by and large? Epiemiology for instance is plagued by data dredging, finding corelations which are represented as causations. Economic analyses have often been proven wrong or inadequate due to failures of assumptions.
Quoting Tobias
Ohh ear the screaming again. Well if wisdom is your criterion we are in a whilly different ball park. A claim may well be wise, though it has no truth value. First explain what a wise claim is. Quoting Tobias
I am not part of the problem at all. You just want your and your schools take on philosophy to rule. Sadly for you it does not. A claim like that is a mere claim to power, with a hidden assumption that they know what good or bad philosophy is.
Quoting Tobias
Ohh I thought we were arguing about the same topic. Luckily you always put us back on track telling us what we should be talking about. That is just so helpful! The problem is you want to push your own schools of thought, fine but I am doing philosophy, not some reductionist game to reduce philosophy to the language game of science.
I am not arguing philosophy cannot learn from the peer review processes of science, just that the difference is far more nuanced than you make it out to be.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
We unfortunately do not have objective moral evaluations, as anyone versed in the field of law or ethics will tell you. You yourself are badying about very controversial and misguided claims here.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Ohh an objectivist... that explains a lot. You do not mean those texts that seem to fail in every philosophcal peer review process I have encountered.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Human rights... that is an interesting one. They run rather cunter to consequntialist ethics. But anyway, show me the philosophical or scientific basis for human rights.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Ohh dear and we should not want any unscientific social practice, no sir! Strawson an analytic philosopher argues against your position. the problem is you mix up the normative with the desriptive. I see that a lot in scientists. It can be cureed, read up on philosophy.
Er, no. Quoting MondoR
Is this true?
Great explanation! :grin:
Any type of knowledge fuels our commercial practices, but that is not Science's intrinsic goal.
Are our current establishments using Science for their own benefits and agenda. Sure they do.
Does that mean that they can introduce their "epistemology" as science, no they can not.
Science as a method can't be affected or decay.
They manage to rather well. I get your point: scientific methodologies/epistemology cannot decay. But here on earth what gets called science can decay, and money is effectively doing that. Given the increase in wealth at the top and decrease in the number of media companies (that reach significant numbers), I am not seeing an easy way for us to break free from this.
"Science" refers to 3 main aspects:
1. The Academic Establishment
2. The Set of Methodologies and Standards of Theoretical evaluations.(what we wrongly refer as Scientific Method)
3. The produced outcome (scientific epistemology).
If one of those aspects decays...it will take the rest of them with it.
From your comment I understand that you are pointing to political and economical practices misrepresenting science. That is a completely different issue and has nothing to do with how science functions.
If you refer to Medical Science I will point out that you are addressing a commercial application of Science , not an Academic discipline like Biology.
You said
And yes, I was referring to economic and then political practices allowing them to present, for example, poor methodolgies and research practices as science. And then effectively paint critics, including scientists, as against science through media that they have much more contol over as a mouthpiece. The specific epistemologies they present are often highlighted by critics and part of their criticisms, but since these are hard for the general public to follow, and even other scientists conflate corporate sponsered research as following The Set of Methodologies and Standards of Theoretical evaluations AND who assume that 'of course' regulatory bodies including scientists would not allow terrible epistemologies (demonstrated in specific examples of poorly done research that supports positions corporations want) to be approved
stuff that is not sound
gets past off as the conclusions of sound scientific methologies.
They don't say 'hey, we have a new epistemology or epistemological viewpoint.' But their unsound and then approved as sound practices are examples of practices that should fall outside The Set of Methodologies and Standards of Theoretical evaluations.
Quoting Bylaw
I'm trying to reconcile these arguments into something clearer to me. I've been grappling with it since the beginning. What Nickolasgaspar's quote above represents is what the decay critics have been saying. When QMists introduced their theories and postulates into science, they were presented as theories on par with causality, which irritated the critics. But, is this a manipulation similar to what Bylaw above is saying -- sleight of hand scientific practices more in tune with profiteering rather than scientific truth? And is the effect the same -- science deteriorates as a result? And who could tell the difference hundreds of generations from now? Just a thought.
Its easy to answer that question. Name one framework that isn't compatible with the principles of Methodological Naturalism and doesn't meet the standards of evidence demanded by science (objectivity/independent verification, Demarcation/ tentative nature etc)and unable to offer Accurate descriptions, testable predictions and technical applications.
Just one will prove the decay of science as a real threat and a fact.
IMO most people who make that claim don't really understand the scientific procedure and the self correcting mechanism that is included in its methodologies.
The standards of evidence is what's being challenged here. Duality for example.
It was a different time, a different mindset. There wasn't even cool and uncool. No pretense to assuage one's enemies, the sky the limit.
We even laugh at how hokily optimistic they were. Their big dreams. Religion claimed answers; rogue scientists claimed magic.
We need to reinvigorate ourselves. We've taken too many minor setbacks to heart. We can do this. We can do anything.
Fuck cynicism. Encourage each other, regain our innocence.
Please do tell.
It's just my estimation. Physicalism implies something they weren't. The jury was out on God, and it still should be.
We need to get corny.
It appears you've never lost yours. Congratulations.
-" The jury was out on God, and it still should be."
-Why are you including religious artifacts in a conversation about science?
All scientific laws are descriptive...this means that if they stop describing our observations accurately they are challenged by default. Our frameworks were never considered as "absolute truths", again science doesn't play the "absolute truth" game.
Science produces data and offers descriptive law like generalizations based on Naturalistic principles...not because of a philosophical bias but due to Pragmatic Necessity since they are the only testable and objectively falsifiable.
I understand that absolute knowledge or truth as Science's goals are popular beliefs,but they couldn't be further from the truth. Science offers tentative positions because our observations are based on our technology. Our technology advances so our observations always change and new facts become available. The Quasi dogmatic* principle can only slow down the process of replacing old successful frameworks but that is only because we need to have and study a "black box" in order to see why a theory crashed and burned. (*Paul Hoyningen: Systematicity the Nature of Science).
The fact is that most of our new observations and facts, refine our frameworks, they do not really change much of the picture and this is why we are confident having the same Scientific Paradigm and the same naturalistic principles for almost 500 years now.
The above remarks are not necessary in conflict with what you stated, I only included them as additional information in the discussion.
[i]-" Conclusions that seem to challenge traditional ontologies are not decaying science."
-"If the research, data collection, protocols and so on were unsound, that's a problem, which might or might not decay science if endemic."
- "Science is a set of methodologies. They lead us where they will. And they may lead away from some folk theories that seemed obvious to the consensus of scientists for a long time."[/i]
-I agree in all three of the above statements.
-"Or we could call some of these ontological assumptions/conclusions 'heuristics' that are not useful in certain contexts. I mean, we know from Einstein that some of Newton's ontology was incorrect."
-Well to be fair towards Newton, he never included any ontology in his mathematical formulations. To be more precise he never published a theory, his Theory of Gravity is not a theory! Its a law in the form of a mathematical description!. There is even an anecdote informing people to call the phenomenon whatever they want (energy, force etc)...
Others rushed in to ad their narrative on what his equations implied.
Now Einstein's theory does make ontological claims about Gravity. Erik Verlinde's new Theory on Emergent Gravity suggest an new ontology. Newtons math just describes what the phenomenon actually does.
In science, ontological explanations are descriptive.....they are not speculative of entities or substances etc. And even when they suggest an existential claim (in the for of Hypotheses) they really informed and based on known entities that display similar qualities and properties. (i.e. Higgs Boson,).
-" We have repeatedly shown this via what seem like sound protocols. That's just fine. We can still use Newton's formula's in many contexts, but let go of the ontology, not that most people do. "
-Agreed.
I feel the need to highlight an important distinction.
Science deals with ontological descriptions within the observable reality and we don't know if its unobservable part (if there is one) is capable to hide a different ontology. So the default position is to accept the ontology we know it is possible and withhold belief to any unfounded claim.
When people try to talk about that "part of reality", we are dealing with Meta ontology.
Science, philosophy and this conversation for that "meta" part of reality are not at the same ball park.
So non naturalistic principles(an assumed meta ontology) are not and shouldn't be part of our philosophical narrative inside or outside of science. We need to be careful with our principles when we try to interpret new facts and evidence. i.w. A Natural law is not in question or under fire when people decide to interpret the available evidence by using unfounded principles(non natural). Those principles need to be verified...not assumed.
Sure, but the idea that laws are timeless and universal can be challenged. Which means they weren't necessarily wrong before, but the conclusion that they were built permanently into the fabric of the whole universe could be incorrect.
IOW what you write here is not relevant to the issue I was raising.Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
What you just presented here is a position that some scientists have (only humans can have biases and positions) but others do not. I'd say I am a kind of Pragmatist so I don't have a problem with your position here, in fact, I would say I agree with it. More than that I think that was what I was saying to Caldwell, though I am not sure exactly what his position is. But it seems to be that QM includes theories (or hypotheses that he considers unjustly accepted) that go against things like clearcut causal laws, so this is decay.
Well, to me, it might be a problem if the conclusions are wrong, but that's true for conclusions that support what he or anyone else might consider ontologically correct.Quoting NickolasgasparI'll just say you seem to be assuming things about my beliefs or the position I presented which are not the case. And again, Science can't have goals. Only living organisms can. (with a proviso that future evidence might alter my position on this:joke:)Quoting NickolasgasparAh, OK, I hadn't gotten this far yet. Thanks for the clarification.Quoting NickolasgasparI claim no expertise about Newton, but it has been presented to me from hundreds of (perhaps weak) sources that he did in fact believe in absolute time and space.
Some going so far, as here, arguing where he got his ideas from and then quoting Newton.
Quoting NickolasgasparGreat. I have to add that I really wish this was the way scientists, in general, acted. You are talking about 'the default position' Science can't have a default position, people have them. And the people I see and interact with do not withold beliefs to unfounded (or even partially founded or even merely mentioned) claims. In fact ironically Caldwell's reaction (which I may be misinterpreting) to QM seems like what I experience in my interaction with the majority of scientists I've met: they don't withhold beliefs. They evaluate intuitively or deductively beliefs that contradict or seem to contradict or might contradict or just seem weird based on their sene of current models, ontologies and theories. And they often rapidly dismiss things that, were your sense of the default in praxis accurate IRL, they should not given what science is. And they do this with peers also. To bring back Newton, there is a lot of inertia when encountering new and 'strange' ideas. Bodies at rest and in motion and all that....
But that's nothing new and not a sign of decay unless someone can show it has gotten worse.
Of course one could then ask if it is science that has decayed or scientists who have deteriorated.
But I can't fully separate out a Platonic form science from the in situ mediated form I encounter, much as I try to point at the Ideal form when encountering some scientists and more commonly their groupies (not a dig at you, you know way too much to be categorized that way. In fact the people who annoy me would likely in practice go against your defaults with regularly and thus have problems with you also.)
-"Sure, but the idea that laws are timeless and universal can be challenged. Which means they weren't necessarily wrong before, but the conclusion that they were built permanently into the fabric of the whole universe could be incorrect."
-Sure, any idea can be challenged on reasonable doubts and objective facts.
First of all we need to distinquish the concept of laws as "human narratives" and the Regularity of the processes driving Phenomena in nature(attempted to be described by our laws ).
Human narratives can change due to new evidence. So we can challenge the longevity of our descriptions. I am not sure that we can successfully challenge the regularity or longevity of natural mechanism and properties.
Regularity is a basic quality in Nature and both concepts of timeless and universal are in agreement with that. Sure we can not prove or disprove this claim, so I look it more as a Pragmatic Necessity due to our limited observations. Its like the logical absolutes and any other axiom to be honest. They are all accepted as such.... as long as we are keep verifying them with every use.
I see what you say but I can not really challenge them solely on the lack of a mathematical type of proof. In science we use induction and the power in this type of reasoning comes directly from the risk we take to predict things. Tautologies(deduction) do not offer valuable predictions at all!
So we can agree there is a risk in that "assumption" but it is a beneficial UNTIL it is unable to produce predictions.
[i]-"IOW what you write here is not relevant to the issue I was raising.
Our frameworks were never considered as "absolute truths", again science doesn't play the "absolute truth" game."[/i]
-You are right, this is why I stated:"The above remarks are not necessary in conflict with what you stated, I only included them as additional information in the discussion."
My point was that since science doesn't deal with "absolute truth"...we need to expect changes in our frameworks since they are only the product of our current observations and understanding.
-"What you just presented here is a position that some scientists have (only humans can have biases and positions) but others do not. I'd say I am a kind of Pragmatist so I don't have a problem with your position here, in fact, I would say I agree with it. More than that I think that was what I was saying to Caldwell, though I am not sure exactly what his position is."
-Those "scientists" who don't share this position are not doing science...its that simple. They are either using the Principles of Methodological Naturalism or they are doing some kind of "philosophy".
So from your writings I see you understand how science sets our limitations in our philosophical interpretations and thus protects our epistemology from any pollution by low quality intellectual artifacts
-" But it seems to be that QM includes theories (or hypotheses that he considers unjustly accepted) that go against things like clearcut causal laws, so this is decay.""
-Well that is a misconception. After all QM is science's most successive formulations offering predictions with up to 99,999...up to 14 decimal places....accuracy.
So the "noise'' in our observations of the QM (btw by "observation" we mean crashing bozons and fermions to figure out their spatial/energetic properties) is there but we can verify the Regular Nature of Reality and we have the ability to make predictions (in a probabilistic way) with high accuracy. IT's not the first time in science that we have to represent our predictions by using a "bell curve". (its a first for physics).
Observation Objectivity Collapse( in playing English...meshing with the system we try to observe) is around Social sciences for way too many decades...but when we experience it in other physical systems it somehow becomes a problem for causality.
This is long conversation but one thing is sure. QM verify our current Scientific Paradigm even if we can not figure out its relationship with the rest of the physical scales.
-" I understand that absolute knowledge or truth as Science's goals are popular beliefs,but they couldn't be further from the truth. — Nickolasgaspar
I'll just say you seem to be assuming things about my beliefs or the position I presented which are not the case. And again, Science can't have goals. Only living organisms can. (with a proviso that future evidence might alter my position on this:joke:)"
-Sorry again I should have placed that disclaimer on the top. I was just adding arguments to your comment.
-"I claim no expertise about Newton, but it has been presented to me from hundreds of (perhaps weak) sources that he did in fact believe in absolute time and space."
-I was only referring to Gravity to be honest.
-"Time, in this conception, was external to the universe, and so must be measured independently of the universe. It would continue even if the universe were completely empty of all matter and objects, and essentially represented a kind of container or stage setting within which physical phenomena occur in a completely deterministic way. In Newton’s own words: “absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external”."
-I wouldn't interpret Newton's idea on time as being external to the universe...more like a governing force of the universe. Either way he was wrong. Time is a phenomenon created by evolving processes and affected by other processes.
-"Great. I have to add that I really wish this was the way scientists, in general, acted. You are talking about 'the default position' Science can't have a default position, people have them."
-Well I am talking about using the Null Hypothesis to arrive to the Default position on a specific ontological topic. So Logic should force those people who do science to adopt a specific position as Default. Sure science is just a methodology and a bunch of philosophical assumptions(MN). Logic is what should guide Scientists.
-"n fact ironically Caldwell's reaction (which I may be misinterpreting) to QM seems like what I experience in my interaction with the majority of scientists I've met: they don't withhold beliefs. They evaluate intuitively or deductively beliefs that contradict or seem to contradict or might contradict or just seem weird based on their sene of current models, ontologies and theories. And they often rapidly dismiss things that, were your sense of the default in praxis accurate IRL, they should not given what science is. And they do this with peers also. To bring back Newton, there is a lot of inertia when encountering new and 'strange' ideas. Bodies at rest and in motion and all that...."
-Well to be honest, QM is just counter intuitive and that is mainly caused by our language.
i.e. We use the word "particle", a concept that for centuries was used to describe an entity in the Classic World. Entities of the classic world have specific spatial and temporal behavior. Now we use the same label to describe an energetic glitch in a field but our expectations for its behavior are borrowed by the classical world! We shouldn't maintain the same expectations from matter at such an energetic state and we should take in to account the way we make observations at that scale!
So most interpretations read far more things from our observations and they attempt to deduce directly one scale of reality to an other. I am not sure that a different approach without any hard evidence would be helpful or meaningful.! Maybe I miss some facts.
-"But that's nothing new and not a sign of decay unless someone can show it has gotten worse."
-As I mentioned before the Quasi dogmatic principles is a real thing in science and its responsible for the inertia at any change of our epistemology. Verification is a time consuming process.
-"Of course one could then ask if it is science that has decayed or scientists who have deteriorated."
-I could easily agree on that.! I even have a long list of scientists practicing pseudo philosophy with a white cloak.
-"But I can't fully separate out a Platonic form science from the in situ mediated form I encounter, much as I try to point at the Ideal form when encountering some scientists and more commonly their groupies (not a dig at you, you know way too much to be categorized that way. In fact the people who annoy me would likely in practice go against your defaults with regularly and thus have problems with you also.) "
-Natural philosophy turned in to "science'' because of this issue. Our methods and standards of evaluation is what protects our Science(epistemology) from Science (Establishment).
I don't really disagree with what you say. I can only see my self adding to your statements or going a bit deeper. The only point I don't really get is your position on QM. What observation in QM do you think creates the biggest trouble for our current paradigm?
I don't know. It challenges causality, the gold standard of science.
No actual observation -- that's the point. If you believe those who say that the wavelike quantum entities are really gravitons (particles) forced to move like waves due to gravity (cause), then QM needs to explain the role of probability and how absolute space is only a constraint we impose on the description of quantum objects, (as opposed to absolute space is a reality).
Here again, no one is denying that at the larger, slower objects, causality is not an issue. But once we get to a much smaller, speedier entities, another theory is needed. Bohr, I think, supposes that there should be multi-theories, not a single one. (I don't know if this is correct).
Our language which was evolved to describe our world and the baggage our concepts carry create a counter intuitive picture for a scale of reality that has fundamental differences from all other scales.
I guess in this case the term "quantum particle" is the cockroach.....one cockroach on the kitchen table renders the whole pizza disgusting while a slice of pizza can never "make" a ball of cockroaches eatable.
People argue that we need to throw the whole pizza out(the scientific picture of reality) for a cockroach that we created by our language and the expectations this word suggests.
Probability is explained by the uncertainty principle (Ungenauigkeit /inexactness in German), the characteristic of quantum glitches to display regular and quantifiable fuzzy properties.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/fundamental-physics-constants-not-constant/
https://physicsworld.com/a/are-the-laws-of-nature-changing-with-time/
Quoting NickolasgasparI think the complaint is that qm is ontologically probablisitic, for example. Also that 'things' can be in different potential states at the same time. Of course the evidence is unbelievably strong or they never would have accepted QM and initial resistance was strong. It's that it points, as does relativity theory, to ontological ideas that went not only against common sense but against assumptions in science in general. I have no problem with this, but some do.Quoting NickolasgasparSure, though aren't they getting qm effects at larger scales.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/quantum-human-scale-ligo-mit-nature-a9596056.html
https://physicsworld.com/a/seeing-quantum-effects-on-a-big-scale/
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi_g-64_NjzAhWNn4sKHRtHCE8QFnoECA0QAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.livescience.com%2Fphysicists-entangle-15-trillion-hot-atoms.html&usg=AOvVaw08b78zA0eeFtLEXzLWupAY
And since organisms as large as birds use qm effects this means that large things are visibly affected by small scale processes....
https://arxiv.org/abs/0804.2646
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I am not sure what 'our current paradigm would refer to' but it was Caldwell who I think has a problem with QM. I think, but I am not sure, he sees it as having concluded (a little anthropomorphism tossed in) that classical causation does not hold (at least in some processes or at a certain scale
so (important jump here)
it represents a decay in Science.
Since classical causation must apply, then at least the conclusions in qm must be wrong. Not the data, but any conclusions and any new ontology.
I disagree with him. Or with my hallucinated version of him.
-"Well, if we find evidence that natural mechanism change over time - constants and laws - then they are challenged."
-Yes this is the actual observation (under specific conditions) that we need to verify in order to justify any challenge, but as I said, I am not sure that we currently have any indications to even think about it.
-''I think the complaint is that qm is ontologically probablisitic, for example. Also that 'things' can be in different potential states at the same time. Of course the evidence is unbelievably strong or they never would have accepted QM and initial resistance was strong. It's that it points, as does relativity theory, to ontological ideas that went not only against common sense but against assumptions in science in general. I have no problem with this, but some do.'
-Well probabilities are calculated by thinking agents in their efforts to predict the outcome of a system,so its more of an observer relative term than an intrinsic feature of the ontology of a natural system.
I can not see any meaning in the statement "qm is ontologically probabilistic". We as observers calculate probabilities in order to make a prediction.
QM doesn't have an ontology...its a methodology in a specific discipline of science. If they refer to the quantum world, well its ontology is materialistic since QP studies matter in its energetic form.
-" Also that 'things' can be in different potential states at the same time."
-That is an other misconception on what QM says. The actual statement is that the states of fundamental particles have many probable values Until we do our measurement and pinpoint that actual value. The "wave function" that derives from our formulation inform us for all those possible values that a specific particle might be. When we do our measurement we can point out the specific value and get rid the rest of the probable values that our math were predicting.
ITs bad language used to describe a really simple thing.
Let me give you a real life example.When playing hide and seek in a room there is a number of potential hiding places one can be. When you start searching for him,at that "same" time he can (potentially) be in any of those places. That doesn't mean that he "occupies" all of them at the same time. The term "at the same time" is statistically speaking!
-" Of course the evidence is unbelievably strong or they never would have accepted QM and initial resistance was strong."
-The resistance was strong because we had to wait for many years in order to be sure that the "inexactness" we get was not a measurement issue, but an intrinsic feature of the system.
This noise and fuzziness exist when we try to measure highly energetic fundamental elements of matter.
-" It's that it points, as does relativity theory, to ontological ideas that went not only against common sense but against assumptions in science in general."
-Either than the counter intuitive picture we receive for the behavior of those entities, nothing that we observe goes against the basic principles of science.
As I said, its a problem of language, not part of our actual observations.
-"Sure, though aren't they getting qm effects at larger scales."
-Correct, but those phenomena are Similar....not QM effects that bleed over larger scales.
i.e. we have observed that sea waves can draw "energy" from their neighboring "peaks" and produce monster waves. We have measured such monster waves at oil rigs and it is something that we observe in the quantum world. This resembles quantum tunneling (veritasium has an episode on that).
We observe "entaglement" type of phenomenon when two floating objects "ride" the same ripple of the wave. By looking at the first object we can automatically know the state (amplitude , wavelength etc) of the second one.
Chaos theory introduces "inexactness" in classical systems too....
These phenomena are similar but with serious differences so we still need to understand that we are not dealing with the same "stuff".
-"And since organisms as large as birds use qm effects this means that large things are visibly affected by small scale processes...."
-Yes this is a different phenomenon than the one in your initial statement :" getting qm effects at larger scales."
This phenomenon is more like: " quantum mechanism being part of biological functions".
Quantum biology was founded based on our need to investigate such functions. Bird navigation and photosynthesis are two well known examples of those mechanisms.
Again I have to stress the need of correct language( I am not a native speaker and that might sound arrogant and silly but bare with me). Saying that "the birds use qm" or that leaves "utilize" qm to produce energy, that alone introduces intention and purpose when its nothing beyond the principles of evolutionary biology! In addition to that, there is nothing "spooky" about those mechanisms to begin with.
Magnetic fields act on many things not just on birds! We have crystals on rocks revealing us the history of changes in the direction of the magnetic north of earth.
Leaves(photosynthesis) are not the only classical organs that utilize the abundance of photons in nature . Our eyes do it every time we "see".
If you "connect" those sensitive elements to a nervous system you get bird navigation and animal vision...simple.
So there is nothing weird or anomalous about those mechanisms and nothing about them goes against our current scientific paradigm or causality...we literally talking about quantum particles causing things!
We even build technical applications that use quantum particles to harness their "causality".
-"I am not sure what 'our current paradigm would refer to' but it was Caldwell who I think has a problem with QM. I think, but I am not sure, he sees it as having concluded (a little anthropomorphism tossed in) that classical causation does not hold (at least in some processes or at a certain scale so (important jump here)it represents a decay in Science."
-Even if classical causation didn't hold on...that would say nothing since quantum systems are not classical....they are just far more "fuzzy" to be predicted with accuracy.
-"Since classical causation must apply, then at least the conclusions in qm must be wrong. Not the data, but any conclusions and any new ontology"
-Again that is an unfounded assumption in my opinion. Its like expecting the same behavior from liquids and gases. We are talking about two different scales with their respective elements being a product of different ontological mechanisms.
Again the issue behind these misconceptions are 3.
1. language 2. language 3. limitations in our observations.
I stress language as an issue and I provide this last example.
We say "Electric current flow"...while in reality the movement of electrons don't resample a classical "flow"...not to mention that the motion we observe has nothing to do with flow.
So we need to reflect on the wording we use to identify things that we find "weird" or counter intuitive or in conflict with science.
btw we have the same issues with our language in cosmology! Black hole...not a hole, Dark matter...not sure we deal with matter or an emergent property of matter, big bang...not big and it didn't bang!
Quoting Bylaw
No. The statement goes like this, that QM theories are speculative which poses a danger to scientific activities. You live long enough in speculations, you get the dismantling of scientific evidence. (and by long enough, I mean, it could take ages -- I alluded to length of time in my OP, the very first one on this thread)
For the following quotes, my intention is to clarify points that are getting lost in the discussion:
Quoting Bylaw
Okay.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
No it isn't. Probabilities are put in place of exact measures -- because if we're not relying on absolute space and causality, then what's left to prove one's point? To say QM is ontologically probabilistic is good to include in this discussion. It needs to be discussed. If you claim that it is just the observer that's doing the probabilistic calculation, then do you or do you not support the classical physics?
Quoting Bylaw
No, I don't think there's a definitive answer to the "wrongness" of quantum theories, I think what the critics are saying is, there shouldn't be multi-ontological theory depending on the size of the world we're investigating. There is just one world.
-"No. The statement goes like this, that QM theories are speculative which poses a danger to scientific activities. You live long enough in speculations, you get the dismantling of scientific evidence."
- The longevity of any speculation can never be a threat for Science. Scientific evidence can only be challenged by new evidence.
-"No it isn't. Probabilities are put in place of exact measures -- because if we're not relying on absolute space and causality, then what's left to prove one's point? To say QM is ontologically probabilistic is good to include in this discussion. It needs to be discussed. If you claim that it is just the observer that's doing the probabilistic calculation, then do you or do you not support the classical physics?"
- I don't really get your point, maybe you use a different definition for QM and Probability.
Can you provide your personal understanding for those concepts?
These are mine and Science's.
Quantum mechanics are mathematical formulations that allow us to produce accurate Mechanical descriptions for the "behavior" of quantum elements. QM can accurately predict a spectrum of values for random "expressions" displayed by energetic glitches that seem to display an inherent fluctuation.
The notion of probability has been developed as a scientific tool to describe uncertain phenomena in science. By calculating probabilities we introduce a "countable additive measure" for systems displaying "randomness", either due to hidden non local variables or due to incomplete information.
-"No, I don't think there's a definitive answer to the "wrongness" of quantum theories, I think what the critics are saying is, there shouldn't be multi-ontological theory depending on the size of the world we're investigating. There is just one world. "
-We don't have any falsifiable theories on how larger scales emerge from the quantum world. So talking about right or wrong is meaningless.
If we take in to account the property of Emergence in matter's structures and properties ,we might never get an answer to that question.
What we have is more than 10 competing Interpretations but none of them are a threat to the Principles of Methodological Naturalism or our current paradigm. They are all at the state of "not even wrong".
Some Heavy Math, Dude!
What is this suppose to calculate?
And that behavior is what exactly? What are we measuring? Or are we confined to the descriptions of atomic entities?
It's a Lagrangian description of quantum activity I suppose. Ask a physicist (if they haven't all left TPF)
Quantum mechanics deal with subatomic entities and their discrete quantity of energy.
It's the Lagrangian for the standard model. With some false elementary fields, but only the future will show that. If people haven't fucked up Nature before...
Molecular and atomic entities are involved too, though it can be argued that only electrons are involved.
As I see now, it's a bit unclear what I meant indeed. I mean that it can be argued that in atomic and molecular QM only electrons are involved. The nuclei merely give the potentials the electrons find themselves in. The wavefunctions of the electrons determine many of their properties. But QM can also be applied to atoms or molecules as a whole. Or for finding vibrational modes of molecules. So (supra-)atomic particles. Phonons or other quasi-particles involve atoms or larger structures.
The problem arises when people go beyond those kinetic/energetic properties by projecting Advanced Properties (i.e. mental properties) at a quantum level. That is in direct conflict with our verified Scientific Paradigm.
Not sure what you mean by projecting advanced properties, (mental properties) to the quantum level. You mean explaining consciousness by QM (with which I disagree), or projecting classical macro properties to the quantum realm (with which I agree)?
What is the verified scientific paradigm?
What are these mechanics or characteristics?
The following article of Britannica it mentions more of the properties we can measure.
" Which similar expressions you refer to? You think QM can be applied to sea waves or oil drops?"
No I didn't say that. I said that similar phenomena described and predicted in QM can be observed in the classical world.
https://thefutureofthings.com/3698-the-wave-that-changed-science/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ
-"Not sure what you mean by projecting advanced properties, (mental properties) to the quantum level."
-when people believe that quantum fields can produce mind properties,chemical properties, biological etc...while they can only enable kinetic properties.
Quoting GraveItty
-" You mean explaining consciousness by QM (with which I disagree), or projecting classical macro properties to the quantum realm (with which I agree)?"
-Both.
-"What is the verified scientific paradigm? "
-The naturalistic paradigm that verified the need of low level mechanisms(structure and function) in order for new advanced properties to emerge. i.e. properties like chemical, biological and mental are contingent to specific structures and functions.
We have touched on causality -- which barely got the attention it deserves. To those classical believers of the natural world, causality is discovered. And if they're not discovered, it is just a matter of time or just our human limitation that prevents us from discovering them. As causality is tied to natural constants -- whatever they are -- it's been said that these constants change overtime, as the universe ages. But this idea is merely speculation. There are no scientific discovery that proves that constants can or have or could change. So, let's leave this idea as simple as this.
We have touched on physical entities that behave differently as we move from micro to macro sizes. In the quantum sizes, probability is used as a tool to explain the phenomena of these entities. And we don't wonder why for a second why probability is not used as a tool to describe the unpredictability of the macro world, let alone declare the unpredictability of the macro entities. (Because we can't claim that the macro world is unpredictable, without invoking the fault of our own perception).
Additionally, it's been argued that causality and space (dare I say time also) are mere constraints that we impose on the natural world, and that causality doesn't always hold, and constants do not hold forever.
Do multi-forces really exist? Do we really need multi-theories to explain the natural world? Or are we just being accommodating of alternative ideas for the sake of scientific imagination?