4 ms·

It is all a matter of what you want out of science. Some people, such as myself, enjoy having a narrative about how the universe works consistent with experimen

by jostylr 10y ago

It is all a matter of what you want out of science. Some people, such as myself, enjoy having a narrative about how the universe works consistent with experiments. This is both satisfying and useful in finding new directions to push or ways to solve problems (such as a recent attempt to solve the divergences in QFT by using boundary conditions appropriate for particle flows: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.00497.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.00497.pdf). If you have just quantities to compute, but have no idea what those quantities represent in reality, it is hard to see how one can think of that as understanding how the universe works. It is not clear why having a "complete" theory would change one's position on ontology. It is either important or it is not to a person, just as some people love playing with big machinery and only care about models in as far as it enables them to do that. Others really do not care about big machinery except as it produces potential data to suggest new models or discard the old. Why should one make a judgement about that?

M_Grey 10y ago
If what you want out of science is a narrative with no clear basis in reality, why bother with science?
- jostylr 10y ago
  It certainly has a basis in reality. The story needs to be consistent with what we know, at least in the realm that it claims to give sense to. Science is not about getting the absolute truth, it is about getting information and a story consistent with what we know to be true, often with caveats about where the story applies. And, of course, you can deny ontology all you like, but everyone operates with one in their mind. It is impossible to do interact with reality and to use equations without some internal assumption of an ontology, however vague and unexamined it might be. It is just that the "shut up and calculate" crowd does not want to discuss it, much like how "very religious" people often do not want to talk about their religion. They are simply not interested in examining stuff that may challenge their world views. But it doesn't mean they don't have an underlying belief. It is similar to, paraphrasing Bell, how solipists buy life insurance. The real point of science is to question our assumptions and obtain a better understanding, often contradicting what we thought was true. In order to do that, one has to look at what one believes is true. This is what the investigation of different ontologies is doing. But, as I said, many are not interested in pursuing that line of thinking and that's fine. But it is not fine to say it should not be pursued at all or to imply it is less important or noble. Different aspects of understanding should be pursued by those who find those aspects enjoyable to pursue.

by jostylr 10y ago

M_Grey 10y ago

If what you want out of science is a narrative with no clear basis in reality, why bother with science?

jostylr 10y ago
It certainly has a basis in reality. The story needs to be consistent with what we know, at least in the realm that it claims to give sense to. Science is not about getting the absolute truth, it is about getting information and a story consistent with what we know to be true, often with caveats about where the story applies. And, of course, you can deny ontology all you like, but everyone operates with one in their mind. It is impossible to do interact with reality and to use equations without some internal assumption of an ontology, however vague and unexamined it might be. It is just that the "shut up and calculate" crowd does not want to discuss it, much like how "very religious" people often do not want to talk about their religion. They are simply not interested in examining stuff that may challenge their world views. But it doesn't mean they don't have an underlying belief. It is similar to, paraphrasing Bell, how solipists buy life insurance. The real point of science is to question our assumptions and obtain a better understanding, often contradicting what we thought was true. In order to do that, one has to look at what one believes is true. This is what the investigation of different ontologies is doing. But, as I said, many are not interested in pursuing that line of thinking and that's fine. But it is not fine to say it should not be pursued at all or to imply it is less important or noble. Different aspects of understanding should be pursued by those who find those aspects enjoyable to pursue.