4 ms·

So how do you feel about Newtonian physics or algorithms? All knowledge is social.

by tokai 7y ago

Rochus 7y ago
Expressing opinions does not create new, reliable scientific knowledge. Instead scientists observe, make claims, deduce the effects of their claims, and then conduct experiments suited to possibly observe these effects. So it's not just claiming. And the laws of physics exist by themselves, even when there is no human society to discover and know them. It's a different story how knowledge is passed on or accepted by society. We know that the proof of authority is the weakest and most unreliable type of evidence. But still the proof of authority dominates in practical everyday life. We believe things because our parents or teachers tell us, even if we had the possibility to check them ourselves from a scientific point of view. But parents and teachers are not the source of knowledge, they are only transmitters. In the humanities ("Geisteswissenschaften", and similar disciplines) the situation is different. Knowledge is rather believable and not falsifiable, but only accepted on the authority of the person who uttered the sentence.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  >In the humanities ("Geisteswissenschaften", and similar disciplines) the situation is different. Knowledge is rather believable and not falsifiable, but only accepted on the authority of the person who uttered the sentence. I'm curious if you have any evidence that this is a general trend. Your original comment is also wrong; the "Frankfurt School", one of your examples, does not ascribe particular authority to its members by virtue of being part of the "school"[1] - rather, it denotes a particular tradition, very similar to the way we use the term "school" in music. A school of thought[0] specifically denotes a commitment to a particular method or set of principles, not a commitment to certain personages. Although a school may take after one person, it's not because of the person but because of the content of their thought. Besides, the Frankfurt School never claimed to be carrying out science. Other schools were, for instance, committed to certain ideas of science. These philosophical schools are ontologically prior to science. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_thought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_thought [1] Habermas is a "member" of the Frankfurt School of thought, yet he is criticized by those inside and outside the school. This, at least, shows that a school of thought is not a dogmatic adherence to a person or their ideas.
  - Rochus 7y ago
    When we hear the name Adorno, we have to tremble with awe, don't we? >> A school of thought[0] specifically denotes a commitment to a particular method or set of principles Agree, but this does not improve the quality of the sentences uttered by the members of this "school" (sorry if I'm hurting the feelings of any Marxists here). >> Besides, the Frankfurt School never claimed to be carrying out science. Well, in German language there is the word "Geisteswissenschaft" which includes philosophy; they have not the same conception of science like the English speaking world. See e.g. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisteswissenschaft https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisteswissenschaft Among other things I also attended many years of philosophy lectures. As far as the philosophy of science is concerned, I think it should go more in this direction: https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theory-Science-T-Jaynes/dp/0521592712 https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theory-Science-T-Jaynes/d...
    - claudiawerner 7y ago
      >Agree, but this does not improve the quality of the sentences uttered by the members of this "school" I agree, and nobody has claimed otherwise. Ideas that come from a school are not necessarily more or less valid than any others. There are some schools of thought I agree with, and others I disagree with, and I think that's the same for many lay people like me and many philosophers too. >Well, in German language there is the word "Geisteswissenschaft" which includes philosophy I think it can be argued that Marx was engaged in Wissenschaft (Patrick Murray argues this, for example), but I don't know if the same could be said about the Frankfurt School, at lesat not on the whole.
      - Rochus 7y ago
        By the end of the day, "philosopher" is nothing more than a more fashionable word for "writer". And like "film critic", "philosopher" is an unprotected, self-appointed title. In principle, philosophers (apart from having to compete for an audience like writers) have a pretty simple life. They can simply claim something without ever providing any proof. And with a bit of luck and charisma, they find disciples who continue to represent their doctrine and help their master to gain social prestige. And as you correctly say: this concept predates science and enlightenment. My original statement was that I am skeptical of knowledge whose origins are a specific person or group of persons ("schools"). I hope to have clarified my point after this excursion. In the case of traditional philosophy of science there is even a contradiction in terms: the statements are dogmas that defy falsification. So according to the own criteria of the philosophy of science of that time they do not differ from religion.
- tghdjsk 7y ago
  > In the humanities ("Geisteswissenschaften", and similar disciplines) the situation is different. Knowledge is rather believable and not falsifiable, but only accepted on the authority of the person who uttered the sentence. It's pretty clear that you don't actually know what philosophy, social science or the humanities entails, and how knowledge is actually produced and vetted in these fields. edit: why was this flagged?
  - Rochus 7y ago
    Very funny; I studied this stuff a couple of years; in contrast to you I don't hide behind an anonymous account.
    - tghdjsk 7y ago
      > I studied this stuff a couple of years Clearly didn't learn much then. > in contrast to you I don't hide behind an anonymous account. Why does this matter? You go on about how credentials and how authority shouldn't matter as long as the ideas are true, but when it's beneficial to you you're very content to use anonymity as a straw man. But if it truly matters to you, I'm finishing up my PhD in Science and Technology Studies and Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. edit: why was this flagged?
lidHanteyk 7y ago
As with all mathematics, this is acceptable because it's named after the wrong person; in this case, the foundational work named after Newton was first exhibited by Kepler. I do sometimes hear the phrase "Keplerian element" when talking about classical orbits, named after Kepler and not Galileo.
- Rochus 7y ago
  Interesting point, but not actually a rebuttal of my statement. Another example: von Neumann Architecture was not invented by von Neumann; he was just the guy who illegally published the concept under his name without naming the real authors. So again: attributing knowledge to persons does not really help.
lacker 7y ago
Newtonian physics is a great example, because Newtonian physics is wrong! Due to relativity and quantum mechanics. If it were still our best guess at how the world worked, I think we would just call it "physics" rather than "Newtonian physics".
- PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
  "Science isn't useful because it is right, science is right because it is useful." (Unknown philosopher of science, possibly but probably not Feyerabend) From this perspective, there's nothing "wrong" with Newtonian physics as long as you understand the domain in which it is useful (essentially: larger than molecules, smaller than planets). Newtonian physics, QM and relativity are all just stories we tell in our attempt to understand how the universe came to be as it is, and predict how it will change (with or without our own actions). They are all "wrong" in the sense that none of them are the way the universe actually is, but they are all "right" in the sense that they provide us with immense explanatory and predictive power when used in the appropriate domain(s).
  - gowld 7y ago
    "All models are wrong. Some are useful."
- gowld 7y ago
  Is quantum mechanics wrong because it's not called "mechanics"? Is Minkowski space wrong because it's not called space?

So how do you feel about Newtonian physics or algorithms? All knowledge is social.

by tokai 7y ago

So how do you feel about Newtonian physics or algorithms? All knowledge is social.

Expressing opinions does not create new, reliable scientific knowledge. Instead scientists observe, make claims, deduce the effects of their claims, and then conduct experiments suited to possibly observe these effects. So it's not just claiming. And the laws of physics exist by themselves, even when there is no human society to discover and know them. It's a different story how knowledge is passed on or accepted by society. We know that the proof of authority is the weakest and most unreliable type of evidence. But still the proof of authority dominates in practical everyday life. We believe things because our parents or teachers tell us, even if we had the possibility to check them ourselves from a scientific point of view. But parents and teachers are not the source of knowledge, they are only transmitters. In the humanities ("Geisteswissenschaften", and similar disciplines) the situation is different. Knowledge is rather believable and not falsifiable, but only accepted on the authority of the person who uttered the sentence.

claudiawerner 7y ago
>In the humanities ("Geisteswissenschaften", and similar disciplines) the situation is different. Knowledge is rather believable and not falsifiable, but only accepted on the authority of the person who uttered the sentence. I'm curious if you have any evidence that this is a general trend. Your original comment is also wrong; the "Frankfurt School", one of your examples, does not ascribe particular authority to its members by virtue of being part of the "school"[1] - rather, it denotes a particular tradition, very similar to the way we use the term "school" in music. A school of thought[0] specifically denotes a commitment to a particular method or set of principles, not a commitment to certain personages. Although a school may take after one person, it's not because of the person but because of the content of their thought. Besides, the Frankfurt School never claimed to be carrying out science. Other schools were, for instance, committed to certain ideas of science. These philosophical schools are ontologically prior to science. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_thought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_thought [1] Habermas is a "member" of the Frankfurt School of thought, yet he is criticized by those inside and outside the school. This, at least, shows that a school of thought is not a dogmatic adherence to a person or their ideas.
- Rochus 7y ago
  When we hear the name Adorno, we have to tremble with awe, don't we? >> A school of thought[0] specifically denotes a commitment to a particular method or set of principles Agree, but this does not improve the quality of the sentences uttered by the members of this "school" (sorry if I'm hurting the feelings of any Marxists here). >> Besides, the Frankfurt School never claimed to be carrying out science. Well, in German language there is the word "Geisteswissenschaft" which includes philosophy; they have not the same conception of science like the English speaking world. See e.g. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisteswissenschaft https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisteswissenschaft Among other things I also attended many years of philosophy lectures. As far as the philosophy of science is concerned, I think it should go more in this direction: https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theory-Science-T-Jaynes/dp/0521592712 https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theory-Science-T-Jaynes/d...
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    >Agree, but this does not improve the quality of the sentences uttered by the members of this "school" I agree, and nobody has claimed otherwise. Ideas that come from a school are not necessarily more or less valid than any others. There are some schools of thought I agree with, and others I disagree with, and I think that's the same for many lay people like me and many philosophers too. >Well, in German language there is the word "Geisteswissenschaft" which includes philosophy I think it can be argued that Marx was engaged in Wissenschaft (Patrick Murray argues this, for example), but I don't know if the same could be said about the Frankfurt School, at lesat not on the whole.
    - Rochus 7y ago
      By the end of the day, "philosopher" is nothing more than a more fashionable word for "writer". And like "film critic", "philosopher" is an unprotected, self-appointed title. In principle, philosophers (apart from having to compete for an audience like writers) have a pretty simple life. They can simply claim something without ever providing any proof. And with a bit of luck and charisma, they find disciples who continue to represent their doctrine and help their master to gain social prestige. And as you correctly say: this concept predates science and enlightenment. My original statement was that I am skeptical of knowledge whose origins are a specific person or group of persons ("schools"). I hope to have clarified my point after this excursion. In the case of traditional philosophy of science there is even a contradiction in terms: the statements are dogmas that defy falsification. So according to the own criteria of the philosophy of science of that time they do not differ from religion.
tghdjsk 7y ago
> In the humanities ("Geisteswissenschaften", and similar disciplines) the situation is different. Knowledge is rather believable and not falsifiable, but only accepted on the authority of the person who uttered the sentence. It's pretty clear that you don't actually know what philosophy, social science or the humanities entails, and how knowledge is actually produced and vetted in these fields. edit: why was this flagged?
- Rochus 7y ago
  Very funny; I studied this stuff a couple of years; in contrast to you I don't hide behind an anonymous account.
  - tghdjsk 7y ago
    > I studied this stuff a couple of years Clearly didn't learn much then. > in contrast to you I don't hide behind an anonymous account. Why does this matter? You go on about how credentials and how authority shouldn't matter as long as the ideas are true, but when it's beneficial to you you're very content to use anonymity as a straw man. But if it truly matters to you, I'm finishing up my PhD in Science and Technology Studies and Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. edit: why was this flagged?

lidHanteyk 7y ago

As with all mathematics, this is acceptable because it's named after the wrong person; in this case, the foundational work named after Newton was first exhibited by Kepler. I do sometimes hear the phrase "Keplerian element" when talking about classical orbits, named after Kepler and not Galileo.

Rochus 7y ago
Interesting point, but not actually a rebuttal of my statement. Another example: von Neumann Architecture was not invented by von Neumann; he was just the guy who illegally published the concept under his name without naming the real authors. So again: attributing knowledge to persons does not really help.

lacker 7y ago

Newtonian physics is a great example, because Newtonian physics is wrong! Due to relativity and quantum mechanics. If it were still our best guess at how the world worked, I think we would just call it "physics" rather than "Newtonian physics".

PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
"Science isn't useful because it is right, science is right because it is useful." (Unknown philosopher of science, possibly but probably not Feyerabend) From this perspective, there's nothing "wrong" with Newtonian physics as long as you understand the domain in which it is useful (essentially: larger than molecules, smaller than planets). Newtonian physics, QM and relativity are all just stories we tell in our attempt to understand how the universe came to be as it is, and predict how it will change (with or without our own actions). They are all "wrong" in the sense that none of them are the way the universe actually is, but they are all "right" in the sense that they provide us with immense explanatory and predictive power when used in the appropriate domain(s).
- gowld 7y ago
  "All models are wrong. Some are useful."
gowld 7y ago
Is quantum mechanics wrong because it's not called "mechanics"? Is Minkowski space wrong because it's not called space?