5 ms·

How can we disprove the hypothesis “If we can’t disprove it - it isn’t science.”? The scientific metaphysic relies on so many declarative/prescriptive statemen

by ukj 3y ago

How can we disprove the hypothesis “If we can’t disprove it - it isn’t science.”? The scientific metaphysic relies on so many declarative/prescriptive statements which are themselves exempt from the criteria for science and are thus self-defeating on their own terms. It is so peculiar when scientists are so dogmatic about science. Are the formal sciences (logic/mathematics/computer science) not science? The testability/falsifiability criterion certainly excludes them from being sciences.

vivekd 3y ago
and you hit one of the main objections to the theory of falsifiability as the criterion of science. There are also other more serious ones, like the obvious fact that actual science does't seem to actually work this way. The idea is more to explain observations in a coherent way rather than to be falsifiable for example. One example is the big bang theory being proposed by a Catholic astronomer who didn't like the then prevaling idea that the universe did not have a beginning or end because it went against his religious beliefs. Or Kepler looking for planets at locations in accord with musical harmonies because he though it was consistent with the existence of a God
- ukj 3y ago
  Personally, I am weary of the notion of “actual science” since science is not a well-defined term. The demarcation problem isn’t solved; and philosophers like Fayerabend in his book “Against method” suggest that science is more of an anarchic enterprise than any particular set of methods. Take any criterion and apply it too strictly and there is some scientific discovery/progress in history which violates the rules and wouldn’t pass for “science” given any definition… Take any given methodological approach - and you will always find counter examples in scientific history. Almost like genius isn’t algorithmic.
  - vivekd 3y ago
    sure, but I mean, it's pretty hard to call flat earthers or proponents of voodo unscientific if we have to admit that we haven't solved the demarcation problem. Also more importantly for Popper, he wanted to oppose communists' ideas of "scientific materialism." There does seem to be this thing that good scientists are doing. Popper did seem to touch on some good aspects of it, like the willingness to be proven wrong. I think maybe that's the part Popper got right, maybe Science is about an unbiased search for knoweldge with no other agenda other than a genuine curiousity. And maybe that's why demarcation is so hard, it's hard to tell a person's motives. I donno, just throwing stuff out there. . . Still I mean at least we have a test that communists obviously fail which should make Popper happy.
    - pengstrom 3y ago
      I mean, the non-schizo proponents for flat earth does approach it with scepticism. It's just that the their required level of proof are unreasonable. Any experiment, no matter how genuinely designed, is exempt from flaws. Science works because the detractors doesn't have the energy to waste decades in the academic apparatus, unlike true curiosity.
    - toofy 3y ago
      > … he wanted to oppose communists' ideas of "scientific materialism." > … that’s the part Popper got right, maybe science is about an unbiased search… > …at least we have a test that communists obviously fail… i could be misunderstanding what you’re implying and if so apologies, but Popper wasn’t some anti-communist nutbag, in fact, if he “wanted to oppose” communism, that would have been fundamentally counter to his ideal of keeping things “unbiased” Popper was very open how much he admired Marx, he even tended to agree with Marx’ analysis of capitalism. where he disagreed was that 1) we were destined to be slaves to be servants if we 2) don’t have violent revolution.. He was quite clear that the state should absolutely be heavy handed to protect the lower classes from the wealthy’s constant tendencies to abuse the poor. Again, he agreed with much of Marx’s writing but where Marx thought it would require violent revolution, Popper believed we could use other methods such as “social engineering” to counter the rich. He was also concerned that so many people agreed about violent revolution being the only way out. He wrote about this admiration for Marx quite a bit: > …a grandiose philosophic system, comparable or even superior to the holistic systems of Plato and Hegel. Marx was the last of the great holistic system builders. and > [Marx] made an honest attempt to apply rational methods to the most urgent problems of social life… His sincerity in his search for truth and his intellectual honesty distinguish him… Popper was concerned that under unrestrained capitalism: > ..the economically strong is free to bully one who is economically weak, and to rob him of his freedom,… Those who possess a surplus of food can force those who are starving into a ‘freely’ accepted servitude.” Philosophy Now sums it up well, “Throughout his scrutiny of Marx, Popper treads a thin line between admiration and apprehension.” [0] again, apologies if i misinterpreted what you were implying, just wanted to clarify that Popper wasn’t some kind of nutbag mccarthy style rabid anti-communist or whatever. he just thought we could “social engineer” our way away from psychotic nationalism and unchecked capitalism rather than requiring full blown revolution. [0] https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Popper_on_Marx_on_History https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Popper_on_Marx_on_Histo...
- JohnFen 3y ago
  The reason that falsifiability is a core requirement of science is because if there is no way a proposition can possibly be falsified, then there is no way to objectively assess whether or not it is true. This is not to say that the proposition is false. It's possible that things can be unfalsifiable and true nonetheless, but those things would still exist outside the range of the scientific method (at least until/unless our understanding of reality expands enough to devise a test). That's an intentional trade-off, in order to gain greater confidence in the truth of the things we can test.
- JackFr 3y ago
  > One example is the big bang theory being proposed by a Catholic astronomer who didn't like the then prevaling idea that the universe did not have a beginning or end because it went against his religious beliefs. That’s simply not true. Fr. LeMaitre developed the theory to explain observed red shifts of galaxies (deriving Hubble’s Law prior to Hubble.) He felt his theory (and science in general) had no connection or contradiction to his faith.
  - borlanco 3y ago
    > One example is the big bang theory being proposed by a Catholic astronomer who didn't like the then prevaling idea that the universe did not have a beginning or end because it went against his religious beliefs. This actually came from the skeptics [0]. They were unwilling to believe a Catholic priest proposing a scientific theory too similar to his religious beliefs, about God creating the whole universe in an instant. When the cosmic background radiation was discovered in 1964, the Big Bang was accepted by (mostly) everyone. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Development https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Development
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
mcv 3y ago
> How can we disprove the hypothesis “If we can’t disprove it - it isn’t science.”? That statement isn't science. It's a definition. It's philosophy of science. It's the briefest summary of Karl Popper's definition of the scientific method. According to him, science can never be proven, only disproven.
- ukj 3y ago
  It is in the nature of definitions to include some things and exclude others. If the definition of “science” excluded computer science as a science; would you say the definition is correct?
  - mcv 3y ago
    In this context, most of computer science is more a form of applied mathematics. Of course there are different ways to look at science, like making a distinction between analytical (or empirical) science, and synthetic science; the science that makes stuff, rather than analysing it. Not sure if that's really a good distinction; the latter is really technology, isn't it?
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    There is such a thing as computer science, but the majority of what gets called that is really engineering, not science. People often get those two things confused because they have a fair bit of overlap in the Venn diagram, but they are two different things.
    - ukj 3y ago
      I am talking about (theoretical) computer science, not (practical) software engineering. This should've been clear in the context of my question: "Are the formal sciences (logic/mathematics/computer science) not science?"
      - anonymous_sorry 3y ago
        > "Are the formal sciences (logic/mathematics/computer science) not science?" Not by this definition. The distinction between mathematical theorems and scientific theories is a useful one.
seanhunter 3y ago
When did maths become unfalsifiable? Someone should have told these guys https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1966-72-06/S0002-9904-1966-11654-3/S0002-9904-1966-11654-3.pdf https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1966-72-06/S0002-9904-1966...
- ukj 3y ago
  Someone should tell you that there is a difference between a conjecture and a theorem. Theorems are unfalsifiable.
  - seanhunter 3y ago
    Firstly there's no need whatsoever to be rude even if I'm wrong. It doesn't help the discussion and isn't nice. You also don't know anything whatsoever about what I do and don't know about maths or the definitions of words. Secondly prospective theorems are absolutely falsifiable. Since a theorem is a statement that has been proven to be true yes they are unfalsifiable by definition - they have already passed that test. That doesn't really generalise to any sort of meaningful statement about the falsifiability of maths. Saying theorems are unfalsifiable is equivalent to saying "True statements can't be proven false". Well, yes.[1] ie If I say Sean Hunter's theorem is that if you take a triangle with arbitrary sides a b c and angle opposite a of theta that a^2 = b^2 + c^2 -42 b c cos theta that statement is absolutely falsifiable (and false), which you can establish with basic geometry and trig[2]. When you demonstrate it not to be true it is not a theorem, so I was wrong to call it that. That is a demonstration of how maths is falsifiable. [1] Even so it's often possible to make progress via proof by contradiction - showing that if this theorem were not true something else which we know to be true would be false. But in most of my maths books proving all of the theorems is the norm, so they are for sure falsifiable while you are trying to establish whether or not they are theorems. [2] Drop an altitude from one of the angles at b and c and then use pythagoras and a bunch of cancelling. You will prove that a^2 = b^2 + c^2 -2bc cos theta of course. My statement is only true if a is the hypotenuse of a right triangle meaning cos theta is zero and my incorrect coefficient doesn't matter.
    - 3y ago
demondemidi 3y ago
> How can we disprove the hypothesis “If we can’t disprove it - it isn’t science.”? You just answered the question yourself: that's a question for metaphysics and not science. Pick a lane! :)
- ukj 3y ago
  One way to view metaphysics is as the science of science. So if the science of science is not science - is that not a contradiction?
  - Kranar 3y ago
    No because metaphysics is not the science of science.
    - ukj 3y ago
      What makes this assertion; or the assertion “If it isn’t disprovable - it isn’t science” true?
      - demondemidi 3y ago
        What makes this assertion? The literal definition of the term. Are you the kid who thinks he's edgy by saying in philosophy class: "It depends on the meaning of the word 'X'" every time someone tries to explain X to you?
  - demondemidi 3y ago
    That's not what metaphysics is about. Metaphysics is the study of "being qua being". "[Aristotle] claims that each science studies a unified genus, but denies that there is a single genus for all beings". You're applying tautology without really understanding the construction of your own question. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28232/chapter-abstract/213292567?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28232/chapter-abstrac... ELI5: asking about science isn't science. Like reading about painting isn't painting. Or more poetically, "Ce n'est pas une pipe" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images
bsder 3y ago
> How can we disprove the hypothesis “If we can’t disprove it - it isn’t science.”? You can't. That's an axiom. Welcome to Philosophy of Science. Science, at bottom, has some axioms. 1) Cause and effect The same causes always create the same effects is an axiom. We assume that the God or the Devil don't change all the rules every other Thursday. If there is a being who arbitrarily shifts the rules, science loses a lot of its predictive power. Science will adjust to that, but it makes science much less useful. 2) Continuity The rules "today" are the same as the rules "yesterday" are the same as the rules "tomorrow". The rules "here" are the same as the rules "there". This is a little spicier as we do try to test that the rules haven't changed. We try to test whether or not the fundamental constants have shifted with time, for example. We try to see if things are behaving the same in our galaxy are the same as in otehr galaxies. In fact, practically everything which defines "science" is about the ability to predict and quantify. A) Side: "math" is NOT "science". Math, while certainly falsifiable, is neither quantitative nor predictive. This, in fact, has provoked quite a bit of discussion: See: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness...
- ukj 3y ago
  Is it the "philosophy of science"? What is now called "science" was once called "natural philosophy"? Maybe it's the science of science? Maybe it's the philosophy of philosophy? Maybe it's the science of philosophy? Maybe it's the philosophy of science? Maybe it's all the same under naturalism? Studying science (itself a natural process) using our computational understanding of what a "process" is and does sure fits the Oxford definition of "science".
stjohnswarts 3y ago
Because they have worked over time, empirically as opposed to a lot woo woo stuff proposed by religion, spirituality, metaphysics, mentally ill, etc. which can never be disproved but which really don't have any value in those areas where we apply science like technology and attempting to understand natural processes
- ukj 3y ago
  You seem to be speaking from a place of greatly diminished self-awareness. Notice how you are constantly appealing to abstract unobservables to make your claims. No shame in that - all science does it. Quantities, numbers, fields, processes etc. etc. etc. That is precisely the metaphysical woo woo you are busy criticising. Formalism is all about turning that woo-woo into well-defined concepts. What's a "process"? Show me one. Only way I know how is to give you more metaphysical woo woo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_calculus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_calculus You know all that religious woo-woo about omniscience? We are still talking about it and even using it... https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/principle+of+omniscience https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/principle+of+omniscience All this religious/devine woo-woo... The central dogma of computational trinitarianism holds that Logic, Languages, and Categories are but three manifestations of one divine notion of computation. There is no preferred route to enlightenment: each aspect provides insights that comprise the experience of computation in our lives. https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/computational+trilogy https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/computational+trilogy
  - stjohnswarts 3y ago
    If you want to believe in fairy tales then enjoy them. I prefer materialism. We will never agree on this. You can't prove a God exists, so I simply don't care about the topic other than how it affects civilization negatively by promoting magical thinking and religious fanaticism/intolerance. I tolerate people who are religious, I don't wish them any harm; the opposite is quite untrue for a large proportion of the religious world for atheists/"infidels".
    - ukj 3y ago

by ukj 3y ago

vivekd 3y ago

and you hit one of the main objections to the theory of falsifiability as the criterion of science. There are also other more serious ones, like the obvious fact that actual science does't seem to actually work this way. The idea is more to explain observations in a coherent way rather than to be falsifiable for example. One example is the big bang theory being proposed by a Catholic astronomer who didn't like the then prevaling idea that the universe did not have a beginning or end because it went against his religious beliefs. Or Kepler looking for planets at locations in accord with musical harmonies because he though it was consistent with the existence of a God

ukj 3y ago
Personally, I am weary of the notion of “actual science” since science is not a well-defined term. The demarcation problem isn’t solved; and philosophers like Fayerabend in his book “Against method” suggest that science is more of an anarchic enterprise than any particular set of methods. Take any criterion and apply it too strictly and there is some scientific discovery/progress in history which violates the rules and wouldn’t pass for “science” given any definition… Take any given methodological approach - and you will always find counter examples in scientific history. Almost like genius isn’t algorithmic.
- vivekd 3y ago
  sure, but I mean, it's pretty hard to call flat earthers or proponents of voodo unscientific if we have to admit that we haven't solved the demarcation problem. Also more importantly for Popper, he wanted to oppose communists' ideas of "scientific materialism." There does seem to be this thing that good scientists are doing. Popper did seem to touch on some good aspects of it, like the willingness to be proven wrong. I think maybe that's the part Popper got right, maybe Science is about an unbiased search for knoweldge with no other agenda other than a genuine curiousity. And maybe that's why demarcation is so hard, it's hard to tell a person's motives. I donno, just throwing stuff out there. . . Still I mean at least we have a test that communists obviously fail which should make Popper happy.
  - pengstrom 3y ago
    I mean, the non-schizo proponents for flat earth does approach it with scepticism. It's just that the their required level of proof are unreasonable. Any experiment, no matter how genuinely designed, is exempt from flaws. Science works because the detractors doesn't have the energy to waste decades in the academic apparatus, unlike true curiosity.
  - toofy 3y ago
    > … he wanted to oppose communists' ideas of "scientific materialism." > … that’s the part Popper got right, maybe science is about an unbiased search… > …at least we have a test that communists obviously fail… i could be misunderstanding what you’re implying and if so apologies, but Popper wasn’t some anti-communist nutbag, in fact, if he “wanted to oppose” communism, that would have been fundamentally counter to his ideal of keeping things “unbiased” Popper was very open how much he admired Marx, he even tended to agree with Marx’ analysis of capitalism. where he disagreed was that 1) we were destined to be slaves to be servants if we 2) don’t have violent revolution.. He was quite clear that the state should absolutely be heavy handed to protect the lower classes from the wealthy’s constant tendencies to abuse the poor. Again, he agreed with much of Marx’s writing but where Marx thought it would require violent revolution, Popper believed we could use other methods such as “social engineering” to counter the rich. He was also concerned that so many people agreed about violent revolution being the only way out. He wrote about this admiration for Marx quite a bit: > …a grandiose philosophic system, comparable or even superior to the holistic systems of Plato and Hegel. Marx was the last of the great holistic system builders. and > [Marx] made an honest attempt to apply rational methods to the most urgent problems of social life… His sincerity in his search for truth and his intellectual honesty distinguish him… Popper was concerned that under unrestrained capitalism: > ..the economically strong is free to bully one who is economically weak, and to rob him of his freedom,… Those who possess a surplus of food can force those who are starving into a ‘freely’ accepted servitude.” Philosophy Now sums it up well, “Throughout his scrutiny of Marx, Popper treads a thin line between admiration and apprehension.” [0] again, apologies if i misinterpreted what you were implying, just wanted to clarify that Popper wasn’t some kind of nutbag mccarthy style rabid anti-communist or whatever. he just thought we could “social engineer” our way away from psychotic nationalism and unchecked capitalism rather than requiring full blown revolution. [0] https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Popper_on_Marx_on_History https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Popper_on_Marx_on_Histo...
JohnFen 3y ago
The reason that falsifiability is a core requirement of science is because if there is no way a proposition can possibly be falsified, then there is no way to objectively assess whether or not it is true. This is not to say that the proposition is false. It's possible that things can be unfalsifiable and true nonetheless, but those things would still exist outside the range of the scientific method (at least until/unless our understanding of reality expands enough to devise a test). That's an intentional trade-off, in order to gain greater confidence in the truth of the things we can test.
JackFr 3y ago
> One example is the big bang theory being proposed by a Catholic astronomer who didn't like the then prevaling idea that the universe did not have a beginning or end because it went against his religious beliefs. That’s simply not true. Fr. LeMaitre developed the theory to explain observed red shifts of galaxies (deriving Hubble’s Law prior to Hubble.) He felt his theory (and science in general) had no connection or contradiction to his faith.
- borlanco 3y ago
  > One example is the big bang theory being proposed by a Catholic astronomer who didn't like the then prevaling idea that the universe did not have a beginning or end because it went against his religious beliefs. This actually came from the skeptics [0]. They were unwilling to believe a Catholic priest proposing a scientific theory too similar to his religious beliefs, about God creating the whole universe in an instant. When the cosmic background radiation was discovered in 1964, the Big Bang was accepted by (mostly) everyone. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Development https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Development
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

mcv 3y ago

> How can we disprove the hypothesis “If we can’t disprove it - it isn’t science.”? That statement isn't science. It's a definition. It's philosophy of science. It's the briefest summary of Karl Popper's definition of the scientific method. According to him, science can never be proven, only disproven.

ukj 3y ago
It is in the nature of definitions to include some things and exclude others. If the definition of “science” excluded computer science as a science; would you say the definition is correct?
- mcv 3y ago
  In this context, most of computer science is more a form of applied mathematics. Of course there are different ways to look at science, like making a distinction between analytical (or empirical) science, and synthetic science; the science that makes stuff, rather than analysing it. Not sure if that's really a good distinction; the latter is really technology, isn't it?
- JohnFen 3y ago
  There is such a thing as computer science, but the majority of what gets called that is really engineering, not science. People often get those two things confused because they have a fair bit of overlap in the Venn diagram, but they are two different things.
  - ukj 3y ago
    I am talking about (theoretical) computer science, not (practical) software engineering. This should've been clear in the context of my question: "Are the formal sciences (logic/mathematics/computer science) not science?"
    - anonymous_sorry 3y ago
      > "Are the formal sciences (logic/mathematics/computer science) not science?" Not by this definition. The distinction between mathematical theorems and scientific theories is a useful one.

seanhunter 3y ago

When did maths become unfalsifiable? Someone should have told these guys https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1966-72-06/S0002-9904-1966-11654-3/S0002-9904-1966-11654-3.pdf https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1966-72-06/S0002-9904-1966...

ukj 3y ago
Someone should tell you that there is a difference between a conjecture and a theorem. Theorems are unfalsifiable.
- seanhunter 3y ago
  Firstly there's no need whatsoever to be rude even if I'm wrong. It doesn't help the discussion and isn't nice. You also don't know anything whatsoever about what I do and don't know about maths or the definitions of words. Secondly prospective theorems are absolutely falsifiable. Since a theorem is a statement that has been proven to be true yes they are unfalsifiable by definition - they have already passed that test. That doesn't really generalise to any sort of meaningful statement about the falsifiability of maths. Saying theorems are unfalsifiable is equivalent to saying "True statements can't be proven false". Well, yes.[1] ie If I say Sean Hunter's theorem is that if you take a triangle with arbitrary sides a b c and angle opposite a of theta that a^2 = b^2 + c^2 -42 b c cos theta that statement is absolutely falsifiable (and false), which you can establish with basic geometry and trig[2]. When you demonstrate it not to be true it is not a theorem, so I was wrong to call it that. That is a demonstration of how maths is falsifiable. [1] Even so it's often possible to make progress via proof by contradiction - showing that if this theorem were not true something else which we know to be true would be false. But in most of my maths books proving all of the theorems is the norm, so they are for sure falsifiable while you are trying to establish whether or not they are theorems. [2] Drop an altitude from one of the angles at b and c and then use pythagoras and a bunch of cancelling. You will prove that a^2 = b^2 + c^2 -2bc cos theta of course. My statement is only true if a is the hypotenuse of a right triangle meaning cos theta is zero and my incorrect coefficient doesn't matter.
  - 3y ago

demondemidi 3y ago

> How can we disprove the hypothesis “If we can’t disprove it - it isn’t science.”? You just answered the question yourself: that's a question for metaphysics and not science. Pick a lane! :)

ukj 3y ago
One way to view metaphysics is as the science of science. So if the science of science is not science - is that not a contradiction?
- Kranar 3y ago
  No because metaphysics is not the science of science.
  - ukj 3y ago
    What makes this assertion; or the assertion “If it isn’t disprovable - it isn’t science” true?
    - demondemidi 3y ago
      What makes this assertion? The literal definition of the term. Are you the kid who thinks he's edgy by saying in philosophy class: "It depends on the meaning of the word 'X'" every time someone tries to explain X to you?
- demondemidi 3y ago
  That's not what metaphysics is about. Metaphysics is the study of "being qua being". "[Aristotle] claims that each science studies a unified genus, but denies that there is a single genus for all beings". You're applying tautology without really understanding the construction of your own question. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28232/chapter-abstract/213292567?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28232/chapter-abstrac... ELI5: asking about science isn't science. Like reading about painting isn't painting. Or more poetically, "Ce n'est pas une pipe" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images

bsder 3y ago

> How can we disprove the hypothesis “If we can’t disprove it - it isn’t science.”? You can't. That's an axiom. Welcome to Philosophy of Science. Science, at bottom, has some axioms. 1) Cause and effect The same causes always create the same effects is an axiom. We assume that the God or the Devil don't change all the rules every other Thursday. If there is a being who arbitrarily shifts the rules, science loses a lot of its predictive power. Science will adjust to that, but it makes science much less useful. 2) Continuity The rules "today" are the same as the rules "yesterday" are the same as the rules "tomorrow". The rules "here" are the same as the rules "there". This is a little spicier as we do try to test that the rules haven't changed. We try to test whether or not the fundamental constants have shifted with time, for example. We try to see if things are behaving the same in our galaxy are the same as in otehr galaxies. In fact, practically everything which defines "science" is about the ability to predict and quantify. A) Side: "math" is NOT "science". Math, while certainly falsifiable, is neither quantitative nor predictive. This, in fact, has provoked quite a bit of discussion: See: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness...

ukj 3y ago
Is it the "philosophy of science"? What is now called "science" was once called "natural philosophy"? Maybe it's the science of science? Maybe it's the philosophy of philosophy? Maybe it's the science of philosophy? Maybe it's the philosophy of science? Maybe it's all the same under naturalism? Studying science (itself a natural process) using our computational understanding of what a "process" is and does sure fits the Oxford definition of "science".

stjohnswarts 3y ago

Because they have worked over time, empirically as opposed to a lot woo woo stuff proposed by religion, spirituality, metaphysics, mentally ill, etc. which can never be disproved but which really don't have any value in those areas where we apply science like technology and attempting to understand natural processes

ukj 3y ago
You seem to be speaking from a place of greatly diminished self-awareness. Notice how you are constantly appealing to abstract unobservables to make your claims. No shame in that - all science does it. Quantities, numbers, fields, processes etc. etc. etc. That is precisely the metaphysical woo woo you are busy criticising. Formalism is all about turning that woo-woo into well-defined concepts. What's a "process"? Show me one. Only way I know how is to give you more metaphysical woo woo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_calculus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_calculus You know all that religious woo-woo about omniscience? We are still talking about it and even using it... https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/principle+of+omniscience https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/principle+of+omniscience All this religious/devine woo-woo... The central dogma of computational trinitarianism holds that Logic, Languages, and Categories are but three manifestations of one divine notion of computation. There is no preferred route to enlightenment: each aspect provides insights that comprise the experience of computation in our lives. https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/computational+trilogy https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/computational+trilogy
- stjohnswarts 3y ago
  If you want to believe in fairy tales then enjoy them. I prefer materialism. We will never agree on this. You can't prove a God exists, so I simply don't care about the topic other than how it affects civilization negatively by promoting magical thinking and religious fanaticism/intolerance. I tolerate people who are religious, I don't wish them any harm; the opposite is quite untrue for a large proportion of the religious world for atheists/"infidels".
  - ukj 3y ago